[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 896-1111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29627]
[[Page 895]]
Vol. 79
Tuesday,
No. 4
January 7, 2014
Part II
Regulatory Information Service Center
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction to the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions
Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2014 / The
Regulatory Plan
[[Page 896]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
REGULATORY INFORMATION SERVICE CENTER
Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions
AGENCY: Regulatory Information Service Center.
ACTION: Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies publish
semiannual regulatory agendas in the Federal Register describing
regulatory actions they are developing that may have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C.
602). Executive Order 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' signed
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), and incorporated in Executive Order
13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'' issued on January
18, 2011 (76 FR 3821) establish guidelines and procedures for agencies'
agendas, including specific types of information for each entry.
The Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions
(Unified Agenda) helps agencies fulfill these requirements. All Federal
regulatory agencies have chosen to publish their regulatory agendas as
part of the Unified Agenda.
The complete 2013 Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan, which
contains the regulatory agendas for 60 Federal agencies, is available
to the public at http://reginfo.gov.
The 2013 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the Federal
Register consists of 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.
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), 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 2013 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 Defense
Department of Education
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
Environmental Protection Agency
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Small Business Administration
Joint Authority
Department of Defense/General Services Administration/National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (Federal Acquisition
Regulation)
Independent Regulatory Agencies
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Reserve System
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Securities and Exchange Commission
Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions
I. What is the Unified Agenda?
The Unified Agenda provides information about regulations that the
Government is considering or reviewing. The Unified Agenda has appeared
in the Federal Register each year since 1983 and has been available
online since 1995. To further the objective of using modern technology
to deliver better service to the American people for lower cost,
beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet became the basic
means for conveying regulatory agenda information to the maximum extent
legally permissible. The complete Unified Agenda is available to the
public at http://reginfo.gov. The online Unified Agenda offers flexible
search tools and access to the historic Unified Agenda database to
1995.
The 2013 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the Federal
Register consists of 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://reginfo.gov.
These publication formats meet the publication mandates of the
Regulatory
[[Page 897]]
Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 (incorporated in Executive
Order 13563), as well as move the Agenda process toward the goal of
online availability, at a substantially reduced printing cost. The
current online format does not reduce the amount of information
available to the public. The complete online edition of the Unified
Agenda includes regulatory agendas from 60 Federal agencies. Agencies
of the United States Congress are not included.
The following agencies have no entries identified for inclusion in
the printed regulatory flexibility agenda. An asterisk (*) indicates
agencies that appear in The Regulatory Plan. The regulatory agendas of
these agencies are available to the public at http://reginfo.gov.
Department of Housing and Urban Development *
Department of State
Department of Veterans Affairs*
Agency for International Development
Commission on Civil Rights
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Corporation for National and Community Service
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of
Columbia
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission *
Institute of Museum and Library Services
National Archives and Records Administration *
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
National Science Foundation
Office of Government Ethics
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Personnel Management *
Peace Corps
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation *
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
Railroad Retirement Board
Social Security Administration *
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Consumer Product Safety Commission*
Farm Credit Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Housing Finance Agency
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Trade Commission *
National Credit Union Administration
National Indian Gaming Commission *
National Labor Relations Board
Postal Regulatory Commission
Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board
Surface Transportation Board
The Regulatory Information Service Center compiles the Unified
Agenda for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA),
part of the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA is responsible for
overseeing the Federal Government's regulatory, paperwork, and
information resource management activities, including implementation of
Executive Order 12866. The Center also provides information about
Federal regulatory activity to the President and his Executive Office,
the Congress, agency officials, and the public.
The activities included in the Agenda are, in general, those that
will have a regulatory action within the next 12 months. Agencies may
choose to include activities that will have a longer timeframe than 12
months. Agency agendas also show actions or reviews completed or
withdrawn since the last Unified Agenda. Executive Order 12866 does not
require agencies to include regulations concerning military or foreign
affairs functions or regulations related to agency organization,
management, or personnel matters.
Agencies prepared entries for this publication to give the public
notice of their plans to review, propose, and issue regulations. They
have tried to predict their activities over the next 12 months as
accurately as possible, but dates and schedules are subject to change.
Agencies may withdraw some of the regulations now under development,
and they may issue or propose other regulations not included in their
agendas. Agency actions in the rulemaking process may occur before or
after the dates they have listed. The Unified Agenda does 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 is the Unified Agenda published?
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
entitled ``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 entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review,''
signed September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), requires covered agencies to
prepare an agenda of all regulations under development or review. The
Order also requires that certain agencies prepare annually a regulatory
plan of their ``most important significant regulatory actions,'' which
appears as part of the fall Unified Agenda. Executive Order 13497,
signed January 30, 2009 (74 FR 6113), revoked the amendments to
Executive Order 12866 that were contained in Executive Order 13258 and
Executive Order 13422.
Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 entitled ``Federalism,'' signed August 4,
1999 (64 FR 43255), directs agencies to have an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have ``federalism
implications'' as defined in the Order. Under the Order, an agency that
is proposing a regulation with federalism implications, which either
preempt State law or impose nonstatutory 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.
Executive Order 13563
Executive Order 13563 entitled ``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,'' signed January 18, 2011, supplements and reaffirms
the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary
regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866, which
includes the general principles of regulation and
[[Page 898]]
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.
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 entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' signed
May 18, 2001 (66 FR 28355), directs agencies to provide, to the extent
possible, information regarding the adverse effects that agency actions
may have on the supply, distribution, and use of energy. Under the
Order, the agency must prepare and submit a Statement of Energy Effects
to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for ``those matters
identified as significant energy actions.'' As part of this effort,
agencies may optionally include in their submissions for the Unified
Agenda information on whether they have prepared or plan to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for their regulatory actions.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L.
104-121, title II) established a procedure for congressional review of
rules (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), which defers, unless exempted, the
effective date of a ``major'' rule for at least 60 days from the
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The Act
specifies that a rule is ``major'' if it has resulted, or is likely to
result, in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
meets other criteria specified in that Act. The Act provides that the
Administrator of OIRA will make the final determination as to whether a
rule is major.
III. How is the Unified Agenda Organized?
Agency regulatory flexibility agendas are printed in a single daily
edition of the Federal Register. A regulatory flexibility agenda is
printed 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 parts are organized
alphabetically in four groups: Cabinet departments; other executive
agencies; the Federal Acquisition Regulation, a joint authority; and
independent regulatory agencies. Agencies may in turn be divided into
sub-agencies. 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.
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 whose 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
[[Page 899]]
Agenda have the flexibility to search for entries with any combination
of desired characteristics. The online edition retains the Unified
Agenda's subject index based on the Federal Register Thesaurus of
Indexing Terms. In addition, online users have the option of searching
Agenda text fields for words or phrases.
IV. What information appears for each entry?
All entries in the online Unified Agenda contain uniform data
elements including, at a minimum, the following information:
Title of the Regulation--a brief description of the subject of the
regulation. In the printed edition, the notation ``Section 610 Review''
following the title indicates that the agency has selected the rule for
its periodic review of existing rules under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 610(c)). Some agencies have indicated completions of
section 610 reviews or rulemaking actions resulting from completed
section 610 reviews. In the online edition, these notations appear in a
separate field.
Priority--an indication of the significance of the regulation.
Agencies assign each entry to one of the following five categories of
significance.
(1) Economically Significant
As defined in Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking action that will
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or will
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities. The definition of an ``economically significant'' rule is
similar but not identical to the definition of a ``major'' rule under 5
U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 104-121). (See below.)
(2) Other Significant
A rulemaking that is not Economically Significant but is considered
Significant by the agency. This category includes rules that the agency
anticipates will be reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or rules that
are a priority of the agency head. These rules may or may not be
included in the agency's regulatory plan.
(3) Substantive, Nonsignificant
A rulemaking that has substantive impacts but is neither
Significant, nor Routine and Frequent, nor Informational/
Administrative/Other.
(4) Routine and Frequent
A rulemaking that is a specific case of a multiple recurring
application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations
and that does not alter the body of the regulation.
(5) Informational/Administrative/Other
A rulemaking that is primarily informational or pertains to agency
matters not central to accomplishing the agency's regulatory mandate
but that the agency places in the Unified Agenda to inform the public
of the activity.
Major--whether the rule is ``major'' under 5 U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L.
104-121) because it has resulted or is likely to result in an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or meets other criteria
specified in that Act. The Act provides that the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will make the final
determination as to whether a rule is major.
Unfunded Mandates--whether the rule is covered by section 202 of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). The Act
requires that, before issuing an NPRM likely to result in a mandate
that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of more than
$100 million in 1 year, agencies, other than independent regulatory
agencies, shall prepare a written statement containing an assessment of
the anticipated costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.
Legal Authority--the section(s) of the United States Code (U.S.C.)
or Public Law (Pub. L.) or the Executive order (E.O.) that authorize(s)
the regulatory action. Agencies may provide popular name references to
laws in addition to these citations.
CFR Citation--the section(s) of the Code of Federal Regulations
that will be affected by the action.
Legal Deadline--whether the action is subject to a statutory or
judicial deadline, the date of that deadline, and whether the deadline
pertains to an NPRM, a Final Action, or some other action.
Abstract--a brief description of the problem the regulation will
address; the need for a Federal solution; to the extent available,
alternatives that the agency is considering to address the problem; and
potential costs and benefits of the action.
Timetable--the dates and citations (if available) for all past
steps and a projected date for at least the next step for the
regulatory action. A date displayed in the form 12/00/12 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
2013.
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-
[[Page 900]]
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.
Some agencies that participated in the 2013 edition of The
Regulatory Plan have chosen to include the following information for
those entries that appeared in the Plan:
Statement of Need--a description of the need for the regulatory
action.
Summary of the Legal Basis--a description of the legal basis for
the action, including whether any aspect of the action is required by
statute or court order.
Alternatives--a description of the alternatives the agency has
considered or will consider as required by section 4(c)(1)(B) of
Executive Order 12866.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits--a description of preliminary
estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of the action.
Risks--a description of the magnitude of the risk the action
addresses, the amount by which the agency expects the action to reduce
this risk, and the relation of the risk and this risk reduction effort
to other risks and risk reduction efforts within the agency's
jurisdiction.
V. Abbreviations
The following abbreviations appear throughout this publication:
ANPRM--An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is a preliminary
notice, published in the Federal Register, announcing that an agency is
considering a regulatory action. An agency may issue an ANPRM before it
develops a detailed proposed rule. An ANPRM describes the general area
that may be subject to regulation and usually asks for public comment
on the issues and options being discussed. An ANPRM is issued only when
an agency believes it needs to gather more information before
proceeding to a notice of proposed rulemaking.
CFR--The Code of Federal Regulations is an annual codification of
the general and permanent regulations published in the Federal Register
by the agencies of the Federal Government. The Code is divided into 50
titles, each title covering a broad area subject to Federal regulation.
The CFR is keyed to and kept up to date by the daily issues of the
Federal Register.
EO--An Executive order is a directive from the President to
Executive agencies, issued under constitutional or statutory authority.
Executive orders are published in the Federal Register and in title 3
of the Code of Federal Regulations.
FR--The Federal Register is a daily Federal Government publication
that provides a uniform system for publishing Presidential documents,
all proposed and final regulations, notices of meetings, and other
official documents issued by Federal agencies.
FY--The Federal fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30.
NPRM--A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is the document an agency
issues and publishes in the Federal Register that describes and
solicits public comments on a proposed regulatory action. Under the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), an NPRM must include, at a
minimum:
A statement of the time, place, and nature of the public
rulemaking proceeding;
a reference to the legal authority under which the rule is
proposed; and
either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a
description of the subjects and issues involved.
PL (or Pub. L.)--A public law is a law passed by Congress and
signed by the President or enacted over his veto. It has general
applicability, unlike a private law that applies only to those persons
or entities specifically designated. Public laws are numbered in
sequence throughout the 2-year life of each Congress; for example, Pub.
L. 112-4 is the fourth public law of the 112th Congress.
RFA--A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is a description and
analysis of the impact of a rule on small entities, including small
businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and certain small not-
for-profit organizations. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.) requires each agency to prepare an initial RFA for public
comment when it is required to publish an NPRM and to make available a
final RFA when the final rule is published, unless the agency head
certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
RIN--The Regulation Identifier Number is assigned by the Regulatory
Information Service Center to identify each regulatory action listed in
the 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 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 Agenda?
Copies of the Federal Register issue containing the printed edition
of the Unified Agenda (agency regulatory flexibility agendas) are
available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Telephone:
(202) 512-1800 or 1-866-512-1800 (toll-free).
Copies of individual agency materials may be available directly
from the agency or may be found on the agency's Web site. Please
contact the particular agency for further information.
All editions of The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions since fall 1995 are
available in electronic form at http://reginfo.gov, along with flexible
search tools.
In accordance with regulations for the Federal Register, the
Government Printing Office's GPO FDsys Web site contains copies of the
Agendas and Regulatory Plans that have been printed in the Federal
Register. These
[[Page 901]]
documents are available at http://www.fdsys.gov.
Dated: November 26, 2013.
John C. Thomas,
Executive Director.
Introduction to the 2013 Unified Regulatory Agenda and Regulatory Plan
Executive Order 12866, issued in 1993, requires the production of a
Unified Regulatory Agenda and Regulatory Plan. Executive Order 13563,
issued in 2011, reaffirmed the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
Consistent with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs is providing the Unified Regulatory
Agenda (Agenda) and the Regulatory Plan (Plan) for public review. The
Agenda and Plan are a preliminary statement of regulatory and
deregulatory policies and priorities under consideration. The Agenda
and Plan includes ``active rulemakings'' that have at least some
possibility of issuance over the next year, but, as in previous years,
this list may include rules that are not issued in the coming year.
The public examination of the Agenda and Plan will help ensure a
regulatory system that, in the words of Executive Order 13563, protects
``public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting
economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.''
The Plan provides a list of important regulatory actions that are
now under contemplation for issuance in proposed or final form during
the upcoming fiscal year. In contrast, the Agenda is a more inclusive
list, including numerous ministerial actions and routine rulemakings,
as well as long-term initiatives that agencies do not plan to complete
in the coming year.
A central purpose of the Agenda is to involve the public, including
State, local, and tribal officials, in federal regulatory planning. We
emphasize that rules listed on the Agenda must still undergo
significant development and scrutiny, both within the agencies and
externally, before they are issued. No regulatory action can become
effective until it has gone through legally required processes, which
generally include public review and comment. Any proposed or final
action must also satisfy the requirements of relevant statutes,
Executive Orders, and Presidential Memoranda. Those requirements,
public comments, and new information may or may not lead an agency to
go forward with an action that is currently under contemplation and
that is included here. For example, the directives of Executive Order
13563, emphasizing the importance of careful consideration of costs and
benefits, may lead an agency to decline to proceed with a previously
contemplated regulatory action.
Whether a regulation is listed on the Agenda as ``economically
significant'' within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 (generally,
having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more) is not
an adequate measure of whether it imposes high costs on the private
sector. Economically significant actions may impose small costs or even
no costs. For example, regulations may count as economically
significant because they confer large benefits or remove significant
burdens. Moreover, many regulations count as economically significant
not because they impose significant regulatory costs on the private
sector, but because they involve transfer payments as required or
authorized by law. For example, the Department of Health and Human
Services issues regulations on an annual basis, pursuant to statute, to
govern how Medicare payments are increased each year. These regulations
effectively authorize transfers of billions of dollars to hospitals and
other health care providers each year.
Executive Order 13563 explicitly points to the need for
predictability and for certainty, as well as for use of the least
burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. It indicates that
agencies ``must take into account benefits and costs, both quantitative
and qualitative.'' It explicitly draws attention to the need to measure
and to improve ``the actual results of regulatory requirements''--a
clear reference to the importance of retrospective evaluation.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles, structures, and
definitions in Executive Order 12866, which has long governed
regulatory review. In addition, it endorses, and quotes, a number of
provisions of Executive Order 12866 that specifically emphasize the
importance of considering costs--including the requirement that to the
extent permitted by law, agencies should not proceed with rulemaking in
the absence of a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the
costs. Importantly, Executive Order 13563 directs agencies ``to use the
best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' This direction reflects
a strong emphasis on quantitative analysis as a means of improving
regulatory choices and increasing transparency.
Among other things, Executive Order 13563 sets out five sets of
requirements to guide agency regulatory decision making:
Public participation. Agencies are directed to promote
public participation, in part by making supporting documents available
on Regulations.gov to promote transparency and public comment.
Executive Order 13563 also directs agencies, where feasible and
appropriate, to engage the public, including affected stakeholders,
before rulemaking is initiated.
Integration and innovation. Agencies are directed to
attempt to reduce ``redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping''
requirements, in part by working with one another to simplify and
harmonize rules. This important provision is designed to reduce
confusion, redundancy, and excessive cost. An important goal of
simplification and harmonization is to promote rather than to hamper
innovation, which is a foundation of both growth and job creation.
Different offices within the same agency might work together to
harmonize their rules; different agencies might work together to
achieve the same objective. Such steps can also promote predictability
and certainty.
Flexible approaches. Agencies are directed to identify and
consider flexible approaches to regulatory problems, including
warnings, appropriate default rules, and disclosure requirements. Such
approaches may ``reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of
choice for the public.'' In certain settings, they may be far
preferable to mandates and bans, precisely because they maintain
freedom of choice and reduce costs. The reference to ``appropriate
default rules'' signals the possibility that important social goals can
be obtained through simplification--as, for example, in the form of
automatic enrollment, direct certification, or reduced paperwork
burdens.
Science. Agencies are directed to promote scientific
integrity, and in a way that ensures a clear separation between
judgments of science and judgments of policy.
Retrospective analysis of existing rules. Agencies are
directed to produce preliminary plans to engage in retrospective
analysis of existing significant regulations to determine whether they
should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed. Executive Order
13610, Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens, issued in 2012,
institutionalizes the ``look back'' mechanism set out in Executive
Order 13563, by requiring agencies to report to
[[Page 902]]
OMB and the public twice each year (January and July) on the status of
their retrospective review efforts, to ``describe progress, anticipated
accomplishments, and proposed timelines for relevant actions.'' (See
below for additional details on Executive Order 13610.)
Executive Order 13563 addresses new regulations that are under
development and existing regulations that are already in place. With
respect to agencies' review of existing regulations, the Executive
Order calls for careful reassessment, based on empirical analysis. The
prospective analysis required by Executive Order 13563 may depend on a
degree of prediction and speculation about likely impacts, and that the
actual costs and benefits of a regulation may be lower or higher than
what was anticipated when the rule was originally developed.
In addition, circumstances may change in a way that requires
reconsideration of regulatory requirements. As retrospective or ``look
back'' analysis is undertaken, agencies will be in a position to
reevaluate existing rules and to streamline, modify, or eliminate those
that do not make sense in their current form. The regulatory look back
is an ongoing exercise, and regular reporting about recent progress and
coming initiatives is required.
In August 2011, over two dozen agencies developed plans to remove
what the President called unjustified rules and ``absurd and
unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money.'' The
plans include over 500 initiatives that will reduce costs, simplify the
system, and eliminate redundancy and inconsistency--which means many
billions of dollars in savings for American businesses. Already, the
Administration is on track to save more than $10 billion dollars in the
near term, with far more savings to come.
In July 2013, agencies submitted to OIRA their latest updates of
their retrospective review plans, pursuant to Executive Orders 13563
and 13610. Many of the initiatives highlighted in the updated plans
benefit small businesses. Federal agencies will update their
retrospective review plans this winter.
We have asked agencies to emphasize regulatory look backs in their
latest Regulatory Plans. The goal is to change the regulatory culture
to ensure that rules on the books are reevaluated and are effective,
cost-justified, and based on the best available science. By creating
regulatory review teams at agencies, we will continue to examine what
is working and what is not, and to eliminate unjustified and outdated
regulations.
In May 2012 President Obama issued Executive Order 13609,
``Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,'' which emphasizes
the importance of international regulatory cooperation as a key tool
for eliminating unnecessary differences in regulation between the
United States and its major trading partners which, in turn, supports
economic growth, job creation, innovation, trade and investment, while
also protecting public health, safety, and welfare. Among other things,
the Executive Order provides that agencies that are required to submit
a Regulatory Plan must ``include in that plan a summary of its
international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably
anticipated to lead to significant regulations, with an explanation of
how these activities advance the purposes of Executive Order 13563''
and Executive Order 13609. Further, the Executive Order requires
agencies to ``ensure that significant regulations that the agency
identifies as having significant international impacts are designated
as such'' in the Agenda. Additionally, as part of the regulatory look
back initiative, Executive Order 13609 requires agencies to ``consider
reforms to existing significant regulations that address unnecessary
differences in regulatory requirements between the United States and
its major trading partners . . . when stakeholders provide adequate
information to the agency establishing that the differences are
unnecessary.''
The implementation of Executive Order 13609 and 13610 will further
strengthen the emphasis that Executive Order 13563 has placed on
careful consideration of costs and benefits, public participation,
integration and innovation, flexible approaches, and science. These
requirements are meant to produce a regulatory system that draws on
recent learning, that is driven by evidence, and that is suited to the
distinctive circumstances of the twenty-first century.
Department of Agriculture
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................. National Organic Program, 0581-AD08 Proposed Rule Stage.
Origin of Livestock, NOP-
11-0009.
2............................. Environmental Compliance 0560-AH02 Proposed Rule Stage.
and Related Concerns.
3............................. Agriculture Priorities 0560-AH68 Final Rule Stage.
and Allocations Systems.
4............................. Viruses, Serums, Toxins, 0579-AD64 Proposed Rule Stage.
and Analogous Products;
Single Label Claim for
Veterinary Biological
Products.
5............................. Brucellosis and Bovine 0579-AD65 Proposed Rule Stage.
Tuberculosis; Update of
General Provisions.
6............................. Establishing a 0579-AD71 Proposed Rule Stage.
Performance Standard for
Authorizing the
Importation and
Interstate Movement of
Fruits and Vegetables.
7............................. User Fees for 0579-AD77 Proposed Rule Stage.
Agricultural Quarantine
and Inspection Services.
8............................. Civil Rights Compliance 0575-AA83 Proposed Rule Stage.
Requirements.
9............................. Loan Packager 0575-AC88 Proposed Rule Stage.
Certification.
10............................ Child Nutrition Program 0584-AE08 Proposed Rule Stage.
Integrity.
11............................ Child and Adult Care Food 0584-AE18 Proposed Rule Stage.
Program: Meal Pattern
Revisions Related to the
Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act of 2010.
12............................ Enhancing Retailer 0584-AE27 Proposed Rule Stage.
Eligibility Standards in
SNAP.
13............................ Special Supplemental 0584-AD77 Final Rule Stage.
Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC):
Revisions in the WIC
Food Packages.
14............................ Eligibility, 0584-AD87 Final Rule Stage.
Certification, and
Employment and Training
Provisions of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy
Act of 2008.
15............................ Records to be Kept by 0583-AD46 Proposed Rule Stage.
Official Establishments
and Retail Stores That
Grind Raw Beef Products.
16............................ Modernization of Poultry 0583-AD32 Final Rule Stage.
Slaughter Inspection.
[[Page 903]]
17............................ Electronic Export 0583-AD41 Final Rule Stage.
Application and
Certification as a
Reimbursable Service and
Flexibility in the
Requirements for
Official Export
Inspection Marks,
Devices, and
Certificates.
18............................ Common or Usual Name for 0583-AD43 Final Rule Stage.
Raw Meat and Poultry
Products Containing
Added Solutions.
19............................ Descriptive Designation 0583-AD45 Final Rule Stage.
for Needle- or Blade-
Tenderized (Mechanically
Tenderized) Beef
Products.
20............................ Forest Service Manual 0596-AC82 Proposed Rule Stage.
2020--Ecological
Restoration and
Resilience Policy.
21............................ Land Management Planning 0596-AD06 Final Rule Stage.
Rule Policy.
22............................ Nondiscrimination in 0503-AA52 Proposed Rule Stage.
Programs or Activities
Conducted by the United
States Department of
Agriculture.
23............................ Business and Industry 0570-AA85 Proposed Rule Stage.
(B&I) Guaranteed Loan
Program.
24............................ Rural Energy for America 0570-AA76 Final Rule Stage.
Program.
25............................ BioPreferred Program 0599-AA18 Final Rule Stage.
Guidelines Revisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26............................ Defense Industrial Base 0790-AJ14 Proposed Rule Stage.
(DIB) Cyber Security/
Information Assurance
(CS/IA) Activities;
Amendment.
27............................ Service Academies........ 0790-AI19 Final Rule Stage.
28............................ Sexual Assault Prevention 0790-AI36 Final Rule Stage.
and Response Program
Procedures.
29............................ Operational Contract 0790-AI48 Final Rule Stage.
Support.
30............................ Mission Compatibility 0790-AI69 Final Rule Stage.
Evaluation Process.
31............................ Child Development 0790-AI81 Final Rule Stage.
Programs (CDPs).
32............................ Voluntary Education 0790-AJ06 Final Rule Stage.
Programs.
33............................ Safeguarding Unclassified 0750-AG47 Final Rule Stage.
Controlled Technical
Information (DFARS Case
2011-D039).
34............................ Requirements Relating to 0750-AH96 Final Rule Stage.
Supply Chain Risk (DFARS
Case 2012-D050).
35............................ Enhancement of Contractor 0750-AH97 Final Rule Stage.
Employee Whistleblower
Protections (DFARS Case
2013-D010).
36............................ Allowability of Legal 0750-AI04 Final Rule Stage.
Costs for Whistleblower
Proceedings (DFARS Case
2013-D022).
37............................ TRICARE; Reimbursement of 0720-AB47 Proposed Rule Stage.
Long Term Care Hospitals.
38............................ TRICARE: Certified Mental 0720-AB55 Final Rule Stage.
Health Counselors.
39............................ CHAMPUS/TRICARE: Pilot 0720-AB60 Final Rule Stage.
Program for Refills of
Maintenance Medications
for TRICARE For Life
Beneficiaries Through
the TRICARE Mail Order
Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Education
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40............................ Gainful Employment....... 1840-AD15 Proposed Rule Stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AB86 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for Walk-In
Coolers and Walk-In
Freezers.
42............................ Energy Efficiency 1904-AC00 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for Metal
Halide Lamp Fixtures.
43............................ Energy Efficiency 1904-AC11 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for
Manufactured Housing.
44............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AC19 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for Commercial
Refrigeration Equipment.
45............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AC22 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for
Residential Furnace Fans.
46............................ Energy Efficiency 1904-AC28 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for Certain
Commercial and
Industrial Electric
Motors.
47............................ Energy Efficiency 1904-AB57 Final Rule Stage.
Standards for Battery
Chargers and External
Power Supplies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Health and Human Services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48............................ HIPAA Privacy Rule and 0945-AA05 Proposed Rule Stage.
the National Instant
Criminal Background
Check System (NICS).
[[Page 904]]
49............................ Food Labeling; Revision 0910-AF22 Proposed Rule Stage.
of the Nutrition and
Supplement Facts Labels.
50............................ Food Labeling: Serving 0910-AF23 Proposed Rule Stage.
Sizes of Foods That Can
Reasonably Be Consumed
At One-Eating Occasion;
Dual-Column Labeling;
Updating, Modifying, and
Establishing Certain
RACCs.
51............................ Current Good 0910-AG10 Proposed Rule Stage.
Manufacturing Practice,
Hazard Analysis, and
Risk-Based Preventive
Controls for Food for
Animals.
52............................ ``Tobacco Products'' 0910-AG38 Proposed Rule Stage.
Subject to the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act, as Amended by the
Family Smoking
Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act.
53............................ Reports of Distribution 0910-AG45 Proposed Rule Stage.
and Sales Information
for Antimicrobial Active
Ingredients Used in Food-
Producing Animals.
54............................ Revision of Postmarketing 0910-AG88 Proposed Rule Stage.
Reporting Requirements
Discontinuance or
Interruption in Supply
of Certain Products
(Drug Shortages).
55............................ Supplemental Applications 0910-AG94 Proposed Rule Stage.
Proposing Labeling
Changes for Approved
Drugs and Biological
Products.
56............................ Veterinary Feed Directive 0910-AG95 Proposed Rule Stage.
57............................ Food Labeling: Calorie 0910-AG56 Final Rule Stage.
Labeling of Articles of
Food Sold in Vending
Machines.
58............................ Food Labeling: Nutrition 0910-AG57 Final Rule Stage.
Labeling of Standard
Menu Items in
Restaurants and Similar
Retail Food
Establishments.
59............................ Fire Safety Requirements 0938-AR72 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Certain Health Care
Facilities (CMS-3277-P).
60............................ Durable Medical 0938-AR84 Proposed Rule Stage.
Equipment, Prosthetics,
Orthotics, and Supplies
(DMEPOS): Special
Payment Rules (CMS-6012-
P).
61............................ Eligibility, Enrollment, 0938-AS02 Proposed Rule Stage.
and Appeals Updates (CMS-
9949-P).
62............................ Hospital Inpatient 0938-AS11 Proposed Rule Stage.
Prospective Payment
System for Acute Care
Hospitals and the Long-
Term Care Hospital
Prospective Payment
System and Fiscal Year
2015 Rates (CMS-1607-P).
63............................ CY 2015 Revisions to 0938-AS12 Proposed Rule Stage.
Payment Policies under
the Physician Fee
Schedule and Other
Revisions to Medicare
Part B (CMS-1612-P).
64............................ CY 2015 Hospital 0938-AS15 Proposed Rule Stage.
Outpatient Prospective
Payment System (PPS)
Policy Changes and
Payment Rates, and CY
2015 Ambulatory Surgical
Center Payment System
Policy Changes and
Payment Rates (CMS-1613-
P).
65............................ CLIA Programs and HIPAA 0938-AQ38 Final Rule Stage.
Privacy Rule; Patients'
Access to Test Reports
(CMS-2319-F).
66............................ Head Start Eligibility 0970-AC46 Final Rule Stage.
Determination.
67............................ Child Care and 0970-AC53 Final Rule Stage.
Development Fund Reforms
to Support Child
Development and Working
Families.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Homeland Security
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
68............................ Ammonium Nitrate Security 1601-AA52 Final Rule Stage.
Program.
69............................ Asylum and Withholding 1615-AA41 Proposed Rule Stage.
Definitions.
70............................ Exception to the 1615-AB89 Proposed Rule Stage.
Persecution Bar for
Asylum, Refugee, and
Temporary Protected
Status, and Withholding
of Removal.
71............................ Employment Authorization 1615-AB92 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Certain H-4
Dependent Spouses.
72............................ Application of the 1615-AB96 Proposed Rule Stage.
William Wilberforce
Trafficking Victims
Protection
Reauthorization Act of
2008 to Unaccompanied
Alien Children Seeking
Asylum.
73............................ Administrative Appeals 1615-AB98 Proposed Rule Stage.
Office: Procedural
Reforms To Improve
Efficiency.
74............................ Enhancing Opportunities 1615-AC00 Proposed Rule Stage.
for H-1B1, CW-1, and E-3
Nonimmigrants and EB-1
Immigrants.
75............................ Classification for 1615-AA59 Final Rule Stage.
Victims of Severe Forms
of Trafficking in
Persons; Eligibility for
T Nonimmigrant Status.
76............................ New Classification for 1615-AA67 Final Rule Stage.
Victims of Criminal
Activity; Eligibility
for the U Nonimmigrant
Status.
77............................ Application of 1615-AB77 Final Rule Stage.
Immigration Regulations
to the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana
Islands.
78............................ Implementation of the 1625-AA16 Final Rule Stage.
1995 Amendments to the
International Convention
on Standards of
Training, Certification,
and Watchkeeping (STCW)
for Seafarers, 1978.
79............................ Vessel Requirements for 1625-AA99 Final Rule Stage.
Notices of Arrival and
Departure, and Automatic
Identification System.
80............................ Transportation Worker 1625-AB21 Final Rule Stage.
Identification
Credential (TWIC); Card
Reader Requirements.
81............................ Offshore Supply Vessels 1625-AB62 Final Rule Stage.
of at Least 6000 GT ITC.
82............................ Importer Security Filing 1651-AA70 Final Rule Stage.
and Additional Carrier
Requirements.
83............................ Changes to the Visa 1651-AA72 Final Rule Stage.
Waiver Program To
Implement the Electronic
System for Travel
Authorization (ESTA)
Program.
84............................ Implementation of the 1651-AA77 Final Rule Stage.
Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver
Program.
85............................ Definition of Form I-94 1651-AA96 Final Rule Stage.
to Include Electronic
Format.
[[Page 905]]
86............................ Security Training for 1652-AA55 Proposed Rule Stage.
Surface Mode Employees.
87............................ Standardized Vetting, 1652-AA61 Proposed Rule Stage.
Adjudication, and
Redress Services.
88............................ Aircraft Repair Station 1652-AA38 Final Rule Stage.
Security.
89............................ Passenger Screening Using 1652-AA67 Final Rule Stage.
Advanced Imaging
Technology.
90............................ Adjustments to 1653-AA63 Proposed Rule Stage.
Limitations on
Designated School
Official Assignment and
Study By F-2 and M-2
Nonimmigrants.
91............................ Standards To Prevent, 1653-AA65 Final Rule Stage.
Detect, and Respond to
Sexual Abuse and Assault
in Confinement
Facilities.
92............................ Rescinding Suspension of 1653-AA69 Final Rule Stage.
Enrollment for Certain F
and M Nonimmigrant
Students from Libya and
Third Country Nationals
Acting on Behalf of
Libyan Entities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Housing and Urban Development
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
93............................ Floodplain Management and 2501-AD62 Proposed Rule Stage.
Protection of Wetlands;
Building Elevations (FR-
5717).
94............................ Affordability 2501-AD64 Proposed Rule Stage.
Determination-Energy
Efficiency Standards (FR-
5647-N-01).
95............................ Public Housing Energy 2577-AC84 Final Rule Stage.
Audits and Physical
Needs Assessments (FR-
5507).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
96............................ Implementation of the ADA 1190-AA59 Proposed Rule Stage.
Amendments Act of 2008
(Title II and Title III
of the ADA).
97............................ Implementation of the ADA 1190-AA60 Proposed Rule Stage.
Amendments Act of 2008
(Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of
1973).
98............................ Nondiscrimination on the 1190-AA61 Proposed Rule Stage.
Basis of Disability;
Accessibility of Web
Information and Services
of Public Accommodations.
99............................ Nondiscrimination on the 1190-AA63 Proposed Rule Stage.
Basis of Disability;
Movie Captioning and
Audio Description.
100........................... Nondiscrimination on the 1190-AA65 Proposed Rule Stage.
Basis of Disability:
Accessibility of Web
Information and Services
of State and Local
Governments.
101........................... Machine Guns, Destructive 1140-AA43 Proposed Rule Stage.
Devices and Certain
Other Firearms;
Background Checks for
Responsible Persons of a
Corporation, Trust, or
Other Legal Entity With
Respect to Making or
Transferring a Firearm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Transportation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
102........................... Slot Management and 2120-AJ89 Proposed Rule Stage.
Transparency for
LaGuardia Airport, John
F. Kennedy International
Airport, and Newark
Liberty International
Airport.
103........................... Air Ambulance and 2120-AJ53 Final Rule Stage.
Commercial Helicopter
Operations; Safety
Initiatives and
Miscellaneous Amendments.
104........................... Safety Management Systems 2120-AJ86 Final Rule Stage.
for Part 121 Certificate
Holders.
105........................... National Goals and 2125-AF49 Proposed Rule Stage.
Performance Management
Measures (MAP-21).
106........................... National Goals and 2125-AF53 Proposed Rule Stage.
Performance Management
Measures (MAP-21).
107........................... National Goals and 2125-AF54 Proposed Rule Stage.
Performance Management
Measures (MAP-21).
108........................... Carrier Safety Fitness 2126-AB11 Proposed Rule Stage.
Determination.
109........................... Commercial Driver's 2126-AB18 Proposed Rule Stage.
License Drug and Alcohol
Clearinghouse (MAP-21).
110........................... Electronic Logging 2126-AB20 Proposed Rule Stage.
Devices and Hours of
Service Supporting
Documents (MAP-21).
111........................... Motorcoach Rollover 2127-AK96 Proposed Rule Stage.
Structural Integrity
(MAP-21).
112........................... Require Installation of 2127-AK56 Final Rule Stage.
Seat Belts on
Motorcoaches, FMVSS No.
208 (MAP-21).
113........................... Electronic Stability 2127-AK97 Final Rule Stage.
Control Systems for
Heavy Vehicles (MAP-21).
114........................... National and Public 2132-AB20 Prerule Stage.
Transportation Safety
Plans (MAP-21) and
Transit Asset Management.
115........................... New and Small Start 2132-AB18 Proposed Rule Stage.
Projects (MAP-21).
116........................... State Safety Oversight 2132-AB19 Proposed Rule Stage.
(MAP-21).
117........................... Hazardous Materials: Rail 2137-AE91 Prerule Stage.
Petitions and
Recommendations to
Improve the Safety of
Railroad Tank Car
Transportation (RRR).
118........................... Pipeline Safety: Safety 2137-AE66 Proposed Rule Stage.
of On-Shore Liquid
Hazardous Pipelines.
[[Page 906]]
119........................... Pipeline Safety: Gas 2137-AE72 Proposed Rule Stage.
Transmission (RRR).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
120........................... Telecommunications Act 3014-AA37 Proposed Rule Stage.
Accessibility
Guidelines; Electronic
and Information
Technology Accessibility
Standards.
121........................... Accessibility Guidelines 3014-AA26 Final Rule Stage.
for Pedestrian
Facilities in the Public
Right-of-Way.
122........................... Accessibility Standards 3014-AA40 Final Rule Stage.
for Medical Diagnostic
Equipment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Protection Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
123........................... Review of the National 2060-AQ44 Proposed Rule Stage.
Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Lead.
124........................... Petroleum Refinery Sector 2060-AQ75 Proposed Rule Stage.
Risk and Technology
Review and NSPS.
125........................... Standards of Performance 2060-AQ91 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from New
Stationary Sources:
Electric Utility
Generating Units.
126........................... Standards of Performance 2060-AR33 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from Existing
Sources: Electric
Utility Generating Units.
127........................... Standards of Performance 2060-AR88 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from Modified
Sources: Electric
Utility Generating Units.
128........................... Pesticides; Agricultural 2070-AJ22 Proposed Rule Stage.
Worker Protection
Standard Revisions.
129........................... Definition of ``Waters of 2040-AF30 Proposed Rule Stage.
the United States''
Under the Clean Water
Act.
130........................... Control of Air Pollution 2060-AQ86 Final Rule Stage.
From Motor Vehicles:
Tier 3 Motor Vehicle
Emission and Fuel
Standards.
131........................... Implementation of the 2060-AR34 Final Rule Stage.
2008 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards
for Ozone: State
Implementation Plan
Requirements.
132........................... Formaldehyde; Third-Party 2070-AJ44 Final Rule Stage.
Certification Framework
for the Formaldehyde
Standards for Composite
Wood Products.
133........................... Formaldehyde Emissions 2070-AJ92 Final Rule Stage.
Standards for Composite
Wood Products.
134........................... Hazardous Waste Manifest 2050-AG20 Final Rule Stage.
Revisions--Standards and
Procedures for
Electronic Manifests.
135........................... Criteria and Standards 2040-AE95 Final Rule Stage.
for Cooling Water Intake
Structures.
136........................... Effluent Limitations 2040-AF14 Final Rule Stage.
Guidelines and Standards
for the Steam Electric
Power Generating Point
Source Category.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
137........................... Revisions to Procedures 3046-AA91 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Complaints or
Charges of Employment
Discrimination Based on
Disability Subject to
the Americans With
Disabilities Act and
Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of
1973.
138........................... Revisions to Procedures 3046-AA92 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Complaints/Charges
of Employment
Discrimination Based on
Disability Filed Against
Employers Holding
Government Contracts or
Subcontracts.
139........................... Revisions to Procedures 3046-AA93 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Complaints of
Employment
Discrimination Filed
Against Recipients of
Federal Financial
Assistance.
140........................... Revisions to the Federal 3046-AA94 Proposed Rule Stage.
Sector's Affirmative
Employment Obligations
Regarding Individuals
with Disabilities Under
Section 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as Amended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
141........................... Small Business Mentor- 3245-AG24 Proposed Rule Stage.
Protege Programs.
142........................... Small Business Technology 3245-AF45 Final Rule Stage.
Transfer (STTR) Policy
Directive.
143........................... Small Business Innovation 3245-AF84 Final Rule Stage.
Research (SBIR) Program
Policy Directive.
144........................... 504 and 7(a) Loan 3245-AG04 Final Rule Stage.
Programs Updates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 907]]
Social Security Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
145........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AF35 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Evaluating
Neurological Impairments
(806P).
146........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AG71 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Evaluating Immune
(HIV) System Disorders
(3466P).
147........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AH43 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Evaluating Cancer
(Malignant Neoplastic
Diseases) (3757P).
148........................... Submission of Evidence in 0960-AH53 Proposed Rule Stage.
Disability Claims
(3802P).
149........................... Amendments to Regulations 0960-AH07 Final Rule Stage.
Regarding Withdrawals of
Applications and
Voluntary Suspension of
Benefits (3573F).
150........................... Changes to Scheduling and 0960-AH37 Final Rule Stage.
Appearing at Hearings
(3728F).
151........................... Conforming Changes to 0960-AH47 Final Rule Stage.
Regulations Regarding
Income-Related Monthly
Adjustment Amounts to
Medicare Part B Premiums
(3734I).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6820-27-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
In FY 2014, USDA's focus will continue to be on programs that
create or save jobs, particularly in rural America, while identifying
and taking action on those programs that could be modified,
streamlined, and simplified; or reporting burdens reduced, particularly
with the public's access to USDA programs. USDA anticipates
implementing a comprehensive Food, Farm and Jobs Bill (Farm Bill)
covering major farm, trade, conservation, rural development, nutrition
assistance and other programs. It is anticipated that a number of high
priority regulations will be developed during 2014 to implement this
legislation should it be enacted. USDA's regulatory efforts in the
coming year will achieve the following goals identified in the
Department's Strategic Plan for 2010-2015:
Assist rural communities to create prosperity so they are
self-sustaining, re-populating, and economically thriving. USDA is the
leading advocate for rural America. The Department supports rural
communities and enhances quality of life for rural residents by
improving their economic opportunities, community infrastructure,
environmental health, and the sustainability of agricultural
production. The common goal is to help create thriving rural
communities with good jobs where people want to live and raise
families, and where children have economic opportunities and a bright
future.
Ensure our national forests and private working lands are
conserved, restored, and made more resilient to climate change, while
enhancing our water resources. America's prosperity is inextricably
linked to the health of our lands and natural resources. Forests,
farms, ranches, and grasslands offer enormous environmental benefits as
a source of clean air, clean and abundant water, and wildlife habitat.
These lands generate economic value by supporting the vital agriculture
and forestry sectors, attracting tourism and recreational visitors,
sustaining green jobs, and producing ecosystem services, food, fiber,
timber and non-timber products. They are also of immense social
importance, enhancing rural quality of life, sustaining scenic and
culturally important landscapes, and providing opportunities to engage
in outdoor activity and reconnect with the land.
Help America promote agricultural production and
biotechnology exports as America works to increase food security. A
productive agricultural sector is critical to increasing global food
security. For many crops, a substantial portion of domestic production
is bound for overseas markets. USDA helps American farmers and ranchers
use efficient, sustainable production, biotechnology, and other
emergent technologies to enhance food security around the world and
find export markets for their products.
Ensure that all of America's children have access to safe,
nutritious, and balanced meals. A plentiful supply of safe and
nutritious food is essential to the well-being of every family and the
healthy development of every child in America. USDA provides nutrition
assistance to children and low-income people who need it; and works to
improve the healthy eating habits of all Americans, especially
children. In addition, the Department safeguards the quality and
wholesomeness of meat, poultry, and egg products; and addresses and
prevents loss or damage from pests and disease outbreaks.
Important regulatory activities supporting the accomplishment of
these goals in 2014 will include the following:
Strengthening Food Safety Inspection. USDA will continue
to develop science-based regulations that improve the safety of meat,
poultry, and egg products in the least burdensome and most cost-
effective manner. Regulations will be revised to address emerging food
safety challenges, streamlined to remove excessively prescriptive
regulations, and updated to be made consistent with hazard analysis and
critical control point principles. In 2014, the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) plans to finalize regulations to establish
new systems for poultry slaughter inspection, which would improve food
safety and save money for establishments and taxpayers. Among other
actions, USDA will provide export certificates through the use of
technology. To assist small entities to comply with food safety
requirements, FSIS will continue to collaborate with other USDA
agencies and State partners in its small business outreach program.
Improving Access to Nutrition Assistance and Dietary
Behaviors. As changes are made to the nutrition assistance programs,
USDA will work to ensure access to program benefits, improve program
integrity, improve diets and healthy eating, and promote physical
activity consistent with the national effort to reduce obesity. In
support of these activities in 2014, the Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS) plans to publish the proposed rule regarding meal pattern
revisions for the Child and Adult Care Food Program and finalize a rule
updating the WIC food packages. FNS will continue to work to implement
rules that minimize participant and vendor fraud in its nutrition
assistance programs.
Collaborating with Partners to Conserve Natural Resources.
USDA will allow the Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS)
State Conservationists to remove undue burdens on producers that have
acted in good faith on incorrect program information provided by NRCS.
The Forest Service will finalize guidance for implementation of the
2012 Planning Rule. This guidance will provide the detailed monitoring,
assessment, and documentation requirements that the
[[Page 908]]
managers of our national forests and grasslands require to begin
revising their land management plans under the 2012 Planning Rule.
Currently 70 of the 120 Forest Service's Land Management Plans are
expired and in need of revision.
Making Marketing and Regulatory Programs More Focused. The
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) plans to amend its
veterinary biologics regulations to provide for the use of a simpler,
uniform label format to better meet the needs of veterinary biologics
consumers. APHIS also plans to revise tuberculosis and brucellosis
regulations to better reflect the distribution of these diseases and
thereby minimizing the impacts on livestock producers while continuing
to address these livestock diseases. In the area of plant health, APHIS
proposes to expand the streamlined method of considering the
importation and interstate movement of fruits and vegetables. The
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) will support the organic sector by
proposing that all existing and replacement dairy animals from which
milk or milk products are intended to be sold as organic must be
managed organically from the last third of gestation.
Promoting Biobased Products. USDA will continue to promote
sustainable economic opportunities to create jobs in rural communities
through the purchase and use of biobased products through the
BioPreferred[supreg] program. USDA will finalize regulations to revise
the BioPreferred[supreg] program guidelines to continue adding
designated product categories to the preferred procurement program,
including intermediates and feedstocks and finished products made of
intermediates and feedstocks. The Federal preferred procurement and the
certified label parts of the program are voluntary; both are designed
to assist biobased businesses in securing additional sales.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following
initiatives are identified in the Department's Final Plan for
Retrospective Analysis. . . . The final agency plan, as well as
periodic status updates for each initiative, are available online at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/21stcenturygov/actions/21st-century-regulatory-system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significantly reduce burdens
RIN Title on small businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0583-AC59.............. Prior Labeling Yes.
Approval System:
Generic Label
Approval.
0583-AD41.............. Electronic Export Yes.
Application and
Certification
Fee.
0583-AD32.............. Modernization of Yes.
Poultry
Slaughter
Inspection.
0570-AA76.............. Rural Energy Yes.
America Program.
0570-AA85.............. Business and Yes.
Industry Loan
Guaranteed
Program.
0575-AC91.............. Community Yes.
Facilities Loan
and Grants.
0596-AD01.............. National Yes.
Environmental
Policy Act
(NEPA)
Efficiencies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to EO 13563, and consistent with its goals as well as
the importance of public participation, President Obama issued EO 13610
on Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens in May 2012. EO 13610
directs agencies, in part, to give priority consideration to those
initiatives that will produce cost savings or significant reductions in
paperwork burdens. Accordingly, reducing the regulatory burden on the
American people and our trading partners is a priority for USDA and we
will continually work to improve the effectiveness of our existing
regulations. As a result of our ongoing regulatory review and burden
reduction efforts, USDA has identified the following burden reducing
initiatives:
Increase Use of Generic Approval and Regulations
Consolidation. FSIS is finalizing a rule that will expand the
circumstances in which the labels of meat and poultry products will be
deemed to be generically approved by FSIS. The rule will reduce
regulatory burden and generate a discounted Agency cost savings of $3.3
million over 10 years (discounted at 7 percent).
Implement Electronic Export Application for Meat and
Poultry Products. FSIS is finalizing a rule to provide exporters a fee-
based option for transmitting U.S. certifications to foreign importers
and governments electronically. Automating the export application and
certification process will facilitate the export of U.S. meat, poultry,
and egg products by streamlining the processes that are used while
ensuring that foreign regulatory requirements are met.
Streamline Forest Service National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) Compliance. The Forest Service, in cooperation with the
Council on Environmental Quality, completed rulemaking to establish
three new Categorical Exclusions for simple restoration activities.
These Categorical Exclusions will improve and streamline the NEPA
process, and reduce the paperwork burden, as it applies to Forest
Service projects without reducing environmental protection.
Increase Accessibility to the Rural Energy for America
Program (REAP). Under REAP, Rural Development provides guaranteed loans
and grants to support the purchase, construction, or retrofitting of a
renewable energy system. This rulemaking will streamline the
application process for grants, lessening the burden to the customer.
Reduced Duplication in Farm Programs. The Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services (FFAS) mission area will reduce the paperwork
burden on program participants by consolidating the information
collections required to participate in farm programs administered by
the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Federal crop insurance program
administered by the Risk Management Agency (RMA). As a result,
producers will be able to spend less time reporting information to
USDA. Additionally, FSA and RMA will be better able to share
information, thus improving operational efficiency. FFAS will evaluate
methods to simplify and standardize, to the extent practical, acreage
reporting processes, program dates, and data definitions across the
various USDA programs and agencies. FFAS expects to allow producers to
use information from their farm-management and precision agriculture
systems for reporting production, planted and harvested acreage, and
other key information needed to participate in USDA programs. FFAS will
also streamline the collection of producer information by FSA and RMA
with the agricultural production information collected by the National
Agricultural Statistics Service. These process changes will allow for
program
[[Page 909]]
data that is common across agencies to be collected once and utilized
or redistributed to agency programs in which the producer chooses to
participate. Full implementation of the Acreage and Crop Reporting
Streamlining Initiative (ACRSI) is planned for 2014. When specific
changes are identified, FSA and RMA will make any required conforming
changes in their respective regulations.
Periodic status updates for these burden reducing initiatives can
be found online at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/21stcenturygov/actions/21st-century-regulatory-system.
In additional to regulatory review initiatives identified under EO
13563 and the paper work burden reduction initiatives identified under
the EO 13610, USDA has plans to initiate the following additional
streamlining initiatives in 2014.
Simplify FSA NEPA Compliance. FSA will revise its
regulations that implement NEPA to update, improve, and clarify
requirements. It will also add new categorical exclusions and remove
obsolete provisions. Annual cost savings to FSA as a result of this
rule could be $345,000 from conducting 314 fewer environmental
assessments per year, while retaining strong environmental protection.
Simplify Equipment Contracts for Rural Utilities Service
(RUS) Loans. RUS is proposing a rule that would result in a new
standard Equipment Contract Form for use by Telecommunications Program
borrowers. This new standardized contract would ensure that certain
standards and specifications are met and this new form would replace
the current process that requires each construction provider to use
their own resources to develop a contract for each project.
Consolidate Community Facilities Programs Loan and Grant
Requirements. The Rural Housing Service (RHS) proposing to consolidate
seven of the regulations used to service Community Facilities direct
loans and grants into one streamlined regulation. This rule will reduce
the time burden on RHS staff and provide the public with a single
document that clearly outlines the requirements for servicing Community
Facilities direct loans and grants.
Update Tuberculosis and Brucellosis Programs. Given the
success USDA has had in nearly eradicating tuberculosis and brucellosis
in ruminants, APHIS will propose rulemaking to update and consolidate
its regulations regarding these diseases to better reflect the current
distribution of these diseases and the changes in which cattle, bison,
and captive cervid are produced in the United States.
Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation Under EO 13609
President Obama issued EO 13609 on promoting international
regulatory cooperation in May 2012. The EO charges the Regulatory
Working Group, an interagency working group chaired by the
Administrator of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA),
with examining appropriate strategies and best practices for
international regulatory cooperation. The EO also directs agencies to
identify factors that should be taken into account when evaluating the
effectiveness of regulatory approaches used by trading partners with
whom the U.S. is engaged in regulatory cooperation. At this time, USDA
is identifying international regulatory cooperation activities that are
reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations, while
working closely with the Administration to refine the guidelines
implementing the EO. Apart from international regulatory cooperation,
the Department has continued to identify regulations with international
impacts, as it has done in the past. Such regulations are those that
are expected to have international trade and investment effects, or
otherwise may be of interest to our international trading partners.
USDA is diligently working to carry out the President's EO mandate
with regard to regulatory cooperation as new regulations are developed.
Several agencies within the Department are also actively engaged in
interagency and Departmental regulatory cooperation initiatives being
pursued as part of the U.S.-Mexico High Level Regulatory Cooperation
Council (HLRCC) and the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council
(RCC), as well as other fora. Specific projects are being pursued by
USDA agencies such as AMS, APHIS, and FSIS and address a variety of
regulatory oversight processes and requirements related to meat,
poultry, animal and plant health. Projects related to electronic
certification, equivalence, meat nomenclature, and the efficient and
safe flow of plant, animal and food across our shared borders are all
regulatory cooperation pursuits these agencies are undertaking in order
to secure better alignment between our countries without compromising
the high standards of safety we have in place in the U.S. relative to
food safety and public health, as well as plant and animal health, so
critical to American agriculture.
Major Regulatory Priorities
This following represents summary information on prospective
priority regulations as called for in EO's 12866 and 13563:
Food and Nutrition Service
Mission: FNS increases food security and reduces hunger in
partnership with cooperating organizations by providing children and
low-income people access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition
education in a manner that supports American agriculture and inspires
public confidence.
Priorities: In addition to responding to provisions of legislation
authorizing and modifying Federal nutrition assistance programs, FNS's
2014 regulatory plan supports USDA's Strategic Goal to ``ensure that
all of America's children have access to safe, nutritious and balanced
meals,'' and its related objectives:
Increase Access to Nutritious Food. This objective
represents FNS's efforts to improve nutrition by providing access to
program benefits (food consumed at home, school meals, commodities) and
distributing State administrative funds to support program operations.
To advance this objective, FNS plans to publish a final rule from the
2008 Farm Bill addressing SNAP eligibility, certification, and
employment and training issues. FNS will also publish a final rule
implementing the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010's Community
Eligibility Provision, which eliminates the burden of household
applications and increases access to free school lunches and breakfasts
for children in eligible high poverty schools. In addition, FNS plans
to publish a proposed rule that would enhance the eligibility standards
for SNAP retailers in order to improve the availability of more
healthful foods.
Improve Program Integrity. FNS also plans to publish a
number of rules to increase efficiency, reduce the burden of program
operations, and reduce improper payments. Program integrity provisions
will continue to be strengthened in the SNAP and Child Nutrition
programs to ensure Federal taxpayer dollars are spent effectively. To
support this objective, FNS plans to publish a final rule from the 2008
Farm Bill that would provide FNS and OIG the authority to suspend
payments to SNAP retailers suspected of being egregious violators. For
Child Nutrition, FNS plans to publish a proposed rule to strengthen
oversight requirements and institution disqualification procedures,
allow the imposition of fines by USDA
[[Page 910]]
or State agencies for egregious and/or repeated program violations, and
address several deficiencies identified through program audits and
reviews.
Promote Healthy Diet and Physical Activity Behaviors. This
objective represents FNS's efforts to ensure that program benefits meet
appropriate standards to effectively improve nutrition for program
participants, to improve the diets of its clients through nutrition
education, and to support the national effort to reduce obesity by
promoting healthy eating and physical activity. In support of this
objective, FNS plans to publish proposed rules updating the meal
patterns for the Child and Adult Care Food Program to align them with
the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans, establishing professional
standards for school food service and State child nutrition program
directors. FNS also plans to finalize a rule updating food packages in
WIC. FNS's goal is by 2015 to reduce child obesity from 16.9 percent to
15.5 percent, to double the proportion of adults consuming five or more
servings of fruits and vegetables daily, and to increase breastfeeding
rates among WIC mothers.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Mission: FSIS is responsible for ensuring that meat, poultry, and
egg products in interstate and foreign commerce are wholesome, not
adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged.
Priorities: FSIS is committed to developing and issuing science-
based regulations intended to ensure that meat, poultry, and egg
products are wholesome and not adulterated or misbranded. FSIS
regulatory actions support the objective to protect public health by
ensuring that food is safe under USDA's goal to ensure access to safe
food. To reduce the number of foodborne illnesses and increase program
efficiencies, FSIS will continue to review its existing authorities and
regulations to ensure that it can address emerging food safety
challenges, to streamline excessively prescriptive regulations, and to
revise or remove regulations that are inconsistent with the FSIS'
hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) regulations. FSIS is
also working with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to improve
coordination and increase the effectiveness of inspection activities.
FSIS's priority initiatives are as follows:
Implement Poultry Slaughter Modernization. FSIS plans to
issue a final rule to implement a new inspection system for young
poultry slaughter establishments that would facilitate public health-
based inspection. The rule would help prevent thousands of illnesses by
allowing front-line inspectors to focus on public health threats such
as Salmonella and Campylobacter. The rule would allow for more
effective inspection of carcasses and allocation of agency resources,
as well as encourage industry to more readily use new technology.
Streamline Export Application Processes through the Public
Health Information System (PHIS). To support its food safety inspection
activities, FSIS is continuing to implement PHIS), a user-friendly and
Web-based system that automates many of the Agency's business
processes. PHIS also enables greater exchange of information between
FSIS and other Federal agencies, such as U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, involved in tracking cross-border movement of import and
export shipments of meat, poultry, and processed egg products. To
facilitate the implementation of some PHIS components, FSIS has
proposed to provide for electronic export application and certification
processes and will propose similar import processes as alternatives to
current paper-based systems.
Ensure Accurate Labeling of Meat and Poultry Products that
Contain Added Solutions. FSIS is developing final regulations to
establish a common or usual name for raw meat and poultry products that
contain added solutions, and that do not meet a standard of identity.
Without adequate labeling information, consumers likely cannot
distinguish between raw meat and poultry products that contain added
solutions and single-ingredient meat and poultry products. Added
solutions are a characterizing component of a product likely to affect
consumers' purchasing decisions. The rule will establish a common or
usual name for such products that include an accurate description of
the raw meat or poultry component, the percentage of added solution
incorporated into the product, and the individual ingredients or multi-
ingredient components in the solution.
Ensure Accurate Labeling of Mechanically Tenderized Beef.
FSIS has concluded that without proper labeling, raw or partially
cooked mechanically tenderized beef products could be mistakenly
perceived by consumers to be whole, intact muscle cuts. The fact that a
cut of beef has been needle or blade tenderized is a characterizing
feature of the product and, as such, a material fact that is likely to
affect consumers' purchase decisions and that should affect their
preparation of the product. The Agency will propose that raw, needle or
blade, mechanically tenderized beef products be labeled to indicate
that they are ``mechanically tenderized.'' FSIS has also concluded that
the addition of validated cooking instruction is required to ensure
that potential pathogens throughout the product are destroyed. Without
thorough cooking, pathogens that may have been introduced to the
interior of the product during the tenderization process may remain in
the product.
Improve the Efficiency of Product Recalls. FSIS will
propose to amend recordkeeping regulations to specify that all official
establishments and retail stores that grind or chop raw beef products
for sale in commerce must keep records that disclose the identity of
the supplier of all source materials that they use in the preparation
of each lot of raw ground or chopped product and identify the names of
those source materials. FSIS investigators and public health officials
frequently use records kept by all levels of the food distribution
chain, including the retail level, to identify and trace back product
that is the source of the illness the suppliers that produced the
source material for the product. Access to this information will
improve FSIS's ability to conduct timely and effective consumer
foodborne illness investigations and other public health activities
throughout the stream of commerce.
FSIS Small Business Implications. The great majority of
businesses regulated by FSIS are small businesses. FSIS conducts a
small business outreach program that provides critical training, access
to food safety experts, and information resources, such as compliance
guidance and questions and answers on various topics, in forms that are
uniform, easily comprehended, and consistent. FSIS collaborates in this
effort with other USDA agencies and cooperating State partners. For
example, FSIS makes plant owners and operators aware of loan programs
available through USDA's Rural Business and Cooperative programs, to
help them in upgrading their facilities. FSIS employees will meet with
small and very small plant operators to learn more about their specific
needs and explore how FSIS can tailor regulations to better meet the
needs of small and very small establishments, while maintaining the
highest level of food safety.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Mission: A major part of the mission of APHIS is to protect the
health and value of American agricultural and natural resources. APHIS
conducts
[[Page 911]]
programs to prevent the introduction of exotic pests and diseases into
the United States and conducts surveillance, monitoring, control, and
eradication programs for pests and diseases in this country. These
activities enhance agricultural productivity and competitiveness and
contribute to the national economy and the public health. APHIS also
conducts programs to ensure the humane handling, care, treatment, and
transportation of animals under the Animal Welfare Act.
Priorities: APHIS continues to pursue initiatives to update our
regulations to make them more flexible and performance-based. For
example, in the area of animal health, APHIS has prepared a proposal to
amend its veterinary biologics regulations to provide for the use of a
simpler, uniform label format that would allow biologics licensees and
permittees to more clearly communicate product performance information
to the end user. In addition, the rule would simplify the evaluation of
efficacy studies and reduce the amount of time required by APHIS to
evaluate study data, thus allowing manufacturers to market their
products sooner. APHIS is also preparing a proposed rule that would
revise and consolidate its regulations regarding bovine tuberculosis
and brucellosis to better reflect the distribution of these diseases
and the current nature of cattle, bison, and captive cervid production
in the United States. In the area of plant health, APHIS is preparing a
proposed rule that would establish performance standards and a notice-
based process for approving the interstate movement of fruits and
vegetables from Hawaii and the U.S. Territories and the importation of
those articles from other countries. In addition, APHIS will revise
agricultural quarantine and inspection user fees so that fees collected
are commensurate with the cost of providing the activity.
Agricultural Marketing Service
Mission: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) provides
marketing services to producers, manufacturers, distributors,
importers, exporters, and consumers of food products. AMS also manages
the government's food purchases, supervises food quality grading,
maintains food quality standards, supervises the Federal research and
promotion programs, and oversees the country of origin labeling program
as well as the National Organic Program (NOP).
Priorities: AMS is committed to ensuring the integrity of USDA
organic products in the U.S. and throughout the world. The agency is
moving forward with the following rulemaking that affect the organic
industry.
Transitioning Dairy Animals into Organic Production.
Members of the organic community, including dairy producers, organic
interest groups, and the National Organic Standards Board have
advocated for rulemaking on the allowance for transitioning dairy
animals into organic production. Stakeholders have interpreted the
current standard differently, creating inconsistencies across dairy
producers. AMS is developing a proposed rule to address this issue by
specifying that dairy farms have a one-time opportunity to transition
animals into organic production. This proposed change to the organic
standards will meet consumer expectations of organic dairy products and
level the playing for organic dairy producers.
Farm Service Agency
Mission: FSA's mission is to deliver timely, effective programs and
services to America's farmers and ranchers to support them in
sustaining our Nation's vibrant agricultural economy, as well as to
provide first-rate support for domestic and international food aid
efforts. FSA supports USDA's strategic goals by stabilizing farm
income, providing credit to new or existing farmers and ranchers who
are temporarily unable to obtain credit from commercial sources, and
helping farm operations recover from the effects of disaster. FSA
administers several conservation programs directed toward agricultural
producers. The largest program is the Conservation Reserve Program,
which protects millions of acres of environmentally sensitive land.
Priorities: FSA is focused on providing the best possible service
to producers while protecting the environment by updating and
streamlining environmental compliance. FSA is also strengthening its
ability to help the Nation respond to national defense emergencies.
FSA's priority initiatives are as follows:
Streamline Environmental Compliance (NEPA). FSA will
revise its regulations that implement NEPA. The changes improve the
efficiency, transparency, and consistency of NEPA implementation.
Changes include aligning the regulations to NEPA regulations and
guidance from the President's Council on Environmental Quality;
providing a single set of regulations that reflect the agency's current
structure; clarifying the types of actions that require an
Environmental Assessment (EA); and adding to the list of actions that
are categorically excluded from further environmental review because
they have no significant effect on the human environment.
Establish Agriculture Priorities and Allocations Systems
(APAS). USDA is developing APAS as part of a suite of rules that are
being modeled after the Defense Priorities and Allocations System
(DPAS). Under APAS, USDA would secure food and agriculture-related
resources as part of preparing for, and responding to, national defense
emergencies by placing priorities on orders or by using resource
allocation authority. APAS is authorized by the Defense Production Act
Reauthorization Act of 2009 (DPA). The authorities under DPA have
already been implemented by the Department of Commerce (DOC) via
memoranda of understanding with other Departments. The suite of DPA
rules relieves DOC from implementation responsibility for items outside
their jurisdiction and places these responsibilities with the relevant
Departments.
Forest Service
Mission: The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the
health, productivity, and diversity of the Nation's forests and
rangelands to meet the needs of present and future generations. This
includes protecting and managing National Forest System lands,
providing technical and financial assistance to States, communities,
and private forest landowners, plus developing and providing scientific
and technical assistance, and the exchange of scientific information to
support international forest and range conservation. Forest Service
regulatory priorities support the accomplishment of the Department's
goal to ensure our National forests are conserved, restored, and made
more resilient to climate change, while enhancing our water resources.
Priorities: The Forest Service is committed to developing and
issuing science-based regulations intended to ensure public
participation in the management of our Nation's national forests and
grasslands, while also moving forward the Agency's ability to plan and
conduct restoration projects on National Forest System lands. The
Forest Service will continue to review its existing authorities and
regulations to ensure that it can address emerging challenges, to
streamline excessively burdensome business practices, and to revise or
remove regulations that are inconsistent with the USDA's vision for
restoring the health and function of the lands it is charged with
managing. FS' priority initiatives are as follows:
Implement Land Management Planning Framework. The Forest
[[Page 912]]
Service promulgated a new Land Management Planning rule at 36 CFR part
219 in April 2012 that sets out the requirements for developing,
amending, and revising land management plans for units of the National
Forest System. The planning directives, once finalized, will be used to
implement the planning framework which fosters collaboration with the
public during land management planning, and is science-based,
responsive to change, and promotes social, economic, and ecological
sustainability.
Strengthen Ecological Restoration Policies. This policy
would recognize the adaptive capacity of ecosystems, and includes the
role of natural disturbances and uncertainty related to climate and
other environmental change. The need for ecological restoration of
National Forest System lands is widely recognized, and the Forest
Service has conducted restoration-related activities across many
programs for decades. ``Restoration'' is a common way of describing
much of the Agency's work and the concept is threaded throughout
existing authorities, program directives, and collaborative efforts
such as the National Fire Plan, a 10-year comprehensive strategy and
implementation plan, and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. However,
the Agency did not have a definition of restoration established in
policy. That was identified as a barrier to collaborating with the
public and partners to plan and accomplish restoration work.
Rural Development
Mission: Rural Development (RD) promotes a dynamic business
environment in rural America that creates jobs, community
infrastructure, and housing opportunities in partnership with the
private sector and community-based organizations by providing financial
assistance and business planning services, and supporting projects that
create or preserve quality jobs and/or promote a clean rural
environment, while focusing on the development of single and multi-
family housing and community infrastructure. RD financial resources are
often leveraged with those of other public and private credit source
lenders to meet business and credit needs in under-served areas.
Recipients of these programs may include individuals, corporations,
partnerships, cooperatives, public bodies, nonprofit corporations,
Indian tribes, and private companies.
Priorities: RD regulatory priorities will facilitate sustainable
renewable energy development and enhance the opportunities necessary
for rural families to thrive economically. RD's rules will minimize
program complexity and the related burden on the public while enhancing
program delivery and RBS oversight.
Streamline the Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan
Program. RD will enhance current operations of the B&I program,
streamline existing practices, and minimize program complexity and the
related burden on the public.
Increase Accessibility to the Rural Energy for America
Program (REAP). Under REAP, Rural Development provides guaranteed loans
and grants to support the purchase, construction, or retrofitting of a
renewable energy system. This rulemaking will streamline the
application process for grants, lessening the burden to the customer.
The rulemaking is expected to reduce the information collection. REAP
will also be revised to ensure a larger number of applicants will be
made available by issuing smaller grants. By doing so, funding will be
distributed evenly across the applicant pool and encourage greater
development of renewable energy.
Modify review of Single Family Housing Direct Loans. RD
will finalize the certified loan packager regulation to streamline
oversight of the agency's vast network of committed Agency-certified
packagers. This action will assist low- and very low-income people
become homeowners. It will also reduce burden on program staff enabling
them to focus on implementation and delivery or other and will ensure
specialized support is available to them to complete the application
for assistance, and improving the quality of loan application packages.
Update Civil Rights Protections: RD will propose a
comprehensive civil rights rule to update and consolidate civil rights
compliance regulations for Rural Housing Service, Rural Utilities
Service and Rural Business Service. This regulation will provide
detailed information on civil rights compliance and enforcement
policies and procedures for all Rural Development programs.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR)
Mission: OASCR's mission is to provide leadership and direction for
the fair and equitable treatment of all USDA customers and employees
while ensuring the delivery of quality programs and enforcement of
civil rights. OASCR ensures compliance with applicable laws,
regulations, and policies for USDA customers and employees regardless
of race, color, national origin, sex (including gender identity and
expression), religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital or
familial status, political beliefs, parental status, protected genetic
information, or because all or part of an individual's income is
derived from any public assistance program. (Not all bases apply to all
programs.)
Priorities
Strengthen Civil Rights Protections: USDA has made
significant strides towards realizing the Secretary's vision of a ``New
Era for Civil Rights.'' In this effort, USDA plans to publish a
proposed rule that will standardize the collection of race, ethnicity
and gender data across USDA's conducted programs (those where USDA
deals directly with the public; much of this data is already being
collected). USDA will also expand the protected categories under which
program participants may bring complaints of discrimination to the
Department; these new protected bases will be gender identity and
political beliefs.
Departmental Management
Mission: Departmental Management's mission is to provide management
leadership to ensure that USDA administrative programs, policies,
advice and counsel meet the needs of USDA programs, consistent with
laws and mandates, and provide safe and efficient facilities and
services to customers.
Priorities
Promote Biobased Products: In support of the Department's
goal to increase prosperity in rural areas, USDA's Departmental
Management will finalize regulations to revise the BioPreferred[supreg]
program guidelines to continue adding designated product categories to
the preferred procurement program, including intermediates and
feedstocks and finished products made of intermediates and feedstocks.
Aggregate Costs and Benefits
USDA will ensure that its regulations provide benefits that exceed
costs, but are unable to provide an estimate of the aggregated impacts
of its regulations. Problems with aggregation arise due to differing
baselines, data gaps, and inconsistencies in methodology and the type
of regulatory costs and benefits considered. Some benefits and costs
associated with rules listed in the regulatory plan cannot currently be
quantified as the rules are still being formulated. For 2014, USDA's
focus will be to implement the changes to
[[Page 913]]
programs in such a way as to provide benefits while minimizing program
complexity and regulatory burden for program participants.
BILLING CODE 3410--90-P
USDA--AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (AMS)
Proposed Rule Stage
1. National Organic Program, Origin of Livestock, NOP-11-0009
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The current regulations provide two tracks for replacing
dairy animals which are tied to how dairy farmers transition to organic
production. Farmers who transition an entire distinct herd must
thereafter replace dairy animals with livestock that has been under
organic management from the last third of gestation. Farmers who do not
transition an entire distinct herd may perpetually obtain replacement
animals that have been managed organically for 12 months prior to
marketing milk or milk products as organic. The proposed action would
eliminate the two track system and require that upon transition, all
existing and replacement dairy animals from which milk or milk products
are intended to be sold, labeled or represented as organic, must be
managed organically from the last third of gestation.
Statement of Need: This action is being taken because of concerns
raised by various parties, including the National Organic Standards
Board (NOSB), about the dual tracks for dairy replacement animals. The
organic community argues that the ``two track system'' encourages
producers to sell their organic young stock and replace them with
animals converted from conventional production. The organic community
points out that with this continual state of transitioning, animals
treated with and fed prohibited substances, prior to conversion, are
constantly entering organic agriculture. Some producers have taken this
route because it is cheaper and easier to convert or purchase converted
animals than to raise organic young stock. As a result, this continual
state of transition has discouraged development of a viable organic
market for young dairy stock. The organic community has expressed that
this is contrary to the intent of organic and the expectations of
organic dairy product consumers. These concerns are ultimately rooted
in a discrepancy between the regulatory intent and interpretation
whereby some organic dairy producers are required to manage/obtain
animals that have been raised organically since the last third of
gestation, while other producers may continually obtain replacement
animals from conventional production, which have been managed
organically for 12 months. The proposed action would level the playing
field by instituting the same requirements across all producers,
regardless of their transition approach.
Summary of Legal Basis: The National Organic Program regulations
stipulate the requirements for dairy replacement animals in section
205.236(a)(2) Origin of Livestock. In addition, in response to the
final ruling in the 2005 case, Harvey v. Johanns, the USDA committed to
rulemaking to address the concerns about dairy replacement animals.
Alternatives: The program considered initiating the rulemaking with
an ANPR. It was determined that there is sufficient awareness of the
expectations of the organic community to proceed with a proposed rule.
As alternatives, we considered the status quo, however, this would
continue the disparity between producers who can continually transition
conventional dairy animals into organic production and producers who
must source dairy animals that are organic from the last third of
gestation. Based on the information available, this disparity appears
to create a barrier to the development of an organic heifer market. We
also considered an action that would restrict the source of breeder
stock and movement of breeder stock after they are brought onto an
organic operation, however, this would minimize the flexibility of
producers to purchase breeder stock from any source as specified under
the Organic Foods Production Act.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Organic producers who routinely
convert conventional dairy livestock to organic will either need to
find a source to procure organic replacement animals, or begin to raise
replacement animals within their operation. Preliminary analysis
suggest that less than 5 percent of organic dairies would face higher
costs to comply with this action. Organic operations that converted a
whole-herd to organic status and do not convert conventional animals
for replacements will be able to readily comply with the rule and may
find new market opportunities for organic replacement dairy livestock.
Risks: Continuation of the two-track system jeopardizes the
viability of the market for organic heifers. A potential risk
associated with the rulemaking would be a temporary supply shortage of
dairy replacement animals due to the increased demand.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Melissa R Bailey, Director, Standards Division,
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, 14th &
Independence Avenue SW., Room 2646--South Building, Washington, DC
20250, Phone: 202 720-3252, Fax: 202 205-7808, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0581-AD08
USDA--FARM SERVICE AGENCY (FSA)
Proposed Rule Stage
2. Environmental Compliance and Related Concerns
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 799.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would provide the Farm Service Agency
(FSA) with an environmental compliance regulation that updates,
improves, and clarifies its requirements to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act; the National Historic Preservation Act; and
numerous other environmental and cultural resource laws, regulations,
and Executive orders. It would also make the regulation consistent for
the Farm Loan Programs and Farm Programs. Also, it would remove
outdated regulations used by FSA from chapter XVIII of the Code of
Federal Regulations, formerly used by the predecessor to FSA, the
Farmers Home Administration.
Statement of Need: This proposed rule is needed to consolidate and
update the FSA regulations implementing the National Environmental
Policy Act and related laws and guidance.
Summary of Legal Basis: The National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321-4347) and the regulations of the Council on Environmental
Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508).
Alternatives: As an alternative to this proposed rule, we could
have updated the two separate FSA NEPA regulations, but that would have
made it harder for our stakeholders and employees, more difficult to
update in the future, and resulted in redundant regulations.
[[Page 914]]
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: A cost benefit analysis was prepared
for this proposed rule and will be made available when the proposed
rule is published.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Deirdre Holder, Director, Regulatory Review Group,
Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0572, Phone: 202 205-5851, Fax: 202
720-5233, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0560-AH02
USDA--FSA
Final Rule Stage
3. Agriculture Priorities and Allocations Systems
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 50 U.S.C. app 2061 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 5195 et seq.
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to establish a
system to prioritize contracts and make allocations of certain
agriculture-related resources, as necessary, to meet national defense
priorities. ``Stand-by'' procedures for the Department of Agriculture
to implement this authority are out of date and generally inadequate to
meet Government or national needs should a situation arise that calls
for exercise of the authority. As a result, the Farm Service Agency is
implementing regulations to allow USDA to efficiently place priority
ratings on contracts or orders with respect to resources within its
authority should the need arise. The new Agriculture Priorities and
Allocation System (APAS) regulations will be similar to the Department
of Commerce's Defense Priorities and Allocation System (DPAS) for
establishing priority ratings for contract performance.
Statement of Need: This rule is needed to implement the USDA
delegated responsibilities from the Defense Production Act and related
Executive Order.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. App.
2061 to 2170, 2171, and 2172) and the related Executive Order 13603,
``National Defense Resources Preparedness,'' dated March 16, 2012.
Alternatives: As an alternative to this proposed rule, we could
have continued to require the Department of Commerce to implement the
USDA authority; however, the reauthorized and amended Defense
Production Act requires each of the agencies to implement regulations.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: A cost benefit analysis was prepared
for the related proposed rule and was made available when the proposed
rule published.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/19/11 76 FR 29084
NPRM Comment Period End............. 07/18/11
Final Rule.......................... 04/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Deirdre Holder, Director, Regulatory Review Group,
Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0572, Phone: 202 205-5851, Fax: 202
720-5233, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0560-AH68
USDA--ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS)
Proposed Rule Stage
4. Viruses, Serums, Toxins, and Analogous Products; Single Label Claim
for Veterinary Biological Products
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 151 to 159
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 112.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act
regulations to replace the current label format, which reflects any of
four different levels of effectiveness, with a single, uniform label
format. It would also require biologics licensees to provide a
standardized summary, with confidential business information removed,
of the efficacy and safety data submitted to the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service in support of the issuance of a full product
license or conditional license. A single label format along with
publicly available safety and efficacy data will help biologics
producers to more clearly communicate product performance to their
customers.
Statement of Need: The intent of this proposal is to address a
request made by our stakeholders and to more clearly communicate
product performance information to the user by requiring a uniform
label format and a summary of efficacy and safety data (with
confidential business information removed).
Summary of Legal Basis: APHIS administers and enforces the Virus-
Serum-Toxin Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 151-159). The regulations issued
pursuant to the Act are intended to ensure that veterinary biological
products are pure, safe, potent, and efficacious when used according to
label instructions.
Alternatives: We could retain the current APHIS labeling guidance,
but maintaining the status quo would not address the concern reported
by stakeholders concerning the interpretation of product performance.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: APHIS anticipates that the only
costs associated with the proposed labeling format would be one-time
costs incurred by licensees and permittees in having labels for
existing licensed products updated in accordance with the proposed new
format. A simpler, uniform label format that would allow biologics
licensees and permittees to more clearly communicate product
performance information to the end user. In addition, the rule would
simplify the evaluation of efficacy studies and reduce the amount of
time required by APHIS to evaluate study data, thus allowing
manufacturers to market their products sooner.
Risks: APHIS has not identified any risks associated with this
proposed action.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice.............................. 05/24/11 76 FR 30093
Comment Period End.................. 07/25/11
NPRM................................ 01/00/14
NPRM Comment Period End............. 03/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
[[Page 915]]
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact: Donna L Malloy, Operational Support Section, Center
for Veterinary Biologics, Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing, VS,
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
4700 River Road, Unit 148, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, Phone: 301 851-
3426.
RIN: 0579-AD64
USDA--APHIS
5. Brucellosis and Bovine Tuberculosis; Update of General Provisions
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 7 U.S.C. 8301 to 8317; 15 U.S.C.
1828; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 50 and 51; 9 CFR 71; 9 CFR 76 to 78; 9 CFR 86;
9 CFR 93; 9 CFR 161.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would consolidate the regulations
governing bovine tuberculosis (TB), currently found in 9 CFR part 77,
and those governing brucellosis, currently found in 9 CFR part 78. As
part of this consolidation, we are proposing to transition the TB and
brucellosis programs away from a State status system based on disease
prevalence. Instead, States and tribes would implement an animal health
plan that identifies sources of the diseases within the State or tribe
and specifies mitigations to address the risk posed by these sources.
The consolidated regulations would also set forth standards for
surveillance, epidemiological investigations, and affected herd
management that must be incorporated into each animal health plan, with
certain limited exceptions; conditions for the interstate movement of
cattle, bison, and captive cervids; and conditions for APHIS approval
of tests for bovine TB or brucellosis. Finally, the rulemaking would
revise the import requirements for cattle and bison to make these
requirements clearer and assure that they more effectively mitigate the
risk of introduction of the diseases into the United States.
Statement of Need: The current regulations were issued during a
time when the prevalence rates for the disease in domestic, cattle,
bison, and captive cervids were much higher than they are today. As a
result, the regulations specify measures that are necessary to prevent
these diseases from spreading through the interstate movement of
infected animals. The regulations are effective in this regard, but do
not address reservoirs of tuberculosis and brucellosis that exist in
certain States. Moreover, the regulations presuppose one method of
dealing with infected herds--whole-herd depopulation--and do not take
into consideration the development of other methods, such as test-and-
remove protocols, that are equally effective but less costly for APHIS
and producers. Finally, our current regulations governing the
importation of cattle and bison do not always address the risk that
such animals may pose of spreading brucellosis or bovine tuberculosis,
and need to be updated to allow APHIS to take appropriate measures when
prevalence rates for bovine tuberculosis or brucellosis increase or
decrease in foreign regions.
Summary of Legal Basis: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7
U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to
issue orders and promulgate regulations to prevent the introduction
into the United States and the dissemination within the United States
of any pest or disease of livestock.
Alternatives: One alternative would be to leave the current
regulations unchanged. As noted above, the current regulations are
effective in preventing the interstate movement of infected animals,
but do not address reservoirs of brucellosis and tuberculosis that
exist in certain States, and thus do not address the root cause of such
infection. They also are written in a prescriptive manner which does
not allow States to take into consideration scientific developments and
other emerging information in determining how best to deal with
infected animals and herds. Finally, APHIS' current regulations
governing the importation of cattle and bison do not always address the
risk that such animals may pose of spreading bovine tuberculosis or
brucellosis.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Certain additional costs may be
incurred by producers as a result of this rule. For example, the
proposed rule would impose new interstate movement restrictions on
rodeo, event, and exhibited cattle and bison and impose additional
costs for producers of such cattle and bison. These new testing
requirements could cost, in aggregate, between $651,000 and $1 million.
Also, the proposed additional restrictions for the movement of captive
cervids could result in additional costs for producers. Adhering to
these new requirements may have a total cost to the captive cervid
industry of between about $157,000 and $485,000 annually.
States and tribes would incur costs associated with this proposed
rule, in particular in developing animal health plans for bovine
tuberculosis and brucellosis. The proposed animal health plans for
brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis would build significantly on
existing operations with respect to these diseases. We anticipate that
all 50 States and as many as 3 tribes would develop animal health
plans. Based on our estimates of plan development costs, the total cost
of the development of these 53 animal health plans could be between
about $750,000 and $2.9 million. We expect that under current
circumstances, four or five States are likely to develop recognized
management area plans as proposed in this rule as part of their animal
health plans. Based on our estimates of recognized management area plan
development costs, the cost of developing recognized management area
plans by these States could total between $56,000 and $274,000.
While direct effects of this proposed rule for producers should be
small, whether the entity affected is small or large, consolidation of
the brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis regulations is expected to
benefit the affected livestock industries. Disease management would be
more focused, flexible and responsive, reducing the number of producers
incurring costs when disease concerns arise in an area. Also, the
competitiveness of the United States in international markets depends
on its reputation for producing healthy animals. The proposed rule
would enhance this reputation through its comprehensive approach to the
control of identified reservoirs of bovine tuberculosis or brucellosis
in wildlife populations in certain parts of the United States and more
stringent import regulations consistent with domestic restrictions. We
expect that the benefits would justify the costs.
Risks: If we do not issue this proposed rule, reservoirs of
brucellosis and tuberculosis that exist in certain States will not be
adequately evaluated and addressed. Additionally, our current
regulations regarding the importation of cattle and bison do not always
address the risk that such animals may pose of spreading brucellosis or
bovine tuberculosis.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/14
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
[[Page 916]]
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact: Langston Hull, National Center for Import and
Export, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737, Phone: 301 851-
3300.
C William Hench, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Ruminant Health
Programs, National Center for Animal Health Programs, VS, Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2150 Centre
Avenue, Building B-3E20, Ft. Collins, CO 80526, Phone: 970 494-7378.
RIN: 0579-AD65
USDA--APHIS
6. Establishing a Performance Standard for Authorizing the Importation
and Interstate Movement of Fruits and Vegetables
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450; 7 U.S.C. 7701 to 7772; 7 U.S.C. 7781
to 7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 318 and 319.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would amend our regulations governing the
importations of fruits and vegetables by broadening our existing
performance standard to provide for consideration of all new fruits and
vegetables for importation into the United States using a notice-based
process. It would also remove the region- or commodity-specific
phytosanitary requirements currently found in these regulations.
Likewise, we are proposing an equivalent revision of the performance
standard in our regulations 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 proposal would allow for the consideration of
requests to authorize the importation or interstate movement of new
fruits and vegetables in a manner that enables a more flexible and
responsive regulatory approach to evolving pest situations in both the
United States and exporting countries. It would not, however, alter the
science-based process in which the risk associated with importation or
interstate movement of a given fruit or vegetable is evaluated or the
manner in which risks associated with the importation or interstate
movement of a fruit or vegetable are mitigated.
Statement of Need: The revised regulations are needed to streamline
the administrative process involved in consideration of fruits and
vegetables currently not authorized for interstate movement or
importation, while continuing to provide opportunity for public comment
and engagement on the science and risk-based analysis associated with
such imports and interstate movements. The proposal would also enable
us to adapt our import requirements more quickly in the event of any
changes to a country's pest or disease status or as a result of new
scientific information or treatment options.
Summary of Legal Basis: Under section 7701 of the Plant Protection
Act (PPA), given that the smooth movement of enterable plants and plant
products into, out of, or within the United States is vital to the U.S.
economy, it is the responsibility of the Secretary of Agriculture to
facilitate exports, imports, and interstate commerce in agricultural
products and other commodities that pose a risk of harboring plant
pests or noxious weeds in ways that will reduce, to the extent
practicable, as determined by the Secretary, the risk of dissemination
of plant pests or noxious weeds. Decisions regarding exports, imports,
and interstate commerce are required to be based on sound science.
Alternatives: We considered taking no action at this time and
leaving the regulations as they are currently written. We decided
against this alternative because leaving the regulations unchanged
would not address the needs identified immediately above.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Consumers and businesses would
benefit from the more timely access to fruits and vegetables for which
entry or movement would currently require rulemaking. This benefit
would be reduced to the extent that certain businesses would face
increased competition for the subject fruits and vegetables sooner due
to their more timely approval. APHIS has not identified other costs
that may be incurred because of the proposed rule.
Risks: The performance-based process more closely links APHIS'
decision to authorize importation of a fruit or vegetable with the pest
risk assessment and brings us in line with other countries that
authorize importation of a fruit or vegetable with the pest risk
assessment. Some countries have viewed the rulemakings for fruits and
vegetables that follow completion of the pest risk assessment as a non-
technical trade barrier and may have slowed the approval of U.S.
exports (including, but not limited to, fruits and vegetables) into
their markets, or placed additional restrictions on existing exports
from the United States.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/14
NPRM Comment Period End............. 05/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact: Matthew Rhoads, Associate Executive Director, Plant
Health Programs, PPQ, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 131, Riverdale, MD
20737-1231, Phone: 301 851-2133.
RIN: 0579-AD71
USDA--APHIS
7. User Fees for Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Services
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701 to 7772; 7 U.S.C. 7781 to 7786; 7
U.S.C. 8301 to 8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 49 U.S.C. 80503
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 354.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the user fee regulations by
adding new fee categories and adjusting current fees charged for
certain agricultural quarantine and inspection services that are
provided in connection with certain commercial vessels, commercial
trucks, commercial railroad cars, commercial aircraft, and
international passengers arriving at ports in the customs territory of
the United States. It would also adjust the fee caps associated with
commercial vessels, commercial trucks, and commercial railcars. Based
on the conclusions of a third party assessment of the user fee program
and on other
[[Page 917]]
considerations, we have determined that revised user fee categories and
revised user fees are necessary to recover the costs of the current
level of activity, to account for actual and projected increases in the
cost of doing business, and to more accurately align fees with the
costs associated with each fee service.
Statement of Need: Regarding certain agricultural quarantine and
inspection services that are provided in connection with certain
commercial vessels, commercial trucks, commercial railroad cars,
commercial aircraft, and international passengers arriving at ports in
the customs territory of the United States, we have determined that
revised user fee categories and revised user fees are necessary to
recover the costs of the current level of activity, to account for
actual and projected increases in the cost of doing business, and to
more accurately align fees with the costs associated with each fee
service.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 2509(a) of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade (FACT) Act of 1990 (21 U.S.C. 136a) authorizes
APHIS to collect user fees for certain agricultural quarantine and
inspection (AQI) services. The FACT Act was amended on April 4, 1996,
and May 13, 2002. The FACT Act, as amended, authorizes APHIS to collect
user fees for AQI services provided in connection with the arrival, at
a port in the customs territory of the United States, of commercial
vessels, commercial trucks, commercial railroad cars, commercial
aircraft, and international passengers. According to the FACT Act, as
amended, these user fees should recover the costs of:
Providing the AQI services for the conveyances and the
passengers listed above;
Providing preclearance or preinspection at a site outside
the customs territory of the United States to international passengers,
commercial vessels, commercial trucks, commercial railroad cars, and
commercial aircraft;
Administering the user fee program; and
Maintaining a reasonable reserve.
In addition, the FACT Act, as amended, contains the following
requirement:
The fees should be commensurate with the costs with
respect to the class of persons or entities paying the fees. This is
intended to avoid cross-subsidization of AQI services.
Alternatives: APHIS focused on three alternatives composed of
different combinations of paying classes. The first or preferred
alternative is the proposed rule; the second alternative differed from
the first by not including user fees for recipients of AQI treatment
services; and under the third alternative, recipients of commodity
import permits and pest import permits would pay user fees, in addition
to the classes that would pay fees under the proposed rule. The latter
two alternatives were rejected.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed changes in user fees
would ensure that the program can continue to protect America's
agricultural industries and natural resource base against invasive
species and diseases while more closely aligning, by class, the cost of
AQI services provided and user fee revenue received.
Risks: AQI services benefit U.S. agricultural and natural resources
by protecting them from the inadvertent introduction of foreign pests
and diseases that may enter the country and the threat of intentional
introduction of pests or pathogens as a means of agroterrorism. In the
extreme, failure to maintain the nation's biosecurity could disrupt
American agricultural production, erode confidence in the U.S. food
supply, and destabilize the U.S. economy.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/14
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
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.
Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact: William E Thomas, Senior Agriculturist, Office of
the Deputy Administrator, PPQ, Department of Agriculture, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 130, Riverdale,
MD 20737, Phone: 301 851-2306.
Michael Peranio, Chief, User Fees, Financial Services Branch, FMD,
MRPBS, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 55, Riverdale, MD 20737, Phone: 301 851-
2852.
RIN: 0579-AD77
USDA--RURAL HOUSING SERVICE (RHS)
Proposed Rule Stage
8. Civil Rights Compliance Requirements
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 100-259; 29 U.S.C. 794; Pub. L. 94-135; 42
U.S.C. 6101 et seq.; Pub. L. 94-239; 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.; EO 11246;
Pub. L. 88-352; 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.; Pub. L. 90-284; 42 U.S.C. 3601
to 3619; Pub. L. 100-430; Pub. L. 92-318; 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.; Pub.
L. 93-112; EO 12898
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 15; 12 CFR 202; 28 CFR 42; 45 CFR 90; 41 CFR 60
to 64; 24 CFR 14; 7 CFR 1901-E; 7 CFR 1940-D.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In this proposed rule the Rural Housing Service (RHS)
proposes to effectuate a comprehensive civil rights regulation to
provide detailed guidelines to improve compliance with applicable
enacted civil right laws. Mechanisms for monitoring compliance by USDA
field offices and recipients of Federal financial assistance at all
levels will decrease the Agency's vulnerability that exists due to
compliance issues.
Statement of Need: The 1901-E is the current civil rights
compliance regulation covering Rural Development programs which was
published in 1977. The 1940-D will update and replace the information
provided in the 1901-E which addresses limited elements of civil rights
compliance and limited information on enforcement policies and
procedures. This proposed rule will increase the understanding of civil
rights compliance requirements under title VI and applicable civil
rights laws which will directly reduce the number of complaints
received by customers, applicants, borrowers, grantees, recipients and
beneficiaries.
Summary of Legal Basis: This information is used by Rural
Development to comply with the Department of Justice (DOJ) title VI
Regulation 28 CFR part 42 subpart F to insure that Federal agencies
which extend Federal financial assistance properly enforce title VI of
the Civil Rights Act and similar provisions in Federal grant statutes.
Additionally, section 42.407--``Procedures to Determine Compliance''
established Rural Development requirements to conduct pre-award and
post-award compliance reviews. The requirement to conduct compliance
reviews is also based on the requirements of Executive Order 12250.
Alternatives: The alternative to publishing this rule is to
continue to use the 1901-E as it is written.
[[Page 918]]
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This proposed rule will not impose
any new costs for the public (customers, applicants, borrowers,
grantees, recipients and/or beneficiaries) of Rural Development's loan
and grant programs. The proposed rule will align Rural Development's
civil rights enforcement policies with laws and regulations which are
already federal law. This rule will also align Rural Development civil
rights regulations with USDA departmental regulations. On average Rural
Development received 250 complaints each year. It is estimated that
each complaint costs on average $10,000 to process. Lawsuits and
findings of discrimination add to this cost.
Risks: There are no risks associated with publishing or not
publishing this rule but there may be inferred risk to recipients or
beneficiaries due to non-compliance issues.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Renata Robinson, Department of Agriculture, Rural
Housing Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250,
Phone: 202 692-0070, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0575-AA83
USDA--RHS
9. Loan Packager Certification
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 1480
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 3550.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In the Single Family Housing (SFH) direct loan program,
the current loan application packaging process is an informal
arrangement and the packagers' level of program knowledge and
expertise, as well as their level of service, is inconsistent. To
address this, the Rural Housing Service (RHS) is proposing to amend its
regulations for the SFH direct loan program to create a certified loan
application process. Certified packagers will promote the direct loan
program in eligible communities; informally prescreen interested
parties to determine their likelihood of qualifying for the program;
and fully prepare and document the loan application package on behalf
of the applicant for submission to the Agency. The certified loan
application process will include the requirements for eligible
individuals to obtain the designation of an Agency-certified loan
application packager and the requirements for qualified nonprofit
organizations and public agencies that employ certified packagers.
These requirements will cover experience, training, proficiency, and
structure. The process will also include Agency-approved independent
nonprofit organizations that serve as intermediaries and perform
quality assurance reviews on packaged loan applications prior to
submission to the Agency. In addition, RHS is proposing to set
limitations on the loan application packaging fee. The fee may not
exceed two percent of the average area loan limit nationwide; the
Administrator will periodically set a maximum dollar amount for the fee
within this limit and set different maximum dollar amounts for
certified packagers working with and without intermediaries. These
amounts will be published on the Agency's Web site as an attachment to
HB-1-3550.
Agency financing of the packaging fee will remain dependent on the
borrower's repayment ability and the total secured indebtedness
limitation outlined in 7 CFR 3550.63.
Statement of Need: Formalizing the loan application process will
allow for Agency oversight; it will also ensure minimum competency
standards.
By establishing a vast network of competent, experienced, and
committed Agency-certified packagers, this action will benefit low- and
very low-income people who wish to achieve homeownership in rural areas
by increasing their awareness of the Agency's housing program,
increasing specialized support available to them to complete the
application for assistance, and improving the quality of loan
application packages submitted on their behalf.
Summary of Legal Basis: The SFH direct loan program was authorized
by the Housing Act of 1949, as amended.
Alternatives: The alternative to implementing a certified loan
application packaging process is maintaining the status quo, which is
problematic for the following reasons:
With voluntary early retirement authority and voluntary separation
incentive payments offered in the first quarter of Fiscal Years 2012
and 2013, the number of Rural Development staff available to process
section 502 loan applications has been severely reduced. Without
operational restructuring and redistribution, program participants will
experience unprecedented and significant delays in loan application
processing.
The current procedure allows loan application packaging under an
informal arrangement, which results in inconsistencies in the
packagers' level of program knowledge and expertise as well as their
level of service.
Limited travel budgets restrict the Rural Development staffs'
ability to target underserved areas (such as Indian reservations,
colonias counties, and persistent poverty counties).
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Cost/benefit to the borrowers: With an interest rate of 3.75%,
which is the program's full note interest rate that has been in effect
as of September 2013, and with a standard term of 33 years, a packaging
fee of $1,500 will cost the borrower $6.62/month ($1,500 x .00441; the
amortization factor for this extra loan amount). Because many borrowers
receive the maximum payment assistance allowed, the amount billed for
the fee may be reduced down to $4.46/month ($1,500 x .00297 the
amortization factor for this extra loan amount at 1% for 33 years). In
FY 2012, the families served through the direct single family housing
program had an average annual income of $27,600. At most, the increase
in the monthly payment represents .02 percent of the allowable
qualifying ratios ($6.62/$27,600). All other factors aside, the
packaging fee should not adversely impact an applicant's eligibility.
For borrowers that choose to apply through the certified loan
application packaging process, their increased loan costs are more than
offset by the benefits they will experience (largely being made aware
of an affordable homeownership program that they may not have otherwise
heard of because of the Agency's reduced physical presence in rural
areas and having a knowledgeable and committed packager hold their hand
through the entire application process).
Cost/benefit to the Agency: The training costs associated with this
action is approximately $39,600 per fiscal year in comparison to
maintaining the status quo. The one-time cost to modify the program's
loan origination system to create a new data element to track
applications obtained through the certified loan application process is
$100,000.
Implementing a certified loan application process will save the
Agency approximately $1.5 million in salaries and expenses per fiscal
year in comparison to maintaining the status quo.
Risks: There may be some limited opposition to the loan application
[[Page 919]]
packaging fee from affordable housing advocates, but the Agency
believes the substantial measure by which the process's merits outweigh
potential drawbacks will be widely recognized. The loan application
packaging fee outlined in the proposed rule is significantly higher
than the amount currently allowed. However, the fee also ensures
critical outreach and support for families and individuals who might
otherwise have little chance of securing a mortgage. Moreover, engaging
the services of a certified packager is completely at the applicant's
discretion-the borrower has the option of electing to proceed without
the additional assistance afforded by the fee. The allowable fee
reflects the additional responsibilities that will be placed on those
involved in the certified loan application packaging process
(principally submitting viable loan application packages to expedite
the Agency's underwriting review); and the fee can be financed with the
SFH loan, adding little to the required monthly payment. The rule also
furthers the government's partnering opportunities with private
organizations. The proposed certification process is not mandatory.
Individuals and entities that do not meet the requirements for
certification may still package on behalf of an applicant but any fee
charged will not be an allowable loan purpose.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/23/13 78 FR 52460
NPRM Comment Period End............. 10/22/13
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 11/01/13 78 FR 65582
Final Action........................ 09/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Brooke Baumann, Senior Loan Specialist, Department
of Agriculture, Rural Housing Service, STOP 0783, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-1474, Fax: 202 720-
2232, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0575-AC88
USDA--FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE (FNS)
Proposed Rule Stage
10. Child Nutrition Program Integrity
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-296
CFR Citation: 7 CFR part 210; 7 CFR part 215; 7 CFR part 220; 7 CFR
part 225; 7 CFR part 226; 7 CFR part 235.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule proposes to codify three provisions of the
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (the Act). Section 303 of the Act
requires the Secretary to establish criteria for imposing fines against
schools, school food authorities, or State agencies that fail to
correct severe mismanagement of the program, fail to correct repeat
violations of program requirements, or disregard a program requirement
of which they had been informed. Section 322 of the Act requires the
Secretary to establish procedures for the termination and
disqualification of organizations participating in the Summer Food
Service Program (SFSP). Section 362 of the Act requires that any
school, institution, service institution, facility, or individual that
has been terminated from any program authorized under the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act or the Child Nutrition Act of 1966,
and appears on either the SFSP or the Child and Adult Care Food
Program's (CACFP's) disqualified list, may not be approved to
participate in or administer any other programs authorized under those
two Acts.
Statement of Need: There are currently no regulations imposing
fines on schools, school food authorities or State agencies for program
violations and mismanagement. This rule will: (1) Establish criteria
for imposing fines against schools, school food authorities or State
agencies that fail to correct severe mismanagement of the program or
repeated violations of program requirements; (2) establish procedures
for the termination and disqualification of organizations participating
in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP); and (3) require that any
school, institutions, or individual that has been terminated from any
Federal Child Nutrition Program and appears on either the SFSP or the
Child and Adult Care Food Program's (CACFP's) disqualified list may not
be approved to participate in or administer any other Child Nutrition
Program.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule codifies Sections 303, 322, and
362 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296).
Alternatives: None identified; this rule implements statutory
requirements.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule is expected to help
promote program integrity in all of the child nutrition programs. FNS
anticipates that these provisions will have no significant costs and no
major increase in regulatory burden to States.
Risks: None identified.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/14
NPRM Comment Period End............. 05/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in EO 13132.
Agency Contact: James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email:
[email protected].
Lynnette M. Williams, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs
Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101
Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-4782, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0584-AE08
USDA--FNS
11. Child and Adult Care Food Program: Meal Pattern Revisions Related
to the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-296
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 226.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposal would implement section 221 of the Healthy,
Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296, the Act) which requires
USDA to review and update, no less frequently than once every 10 years,
requirements for meals served under the Child and Adult Care Food
Program (CACFP) to ensure that meals are consistent with the most
recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans and relevant nutrition science.
Statement of Need: Section 221 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act
of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296, the Act) requires USDA to review and update,
no less frequently than once every 10 years, requirements for meals
served under the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) to ensure
that meals are consistent with the most recent Dietary Guidelines for
Americans and relevant nutrition science. The Act also clarifies the
purpose of the program, restricts the use of food as a punishment or
reward, outlines requirements for milk and milk
[[Page 920]]
substitution, and introduces requirements for the availability of
water. This rule will establish the criteria and procedures for
implementing these provisions of the Act.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 221 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296).
Alternatives: Because this proposed rule is under development,
alternatives are not yet articulated.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule is expected to improve the
nutritional quality of meals served and the overall health of children
participating in the CACFP. Most CACFP meals are served to children
from low-income households. At this time, we cannot estimate the
financial impact the proposed rule will have on State agencies,
sponsoring organizations, and child care institutions, but we expect
that there will be a small cost increase associated with the
implementation of improved meal pattern requirements. A regulatory
impact analysis will be conducted to determine these cost implications.
Risks: None identified.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/14
NPRM Comment Period End............. 05/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Agency Contact: James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email:
[email protected].
Lynnette M. Williams, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs
Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101
Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-4782, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0584-AE18
USDA--FNS
12. Enhancing Retailer Eligibility Standards in SNAP
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Sec. 3, U.S.C. 2012; Sec. 9, U.S.C. 2018
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 271.2; 7 CFR 278.1.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking will address the criteria used to
authorize redemption of SNAP benefits (especially by restaurant-type
operations).
Statement of Need: Sections 3(k), (p) and (r), Section 7, and
Section 9 of the Food and Nutrition Act and Title 7 Parts 271, 274, and
278 of the Code of Federal Regulations provide factors for determining
the eligibility of retail food stores to participate in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (''SNAP''). The Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS) has published a notice requesting information
from any and all interested parties on opportunities to enhance
retailer definitions and requirements in a manner that improves access
to healthy food choices for SNAP participants as well as program
integrity, and ensures that only those retailers that effectuate the
purpose of SNAP are authorized to accept benefits. FNS is requesting
information to understand what policy changes and, as needed, statutory
changes, should be considered for retailer authorizations. FNS will use
this information in determining how to make positive progress in the
available healthy choices for program participants at authorized SNAP
retail stores. FNS will propose revisions to existing regulations
following this process of gathering stakeholder input.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 3(k) of the Food and Nutrition Act
of 2008 (the Act) generally (with limited exception) (1) requires that
food purchased with SNAP benefits be meant for home consumption and (2)
forbids the purchase of hot foods with SNAP benefits. The intent of
those statutory requirements can be circumvented by selling cold foods,
which may be purchased with SNAP benefits, and offering onsite heating
or cooking of those same foods, either for free or at an additional
cost. In addition, Section 9 of the Act provides for approval of retail
food stores and wholesale food concerns based on their ability to
effectuate the purposes of the Program.
Alternatives: Because this proposed rule is under development,
alternatives are not yet articulated.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed changes will allow FNS
to improve access to healthy food choices for SNAP participants and to
ensure that participating retailers effectuate the purposes of the
Program. FNS anticipates that these provisions will have no significant
costs to States.
Risks: None identified.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: State.
Agency Contact:, Charles H. Watford, Regulatory Review Specialist,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-0800, Email:
[email protected].
Lynnette M. Williams, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs
Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101
Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-4782, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0584-AE27
USDA--FNS
Final Rule Stage
13. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC): Revisions in the WIC Food Packages
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1786
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 246.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 30, 2006.
CN and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-265) requires
issuance of a final rule within 18 months of the release of the IOM
Report.
Abstract: This final rule will affirm and address comments from
stakeholders on an interim final rule that went into effect October 1,
2009, governing WIC food packages to align them more closely with
updated nutrition science.
Statement of Need: As the population served by WIC has grown and
become more diverse over the past 20 years, the nutritional risks faced
by participants have changed, and though nutrition science has
advanced, the WIC supplemental food packages remained largely unchanged
until FY 2010. This rule is needed to respond to comments and
experience, and to implement recommended changes to the WIC food
packages based on the current nutritional needs of WIC participants and
advances in nutrition science.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as
amended, section 17; especially 17(b)(14) and 17(f)(11).
Alternatives: FNS developed a regulatory impact analysis that
addressed a variety of alternatives that
[[Page 921]]
were considered in the interim final rulemaking. The regulatory impact
analysis was published as an appendix to the interim rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The regulatory impact analysis for
this rule provided a reasonable estimate of the anticipated effects of
the rule. The regulatory impact analysis was published as an appendix
to the interim rule.
Risks: This rule applies to WIC State agencies with respect to
their selection of foods to be included on their food lists.
Opportunities for training on and discussion of the revised WIC food
packages will be offered to State agencies and other entities as
necessary.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/07/06 71 FR 44784
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/06/06
Interim Final Rule.................. 12/06/07 72 FR 68966
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 02/04/08
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 02/01/10
End.
Final Rule.......................... 02/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
URL For More Information: www.fns.usda.gov/wic.
URL For Public Comments: www.fns.usda.gov/wic.
Agency Contact: James F Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email:
[email protected].
Lynnette M Williams, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-4782, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0584-AD77
USDA--FNS
Prorule
14. Eligibility, Certification, and Employment and Training Provisions
of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-246; Pub. L. 104-121
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 273.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This final rule amends the regulations governing the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to implement
provisions from the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L.
110-246) (FCEA) concerning the eligibility and certification of SNAP
applicants and participants and SNAP employment and training.
Statement of Need: This rule amends the regulations governing SNAP
to implement provisions from the FCEA concerning the eligibility and
certification of SNAP applicants and participants and SNAP employment
and training. In addition, this rule revises the SNAP regulations
throughout 7 CFR part 273 to change the program name from the Food
Stamp Program to SNAP and to make other nomenclature changes as
mandated by the FCEA. The statutory effective date of these provisions
was October 1, 2008. FNS is also implementing two discretionary
revisions to SNAP regulations to provide State agencies options that
are currently available only through waivers. These provisions allow
State agencies to average student work hours and to provide telephone
interviews in lieu of face-to-face interviews. FNS anticipates that
this rule will impact the associated paperwork burdens.
Summary of Legal Basis: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(Pub. L. 110-246).
Alternatives: Most aspects of the rule are non-discretionary and
tied to explicit, specific requirements for SNAP in the FCEA, and
others were new program options the FCEA created that State agencies
may include in their administration of the program. FNS did consider
alternatives within these mandatory and optional FCEA provisions
addressed in the rule. For example, under the new optional provision
implementing section 4119 of the FCEA, Telephonic Signature Systems,
FNS considered what specific conditions must be satisfied for a
signature to be considered a spoken signature.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The estimated total SNAP costs to
the Government of the FCEA provisions implemented in the rule are
estimated to be $831 million in FY 2010 and $5.619 billion over the 5
years FY 2010 through FY 2014. These impacts are already incorporated
into the President's budget baseline.
There are many potential societal benefits of this rule, including
that certain provisions in the rule will reduce the administrative
burden for households and State agencies.
Risks: The statutory changes and discretionary ones under
consideration would streamline program operations. The changes are
expected to reduce the risk of inefficient operations.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/04/11 76 FR 25414
NPRM Comment Period End............. 07/05/11
Final Action........................ 03/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Agency Contact: Charles H Watford, Regulatory Review Specialist,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-0800, Email:
[email protected].
Lynnette M Williams, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-4782, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0584-AD87
USDA--FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE (FSIS)
Proposed Rule Stage
15. Records To Be Kept by Official Establishments and Retail Stores
That Grind Raw Beef Products
Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 320.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: FSIS is proposing to amend its recordkeeping regulations
to specify that all official establishments and retail stores that
grind raw beef products for sale in commerce must keep records that
disclose the identity of the supplier of all source materials that they
use in the preparation of each lot of raw ground product and identify
the names of those source materials.
Statement of Need: Under the authority of the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and its implementing
regulations, FSIS investigates complaints and reports of consumer
foodborne illness possibly associated with FSIS-regulated meat
products. Many such investigations into consumer foodborne illnesses
involve
[[Page 922]]
those caused by the consumption of raw beef ground by official
establishments or retail stores.
FSIS investigators and public health officials frequently use
records kept by all levels of the food distribution chain, including
the retail level, to identify and trace back product that is the source
of the illness to the suppliers that produced the source material for
the product. The Agency, however, has often been thwarted in its effort
to trace back ground beef products, some associated with consumer
illness, to the suppliers that provided source materials for the
products. In some situations, official establishments and retail stores
have not kept records necessary to allow traceback and traceforward
activities to occur. Without such necessary records, FSIS's ability to
conduct timely and effective consumer foodborne illness investigations
and other public health activities throughout the stream of commerce is
also affected, thereby placing the consuming public at risk. Therefore,
for FSIS to be able to conduct traceback and traceforward
investigations, foodborne illnesses investigations, or to monitor
product recalls, the records kept by official establishments and retail
stores that grind raw beef products must disclose the identity of the
supplier and the names of the sources of all materials that they use in
the preparation of each lot of raw ground beef product.
Summary of Legal Basis: Under 21 U.S.C. 642, official
establishments and retail stores that grind raw beef products for sale
in commerce are persons, firms, or corporations that must keep such
records as will fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved
in their businesses subject to the Act. This is because they engage in
the business of preparing products of an amenable species for use as
human food and they engage in the business of buying or selling (as
meat brokers, wholesalers or otherwise) in commerce products of
carcasses of an amenable species. These businesses must also provide
access to, and inspection of, these records by FSIS personnel.
Further, under 9 CFR 320.1(a), every person, firm, or corporation
required by section 642 of the FMIA to keep records must keep those
records that will fully and correctly disclose all transactions
involved in his or its business subject to the Act. Records
specifically required to be kept under section 320.1(b) include, but
are not limited to, bills of sale; invoices; bills of lading; and
receiving and shipping papers. With respect to each transaction, the
records must provide the name or description of the livestock or
article; the net weight of the livestock or article; the number of
outside containers; the name and address of the buyer or seller of the
livestock or animal; and the date and method of shipment.
Alternatives: FSIS considered two alternatives to the proposed
requirements: The status quo and a voluntary recordkeeping program.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs occur because about 76,093
retail stores and official establishments will need to develop and
maintain records, and make those records available for the Agency's
review. Using the best available data, FSIS believes that industry
recordkeeping costs would be approximately $1.46 million. Agency costs
of approximately $0.01 million would result from record reviews at
official establishments and retail stores, as well as travel time to
and from retail stores.
Annual benefits from this rule come from estimated averted Shiga
toxin-producing E.coli illnesses of $1.06 million and $0.58 million due
to averted cases of Salmonellosis.
Total benefits from this rule are estimated to be $1.64 million,
with a net annual benefit of $0.13 million.
Non-monetized benefits under this rule include, for the raw ground
beef processing industry: (1) An increase in consumers' confidence and
greater acceptance of products because mandatory grinding logs will
result in a more efficient traceability system, recalls of reduced
volume, and reduced negative press; (2) smaller volume recalls will
result in higher confidence and acceptability of products including the
disposition of product once recovered; (3) improved productivity, which
improves profit opportunities.
Avoiding loss of business reputation is an indirect benefit. By
identifying and defining the responsible party, FSIS will be able to
get to the suspect faster and execute a better targeted recall, meaning
that a recall will involve a smaller amount of product. This lower
volume per recall will decrease costs for the recalls and the
disposition of product. In addition, the Agency expects consumers to
benefit from improved traceability and, thus, a reduced incidence of
STECs in ground raw beef products due to the rapid removal of those
products from commerce. The Agency believes that by having official
meat establishments and retail stores that engage in the business of
grinding raw beef products keep records, traceability of ground raw
beef in the U.S. food supply will be greatly enhanced.
Risks: FSIS estimates that the annual costs of STEC and
salmonellosis illnesses that will continue to be incurred without this
rule is $1.64 million, which comes from an estimated $1.06 million due
to illnesses associated with STECs and an estimated $0.58 million due
to cases of salmonellosis.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Victoria Levine, Program Analyst, Issuances Staff
(IS), Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service,
Office of Policy and Program Development, 1400 Independence Avenue SW.,
Room 6079, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone: 202 690-
3184, Fax: 202 690-0486, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0583-AD46
USDA--FSIS
Final Rule Stage
16. Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 381.66; 9 CFR 381.67; 9 CFR 381.76; 9 CFR
381.83; 9 CFR 381.91; 9 CFR 381.94.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: FSIS intends to provide a new inspection system for young
poultry slaughter establishments that would facilitate public health-
based inspection. This new system would be available initially only to
young chicken and turkey slaughter establishments. Establishments that
slaughter broilers, fryers, roasters, and Cornish game hens (as defined
in 9 CFR 381.170) would be considered as ``young chicken
establishments.'' FSIS also intends to revoke the provisions that allow
young chicken slaughter establishments to operate under the current
streamlined inspection system (SIS) or the new line speed (NELS)
inspection system, and to revoke the new turkey inspection system
(NTIS). Young chicken and turkey slaughter establishments would be
required to operate under the new inspection system or under
Traditional Inspection. FSIS anticipates that this proposed rule would
provide the framework for action to provide public health-based
inspection in all establishments that slaughter amenable poultry
species.
[[Page 923]]
Under the new system, young chicken and turkey slaughter
establishments would be required to sort chicken carcasses and to
conduct other activities to ensure that carcasses are not adulterated
before they enter the chilling tank.
Statement of Need: Because of the risk to the public health
associated with pathogens on young chicken carcasses, FSIS intends to
provide a new inspection system that would allow for more effective
inspection of young chicken carcasses, would allow the Agency to more
effectively allocate its resources and would encourage industry to more
readily use new technology.
This final rule is the result of the Agency's 2011 regulatory
review efforts conducted under Executive Order 13563 on Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review. It would likely result in more cost-
effective dressing of young chickens that are ready to cook or ready
for further processing. Similarly, it would likely result in more
efficient and effective use of Agency resources.
Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 451 to 470.
Alternatives: FSIS considered the following options in developing
this proposal:
(1) No action.
(2) Propose to implement HACCP-based inspection models pilot in
regulations.
(3) Propose to establish a mandatory, rather than a voluntary, new
inspection system for young chicken slaughter establishments.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule estimated that the
expected annual costs to establishments would total $24.5 million.
Expected annual total benefits were $285.5 million (with a range of
$259.5 to $314.8 million). Expected annual net benefits were $261.0
million (with a range of $235.0 million to $290.3 million). These
estimates will be updated in the final rule.
Risks: Salmonella and other pathogens are present on a substantial
portion of poultry carcasses inspected by FSIS. Foodborne salmonella
cause a large number of human illnesses that at times lead to
hospitalization and even death. There is an apparent relationship
between human illness and prevalence levels for salmonella in young
chicken carcasses. FSIS believes that through better allocation of
inspection resources and the use of performance standards, it would be
able to better address the prevalence of salmonella and other pathogens
in young chickens.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/27/12 77 FR 4408
NPRM Comment Period End............. 05/29/12 77 FR 24873
Final Action........................ 04/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Rachel Edelstein, Assistant Administrator, Office
of Policy and Program Development, Department of Agriculture, Food
Safety and Inspection Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., 350-E JLW
Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone: 202 205-0495, Fax: 202 720-
2025, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0583-AD32
USDA--FSIS
17. Electronic Export Application and Certification as a Reimbursable
Service and Flexibility in the Requirements for Official Export
Inspection Marks, Devices, and Certificates
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601
to 695); Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 to 470);
Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031 to 1056)
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 312.8; 9 CFR 322.1 and 322.2; 9 CFR 350.7; 9
CFR 362.5; 9 CFR 381.104 to 381.106; 9 CFR 590.407; 9 CFR 592.20 and
592.500.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: FSIS is developing final regulations to amend the meat,
poultry, and egg product inspection regulations to provide for an
electronic export application and certification system. The electronic
export application and certification system will be a component of the
Agency's Public Health Information System (PHIS). The export component
of PHIS will be available as an alternative to the paper-based
application and certification process. FSIS intends to charge users for
the use of the system. FSIS is establishing a formula for calculating
the fee. FSIS is also providing establishments that export meat,
poultry, and egg products with flexibility in the official export
inspection marks, devices, and certificates. In addition, FSIS is
amending the egg product export regulations to parallel the meat and
poultry export regulations.
Statement of Need: These regulations will facilitate the electronic
processing of export applications and certificates through the Public
Health Information System (PHIS), a computerized, web-based inspection
information system. This rule will provide the electronic export system
as a reimbursable certification service charged to the exporter.
Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 601 to 695; 21 U.S.C. 451 to 470;
21 U.S.C. 1031 to 1056; 7 U.S.C. 1622(h).
Alternatives: The electronic export applications and certification
system is being proposed as a voluntary service; therefore, exporters
have the option of continuing to use the current paper-based system.
Therefore, no alternatives were considered.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FSIS is charging exporters an
application fee for the electronic export system. Automating the export
application and certification process will facilitate the exportation
of U.S. meat, poultry, and egg products by streamlining and automating
the processes that are in use while ensuring that foreign regulatory
requirements are met. The cost to an exporter would depend on the
number of electronic applications submitted. An exporter that submits
only a few applications per year would not be likely to experience a
significant economic impact. Under this rate, inspection personnel
workload will be reduced through the elimination of the physical
handling and processing of applications and certificates. When an
electronic government-to-government system interface or data exchange
is used, fraudulent transactions, such as false alterations and
reproductions, will be significantly reduced, if not eliminated. The
electronic export system is designed to ensure authenticity, integrity,
and confidentiality. Exporters will be provided with a more efficient
and effective application and certification process. The egg product
export regulations provide the same export requirements across all
products regulated by FSIS and consistency in the export application
and certification process. The total annual paperwork burden to the egg
processing industry to fill out the paper-based export application is
approximately $32,340 per year for a total of 924 hours a year. The
average establishment burden would be 11 hours, and $385.00 per
establishment.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/23/12 77 FR 3159
NPRM Comment Period End............. 03/23/12 .......................
Final Action........................ 05/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 924]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Agency Contact: Rick Harries, Director, Import/Export Coordination
and Policy Development Staff (IECPDS), Department of Agriculture, Food
Safety and Inspection Service, Office of Policy and Program
Development, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2147, South Building,
Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone: 202 720-6508, Fax: 202 720-7990,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0583-AD41
USDA--FSIS
18. Common or Usual Name for Raw Meat and Poultry Products Containing
Added Solutions
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601 to 695; 21 U.S.C. 451 to 470
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 317.2(e); 9 CFR 381.117(h).
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: FSIS is developing final regulations to establish a
common or usual name for raw meat and poultry products that contain
added solutions, and that do not meet a standard of identity. FSIS
proposed to amend the meat and poultry labeling regulations to require
that the common or usual name must include an accurate description of
the raw meat or poultry component, the percentage of added solution,
and the individual ingredients or multi-ingredient components in the
solution listed in descending order of prominence by weight. The Agency
also proposed that the print for all words in the common or usual name
appears in a single easy-to-read type style and color, and on a single
color-contrasting background. The Agency also intends to remove the
standard of identity for ``ready-to-cook poultry products to which
solutions are added'' (9 CFR 381.169).
Statement of Need: Without adequate labeling information, consumers
likely cannot distinguish between raw meat and poultry product that
contain added solutions and single-ingredient meat and poultry
products. Added solutions are a characterizin component of a product
likely to affect consumer's purchasing decisions. Therefore, to ensure
that labels adequately inform consumers that a meat and poultry product
contains added solutions, the Agency is establishing a common or usual
name for products containing added solutions.
Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 601(n)(1), (n)(2), (n)(9);
453(h)(1), (h)(3), (h)(9).
Alternatives:
1. No Action. FSIS considered taking no action but did not select
this alternative because a consumer research study submitted to the
Agency showed that consumers view information about these additives as
important factors in their purchasing decisions.
2. Require the word ``enhanced'' in the product's common or usual
name, or the use of the term ``enhanced'' in the containing statement,
e.g., ``enhanced with 15 percent solution.'' FSIS did not select this
alternative because the word implies that the product is improved by
the addition of the solution. The intent of this rule is to increase
transparency to consumers, not to suggest that the product is either
better or worse than a raw product without the added solution. In
addition, consumer research showed that the containing statement,
``enhanced with up to 15 percent solution of water salt, and sodium
phosphates'' was preferred by fewer study participants (about 10
percent fewer) than the use of the description ``contains up to 15
percent water, salt, and sodium phosphates.
3. Require that the common or usual name of the added solutions
product include an accurate description of the raw meat or poultry
component, the percentage of added solution, and the common or usual
name of the ingredients in the solution, with all of the print in a
single font size, color, and style on a single-color contrasting
background (the proposed amendments). FSIS selected this alternative
because it is likely to improve consumer awareness and understanding
that raw meat or poultry product contains an added solution. Requiring
the percentage of the solution and the ingredient of the solution as
part of the common or usual name is information consumers need to make
informed purchasing decisions.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The amendments will require
establishments that manufacture raw meat and poultry products with
added solution to modify or redesign the product label, effective
December 2016, the Uniform Compliance Date for Food Labeling. FSIS's
estimates that the one-time total cost of modifying labels for all
federally inspected processors is $80 million, as central estimate. The
amendments will improve public awareness of product identities by
providing truthful and accurate labeling of meat and poultry products
to clearly differentiate products containing added solutions from
single-ingredient products. Consumers can better determine whether
products containing added solutions are suitable for their personal
dietary needs through increased product name prominence.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/27/11 76 FR 44855
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/26/11 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........ 11/08/11 76 FR 69146
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/09/12 .......................
Final Action........................ 03/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Rosalyn Murphy-Jenkins, Director, Labeling and
Program Delivery Staff (LPDS), Department of Agriculture, Food Safety
and Inspection Service, Office of Policy and Program Development,
Patriots Plaza 3, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 8-148, Mailstop
5273, Washington, DC 20250-5273, Phone: 301 504-0879, Fax: 202 245-
4792, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0583-AD43
USDA--FSIS
19. Descriptive Designation for Needle- or Blade-Tenderized
(Mechanically Tenderized) Beef Products
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601 to 695
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 317.2(e)(3).
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: FSIS has proposed regulations to require the use of the
descriptive designation ``mechanically tenderized'' on the labels of
raw or partially cooked needle or blade tenderized beef products,
including beef products injected with marinade or solution, unless such
products are destined to be fully cooked at an official establishment.
Beef products that have been needle or blade tenderized are referred to
as ``mechanically tenderized'' products. This rule would require that
the product name for such beef products include the descriptive
designation ``mechanically tenderized'' and accurate description of the
beef component. The rule would also require
[[Page 925]]
that the print for all words in the descriptive designation as the
product name appear in the same style, color, and size and on a single-
color contrasting background. In addition, this rule would require that
labels of raw and partially cooked needle or blade tenderized beef
products destined for household consumers, hotels, restaurants, or
similar institutions include validated cooking instructions stating
that these products need to be cooked to a specified minimum internal
temperature, and whether they need to be held at that minimum internal
temperature for a specified time before consumption, i.e., dwell time
or rest time, to ensure that they are thoroughly cooked.
Statement of Need: FSIS has concluded that without proper labeling,
raw or partially cooked mechanically tenderized beef products could be
mistakenly perceived by consumers to be whole, intact muscle cuts. The
fact that a cut of beef has been needle or blade tenderized is a
characterizing feature of the product and, as such, a material fact
that is likely to affect consumers' purchase decisions and that should
affect their preparation of the product. FSIS has also concluded that
the addition of validated cooking instruction is necessary to ensure
that potential pathogens throughout the product are destroyed. Without
thorough cooking, pathogens that may have been introduced to the
interior of the product during the tenderization process may remain in
the product.
Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 601 to 695.
Alternatives: The Agency considered two options: Option 1, extend
labeling requirements to include vacuum tumbled beef products and
enzyme-formed beef products; and Option 2, extend the proposed labeling
requirements to all needle- or blade-tenderized meat and poultry
products.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule estimated the one-
time cost to produce labels for mechanically tenderized beef at $1.05
million or $2.62 million, if this rule is in effect before the added
solutions rule. The annualized cost is $140,000 for 10 years at a 7
percent discount rate or $349,000 over 10 years at a 7 percent discount
rate, if this rule is in effect before the added solutions rule.
The proposed rule estimated the expected number of E. coli O157:H7
illnesses prevented would be 453 per year, with a range of 133 to
1,497, if the predicted percentages of beef steaks and roasts are
cooked to an internal temperature of 160 [deg]F (or 145 [deg]F and 3
minutes of dwell time). These prevented illnesses amount to $1,486,000
per year in benefits with a range of $436,000 to $4,912,000.
Therefore, the expected annualized net benefits are $296,000 to
$4,772,000 with a primary estimate of $1,346,000. If, however, this
rule is in effect before the added solutions rule, the expected
annualized net benefits are then $1,137,000, with a range of $87,000 to
$4,563,000, plus the unquantifiable benefits of increased consumer
information and market efficiency, minus an unquantified consumer
surplus loss and an unquantified cost associated with food service
establishments changing their standard operating procedures.
Risks: FSIS estimates that approximately 1,965 illnesses annually
is attributed to mechanically tenderized beef, either with or without
added solutions. If all the servings are cooked to a minimum of
160[emsp14][deg]F then the number of illnesses drops to 78. This number
of illness is due to a data set for all STEC and not just O157 data.
From the risk assessment, 1,887 out of 1,965 illnesses were estimated
to be prevented annually if mechanically tenderized meat were cooked to
160 degrees.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/10/13 78 FR 34589
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/09/13 .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 08/09/13 78 FR 48631
Final Action........................ 06/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Rosalyn Murphy-Jenkins, Director, Labeling and
Program Delivery Staff (LPDS), Department of Agriculture, Food Safety
and Inspection Service, Office of Policy and Program Development,
Patriots Plaza 3, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 8-148, Mailstop
5273, Washington, DC 20250-5273, Phone: 301 504-0879, Fax: 202 245-
4792, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0583-AD45
USDA--FOREST SERVICE (FS)
Proposed Rule Stage
20. Forest Service Manual 2020--Ecological Restoration and Resilience
Policy
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
CFR Citation: None.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This policy establishes a common definition for
ecological restoration and resilience that is consistent with the 2012
Land Planning rule. The directive will provide additional guidance in
implementing the definition throughout Forest Service program areas by
incorporating it into the Forest Service Manual.
Restoration objectives span a number of initiatives in various
program areas, including the invasive species strategy, recovery of
areas affected by high-severity fires, hurricanes, and other
catastrophic disturbances; fish habitat restoration and remediation;
riparian area restoration; conservation of threatened and endangered
species; and restoration of impaired watersheds and large-scale
watershed restoration projects. The restoration policy will allow
agency employees to more effectively communicate Forest Service work in
meeting restoration needs at the local, regional, and national levels.
Currently an internal Forest Service interim policy for this proposed
directive has been implemented in the field units, without any issues.
Incorporating the definition into the Forest Service Manual will bring
the FS policy into alignment with current ecological restoration
science and with congressional and FS authorizations and initiatives.
Statement of Need: There is a critical need for ecological
restoration on National Forest System lands and the concept of
restoration is threaded throughout existing Agency authorities and
collaborative efforts such as the National Fire Plan. However, without
a definition in FS' Directive System there has not been consistent
interpretation and application. An established policy is necessary for
consistency and for the landscape to better weather disturbances,
especially under future environmental conditions.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Forest Service proposes to amend the
Forest Service Manual (FSM) to add a new title: FSM 2020 Ecological
Restoration and Resilience. The proposed directive reinforces adaptive
management, use of science, and collaboration in planning and decision
making. These foundational land management policies, including use of
restoration to achieve desired conditions, underwent formal public
review during revision of the Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) and amendment
of associated directives (FSM 1900, 1920).
Alternatives: No alternatives were considered as an established
policy is necessary for Agency consistency.
[[Page 926]]
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The promulgation of this directive
will have no monetary effect to the Agency or the public. The proposed
directive will help agency employees and partners more effectively
communicate restoration needs and accomplishments at the local,
regional, and national levels.
Risks: There is no risk identified with this rulemaking. The Forest
Service has been accomplishing ecological restoration work for many
years but has not specifically and consistently referred to it as
``restoration'' until recently. This final directive brings agency
policy into alignment with field operations and current and emerging
ecological restoration science and terminology.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Directive.................. 09/12/13 78 FR 56202
Proposed Directive Comment Period 11/12/13
End.
Final Directive..................... 09/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: LaRenda C King, Assistant Director, Directives and
Regulations, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, ATTN: ORMS, D&R
Branch, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0003, Phone:
202 205-6560, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0596-AC82
USDA--FS
Final Rule Stage
21. Land Management Planning Rule Policy
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 302; 16 U.S.C. 1604; 16 U.S.C. 1613
CFR Citation: 36 CFR 219.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Forest Service promulgated a new Land Management
Planning rule in April 2012. This rule streamlined the Forest Service's
paperwork requirements and expanded the public participation
requirements for revising National Forest's Land Management Plans. On
February 27, 2013, the Forest Service published proposed directives (78
FR 13316) that will update the current directives, which provide Forest
Service internal guidance on how to implement the 2012 planning rule.
The directives will allow full implementation of the Land Management
Planning rule, which will enable the Forest Service to reduce the time
to revise expired plans from 4 to 5 years to 2 to 3 years. These
directives, once finalized, will enable the National Forests to revise
their management plans under the new rule.
Statement of Need: The existing direction in the Forest Service
Manual 1920 and the Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 regarding Land
Management Planning needs to be updated to support implementation of
the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219). This will bring the planning
directives in line with the new planning rule and clarify substantive
and procedural requirements to implement the rule. The updated
directives would implement a planning framework that fosters
collaboration with the public during land management planning, and is
science-based, responsive to change, and promotes social, economic, and
ecological sustainability.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Forest Service promulgated a new land
management planning regulation at 36 CFR 219 (the ``2012 Planning
Rule''). The final Planning rule and record of decision was published
on April 9, 2012 (77 FR 21162).
Alternatives: The Forest Service must finalize the directives to
bring the FS's internal directives in-line with the CFR.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: No new costs to the agency or the
public are associated with these directives. The amended directives
would result in more effective and efficient planning within the
Agency's capability.
Risks: There are no risks to the public or to the Forest Service
associated with this rulemaking.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule....................... 02/27/13 78 FR 13316
Comment Period End.................. 04/29/13 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 02/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: LaRenda C King, Assistant Director, Directives and
Regulations, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, ATTN: ORMS, D&R
Branch, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0003, Phone:
202 205-6560, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0596-AD06
USDA--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (AgSEC)
Proposed Rule Stage
22. Nondiscrimination in Programs or Activities Conducted by the United
States Department of Agriculture
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 29 U.S.C. 794
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 15d.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: USDA proposes to amend its regulation on
nondiscrimination in programs or activities conducted by the
Department. This regulation, adopting the nondiscrimination principles
of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and applying them to
programs and activities conducted by USDA, was first established in
1964. The changes are proposed to clarify the roles and
responsibilities of USDA's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights and USDA agencies in enforcing nondiscrimination in programs or
activities conducted by the Department and to strengthen USDA's civil
rights compliance and complaint processing activities to better protect
the rights of USDA customers.
Statement of Need: The intent of the proposal is to clarify the
roles and responsibilities of OASCR and USDA agencies in enforcing non-
discrimination in programs or activities conducted by the Department
(``conducted programs'') and to strengthen USDA's civil rights
compliance and complaint processing activities to better protect the
rights of USDA customers. This regulation does not address those
programs for which the Department provides Federal financial assistance
\1\ (``assisted programs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federally assisted programs are programs and activities
receiving financial assistance through a third party such as a State
or municipal government, university, or organization. Federally
conducted programs, which are those programs covered in this
regulation are programs and activities receiving assistance directly
from USDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Legal Basis: 5 U.S.C. 301; 29 U.S.C. 794. This
regulation when it was first established adopted the nondiscrimination
principles of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--protections on
the bases of race, color, and national origin--and applied them to
programs and activities conducted by USDA (see 29 Federal Register (FR)
16966, creating 7 CFR part 15, subpart b, referring to
nondiscrimination in direct USDA programs and activities, now found at
7 CFR section 15d). However, in efforts to provide fair services to all
program participants, USDA expanded the protected bases for
[[Page 927]]
its conducted programs to include religion, sex, age, marital status,
familial status, sexual orientation, disability, and whether any
portion of a person's income is derived from public assistance
programs. The regulation was last revised in 1999 (64 FR 66709, Nov 30,
1999).
Alternatives: Maintaining the status quo would not provide USDA
with a uniform requirement for reporting and tabulating the race,
ethnicity, and gender data across USDA's diverse program areas. It
would also not encourage the early resolution of customers' complaints
in accordance with the Secretary of Agriculture's Blueprint for
Stronger Service, nor would it strengthen USDA's ability to ensure that
all USDA customers receive fair and consistent treatment, and align the
regulations with USDA's civil rights goals.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: OASCR anticipates that there will be
a small cost to the public who are served by USDA's conducted programs
through the data collection requirement should they volunteer to
provide the data.
Risks: OASCR has not identified any risks associated with this
proposed action.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Anna G. Stroman, Acting Chief, Policy Division,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Department of
Agriculture, Office of the Secretary, Reporter's Building, 300 7th St.
SW., Room 618, Washington, DC 20024, Phone: 202 205-5953, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0503-AA52
USDA--RURAL BUSINESS--COOPERATIVE SERVICE (RBS)
Proposed Rule Stage
23. Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Legal Authority: Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 4287; 7 CFR 4279.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program
regulations were last rewritten in 1996. While there have been some
minor modifications to the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program regulations
since 1996 to implement Farm Bill provisions etc., some refinements to
the regulation need to be made to enhance the program, improve
efficiency, correct minor inconsistencies, clarify the regulations to
make them more clear and easier to understand, and ultimately reduce
delinquencies.
The Agency held several lender meetings throughout the country to
see how changes to the program could benefit lenders who utilize the
program and make it more attractive for them. The proposed changes
being considered should lower the subsidy rate, thereby increasing
supportable loan level, which is critical to program success as the
program's budget is proposed to be decreased. The proposed rule is
intended to increase lending activity, expand business opportunities,
and create more jobs in rural areas, particularly in areas that have
historically experienced economic distress.
There is no expected cost associated with implementation of the
rule.
Statement of Need: With the passage of the 2008 Farm Bill, there is
the need to conform certain portions of the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program
regulations with requirements found in the 2008 Farm Bill, such as the
addition of cooperative equity security guarantees, the locally and
regionally grown agricultural food products initiative, and exceptions
to the rural area definition. In addition, with the passage of time,
the Agency has identified enhancements that will improve program
delivery and/or administration, leverage program resources, better
align the regulation with the program's goals and purposes, clarify the
regulations to make them easier to understand, and reduce delinquencies
and defaults. These enhancements will also help to improve program
subsidy costs. By lowering program subsidy costs over time, the Agency
will be able to better leverage the budget authority provided by
Congress. This will allow the Agency to guarantee a higher total dollar
amount of loan requests and, assuming the same average size of loans
being guaranteed, to guarantee more loans. A reduction in program
subsidy costs will manifest in more funds available for additional
projects, further improving the economic conditions of rural America.
This should result in increased lending activity, the expansion of
business opportunities, and the creation of more jobs in rural areas.
Summary of Legal Basis: Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act, as amended by the 2008 Farm Bill.
Alternatives: The only alternative would be the status quo
alternative, which is not an acceptable alternative.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The benefits of the enhanced rule
are that the rule is expected to reduce loan losses, lower the subsidy
rate, and provide program delivery enhancements. The program changes
have a cumulative effect of lowering the program cost; however, the
amount of the change in cost cannot be estimated with any reasonable
precision.
Risks: The only identified risk is not getting the rule published.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule....................... 04/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Brenda Griffin, Loan Specialist, B&I Processing
Division, Department of Agriculture, Rural Business-Cooperative
Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202
720-6802, Fax: 202 720-6003, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0570-AA85
USDA--RBS
Final Rule Stage
24. Rural Energy for America Program
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8107
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 4280-B.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Agency implemented an interim rule for the Rural
Energy for America Program (REAP) on April 14, 2011, to revise and
update the existing Renewable Energy System and Energy Efficiency
Improvement Program established under the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Farm Bill).
This interim rule revised and updated the existing Renewable Energy
System and Energy Efficiency Improvement Program (7 CFR 4280, subpart)
that was implemented in response to the Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency Program (section 9006 of the 2002 Farm Bill). The interim
rule implemented the provisions found in section 9006 of the 2002 Farm
Bill as amended and various provisions found in fiscal year 2010
notices of funding availability (NOFAs) published in the
[[Page 928]]
Federal Register. The interim rule provides grants for energy audits
and renewable energy development assistance; grants for renewable
energy system feasibility studies; and financial assistance (grants,
guaranteed loans) for energy efficiency improvements and renewable
energy systems. The 2002 Farm Bill as amended directs that at least 20
percent of funds be used for grants of $20,000 or less, up to 10
percent for feasibility studies, and up to 4 percent of mandatory funds
for energy audits. Eligible entities for energy audits and renewable
energy development assistance include units of State, tribal, or local
government; an instrumentality of a State, tribal, or local government;
land grant or other institutions of higher education; rural electric
cooperatives; or public power entities. Eligible entities for renewable
energy feasibility study and financial assistance for energy efficiency
improvements and renewable energy systems include agricultural
producers and rural small businesses.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) published a Proposed
Rule on April 12, 2013, with a 60-day comment period to implement
additional changes to REAP to further improve program delivery (e.g.,
through the simplification of the application process).
Statement of Need: While the interim rule implemented provisions
required by the 2008 Farm Bill and included in the fiscal year 2010
NOFAs, there are additional changes to be made in order to reduce the
burden to applicants and improve program delivery. In order to achieve
these changes, it is necessary to propose changes to 7 CFR 4280,
subpart B, and then, at a later date, to implement a final rule.
Summary of Legal Basis: REAP was authorized by the 2002 Farm Bill,
which made available $55,000,000 in mandatory funding for 2009,
$60,000,000 mandatory funding for 2010, $70,000,000 mandatory funding
for 2011 and 2012, and $25,000,000 in discretionary funding for each
fiscal year 2009 through 2012. The program provides for grants and
guaranteed loans for renewable energy systems and energy efficiency
improvements, and grants for feasibility studies and energy audit and
renewable energy development assistance. The purpose of the program is
to reduce the energy consumption and increase renewable energy
production.
Alternatives: The alternatives are to (1) continue operating the
program under the 7 CFR 4280, subpart B as it currently is written; (2)
revise 7 CFR 4280, subpart B based on public comments received on the
interim rule and issue a final rule; or (3) publish a proposed rule and
then final rule, taking into account comments received on both the
interim rule and the proposed rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Benefits of the rule may include a
reduction in energy consumption, an increase in renewable energy
production and reduced burden for certain loan and grant applications.
Risks: The risk associated with this regulatory initiative is that
by the time a Final Rule is published, the need will be diminished
because there may not be any funding available to the program.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 04/14/11 76 FR 21109
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 04/14/11
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 06/13/11
End.
NPRM................................ 04/12/13 78 FR 22044
Final Action........................ 04/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Kelley Oehler, Branch Chief, Department of
Agriculture, Rural Business--Cooperative Service, STOP 3225, 1400
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3225, Phone: 202 720-
6819, Fax: 202 720-2213, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0570-AA76
USDA--OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (OPPM)
Final Rule Stage
25. Biopreferred Program Guidelines Revisions
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-246
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 3201.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The 2008 Farm Bill requires USDA to address how the
BioPreferred Program will designate complex products and intermediate
materials and feed stocks and make other changes to update program
guidelines.
Statement of Need: Changes in the Guidelines for Designating
Biobased products are necessary for USDA to comply with legislative
mandates driving the program. The proposed regulation would be
published as final.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Office of Procurement and Property
Management (OPPM) published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Federal Register on May 1, 2012 (77 FR 25632) proposing to amend 7 CFR
section 3201, subpart A, the ``Guidelines for Designating Biobased
Products for Federal Procurement'' (Guidelines). Section 3201, which
established the Federal biobased products preferred procurement
program, was authorized by section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA), 7 U.S.C. 8102 and was amended by the
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) on June 18,
2008. This regulatory action proposed to revise certain text within the
current section 3201 to address program requirements that were changed
or added by the 2008 Farm Bill. The proposed amendments provide the
framework for implementing the requirements that USDA: (1) Designate
biobased ``intermediate ingredients and feedstocks'' and ``finished
products'' for preferred procurement by Federal agencies; (2) designate
items composed of intermediate ingredients and feedstocks that have
been designated if the content of the designated intermediate
ingredients and feedstocks exceeds 50 percent of the item; and (3)
provide information as to the availability, price, performance, and
environmental and public health benefits of materials and items that
have been designated for Federal preferred procurement.
Alternatives: There are no alternatives as this action was mandated
by Congress.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We expect that this final rule will
result in benefits that justify its cost, but we do not have
information necessary to quantify those benefits. This final rule will
allow USDA to expand the Federal procurement preference for biobased
products to those intermediate ingredients and feedstocks not presently
represented in the program. The expansion will create additional market
opportunities for manufacturers and vendors of intermediate ingredients
and feedstocks as the Government begins to purchase and use such
products. As a result of the increased opportunities and use, American
farmers and forest landowners should expect to see increased demand for
their raw feedstock materials as the demand for biobased products
grows. In addition, by increasing the scope of products available under
the program, the regulatory action should assist the Government with
the goals established for sustainable procurement set under Executive
Order 13514. As additional biobased products become available for
Federal procurement, Government
[[Page 929]]
Agencies will have increased opportunities to buy and use these
products.
This rulemaking was determined to be significant for the purposes
of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), and was
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. It will not have an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more and will not
result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic
regions.
Risks: After receiving public comment on the proposed rule USDA has
determined the new rule poses no significant risks nor will it
negatively impact Indian tribal governments or their members.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/01/12 77 FR 25632
NPRM Comment Period End............. 07/02/12 .......................
Final Action........................ 04/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Ron Buckhalt, Manager, BioPreferred Program, Office
of Procurement and Property Management, Department of Agriculture,
Office of Procurement and Property Management, 361 Reporters Building,
300 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 205-4008, Fax: 202
720-8972, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0599-AA18
BILLING CODE 3410-90-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
Established in 1903, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) is one
of the oldest Cabinet-level agencies in the Federal Government.
Commerce's mission is to create the conditions for economic growth and
opportunity by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, competitiveness,
and environmental stewardship. Commerce has 12 operating units, which
are responsible for managing a diverse portfolio of programs and
services, ranging from trade promotion and economic development
assistance to broadband and the National Weather Service.
Commerce touches Americans daily, in many ways--making possible the
daily weather reports and survey research; facilitating technology that
all of us use in the workplace and in the home each day; supporting the
development, gathering, and transmission of information essential to
competitive business; enabling the diversity of companies and goods
found in America's and the world's marketplace; and supporting
environmental and economic health for the communities in which
Americans live.
Commerce has a clear and compelling vision for itself, for its role
in the Federal Government, and for its roles supporting the American
people, now and in the future. To achieve this vision, Commerce works
in partnership with businesses, universities, communities, and workers
to:
Innovate by creating new ideas through cutting-edge
science and technology from advances in nanotechnology, to ocean
exploration, to broadband deployment, and by protecting American
innovations through the patent and trademark system;
Support entrepreneurship and commercialization by enabling
community development and strengthening minority businesses and small
manufacturers;
Maintain U.S. economic competitiveness in the global
marketplace by promoting exports, ensuring a level playing field for
U.S. businesses, and ensuring that technology transfer is consistent
with our nation's economic and security interests;
Provide effective management and stewardship of our
nation's resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic
opportunities; and
Make informed policy decisions and enable better
understanding of the economy by providing accurate economic and
demographic data.
Commerce is a vital resource base, a tireless advocate, and
Cabinet-level voice for job creation.
The Regulatory Plan tracks the most important regulations that
implement these policy and program priorities, several of which involve
regulation of the private sector by Commerce.
Responding to the Administration's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles
The vast majority of the Commerce's programs and activities do not
involve regulation. Of Commerce's 12 primary operating units, only the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will be planning
actions that are considered the ``most important'' significant
preregulatory or regulatory actions for FY 2013. During the next year,
NOAA plans to publish six rulemaking actions that are designated as
Regulatory Plan actions. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) will
also publish rulemaking actions designated as Regulatory Plan actions.
Further information on these actions is provided below.
Commerce has a long-standing policy to prohibit the issuance of any
regulation that discriminates on the basis of race, religion, gender,
or any other suspect category and requires that all regulations be
written so as to be understandable to those affected by them. The
Secretary also requires that Commerce afford the public the maximum
possible opportunity to participate in Departmental rulemakings, even
where public participation is not required by law.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAA establishes and administers Federal policy for the
conservation and management of the Nation's oceanic, coastal, and
atmospheric resources. It provides a variety of essential environmental
and climate services vital to public safety and to the Nation's
economy, such as weather forecasts, drought forecasts, and storm
warnings. It is a source of objective information on the state of the
environment. NOAA plays the lead role in achieving Commerce's goal of
promoting stewardship by providing assessments of the global
environment.
Recognizing that economic growth must go hand-in-hand with
environmental stewardship, Commerce, through NOAA, conducts programs
designed to provide a better understanding of the connections between
environmental health, economics, and national security. Commerce's
emphasis on ``sustainable fisheries'' is designed to boost long-term
economic growth in a vital sector of the U.S. economy while conserving
the resources in the public trust and minimizing any economic
dislocation necessary to ensure long-term economic growth. Commerce is
where business and environmental interests intersect, and the classic
debate on the use of natural resources is transformed into a ``win-
win'' situation for the environment and the economy.
Three of NOAA's major components, the National Marine Fisheries
Services (NMFS), the National Ocean Service (NOS), and the National
Environmental
[[Page 930]]
Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), exercise regulatory
authority.
NMFS oversees the management and conservation of the Nation's
marine fisheries, protects threatened and endangered marine and
anadromous species and marine mammals, and promotes economic
development of the U.S. fishing industry. NOS assists the coastal
States in their management of land and ocean resources in their coastal
zones, including estuarine research reserves; manages the national
marine sanctuaries; monitors marine pollution; and directs the national
program for deep-seabed minerals and ocean thermal energy. NESDIS
administers the civilian weather satellite program and licenses private
organizations to operate commercial land-remote sensing satellite
systems.
Commerce, through NOAA, has a unique role in promoting stewardship
of the global environment through effective management of the Nation's
marine and coastal resources and in monitoring and predicting changes
in the Earth's environment, thus linking trade, development, and
technology with environmental issues. NOAA has the primary Federal
responsibility for providing sound scientific observations,
assessments, and forecasts of environmental phenomena on which resource
management, adaptation, and other societal decisions can be made.
In the environmental stewardship area, NOAA's goals include:
Rebuilding and maintaining strong U.S. fisheries by using market-based
tools and ecosystem approaches to management; increasing the
populations of depleted, threatened, or endangered species and marine
mammals by implementing recovery plans that provide for their recovery
while still allowing for economic and recreational opportunities;
promoting healthy coastal ecosystems by ensuring that economic
development is managed in ways that maintain biodiversity and long-term
productivity for sustained use; and modernizing navigation and
positioning services. In the environmental assessment and prediction
area, goals include: Understanding climate change science and impacts,
and communicating that understanding to Government and private sector
stakeholders enabling them to adapt; continually improving the National
Weather Service; implementing reliable seasonal and interannual climate
forecasts to guide economic planning; providing science-based policy
advice on options to deal with very long-term (decadal to centennial)
changes in the environment; and advancing and improving short-term
warning and forecast services for the entire environment.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) rulemakings concern the conservation and management of
fishery resources in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (generally 3-200
nautical miles). Among the several hundred rulemakings that NOAA plans
to issue in FY 2013, a number of the preregulatory and regulatory
actions will be significant. The exact number of such rulemakings is
unknown, since they are usually initiated by the actions of eight
regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) that are responsible for
preparing fishery management plans (FMPs) and FMP amendments, and for
drafting implementing regulations for each managed fishery. NOAA issues
regulations to implement FMPs and FMP amendments. Once a rulemaking is
triggered by an FMC, the Magnuson-Stevens Act places stringent
deadlines upon NOAA by which it must exercise its rulemaking
responsibilities. FMPs and FMP amendments for Atlantic highly migratory
species, such as bluefin tuna, swordfish, and sharks, are developed
directly by NOAA, not by FMCs.
FMPs address a variety of issues including maximizing fishing
opportunities on healthy stocks, rebuilding overfished stocks, and
addressing gear conflicts. One of the problems that FMPs may address is
preventing overcapitalization (preventing excess fishing capacity) of
fisheries. This may be resolved by market-based systems such as catch
shares, which permit shareholders to harvest a quantity of fish and
which can be traded on the open market. Harvest limits based on the
best available scientific information, whether as a total fishing limit
for a species in a fishery or as a share assigned to each vessel
participant, enable stressed stocks to rebuild. Other measures include
staggering fishing seasons or limiting gear types to avoid gear
conflicts on the fishing grounds and establishing seasonal and area
closures to protect fishery stocks.
The FMCs provide a forum for public debate and, using the best
scientific information available, make the judgments needed to
determine optimum yield on a fishery-by-fishery basis. Optional
management measures are examined and selected in accordance with the
national standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This process,
including the selection of the preferred management measures,
constitutes the development, in simplified form, of an FMP. The FMP,
together with draft implementing regulations and supporting
documentation, is submitted to NMFS for review against the national
standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in other provisions of
the Act, and other applicable laws. The same process applies to
amending an existing approved FMP.
Marine Mammal Protection Act
The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) provides the
authority for the conservation and management of marine mammals under
U.S. jurisdiction. It expressly prohibits, with certain exceptions, the
take of marine mammals. The MMPA allows NMFS to permit the collection
of wild animals for scientific research or public display or to enhance
the survival of a species or stock. NMFS initiates rulemakings under
the MMPA to establish a management regime to reduce marine mammal
mortalities and injuries as a result of interactions with fisheries.
The MMPA also established the Marine Mammal Commission, which makes
recommendations to the Secretaries of the Departments of Commerce and
the Interior and other Federal officials on protecting and conserving
marine mammals. The Act underwent significant changes in 1994 to allow
for takings incidental to commercial fishing operations, to provide
certain exemptions for subsistence and scientific uses, and to require
the preparation of stock assessments for all marine mammal stocks in
waters under U.S. jurisdiction.
Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) provides for the
conservation of species that are determined to be ``endangered'' or
``threatened,'' and the conservation of the ecosystems on which these
species depend. The ESA authorizes both NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) to jointly administer the provisions of the MMPA. NMFS
manages marine and ``anadromous'' species, and FWS manages land and
freshwater species. Together, NMFS and FWS work to protect critically
imperiled species from extinction. Of the 1,310 listed species found in
part or entirely in the United States and its waters, NMFS has
jurisdiction over approximately 60 species. NMFS' rulemaking actions
are focused on determining whether any species under its responsibility
is an endangered or threatened species and
[[Page 931]]
whether those species must be added to the list of protected species.
NMFS is also responsible for designating, reviewing, and revising
critical habitat for any listed species. In addition, under the ESA's
procedural framework, Federal agencies consult with NMFS on any
proposed action authorized, funded, or carried out by that agency that
may affect one of the listed species or designated critical habitat, or
is likely to jeopardize proposed species or adversely modify proposed
critical habitat that is under NMFS' jurisdiction.
NOAA's Regulatory Plan Actions
While most of the rulemakings undertaken by NOAA do not rise to the
level necessary to be included in Commerce's regulatory plan, NMFS is
undertaking three 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. The three actions implement provisions of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as
reauthorized in 2006. The first action may be of particular interest to
international trading partners as it concerns the Certification of
Nations Whose Fishing Vessels are Engaged in Illegal, Unreported, and
Unregulated Fishing or Bycatch of Protected Living Marine Resources. A
description of the four regulatory plan actions is provided below.
1. Fishery Management Plan for Regulating Offshore Marine
Aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico (0648-AS65): In January, 2009, the
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council approved the Aquaculture
Fishery Management Plan, which authorizes NMFS to issue permits to
culture species managed by the Council (except shrimp and corals). This
was the first time a regional Fishery Management Council approved a
comprehensive regulatory program for offshore aquaculture in U.S.
Federal waters. On September 3, 2009, the Aquaculture Fishery
Management Plan entered into effect. On June 9, 2011, NOAA released the
final National Aquaculture Policy and announced that the Agency will
move forward with the rulemaking to implement the Aquaculture Fishery
Management Plan.
2. Proposed Rule to Designate Critical Habitat for North Atlantic
Right Whale (0648-AY54): In 1994, NMFS designated critical habitat for
the northern right whale in the North Atlantic Ocean. This critical
habitat designation includes portions of Cape Cod Bay and Stellwagen
Bank, the Great South Channel, and waters adjacent to the coasts of
Georgia and Florida. In 2008, we listed North Atlantic and North
Pacific right whales as separate species under the ESA. This action
will fulfill the ESA requirement of designating critical habitat
following final listing determinations.
3. Final Rule to Designate Critical Habitat for the Hawaiian Monk
Seal (0648-BA81): NOAA Fisheries is developing a final rule to
designate critical habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal in the main and
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In response to a 2008 petition from the
Center for Biological Diversity, Kahea, and the Ocean Conservancy to
revise Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, NOAA Fisheries published a
proposed rule in June 2011 to revise Hawaiian monk seal critical
habitat by adding critical habitat in the main Hawaiian Islands and
extending critical habitat in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
Proposed critical habitat includes both marine and terrestrial habitats
(e.g., foraging areas to 500 meter depth, pupping beaches, etc.). To
address public comments on the proposed rule, NOAA Fisheries is
augmenting its prior economic analysis to better describe the
anticipated costs of the designation. NOAA Fisheries is analyzing new
tracking data to assess monk seal habitat use in the main Hawaiian
Islands. That may lead to some reduction in foraging area critical
habitat for the main Hawaiian Islands to better reflect where preferred
foraging features may be found.
4. Proposed Rule to List Critical Habitat for Arctic Ringed Seals
(0648-BC56): NOAA Fisheries published a final rule to list the Arctic
ringed seal as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) in December 2012. This rulemaking would designate critical
habitat for the Arctic ringed seal. The proposed critical habitat
designation would be in the northern Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas
within the current range of the species.
5. Proposed Rule to List Critical Habitat for Beringia Distinct
Population of Bearded Seals (0648-BC55): NOAA Fisheries published a
final rule to list the Beringia Distinct Population Segment of the
bearded seal as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) in December 2012. This rulemaking would designate critical
habitat for the Beringia distinct population segment of the bearded
seal. The proposed critical habitat designation would be in the
northern Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas within the current range of
the species.
6. Final Rule for the Removal of the Sunset Provision of the Final
Rule Implementing Vessel Speed Restrictions to Reduce the Threat of
Ship Collisions With North Atlantic Right Whales (0648-BB20): In 2008
NOAA Fisheries promulgated a regulation designed to reduce the
likelihood of deaths and serious injuries to endangered North Atlantic
right whales that result from collisions with ships. The rule
implemented speed restrictions of no more than 10 knots applying to all
vessels 65 ft long or greater in certain locations and times of the
year along the east coast of the U.S. In view of uncertainties
regarding the manner in which ships and whales interact and the burdens
imposed on vessel operators, the rule included a sunset clause under
which the rule would expire on December 9, 2013. NOAA Fisheries has
proposed removing the sunset provision with the current restrictions
remaining in place eliminating or reinstating the sunset provision,
studies and metrics that might be used to evaluate the existing rule,
and future modifications that should be considered.
At this time, NOAA is unable to determine the aggregate cost of the
identified Regulatory Plan actions as several of these actions are
currently under development.
Bureau of Industry and Security
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) advances U.S. national
security, foreign policy, and economic objectives by maintaining and
strengthening 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.
In August 2009, the President directed a broad-based interagency
review of the U.S. export control system with the goal of strengthening
national security and the competitiveness of key U.S. manufacturing and
technology sectors by focusing on the current threats and adapting to
the changing economic and technological landscape. In August 2010, the
President outlined an approach under which agencies that administer
export controls will apply new criteria for determining what items need
to be controlled and a common set of policies for determining when an
export license is required. The control list criteria are to be based
on transparent rules, which will reduce the uncertainty faced by our
Allies, U.S. industry and its foreign customers, and will allow the
Government to erect higher walls around the most sensitive
[[Page 932]]
export items in order to enhance national security.
Under the President's approach, agencies will apply the criteria
and revise the lists of munitions and dual-use items that are
controlled for export so that they:
Distinguish the types of items that should be subject to stricter or
more permissive levels of control for different destinations, end-uses,
and end-users;
Create a ``bright line'' between the two current control lists to
clarify jurisdictional determinations and reduce Government and
industry uncertainty about whether particular items are subject to the
control of the State Department or the Commerce Department; and
Are structurally aligned so that they potentially can be combined into
a single list of controlled items.
BIS' current regulatory plan action is designed to implement the
initial phase of the President's directive, which will add to BIS'
export control purview, military related items that the President
determines no longer warrant control under rules administered by the
State Department.
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 participation of U.S. persons in certain boycotts
administered by foreign Governments. The National Defense Industrial
Base Regulations provide for prioritization of certain contracts and
allocations of resources to promote the national defense, require
reporting of foreign Government-imposed offsets in defense sales, and
address the effect of imports on the defense industrial base. The
Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations implement declaration,
reporting, and on-site inspection requirements in the private sector
necessary to meet United States treaty obligations under 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 eight field offices in
the United States. BIS export control officers are also stationed at
several U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. BIS works with other U.S.
Government agencies to promote coordinated U.S. Government efforts in
export controls and other programs. BIS participates in U.S. Government
efforts to strengthen multilateral export control regimes and to
promote effective export controls through cooperation with other
Governments.
BIS' Regulatory Plan Actions
As the agency responsible for leading the administration and
enforcement of U.S. export controls on dual-use and other items
warranting controls but not under the provisions of export control
regulations administered by other departments, BIS plays a central role
in the Administration's efforts to fundamentally reform the export
control system. Changing what we control, how we control it and how we
enforce and manage our controls will help strengthen our national
security by focusing our efforts on controlling the most critical
products and technologies, and by enhancing the competitiveness of key
U.S. manufacturing and technology sectors.
In FY 2011, BIS took several steps to implement the President's
Export Control Reform Initiative (ECRI). BIS published a final rule (76
FR 35275, June 16, 2011) implementing a license exception that
authorizes exports, reexports and transfers to destinations that do not
pose a national security concern, provided certain safeguards against
diversion to other destinations are taken. BIS also proposed several
rules to control under the EAR items that the President has determined
do not warrant control under the International Traffic in Arms
Regulations (ITAR), administered by the Department of State rule (76 FR
41957), and its United States Munitions List (USML).
In FY 2012, BIS followed up on its FY 2011 successes with the ECRI
and proposed rules that would move items currently controlled in nine
categories of the USML to control under the Commerce Control List
(CCL), administered by BIS. In addition, BIS proposed a rule to ease
the implementation process for transitioning items and re-proposed a
revised key definition from the July 15 Rule, ``specially designed,''
that had received extensive public comment. In FY 2013, after State
Department notification to Congress of the transfer of items from the
USML, BIS expects to be able to publish a final rule incorporating many
of the proposed changes and revisions based on public responses to the
proposals.
In FY 2013, BIS activities crossed an important milestone with
publication of two final rules that began to put ECRI policies into
place. An Initial Implementation rule (73 FR 22660, April 16, 2013)
sets in place the structure under which items the President determines
no longer warrant control on the United States Munitions List will be
controlled on the Commerce Control List. It also revises license
exceptions and regulatory definitions, including the definition of
``specially designed'' to more make those exceptions and definitions
clearer and to more close align them with the International Traffic in
Arms Regulations, and adds to the CCL certain military aircraft, gas
turbine engines and related items. A second final rule (78 FR 40892,
July 8, 2012) followed on by adding to the CCL military vehicles,
vessels of war submersible vessels, and auxiliary military equipment
that President determined no longer warrant control on the USML. BIS
expects to publish additional ECRI final rules in FY 2014.
Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
As the President noted in Executive Order 13609, ``international
regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives
and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting'' public
health, welfare, safety, and our environment as well as economic
growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. Accordingly, in
EO 13609, the President requires each executive agency to include in
its Regulatory Plan a summary of its international regulatory
cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to
significant regulations.
The Department of Commerce engages with numerous international
bodies in various forums to promote the Department's priorities and
foster regulations that do not ``impair the ability of American
business to export and compete internationally.'' EO 13609(a). For
example, the United States Patent and Trademark Office is working with
the European Patent Office to develop a new classification system for
both offices' use. The Bureau of Industry and Security, along with the
Department of State and Department of Defense, engages with other
countries in the Wassenaar Arrangement, through which the international
community develops a common list of items that should be subject to
export controls because they are conventional arms or items that have
both military and civil uses. Other multilateral export control regimes
include the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers
Group, and the Australia Group, which lists
[[Page 933]]
items controlled for chemical and biological weapon nonproliferation
purposes. In addition, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration works with other countries' regulatory bodies through
regional fishery management organizations to develop fair and
internationally-agreed-to fishery standards for the High Seas.
BIS is also engaged, in partnership with the Departments of State
and Defense, in revising the regulatory framework for export control,
through the President's Export Control Reform Initiative (ECRI).
Through this effort, the United States Government is moving certain
items currently controlled by the United States Military List (USML) to
the Commerce Control List (CCL) in BIS' Export Administration
Regulations. The objective of ECRI is to improve interoperability of
U.S. military forces with those of allied countries, strengthen the
U.S. industrial base by, among other things, reducing incentives for
foreign manufacturers to design out and avoid U.S.-origin content and
services, and allow export control officials to focus Government
resources on transactions that pose greater concern. This effort may be
accomplished by as early as 2013, when the final rules are published.
Once fully implemented, the new export control framework also will
benefit companies in the United States seeking to export items through
more flexible and less burdensome export controls.
Some specific domestic regulatory actions that have resulted from
the Department's international regulatory cooperation efforts include
the rule on Identification and Certification of Fishing Vessels Engaged
in Illegal, Unreported, or Unregulated Fishing or Bycatch of Protected
Living Marine Resources (0648-AV51, 76 FR 2011); the Amendments to
Implement the Shark Conservation Act and Revise the Definition of
Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing (0648-BA89); and the
proposed rule to comply with the 2010 Shark Conservation Provisions and
Other Regulations in the Atlantic Smoothhound Shark Fishery (0648-
BB02).
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final
retrospective review of regulations plan. Accordingly, the Agency is
reviewing these rules to determine whether action under E.O. 13563 is
appropriate. Some of these entries on this list may be completed
actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. However, more
information can be found about these completed rulemakings in past
publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the Completed
Actions section for the Agency. These rulemakings can also be found on
Regulations.gov. The final Agency retrospective analysis plan can be
found at: http://open.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/Commerce%20Plan%20for%20Retrospective%20Analysis%20of%20Existing%20Rules%20-%202011-08-22%20Final.pdf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected to significantly
RIN Title reduce burdens on small
businesses?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0648-XC164............. Final Rule
Implementing a
Targeted Acadian
Redfish Fishery
for Sector
Vessels.
0648-BC50.............. Exempted Fishery
for the Spiny
Dogfish Fishery
in the Waters
East and West of
Cape Cod, MA.
0648-BC25.............. Regulatory Yes.
amendment to
revise
requirements for
the annual Crab
Economic Data
Reports under
the Bering Sea
and Aleutian
Islands Crab
Rationalization
Program.
0648-BA93.............. Regulatory
amendment to
modify the
Groundfish
Retention
Standard Program.
0648-BB79.............. Proposed Rule to ............................
Implement
Changes to the
Regulations for
Designating
Critical Habitat
under the
Endangered
Species Act.
0648-BB80.............. Proposed Rule to ............................
Amend the
Definition of
Destruction or
Adverse
Modification of
Critical Habitat
under the
Endangered
Species Act.
0648-BB81.............. Proposed Rule to ............................
Amend the
Regulations
Governing the
Issuance of
Incidental Take
Statements under
Section 7 of the
Endangered
Species Act.
0648-BC24.............. Final Rule to ............................
Revise
Regulations for
Conducting
Impact Analyses
for Critical
Habitat
Designations
under the
Endangered
Species Act.
0694-AF03.............. Export Control
Reform
Initiative:
Strategic Trade
Authorization
License
Exception.
0694-AF17.............. Proposed Revision ............................
to the Export
Administration
Regulations:
Control of Items
the President
Determines No
Longer Warrant
Control Under
the United
States Munitions
List.
0694-AF36.............. Proposed Revision ............................
to the Export
Administration
Regulations:
Control of
Aircraft and
Related Items
the President
Determines No
Longer Warrant
Control Under
the United
States Munitions
List.
0694-AF41.............. Revisions to the ............................
Export
Administration
Regulations:
Control of Gas
Turbine Engines
and Related
Items the
President
Determines No
Longer Warrant
Control Under
the United
States Munitions
List.
0694-AF17.............. Revisions to the ............................
Export
Administration
Regulations:
Control of
Military
Vehicles and
Related Items
the President
Determines No
Longer Warrant
Control Under
the United
States Munitions
List.
0694-AF42.............. Revisions to the ............................
Export
Administration
Regulations:
Control of
Vessels of War
and Related
Articles the
President
Determines No
Longer Warrant
Control Under
the United
States Munitions
List.
0694-AF39.............. Revisions to the ............................
Export
Administration
Regulations:
Control of
Submersible
Vessels,
Oceanographic
Equipment and
Related Articles
the President
Determines No
Longer Warrant
Control Under
the United
States Munitions
List.
0694-AF17.............. Revisions to the ............................
Export
Administration
Regulations:
Export Control
Classification
Number 0Y521
Series, Items
Not Elsewhere
Listed on the
Commerce Control
List (CCL).
0694-AF53.............. Revisions to the ............................
Export
Administration
Regulations:
Control of
Energetic
Materials and
Related Articles
the President
Determines No
Longer Warrant
Control Under
the United
States Munitions
List.
0694-AF51.............. Revisions to the ............................
Export
Administration
Regulations:
Auxiliary and
Miscellaneous
Items that No
Longer Warrant
Control Under
the United
States Munitions
List and Items
on the Wassenaar
Arrangement
Munitions List.
0694-AF58.............. Revisions to the ............................
Export
Administration
Regulations:
Control of
Personal
Protective
Equipment,
Shelters, and
Related Items
the President
Determines No
Longer Warrant
Control Under
the United
States Munitions
List.
[[Page 934]]
0694-AF54.............. Revisions to the ............................
Export
Administration
Regulations:
Control of
Military
Training
Equipment and
Related Articles
the President
Determines No
Longer Warrant
Control Under
the United
States Munitions
List.
0694-AF66.............. ``Specially
Designed''
Definition.
0694-AF68.............. Feasibility of
Enumerating
``Specially
Designed''
Components.
0694-AF65.............. Proposed ............................
Revisions to the
Export
Administration
Regulations:
Implementation
of Export
Control Reform;
Revisions to
License
Exceptions After
Retrospective
Regulatory
Review.
0694-AF47.............. 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.
0694-AF48.............. Revisions to the ............................
Export
Administration
Regulations:
Control of Guns
and Armament and
Related Articles
the President
Determines No
Longer Warrant
Control Under
the United
States Munitions
List.
0694-AF49.............. Revisions to the ............................
Export
Administration
Regulations:
Control of
Ammunition and
Ordnance the
President
Determines No
Longer Warrant
Control Under
the United
States Munitions
List.
0694-AF64.............. Revisions to the ............................
Export
Administration
Regulations:
Control of
Military
Electronic
Equipment and
Related Items
the President
Determines No
Longer Warrant
Control Under
the United
States Munitions
List.
0694-AF37.............. Revisions to the ............................
Export
Administration
Regulations
(EAR) to Make
the Commerce
Control List
(CCL) Clearer.
0694-AF56.............. EAR Revision: ............................
Items Related to
Launch Vehicles,
Missiles,
Rockets, and
Military
Explosive
Devices the
President
Determines No
Longer Warrant
Control Under
the United
States Munitions
List.
0694-AF60.............. Amendment to Yes.
Licensing
Requirements for
Exports to
Canada of
Shotguns,
Shotgun Shells
and Optical
Sighting Devices
under the Export
Administration
Regulations.
0694-AF65.............. Revisions to the
Export
Administration
Regulations:
Initial
Implementation
of Export
Control Reform.
0694-AF87.............. Export ............................
Administration
Regulations:
Control of
Spacecraft
Systems and
Related Items
the President
Determines No
Longer Warrant
Control Under
the United
States Munitions
List.
0651-AC82.............. Reduction of Fees
for Trademark
Applications.
0651-AC54.............. Setting and
Adjusting Patent
Fees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 3410-12-P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Background
The Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest Federal department
consisting of three Military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force),
nine Unified Combatant Commands, 17 Defense Agencies, and ten DoD Field
Activities. It has 1,412,674 military personnel and 886,975 civilians
assigned as of June 30, 2013, and over 200 large and medium
installations in the continental United States, U.S. territories, and
foreign countries. The overall size, composition, and dispersion of
DoD, coupled with an innovative regulatory program, presents a
challenge to the management of the Defense regulatory efforts under
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' of
September 30, 1993.
Because of its diversified nature, DoD is affected by the
regulations issued by regulatory agencies such as the Departments of
Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development,
Labor, Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency. In
order to develop the best possible regulations that embody the
principles and objectives embedded in E.O. 12866, there must be
coordination of proposed regulations among the regulatory agencies and
the affected DoD components. Coordinating the proposed regulations in
advance throughout an organization as large as DoD is a
straightforward, yet formidable undertaking.
DoD issues regulations that have an effect on the public and can be
significant as defined in E.O. 12866. In addition, some of DoD's
regulations may affect other agencies. DoD, as an integral part of its
program, not only receives coordinating actions from other agencies,
but coordinates with the agencies that are affected by its regulations
as well.
International Regulatory Cooperation
As the President noted in Executive Order 13609, ``international
regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives
and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting'' public
health, welfare, safety, and our environment as well as economic
growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. Accordingly, in
EO 13609, the President requires each executive agency to include in
its Regulatory Plan a summary of its international regulatory
cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to
significant regulations.
The Department of Defense, along with the Department of State and
Department of Commerce, engages with other countries in the Wassenaar
Arrangement, through which the international community develops a
common list of items that should be subject to export controls.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the following
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final
retrospective review of regulations plan. All are of particular
interest to small businesses. Some of these entries on this list may be
completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. However,
more information can be found about these completed rulemakings in past
publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the Completed
Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can also be found on
Regulations.gov. The final agency plans can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/exchange/topic/eo-13563.
[[Page 935]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Title
(*expected to
RIN significantly reduce
burdens on small
businesses)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0701-AA76......................................... Air Force Freedom of
Information Act
Program.
0701-AA77......................................... Air Force Privacy
Act Program.
0703-AA87......................................... United States Navy
Regulations and
Official Records.
0703-AA90......................................... Guidelines for
Archaeological
Investigation
Permits and Other
Research on Sunken
Military Craft and
Terrestrial
Military Craft
Under the
Jurisdiction of the
Department of the
Navy.
0703-AA91......................................... Unofficial Use of
the Seal, Emblem,
Names, or Initials
of the Marine
Corps.
0703-AA92......................................... Professional Conduct
of Attorneys
Practicing Under
the Cognizance and
Supervision of the
Judge Advocate
General.
0750-AG47......................................... Safeguarding
Unclassified
Controlled
Technical
Information (DFARS
Case 2011-D039).
0750-AG62......................................... Patents, Data, and
Copyrights (DFARS
Case 2010-D001).
0750-AH11......................................... Only One Offer--
Further
Implementation
(DFARS Case 2013-
D001).
0750-AH54......................................... Performance-Based
Payments (DFARS
Case 2011-D045).
0750-AH86......................................... Forward Pricing Rate
Proposal Adequacy
Checklist (DFARS
Case 2012-D035).
0750-AI03......................................... Approval of Rental
Waiver Requests
(DFARS Case 2013-
D006).
0790-AI24......................................... DoD Freedom of
Information Act
(FOIA) Program
Regulation.
0790-AI30......................................... Defense Contract
Management Agency
(DCMA) Privacy
Program.
0790-AI42......................................... Personnel Security
Program.
0790-AI51......................................... DoD Freedom of
Information Act
(FOIA) Program;
Amendment.
0790-AI63......................................... Alternative Dispute
Resolution.
0790-AI71......................................... National Industrial
Security Program
(NISP): Procedures
for Government
Activities.Relating
to Foreign
Ownership, Control
or Influence
(FOCI).
0790-AI73......................................... Withholding of
Unclassified
Technical Data from
Public Disclosure.
0790-AI75......................................... Presentation of DoD-
Related Scientific
and Technical
Papers at Meetings.
0790-AI77......................................... Provision of Early
Intervention and
Special Education
Services to
Eligible DoD
Dependents.
0790-AI80......................................... National Industrial
Security Program:
Industrial Security
Procedures for
Government
Activities.
0790-AI84......................................... National Defense
Science and
Engineering
Graduate (NDSEG)
Fellowships.
0790-AI87......................................... Defense Logistics
Agency Freedom of
Information Act
Program.
0790-AI88......................................... Shelter for the
Homeless.
0790-AI92......................................... Inspector General;
Privacy Act;
Implementation.
0790-AJ03......................................... DoD Privacy Program.
0790-AJ04......................................... Unlawful
Discrimination (On
the Basis of Race,
Color, National
Origin, or Age in
Programs or
Activities
Receiving Federal
Financial
Assistance From the
DoD).
0790-AJ05......................................... End Use Certificates
(EUCs).
0790-AJ06......................................... Voluntary Education
Programs.
0790-AJ07......................................... Historical Research
in the Files of the
Office of the
Secretary of
Defense (OSD).
0790-AJ10......................................... Enhancement of
Protections on
Consumer Credit for
Members of the
Armed Forces and
Their Dependents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPLETED RULES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0710-AA66......................................... Civil Monetary
Penalty Inflation
Adjustment Rule.
0710-AA60......................................... Nationwide Permit
Program Regulations
*.
0750-AH19......................................... Accelerated Payments
to Small Business
(DFARS Case 2011-
D008).
0750-AH70......................................... Defense Trade
Cooperation Treaty
With Australia and
the United Kingdom
(DFARS Case 2012-
D034).
0750-AH87......................................... System for Award
Management Name
Changes, Phase 1
Implementation
(DFARS Case 2012-
D053).
0790-AI54......................................... Defense Support of
Civilian Law
Enforcement
Agencies.
0790-AI86......................................... Defense Logistics
Agency Privacy
Program.
DoD also removed 32
CFR part 513,
``Indebtedness of
Military
Personnel,''
because the part is
obsolete and the
governing policy is
now codified at 32
CFR part 112.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration Priorities
1. Rulemakings That Are Expected To Have High Net Benefits Well In
Excess Of Costs
The Department plans to--
Finalize the rule to implement section 806 of the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011), as amended
by section 806 of the NDAA for FY 2013. Section 806 requires the
evaluation of offeror's supply chain risks for information technology
purchases relating to national security systems. This rule enables
agencies to exclude sources that are identified as having a supply
chain risk in order to minimize the potential risk for purchased
supplies and services to maliciously introduce unwanted functions and
degrade the integrity and operation of sensitive information technology
systems.
Revise the DFARS to improve awareness, compliance, and
enforcement of DoD policies on combating trafficking in persons. The
rule will further improve stability, productivity, and certainty in the
contingency operations that DoD supports and ensure that DoD
contractors do not benefit from the use of coerced labor.
Finalize the rule to implement section 818 of the NDAA for
FY 2012 relating to the detection and avoidance of counterfeit parts.
The rule would address contractor responsibilities for detecting and
avoiding the use or inclusion of counterfeit electronic parts or
suspect counterfeit electronic parts, the use of trusted suppliers, and
requirements for contractors to report counterfeit electronic parts and
suspect counterfeit electronic parts. The rule seeks to preclude the
introduction of counterfeit material that could compromise DoD weapon
and information systems.
2. Rulemakings of Particular Interest to Small Businesses
The Department plans to--
[[Page 936]]
Revise the DFARS to implement new prescriptions and clause
formats for part 219, Small Business Programs, clauses with alternates.
This proposed rule, with its unique prescriptions for the basic version
and each alternate for solicitation provisions and clauses, will
facilitate the use of automated contract writing systems. The inclusion
of the full text of the alternate clause in the regulation should make
the terms of the alternate clearer to the offerors and contractors by
clarifying paragraph substitutions. As a result, inapplicable
paragraphs from the basic clause that are superseded by the alternate
will not be included in solicitations or contracts, reducing the
potential for confusion.
Finalize the DFARS rule to delete text in DFARS Part 219
that implemented 10 U.S.C. 2323 because 10 U.S.C. 2323 has expired.
Removal of the obsolete implementing coverage for 10 U.S.C. 2323 will
bring DFARS up to date and provide accurate and indisputable
regulations affecting the small business and vendor communities.
3. Rulemakings That Streamline Regulations, Reduce Unjustified Burdens,
and Minimize Burdens on Small Businesses
The Department plans to--
Finalize the rule for DFARS to implement section 803 of
the NDAA for FY 2011 to allow a covered litigation support contractor
access to technical, proprietary, or confidential data for the sole
purpose of providing litigation support.
Revise the DFARS to standardize solicitation provisions
and contract clauses relating to information technology Cloud Services.
Revise the DFARS to reduce the frequency of submission of
subcontracting reports.
4. Rules To Be Modified, Streamlined, Expanded, or Repealed to Make The
Agency's Regulatory Program More Effective or Less Burdensome In
Achieving The Regulatory Objectives.
DFARS Cases 2012-D057, 2013-D005, 2013-D014, 2013-D025;
and 2013-D026;--Propose a new convention for prescribing clauses with
alternates to provide alternate clauses in full text. This will
facilitate selection of alternate clauses using automated contract
writing systems. The inclusion of the full text of the alternate
clauses in the regulation for use in solicitations and contracts should
make the terms of the alternate clauses clearer to offerors and
contractors by clarifying paragraph substitutions. As a result,
inapplicable paragraphs from the basic clause that are superseded by
the alternate will not be included in solicitations or contracts,
reducing the potential for confusion.
DFARS Case 2013-D037--removes redundant DFARS coverage on
contractors performing private security functions under a contract that
requires performance during contingency operations, in an area of
combat operations, or in an area of other significant military
operations. These requirements have been incorporated into the FAR, so
the DFARS coverage is no longer required.
DFARS 2013-D033--deletes unnecessary text from the DFARS
to increase clarity of the proposal adequacy checklist. Item 19 on the
checklist is being deleted as it overlaps and duplicates other
information addressed by other items on the checklist.
Specific DoD Priorities
For this regulatory plan, there are six specific DoD priorities,
all of which reflect the established regulatory principles. DoD has
focused its regulatory resources on the most serious environmental,
health, and safety risks. Perhaps most significant is that each of the
priorities described below promulgates regulations to offset the
resource impacts of Federal decisions on the public or to improve the
quality of public life, such as those regulations concerning
acquisition, security, energy projects, education, and health affairs.
1. Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy
The Department of Defense continuously reviews the DFARS and
continues to lead Government efforts to--
Revise the DFARS to provide detailed guidance and
instruction to DoD contracting officers for the use of DoD's
performance based payments analysis tool when contemplating the use of
performance based payments on new fixed-price type contracts.
Revise the DFARS to improve information security controls
by addressing the requirements for safeguarding unclassified controlled
technical information. This rule implements security measures to
safeguard unclassified DoD information within contractor information
systems from unauthorized access and disclosure and to prescribe
reporting to DoD certain cyber intrusion events that affect DoD
information resident on or transiting through contractor unclassified
information systems.
2. Logistics and Material Readiness, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense plans to finalize a rule on contractors
supporting the military in contingency operations:
Final Rule: Operational Contract Support. This rule
incorporates the latest changes and lessons learned into policy and
procedures for operational contract support (OCS), including OCS
program management, contract support integration, and the integration
of DoD contractor personnel into contingency operations outside the
United States. It was required to procedurally close gaps and ensure
the correct planning, oversight and management of DoD contractors
supporting contingency operations, by updating outdated policy. DoD
published an interim final rule on December 29, 2011 (32 CFR part 158,
76 FR 81807-81825) The final rule is expected to be published the first
quarter of FY 2014.
3. Installations and Environment, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense plans to finalize a rule regarding the
process for evaluating the impact of certain types of structures on
military operations and readiness:
Final Rule: Mission Compatibility Evaluation Process. This
rule implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes
procedures for the establishment and operation of a process for
evaluation of proposed projects submitted to the Secretary of
Transportation under section 44718 of title 49, United States Code. The
evaluation process is established for the purpose of identifying any
adverse impact of proposed projects on military operations and
readiness, minimizing or mitigating such adverse impacts, and
determining if any such projects pose an unacceptable risk to the
national security of the United States. The rule also includes
procedures for the operation of a central DoD siting clearinghouse to
facilitate both informal and formal reviews of proposed projects. This
rule is required by section 358 of Public Law 111-383. An interim final
rule was published on October 20, 2011 (76 FR 65112). DoD anticipates
publishing a final rule in the first quarter of FY 2014.
4. Military Community and Family Policy, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense proposes new policies, responsibilities,
and procedures for the operation of voluntary education programs within
DoD. Additionally, the Department
[[Page 937]]
plans to publish a rule regarding child development programs:
Proposed Rule: Voluntary Education Programs. In this
proposed rule, the Department of Defense (DoD) discusses new policy,
responsibilities, and procedures for the operation of voluntary
education programs within DoD. The new policies discussed in the rule
include the following. All educational institutions providing education
programs through the DoD Tuition Assistance (TA) Program will provide
meaningful information to students about the financial cost and
attendance at an institution so military students can make informed
decisions on where to attend school; not use unfair, deceptive, and
abusive recruiting practices; and provide academic and student support
services to Service members and their families. New criteria are
created to strengthen existing procedures for access to military
installations by educational institutions. An annual review and
notification process is required if there are changes made to the
uniform semester-hour (or equivalent) TA caps and annual TA ceilings.
Military Departments will be required to provide their Service members
with a joint services transcript (JST). The DoD Postsecondary Education
Complaint System is implemented for Service members, spouses, and adult
family members to register student complaints. The Military Departments
are authorized to establish Service-specific TA eligibility criteria
and management controls. DoD anticipates publishing a final rule in the
second quarter of FY 2014.
Interim Final Rule: Child Development Programs (CDPs): In
this interim final rule, the Department of Defense updates policy,
responsibilities, and procedures for providing care to minor children
birth through age 12 of individuals eligible for care in DoD CDPs to
include center-based care, family child care (FCC), school-age care
(SAC), supplemental child care, and community based care. The subject
areas in this rule include authorizing the publication of supporting
guidance for the implementation of CDP policies and responsibilities
(including child development training modules, program aids, and other
management tools) and establishment of the DoD Effectiveness Rating and
Improvement System (ERIS). DoD anticipates publishing a final rule in
the second quarter of FY 2014.
5. Health Affairs, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense is able to meet its dual mission of
wartime readiness and peacetime health care by operating an extensive
network of medical treatment facilities. This network includes DoD's
own military treatment facilities supplemented by civilian health care
providers, facilities, and services under contract to DoD through the
TRICARE program. TRICARE is a major health care program designed to
improve the management and integration of DoD's health care delivery
system. The program's goal is to increase access to health care
services, improve health care quality, and control health care costs.
The TRICARE Management Activity has published or plans to publish
the following rules:
Proposed Rule: TRICARE; Reimbursement of Long Term Care
Hospitals. The proposed rule implements the statutory provision in 10
United States Code 1079(j)(2) that TRICARE payment methods for
institutional care shall be determined to the extent practicable in
accordance with the same reimbursement rules as those that apply to
payments to providers of services of the same type under Medicare. This
proposed rule implements a reimbursement methodology similar to that
furnished to Medicare beneficiaries for services provided by long term
care hospitals. DoD anticipates publishing a proposed rule in the
second quarter of FY 2014.
Interim Final Rule: CHAMPUS/TRICARE: Pilot Program for
Refills of Maintenance Medications for TRICARE Life Beneficiaries
through the TRICARE Mail Order Program. This interim final rule
implements section 716 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), which establishes a 5-year pilot
program that would generally require TRICARE for Life beneficiaries to
obtain all refill prescriptions for covered maintenance medications
from the TRICARE mail order program or military treatment facility
pharmacies. Covered maintenance medications are those that involve
recurring prescriptions for chronic conditions, but do not include
medications to treat acute conditions. Beneficiaries may opt out of the
pilot program after 1 year of participation. This rule includes
procedures to assist beneficiaries in transferring covered
prescriptions to the mail order pharmacy program. This regulation is
being issued as an interim final rule in order to comply with the
express statutory intent that the program begin in calendar year 2013.
DoD anticipates publishing an interim final rule in the first quarter
of FY 2014.
Final Rule: TRICARE: Certified Mental Health Counselors.
This rule was published as an interim final rule on December 27, 2011
(76 FR 80741), in order to meet the congressional requirement set forth
in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY)
2011, section 724, which required the Department of Defense to
prescribe regulations by June 20, 2011, to establish the criteria, as
had previously been studied in accordance with section 717 of the NDAA
2008, that would allow licensed or certified mental health counselors
(MHCs) to be able to independently provide care to TRICARE
beneficiaries and receive payment for those services. Under current
TRICARE requirements, MHCs are authorized to practice only with
physician referral and supervision. This IFR establishes a transition
period to allow MHCs to gain the requisite education, examination, and
post-master's clinical experience for the new category of qualified
mental health professionals, ``TRICARE Certified Mental Health
Counselors,'' who will be authorized to practice independently under
TRICARE, as well as phase out the category of MHC who require referral
and supervision from TRICARE authorized physicians. DoD anticipates
finalizing this rule in the second quarter of FY 2014.
6. Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense plans to publish a final rule regarding
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures:
Final Rule: Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR)
Program Procedures. This part implements Department of Defense (DoD)
policy and assigns responsibilities for the SAPR Program on prevention,
response, and oversight to sexual assault. It is DoD policy to
establish a culture free of sexual assault by providing an environment
of prevention, education and training, response capability, victim
support, reporting procedures, and accountability that enhances the
safety and wellbeing of all persons covered by the regulation. An
interim final rule was published on April 11, 2013 (78 FR 21715). DoD
anticipates publishing a final rule in the second quarter of FY 2014.
7. Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense plans to publish a rule regarding Service
Academies:
Final Rule: Service Academies. This rule establishes
policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for
Department of Defense oversight of the Service Academies. The
[[Page 938]]
proposed rule was published October 18, 2007 (72 FR 59053), and
included policy that has since changed. The final rule, particularly
the explanation of separation policy, will reflect recent changes in
the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. It will also incorporate changes
resulting from interagency coordination. DoD anticipates publishing the
final rule in the first or second quarter of FY 2014.
8. Chief Information Officer, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense plans to amend the voluntary cyber
security information sharing program between DoD and eligible cleared
defense contractors:
Proposed Rule: Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Voluntary
Cyber Security/Information Assurance (CS/IA) Activities. The Department
proposes to amend the DoD-DIB CS/IA Voluntary Activities regulation (32
CFR part 236) in response to Section 941 National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 which requires the Secretary of
Defense to establish procedures that require each cleared defense
contractor (CDC) to report when a network or information system that
meets the criteria reports cyber intrusions. DoD anticipates publishing
a proposed rule in the second or third quarter of FY 2014.
BILLING CODE &P
DOD--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OS)
Proposed Rule Stage
26. Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Security/Information
Assurance (CS/IA) Activities; Amendment
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: E.O. 12829
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 236.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule amends the DoD-DIB CS/IA Voluntary Activities
regulation in response to section 941 National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 which requires the Secretary of
Defense to establish procedures that require each cleared defense
contractor (CDC) to report when a network or information system that
meets the criteria reports cyber intrusions.
Statement of Need: The Department of Defense (DoD) will amend the
DoD-DIB CS/IA Voluntary Activities (32 CFR part 236) regulation to
incorporate changes as required by section 941 NDAA for FY 2013 to
include mandated cyber intrusion incident reporting by all cleared
defense contractors (CDCs).
Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is proposed under the
authorities of section 941 NDAA for FY 2013.
Alternatives: DoD analyzed the requirements in section 941 NDAA for
FY 2013 and determined that implementation must be accomplished through
the rulemaking process. This will allow the public to comment on the
implementation strategy.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Implementing the amended rule to
meet the requirements of section 941 NDAA for FY 2013 affects
approximately 8,700 CDCs. Each company will require DoD approved medium
assured certificates to submit the mandatory cyber incident reporting
to the DoD access controlled Web site. The cost per certificate is
$175. In addition, it is estimated that the average burden per reported
incident is 7 hours which includes identifying the cyber incident
details, gathering and maintaining the data needed, reviewing the
collection of information to be reported, and completing the report.
Note, these costs are the same as those associated with 32 CFR part 236
(DoD-DIB CS/IA Voluntary Activities), but are now applicable across a
larger population of defense contractors. The benefit of this amended
rule is satisfying the legal mandate from section 941 NDAA for FY 2013
as well as informing the Department of incidents that impact DoD
programs and information. DoD needs to have the ability to assess the
strategic and operational impacts of cyber incidents and determine
appropriate mitigation activities.
Risks: There will likely be significant public interest in DoD's
implementation of section 941 NDAA for FY2013. DoD will need to assure
the public that DoD will provide for the reasonable protection of trade
secrets, commercial or financial information, and information that can
be used to identify a specific person that may be evident through the
cyber incident reporting and media analysis.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Vicki Michetti, Department of Defense, Office of
the Secretary, 6000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-6000, Phone:
703 604-3177, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0790-AJ14
DOD--OS
Final Rule Stage
27. Service Academies
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 301
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 217.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department is revising and updating policy guidance
and oversight of the military service academies. This rule implements
10 U.S.C. 403, 603, and 903 for the establishment and operation of the
United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, and
the United States Air Force Academy. The proposed rule was published
October 18, 2007 (72 FR 59053), and included policy that has since
changed. The final rule, particularly the explanation of separation
policy, will reflect recent changes in the Don't Ask, Don't Tell
policy.
Statement of Need: The Department of Defense revises and updates
the current rule providing the policy guidance and oversight of the
military service academies. This rule implements 10 U.S.C. 403, 603,
and 903 for the establishment and operation of the United States
Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, and the United
States Air Force Academy.
Summary of Legal Basis: 10 U.S.C. chapters 403, 603, 903.
Alternatives: None. The Federal statute directs the Department of
Defense to develop policy, assign responsibilities, and prescribe
procedures for operations and oversight of the service academies.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Administrative costs are negligible
and benefits would be clear, concise rules that enable the Secretary of
Defense to ensure that the service academies are efficiently operated
and meet the needs of the Armed Forces.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 10/18/07 72 FR 59053
NPRM Comment Period End............. 12/17/07
Final Action........................ 02/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: DoD Instruction 1322.22.
[[Page 939]]
Agency Contact: Paul Nosek, Department of Defense, Office of the
Secretary, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000, Phone: 703
695-5529.
RIN: 0790-AI19
DOD--OS
28. Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program Procedures
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. ch 47 Sec. 113
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 105.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule implements policy, assigns responsibilities,
provides guidance and procedures, and establishes the Sexual Assault
Advisory Council for the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
(SAPR) program consistent with the Task Force Report on Care for
Victims of Sexual Assault, and pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 113 and 32 CFR
part 103. The intent of the program is to prevent and eliminate sexual
assault within the Department by providing comprehensive procedures to
better establish a culture of prevention, response, and accountability
that enhances the safety and well-being of all DoD members.
Statement of Need: This rule implements policy, assigns
responsibilities, and provides guidance and procedures for the SAPR
program. It establishes the processes and procedures for the Sexual
Assault Forensic Examination (SAFE) kit; the multidisciplinary Case
Management Group to include guidance for the group on how to handle
sexual assault; SAPR minimum program standards; SAPR training
requirements; and SAPR requirements for the DoD Annual Report on Sexual
Assault in the Military.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 113 of title 10, United States
Code; and Public Laws 109-364, 109-163, 108-375, 106-65, 110-417, and
111-84.
Alternatives: The Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office
(SAPRO) will lack updated and revised rules for implementing DoD policy
on prevention and response to sexual assaults involving members of the
U.S. Armed Forces if this rule is not implemented.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The preliminary estimate of the
anticipated cost associated with this rule for the current fiscal year
(2011) is approximately $14.819 million. Additionally, each of the
military services establishes its own SAPR budget for the programmatic
costs arising from the implementation of the training, prevention,
reporting, response, and oversight requirements established by this
rule.
The anticipated benefits associated with this rule include:
(1) Guidance with which the Department may establish a culture free
of sexual assault by providing an environment of prevention, education
and training, response capability, victim support, reporting
procedures, and appropriate accountability that enhances the safety and
well-being of all persons covered by this rule;
(2) Treatment of sexual assault patients as emergency cases, which
prevents loss of life or suffering resulting from physical injuries
(internal or external), sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy, and
psychological distress;
(3) The availability of two reporting options for servicemembers
and their dependents who are 18 years of age or older covered by this
rule who are victims of sexual assault. The two reporting options are
as follows:
(a) Unrestricted reporting allows an eligible person who is
sexually assaulted to access medical treatment and counseling and
request an official investigation of the allegation using existing
reporting channels (e.g., chain of command, law enforcement, health
care personnel, the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator [SARC]). When a
sexual assault is reported through unrestricted reporting, a SARC shall
be notified as soon as possible, respond, assign a SAPR Victim Advocate
(VA), and offer the victim medical care and a sexual assault forensic
examination (SAFE); and
(b) Restricted reporting allows sexual assault victims to
confidentially disclose the assault to specified individuals (i.e.,
SARC, SAPR VA, or health care personnel), in accordance with DoD
Directive (DoDD) 5400.11, and receive medical treatment, including
emergency care, counseling, and assignment of a SARC and SAPR VA,
without triggering an official investigation. The victim's report to
health care personnel (including the information acquired from a SAFE
kit), SARCs, or SAPR VAs will not be reported to law enforcement, or to
the victim's command to initiate the official investigative process,
unless the victim consents or an established exception applies in
accordance with DoD Instruction (DoDI) 6495.02.
The Department's preference is for complete unrestricted reporting
of sexual assaults to allow for the provision of victims' services and
to pursue accountability. However, unrestricted reporting may represent
a barrier for victims to access services, when the victim desires no
command or law enforcement involvement. Consequently, the Department
recognizes a fundamental need to provide a confidential disclosure
vehicle via the restricted reporting option.
(4) Service members who are on active duty but were victims of
sexual assault prior to enlistment or commissioning are eligible to
receive SAPR services and utilize either reporting option. The focus of
this rule and DoDI 6495.02 is on the victim of sexual assault. The DoD
shall provide support to an active duty Service member regardless of
when or where the sexual assault took place; and
(5) Guidance for the development of response capabilities that will
enable sexual assault victims to recover, and, if servicemembers, to be
fully mission capable and engaged.
Risks: The rule intends to enable military readiness by
establishing a culture free of sexual assault. Sexual assault poses a
serious threat to military readiness because the potential costs and
consequences are extremely high: Chronic psychological consequences may
include depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and substance
abuse. In the U.S. Armed Forces, sexual assault not only degrades
individual resilience but also may erode unit integrity. An effective
fighting force cannot tolerate sexual assault within its ranks. Sexual
assault is incompatible with military culture and mission readiness,
and risks to mission accomplishment. This rule aims to mitigate this
risk to mission readiness.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 04/11/13 78 FR 21715
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 04/11/13 .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 06/10/13 .......................
End.
Final Action........................ 11/00/13 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: DoD Instruction 6495.02.
Agency Contact: Teresa Scalzo, Department of Defense, Office of the
Secretary, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, Phone: 703
696-8977.
RIN: 0790-AI36
[[Page 940]]
DOD--OS
29. Operational Contract Support
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-181
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 158.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In accordance with Public Law 110-181 and Public Law 110-
417, DoD is revising policy and assigning responsibilities for program
management of operational contract support (OCS) in contingency
operations and integration of DoD contractor personnel into military
contingency operations outside the United States. An interim final rule
is required to procedurally close gaps and ensure the correct planning,
oversight, and management of DoD contractors supporting contingency
operations, by updating the existing outdated policy. The existing
policies are causing significant confusion, as they do not reflect
current practices and legislative mandates. The apparent mismatch
between local Geographic Command guidance and the DoD-wide policies and
the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement is confusing for
those in the field--in particular policy with regard to accountability
and visibility requirements. Since the Presidential decision to expand
the number of troops in Afghanistan and the subsequent increase of
troops and contractors in theater, this issue has become so significant
that DoD needs to revise the DoD-wide policies as a matter of urgency.
Statement of Need: This rule revises policy and assigns
responsibilities for program management of operational contract support
(OCS) in contingency operations and integration of DoD contractor
personnel into military contingency operations outside the United
States. GAO, the Commission on Wartime Contracting, and the Special
Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction/Afghanistan Reconstruction
are among those who have highlighted the urgent requirement to update
the policy.
Summary of Legal Basis: Parts of the rule are required by section
861 of the 2008 NDAA, Public Law 110-181 and Public Law 110-417.
Alternatives: Given the legal requirement to revise this regulation
and separately publish a corresponding revision to the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, we did not consider any alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This regulation establishes policies
and procedures for the oversight and management of contractors
supporting contingency operations outside the United States; therefore,
there is no cost to public. Updated and refined policy regarding
contractors supporting contingency operations will result in improved
management, oversight and efficiency.
Risks: This rule represents an update to the existing DoD
Instruction and incorporates the latest changes in policy and
procedures. This revision is required to integrate lessons learned and
improvements in practices gleaned from 5 years of operational
experience. The risk of not publishing this rule is that there would be
outdated policy which doesn't reflect practices in the field. This will
lead to inefficient and ineffective management of the contractor
workforce supporting contingency operations.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 12/29/11 76 FR 81807
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 12/29/11 .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 02/27/12 .......................
End.
Final Action........................ 03/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Additional Information: DoD Instruction 3020.41.
Agency Contact: Kerry Powell, Department of Defense, Office of the
Secretary, 3500 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20201-3500, Phone: 703
614-1944, Fax: 703 697-4942, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0790-AI48
DOD--OS
30. Mission Compatibility Evaluation Process
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-383, sec 358
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 211.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Defense (DoD) is issuing this interim
final rule to implement section 358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, Public Law 111-383. That
section requires that the DoD issue procedures addressing the impacts
upon military operations of certain types of structures if they pose an
unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States. The
structures addressed are those for which an application is required to
be filed with the Secretary of Transportation under section 44718 of
title 49, United States Code. Section 358 also requires the designation
of a lead organization to coordinate DoD review of applications for
projects filed with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to section
44718, and received by the Department of Defense from the Secretary of
Transportation. Section 358 also requires the designation of certain
officials by the Secretary of Defense to perform functions pursuant to
the section and this implementing rule. Section 358 also requires the
establishment of a comprehensive strategy for addressing military
impacts of renewable energy projects and other energy projects, with
the objective of ensuring that the robust development of renewable
energy sources and the expansion of the commercial electrical grid may
move forward in the United States, while minimizing or mitigating any
adverse impacts on military operations and readiness. Implementing that
requirement, however, is not required at this time and is not part of
this rule. Other aspects of section 358 not required at this time, such
as annual reports to Congress, are also not addressed in this rule. Nor
does this rule deal with other clearance processes not included in
section 358, such as those applied by the Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior.
Statement of Need: This rule implements policy, assigns
responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for the establishment and
operation of a process for evaluation of proposed projects submitted to
the Secretary of Transportation under section 44718 of title 49, United
States Code. The evaluation process is established for the purpose of
identifying any adverse impact of proposed projects on military
operations and readiness, minimizing or mitigating such adverse
impacts, and determining if any such projects pose an unacceptable risk
to the national security of the United States. The rule also includes
procedures for the operation of a central DoD siting clearinghouse to
facilitate both informal and formal reviews of proposed projects.
Summary of Legal Basis: Public Law 111-383, section 358.
Alternatives: The requirement to have a rule and the policies,
responsibilities, and procedures contained in the rule were prescribed
by section 358 of Public Law 111-383. In the areas where DoD has
discretion, e.g., the internal procedures used within DoD to comply
with the law, alternative arrangements
[[Page 941]]
would have no impact on the net economic effects of the rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department of Defense has long
participated in the Department of Transportation review process,
interacting with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Prior to
section 358 of Public Law 111-383, DoD's engagement was decentralized--
each military service participated separately working with FAA
representatives at the regional level. In addition, each service set
its own standards for challenging a project application. Section 358
directed that DoD develop a single DoD point of contact for responses,
established the threshold level of harm that must be reached before DoD
could object to a project application on the basis of national
security, and directed that DoD negotiate mitigation with project
developers if potential harm is identified. The directed threshold
level of harm, identified as ``unacceptable risk to national
security,'' is higher than the standard previously used. This will
result in DoD objecting to fewer project applications than before,
reducing the impact of DoD reviews on non-DoD economic activity. The
requirement to engage in mitigation negotiations may delay some
projects (which has a negative impact on non-DoD economic activity),
but it may result in still fewer DoD objections (which has a positive
impact on non-DoD economic activity). DoD estimates that the net effect
of these factors on non-DoD economic activity will be a benefit of
approximately $70 million.
The higher standard for objection imposed by section 358 of Public
Law 111-383 may allow projects that conflict with military activity,
but do not achieve the high level of conflict required by law to
object, to proceed. This may impose costs on DoD, e.g., systems testing
may have to be moved to alternative test ranges, training, and
readiness activities may be curtailed or moved, and changes to
operations may have to be implemented to overcome interference with
coastal, border, and interior homeland surveillance. The early outreach
and negotiation over mitigation required by section 358 may allow
modification of some projects to reduce or eliminate their conflict
with military activities in cases where the absence of early outreach
and negotiation would result in the project proceeding without
mitigation. This would provide a benefit to DoD. The net effect of
these costs and benefits on DoD has not been quantitatively estimated.
Risks: The higher standard for a DoD objection to a project and the
requirement to allow early consultation by developers with DoD will
reduce the risk to both developers and to industry of planning a
project that is unacceptable to DoD. Per the discussion above, there is
a risk to DoD that projects in conflict with military activity, but
that do not achieve the high level of conflict required by law to
object, will proceed and impair DoD's test and evaluation; training and
readiness; and coastal, border, and interior homeland surveillance
capabilities.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 10/20/11 76 FR 65112
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 10/20/11
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 12/19/11
End.
Final Action........................ 01/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Agency Contact: David Belote, Department of Defense, Office of the
Secretary, 3400 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3400, Phone: 703
697-7301, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0790-AI69
DOD--OS
31. Child Development Programs (CDPS)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 1783, 10 U.S.C. 1791 through 1800, 10
U.S.C. 2809, and U.S.C. 2812
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 79.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This interim final rule revises 32 CFR part 79 to: (a)
Update policy, responsibilities, and procedures for providing care to
minor children birth through age 12 of individuals eligible for care in
DoD Child Development Programs (CDPs) to include center-based care,
family child care (FCC), school-age care (SAC), supplemental child
care, and community based care; (b) authorize the publication of
supporting guidance for the implementation of CDP policies and
responsibilities, including child development training modules, program
aids, and other management tools; and (c) establish the DoD
Effectiveness Rating and Improvement System (ERIS). This rule is being
published as an interim final rule to extend child care benefits to
same-sex spouses of military service members and DoD civilian
employees.
Statement of Need: This interim final rule revises 32 CFR part 79
to update policy, responsibilities, and procedures for providing care
to minor children birth through age 12 of individuals eligible for care
in DoD CDPs to include center-based care, family child care (FCC),
school-age care (SAC), supplemental child care, and community based
care.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is proposed under the authorities
of sections 1783, 1791 through 1800, 2809 and 2812 of title 10, United
States Code (U.S.C.).
Alternatives: Without this rule, the Department of Defense's Child
Development Programs (CDPs) would be operating according to guidance
that is 20 years old and does not take into account necessary critical
procedures and policies to ensure that children within DoD CDPs are
cared for in a safe and developmentally appropriate setting.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The preliminary estimate of the
anticipated cost associated with this rule for the fiscal year is
approximately $980,000.00. This estimated cost is for the operation of
the entire DoD CDP and includes funding from the DoD (from the Office
of the Secretary of Defense as well as the military services) and fees
paid by parents. These funds provide care to more than 200,000 children
and youth in a variety of settings to include child development
centers, family child care homes, school age care programs, and
community based care. The operation of these programs is a key
workforce issue for military members and families. The anticipated
benefits associated with this rule include:
(1) The streamlining and consolidating of two outdated instructions
into a single instruction providing policy for the DoD CDP.
(2) Guidance and procedures which will provide a safe and secure
environment for military children to grow.
(3) Establishment of a more standardized approach to each military
services CDP, still allowing for the variances dictated by the unique
mission of specific branches and installations.
(4) Clarification of the benefits provided to military members with
same sex spouses.
Risks: The degree of risk to the public is minimal. There are no
anticipated negative effects of the rule on any entity.
Timetable:
[[Page 942]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 02/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: DoD Instruction 6060.02.
Agency Contact: Eddy Mentzer, Department of Defense, 4800 Mark
Center Drive, Suite 03G15, Alexandria, VA 22350, Phone: 571 372-0857.
RIN: 0790-AI81
DOD--OS
32. Voluntary Education Programs
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2005; 10 U.S.C. 2007; EO 13607
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 68.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: In this proposed rule, the Department of Defense (DoD)
discusses new policy, responsibilities, and procedures for the
operation of voluntary education programs within DoD. The new policies
discussed in the rule include the following: All educational
institutions providing education programs through the DoD Tuition
Assistance (TA) Program will provide meaningful information to students
about the financial cost and attendance at an institution so military
students can make informed decisions on where to attend school; not use
unfair, deceptive, and abusive recruiting practices; and provide
academic and student support services to servicemembers and their
families. New criteria are created to strengthen existing procedures
for access to military installations by educational institutions. An
annual review and notification process is required if there are changes
made to the uniform semester-hour (or equivalent) TA caps and annual TA
ceilings. Military Departments will be required to provide their
servicemembers with a joint services transcript (JST). The DoD
Postsecondary Education Complaint System is implemented for
servicemembers, spouses, and adult family members to register student
complaints. The Military Departments are authorized to establish
service-specific TA eligibility criteria and management controls.
Statement of Need: The Department of Defense (DoD) proposed rule
identifies programs that provide active duty Service members with
quality educational opportunities to enhance their academic achievement
which in turn improves job performance and promotion potential. The
overall outcome goal of these programs is to ensure the DoD has the
best educated and best military force possible. In the proposed rule,
DoD implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes
procedures for the operation of voluntary education programs within
DoD.
Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is proposed under the
authorities of sections 2007 and 2005 of title 10, United States Code.
Alternatives: No alternatives are possible.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs are controlled through
limitations emplaced in the DoD Uniform Tuition Assistance policy with
course and yearly caps. Subject to appropriations, each servicemember
pays no more than $250.00 per semester-unit for tuition and fees
combined. Each servicemember participating in off-duty, voluntary
education is eligible for up to $4,500.00, in aggregate, for each
fiscal year. This limitation allows all servicemembers that voluntarily
participate to continue their education. Voluntary education programs
include: High School Completion/Diploma; Military Tuition Assistance
(TA); Postsecondary Degree Programs; Independent Study and Distance
Learning Programs; College Credit Examination Program; Academic Skills
Program; and Certification/Licensure Programs. Funding for voluntary
education programs during 2012 was $660.5 million, which included
tuition assistance and operational costs. This funding provided
approximately 539,000 individuals (servicemembers and their adult
family members) the opportunity to participate in voluntary education
programs around the world.
Voluntary education programs have a positive effect on our
servicemembers and their adult family members, providing ways to
advance their personal education, career aspirations, and prepare them
for future vocational pursuits. Additionally, partnerships with
educational institutions also have a positive effect on the global
economy. The services have worked with approximately 3,500 colleges and
universities worldwide (both regionally and nationally accredited by an
accrediting body recognized by the U.S. Department of Education) in
reference to TA.
Risks: There are no risks.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/14/13 78 FR 49382
Correction.......................... 08/21/13 78 FR 51678
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/30/13 .......................
Final Action........................ 02/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Carolyn Baker, Department of Defense, Office of the
Secretary, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350, Phone: 571
372-5355.
RIN: 0790-AJ06
DOD--DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATIONS COUNCIL (DARC)
Final Rule Stage
33. Safeguarding Unclassified Controlled Technical Information (DFARS
CASE 2011-D039)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303; Pub. L. 112-239
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 204; 48 CFR 212; 48 CFR 252.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: DoD is issuing an interim rule to amend the Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to add a DFARS
subpart and associated contract clauses to address requirements for the
safeguarding of unclassified information within contractor information
systems as specified in Executive Order 13556, Controlled Unclassified
Information. DoD published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPR), and notice of public meeting in the Federal Register at 75 FR
9563 on March 3, 2010, to provide the public an opportunity for input
into the initial rulemaking process. A proposed DFARS rule was
published in the Federal Register at 76 FR 38089 on June 29, 2011, to
implement adequate security measures to safeguard unclassified DoD
information within contractor information systems from unauthorized
access and disclosure, and to prescribe reporting to DoD with regard to
certain cyber intrusion events that affect DoD information resident on
or transiting through contractor unclassified information systems.
After comments were received on the proposed rule it was decided that
the scope of the rule would be modified to reduce the information
covered. This interim rule addresses safeguarding requirements that
cover only unclassified controlled
[[Page 943]]
technical information, and reporting the compromise of unclassified
controlled technical information. DoD anticipates this rule may have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested
parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
Statement of Need: The Department of Defense (DoD) interim rule is
in support of existing DoD information policy in DoD 5200.1-R,
Information Security Program Regulation; Under Secretary of Defense
(Intelligence) Directive Type Memorandum (DTM), April 17, 2004; DTM 08-
027, entitled Security of Unclassified DoD Information on Non-DoD
Information Systems, September 16, 2010, and other applicable DoD
issuances. DoD requires this amendment to the DFARS to accomplish the
following:
a. Avoid compromise of unclassified computer networks on which
controlled technical information is resident on or transiting through
contractor information systems, and prevent the exfiltration of
controlled technical information.
b. Improve the protection of controlled technical information by
employing enhanced security measures, as identified in the clause, to
appropriately protect controlled technical information from
unauthorized disclosure, loss, or exfiltration.
c. Implement tracking and reporting of controlled technical
information incursions to (1) assess the impact of loss; and (2) better
understand methods of loss.
d. Standardize procedures for tracking and reporting intrusions.
Additionally, this interim rule is part of DoD's effort to enhance
the protection of DoD information, and it also partially implements the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013 section
941 requirement to mandate contractor reporting of information created
by or for DoD that has been potentially compromised by a penetration of
a contractor network.
Summary of Legal Basis: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and section 941 of the
National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2013.
Alternatives: There are no significant alternatives to accomplish
the stated objectives of this rule. DoD considered regulatory
requirements that were deemed to be complementary, but not adequate as
an alternative to this rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule improves national security
by implementing safeguards that strengthen information security
controls to unclassified controlled technical information within
contractor information systems from unauthorized access and disclosure.
This rule benefits both the Government and contractors.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 03/03/10 75 FR 9563
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 05/03/10
NPRM................................ 06/29/11 76 FR 38089
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/29/11
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 12/16/11 76 FR 55297
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 10/28/11 76 FR 66889
NPRM Comment Period End............. 12/16/11
Final Action........................ 11/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Manuel Quinones, Department of Defense, Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite15D07-2,
Alexandria, VA 22350, Phone: 571 372-6088, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0750-AG47
DOD--DARC
34. Requirements Relating to Supply Chain Risk (DFARS Case 2012-D050)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303; Pub. L. 111-383, sec 806; Pub. L.
112-239, sec 806
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 208; 48 CFR 212; 48 CFR 215; 48 CFR 233.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 7, 2011, section 806 of the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, as
amended by section 806 of the NDAA for FY 2013.
Within 180 days from enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, which was enacted on January 7,
2011.
Abstract: DoD is issuing an interim rule amending the Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a
section of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2011, as amended by the NDAA for FY 2013. This interim rule
revises the DFARS to implement section 806 of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, Public Law 111-383;
entitled ``Enhancement of Whistleblower Protections for Contractor
Employees,'' made extensive changes to 10 U.S.C. 2409, entitled
``Contractor employees: protection from reprisal or disclosure.
Statement of Need: The Department of Defense is required to
implement in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation protection
against risks to the supply chain affecting National Security Systems
(NSSs). Additionally, DOD Instruction (DODI) 5200.44 (November 5, 2012)
Protection of Mission Critical Functions to Achieve Trusted Systems and
Networks (TSN), recognizes the need to improve supply chain risk
management.
Summary of Legal Basis: This interim rule is required under the
authorities of section 806 of the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011 (Pub. L. 111-383), as amended by section
806 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239).
Alternatives: DoD considered two possible alternatives to protect
against risks to the National Security Systems. However, consistent
with the stated objectives of Section 806 of the NDAA for FY 2011, as
amended, and Department of Defense Instruction 5200.44 (November 5,
2012), no viable alternatives exist. The first possible alternative
included having all contractors report, on all contracts, the nature of
the supply chain risk mitigation efforts they have applied to their
manufacturing processes. This alternative would be unduly burdensome
for both contractors and the government and was therefore rejected. The
second alternative is not to have section 806 clauses applicable to
commercial and commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) items and purchases
below the simplified acquisition threshold. However, the requirements
of section 806 should apply to the procurement of commercial items
(including COTS items); because the intent of the statute is to protect
the supply chain, which in turn protects all NSSs. Commercial and
commercial off-the-shelf information technology supplies and services
often become parts of the NSSs. To protect the NSSs, using the
authority of Public Law 111-383, as amended by Public Law 112-239,
requires application in all information technology supply and services
contacts. Therefore, exempting commercial (including COTS) items from
application of the statute would negate the intended effect of the
statute. This second alternative was also rejected as a viable
alternative.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This interim rule will mitigate the
risk and potential harm to the National Security
[[Page 944]]
Systems (NSS) and protect the integrity of the supply chain to NSS by
avoiding sabotage, maliciously introducing unwanted functions, or other
subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, production,
installation, operation or maintenance of systems. Ultimately, DoD
anticipates significant savings to taxpayers by reducing the risk of
unsafe products entering our supply chain, which pose serious threats
or risks to sensitive government information technology systems.
Risks: There is risk to the National Security Systems if unwanted
functions are allowed to penetrate the DoD supply chain. This risk to
NSS, if left unmitigated, threatens the security of sensitive
information technology systems and puts in jeopardy the safety of our
military forces.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 11/00/13 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Manuel Quinones, Department of Defense, Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite15D07-2,
Alexandria, VA 22350, Phone: 571 372-6088, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0750-AH96
DOD--DARC
35. Enhancement of Contractor Employee Whistleblower Protections (DFARS
Case 2013-D010)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303; Pub. L. 112-239, sec 827
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 203; 48 CFR 252.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 2, 2013, section 827 of
the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239). July 2, 2013 or within
180 days from enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), which was enacted
on Jan 2, 2013.
Abstract: DoD is issuing an interim rule amending the Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement
statutory amendments to whistleblower protections for contractor
employees. DoD is revising the DFARS to implement a policy enhancing
the whistleblower protections for contractor employees as modified by
section 827 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013 (Pub. L. 112-239, enacted January 2, 2013). Section 827, entitled
``Requirements for Information Relating to Supply Chain Risk,'' as
amended by section 806 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), and
allows the DoD to consider the impact of supply chain risk in specified
types of procurements related to National Security Systems (NSS).
Section 806 defines supply chain risk as ''the risk that an adversary
may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise
subvert the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution,
installation, operation, or maintenance of a covered system so as to
surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise degrade the function, use, or
operation of such system.''
Statement of Need: The Department of Defense (DoD) is issuing an
interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
Supplement (DFARS) to implement amendments made by section 827 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. Section 827
amends 10 U.S.C. 2409 and 10 U.S.C. 2324(k), making the changes
applicable to DoD and NASA. Each agency is amending its FAR supplement.
Summary of Legal Basis: Public Law 112-239, section 827 and 41
U.S.C. 1303.
Alternatives: There are no significant alternatives to accomplish
the stated objectives of this rule. DoD considered several alternatives
with emphasis on reducing the burden on small entities. Because of the
terms used in the statute, DoD is unable to exempt small entities or to
establish a dollar threshold for coverage. Regardless of the size of
the business, a whistleblower employee must be protected from
retaliation by his/her employer.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs associated with implanting
the amendments to existing protections for contractor whistleblower
employees, as a result of changes to the law, are minimal. Benefit: The
rule proposes to strengthen protections for contractor personnel who
disclose incidents of fraud, waste, and abuse of DoD contracts.
Risks: There is potential risk to the public on cases involving
fraud, waste, and abuse of DoD contracts going unreported for fear of
inadequate protections for whistleblowers under the law.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 11/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Manuel Quinones, Department of Defense, Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite15D07-2,
Alexandria, VA 22350, Phone: 571 372-6088, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0750-AH97
DOD--DARC
36. Allowability of Legal Costs for Whistleblower Proceedings
(DFARS Case 2013-D022)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303; Pub. L. 112-239, sec 827; 10
U.S.C. 2324(k)
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 216; 48 CFR 231; 48 CFR 252.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 2, 2013, section 827(g)
and (i) of the NDAA for fiscal year 2013 (Pub. L. 113-239).
Abstract: DoD is issuing an interim rule amending the Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a
section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
that amends the allowability of legal costs incurred by a contractor
related to whistleblower proceedings. This interim rule is to implement
paragraphs 827(g) and (i) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 113-239). Section 827(g) expands the cost
principle at 10 U.S.C. 2324(k) to apply the cost principle on
allowability of costs related to legal and other proceedings to costs
incurred by contractors in proceedings commenced by a contractor
employee submitting a complaint under 10 U.S.C. 2409 (whistleblowing),
and include as specifically unallowable, legal costs of a proceeding
that results in an order to take corrective action under 10 U.S.C.
2409.
Statement of Need: DoD requires this action to implement paragraphs
827(g) and (i) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013 (Pub. L. 113-239). Section 827(g) expands the cost principle
at 10 U.S.C. 2324(k) to apply the cost principle on allowability of
costs related to legal and other proceedings to costs incurred by
contractors in proceedings commenced by a contractor employee
submitting a complaint under 10 U.S.C. 2409 (whistleblowing), and
include as specifically unallowable, legal costs of a proceeding that
results in an order to take corrective action under 10 U.S.C. 2409.
[[Page 945]]
This interim rule revises the DFARS subparts 216.3 and 231.2 and
adds a new clause at 252.216 to implement paragraphs (g) and (i) of
section 827 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013 (Pub. L. 113-239).
Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for this rule is section
827(g) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
(Pub. L. 112-239), enacted on January 2, 2013.
Alternatives: DoD was unable to identify any alternatives to the
rule that would reduce the impact on the public, particularly on small
entities, and still meet the requirements of the statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There is no significant cost to the
Government; however, there is potential cost to a contractor involved
in the submission of a whistleblower complaint that results in a
monetary penalty to the contractor or an order for the contractor to
take corrective measures. Benefits include potential savings to
taxpayers, since costs incurred by the contractor are disallowed as a
result of one of its employee's filing a complaint under 10 U.S.C.
2409.
Risks: There is risk to a contractor if a contractor employee
commenced a proceeding by submitting a complaint under 10 U.S.C. 2409,
and if that proceeding resulted in imposition of a monetary penalty or
an order to take corrective action under 10 U.S.C. 2409.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 11/00/13 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Manuel Quinones, Department of Defense, Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 15D07-2,
Alexandria, VA 22350, Phone: 571 372-6088, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0750-AI04
DOD--OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS (DODOASHA)
Proposed Rule Stage
37. Tricare; Reimbursement of Long Term Care Hospitals
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2)
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The proposed rule implements the statutory provision in
10 United States Code 1079(j)(2) that TRICARE payment methods for
institutional care shall be determined to the extent practicable in
accordance with the same reimbursement rules as those that apply to
payments to providers of services of the same type under Medicare. This
proposed rule implements a reimbursement methodology similar to that
furnished to Medicare beneficiaries for services provided by long-term
care hospitals.
Statement of Need: The rule is necessary to meet the statutory
provision to use Medicare reimbursement rules to the extent
practicable.
Summary of Legal Basis: Congress established enabling legislation
under section 707 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal
year 2002 (NDAA-02), Public Law 107-107 (December 28, 2001) changing
the statutory authorization in 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2) that TRICARE
payment methods for institutional care shall be determined to the
extent practicable, in accordance with the same reimbursement rules
used by Medicare.
Alternatives: This rule implements statutorily required provisions
for adoption and implementation of Medicare institutional reimbursement
rules which are consistent with well established congressional
objectives. No other alternative is applicable.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: It is projected that implementation
of this rule will result in a health care savings of $71 million in
year one of implementation.
Risks: The proposed rule implements statutorily required provisions
for adoption and implementation of Medicare institutional reimbursement
systems which are consistent with well established congressional
objectives. No risk to the public is applicable.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Ann N. Fazzini, Department of Defense, Office of
Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, 1200 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301, Phone: 303 676-3803.
RIN: 0720-AB47
DOD--DODOASHA
Final Rule Stage
38. Tricare: Certified Mental Health Counselors
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. ch 55
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, June 20, 2011, section 724 of
NDAA 2011.
Congressional requirement set forth in the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, section 724, which
required the Department of Defense to prescribe regulations by June 20,
2011, to establish the criteria, as had previously been studied in
accordance with section 717 of the NDAA 2008, that would allow licensed
or certified mental health counselors to be able to independently
provide care to TRICARE beneficiaries and receive payment for those
services.
Abstract: This rule was published as an interim final rule (IFR) in
order to meet the congressional requirement set forth in the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, section
724, which required the Department of Defense to prescribe regulations
by June 20, 2011, to establish the criteria, as had previously been
studied in accordance with section 717 of the NDAA 2008, that would
allow licensed or certified mental health counselors (MHCs) to be able
to independently provide care to TRICARE beneficiaries and receive
payment for those services. Under current TRICARE requirements, MHCs
are authorized to practice only with physician referral and
supervision. This IFR establishes a transition period to allow MHCs to
gain the requisite education, examination, and post-master's clinical
experience for the new category of qualified mental health
professionals, ``TRICARE Certified Mental Health Counselors,'' who will
be authorized to practice independently under TRICARE, as well as phase
out the category of MHC who require referral and supervision from
TRICARE authorized physicians.
Statement of Need: The Interim Final Rule provides 9.6 million
TRICARE beneficiaries access to a new category of qualified mental
health professionals whose qualifications confirm their ability to
diagnose and treat mental health disorders found in the military
population, as well as the psychosocial issues experienced by military
members, retirees, and family members. During the transition period of
the IFR, the criteria for the MHCs have not changed and will allow
continuity of care for beneficiaries who are receiving
[[Page 946]]
services from supervised MHCs under the current system. A continued
robust, quality provider pool is available for TRICARE beneficiaries to
access when seeking medically necessary and appropriate mental health
counseling services in the MHS purchased care system.
Summary of Legal Basis: The legal authority for this interim final
rule is section 724 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011, Public Law 111-383, which required the Department of
Defense to prescribe regulations to establish the criteria that would
allow licensed or certified mental health counselors to be able to
independently provide care to TRICARE beneficiaries and receive payment
for those services.
Alternatives: This action is required by statute, therefore, there
are no alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The anticipated cost associated with
this rule is under $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for
inflation. The benefits are that TRICARE will be in compliance with its
statutory provisions, and mental health of beneficiaries who receive
services from TRICARE Certified Mental Health Counselors will be
improved.
Risks: Failure to implement this will mean that TRICARE regulations
are not most appropriately implementing the changes legislated by
TRICARE statutory provisions.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 12/27/11 76 FR 80741
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 12/27/11
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 02/27/12
End.
Final Action........................ 11/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Patricia Moseley, Department of Defense, Office of
Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, Defense Pentagon, Washington,
DC 22301, Phone: 703 681-0064.
RIN: 0720-AB55
DOD--DODOASHA
39. CHAMPUS/TRICARE: Pilot Program for Refills of Maintenance
Medications for Tricare for Life Beneficiaries Through the TRICARE Mail
Order Program
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. ch 55
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This interim final rule implements section 716 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-
239), which establishes a 5-year pilot program that would generally
require TRICARE for Life beneficiaries to obtain all refill
prescriptions for covered maintenance medications from the TRICARE mail
order program or military treatment facility pharmacies. Covered
maintenance medications are those that involve recurring prescriptions
for chronic conditions, but do not include medications to treat acute
conditions. Beneficiaries may opt out of the pilot program after 1 year
of participation. This rule includes procedures to assist beneficiaries
in transferring covered prescriptions to the mail order pharmacy
program. This regulation is being issued as an interim final rule in
order to comply with the express statutory intent that the program
begin in calendar year 2013.
Statement of Need: The Department of Defense (DoD) proposed rule
establishes processes for the new program of refills of maintenance
medications for TRICARE for Life beneficiaries through military
treatment facility pharmacies and the mail order pharmacy program.
Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is proposed under 5 U.S.C.
301; 10 U.S.C. ch 55; 32 CFR section 199.21.
Alternatives: The rule fulfills a statutory requirement, therefore,
there are no alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The effect of the statutory
requirement, implemented by this rule, is to shift a volume of
prescriptions from retail pharmacies to the most cost effective points-
of-service venues of military treatment facility pharmacies and the
mail order pharmacy program. This will produce savings to the
Department of approximately $104 million per year and savings to
beneficiaries of approximately $34 million per year in reduced
copayments.
Risks: Loss of savings to both the Department and beneficiaries. No
risk to the public.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 11/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: RADM Thomas McGinnis, Department of Defense, Office
of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, 1200 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301-1200, Phone: 703 681-2890.
RIN: 0720-AB60
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
I. Introduction
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) supports States,
local communities, institutions of higher education, and others in
improving education nationwide and in helping to ensure that all
Americans receive a quality education. We provide leadership and
financial assistance pertaining to education at all levels to a wide
range of stakeholders and individuals, including State educational
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 and that student attending postsecondary
institutions are prepared for a profession or career.
We also vigorously monitor and enforce the implementation of
Federal civil rights laws in educational programs and activities that
receive Federal financial assistance, and support innovative programs,
research and evaluation activities, technical assistance, and the
dissemination of research and evaluation findings to improve the
quality of education.
Overall, the laws, regulations, and programs we administer will
affect nearly every American during his or her life. Indeed, in the
2013-2014 school year about 55 million students will attend an
estimated 130,000 elementary and secondary schools in approximately
13,600 districts, and about 21 million students will enroll in degree-
granting postsecondary schools. All of these
[[Page 947]]
students may benefit from some degree of financial assistance or
support from the Department.
In developing and implementing regulations, guidance, technical
assistance, and monitoring related to our programs, we are committed to
working closely with affected persons and groups. Specifically, we work
with a broad range of interested parties and the general public,
including families, students, and educators; State, local, and tribal
governments; and neighborhood groups, community-based early learning
programs, elementary and secondary schools, colleges, rehabilitation
service providers, adult education providers, professional
associations, advocacy organizations, businesses, and labor
organizations.
If we determine that it is necessary to develop regulations, we
seek public participation at the key stages in the rulemaking process.
We invite the public to submit comments on all proposed regulations
through the Internet or by regular mail. We also continue to seek
greater public participation in our rulemaking activities through the
use of transparent and interactive rulemaking procedures and new
technologies.
To facilitate the public's involvement, we participate in the
Federal Docketing Management System (FDMS), an electronic single
Governmentwide access point (www.regulations.gov) that enables the
public to submit comments on different types of Federal regulatory
documents and read and respond to comments submitted by other members
of the public during the public comment period. This system provides
the public with the opportunity to submit comments electronically on
any notice of proposed rulemaking or interim final regulations open for
comment, as well as read and print any supporting regulatory documents.
We are continuing to streamline information collections, reduce the
burden on information providers involved in our programs, and make
information easily accessible to the public.
II. Regulatory Priorities
A. The Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended
Gainful Employment. The Secretary proposes amendments to the
regulations for the Federal Student Aid programs authorized under title
IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The proposed
amendments follow a negotiated rulemaking conducted by the Department
in the fall of 2013. Specifically, a negotiating committee met in
September and November of 2013 to prepare proposed regulations
regarding measures for determining whether certain postsecondary
educational programs lead to gainful employment in a recognized
occupation, the conditions under which these educational programs
remain eligible for the title IV Federal Student Aid programs, and
requirements for reporting and disclosure of relevant information.
150% Regulations. The Secretary published interim final regulations
with a request for public comment on May 16, 2013 (78 FR 28954), to
amend the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (Direct Loan
Program) regulations to reflect changes made to the program by the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Pub. L.
112-141. Specifically, these interim final regulations reflected the
provisions in MAP-21 that amended the HEA to extend the 3.4 percent
interest rate on Direct Subsidized Loans from July 1, 2012, through
June 30, 2013, and to ensure that a new borrower on or after July 1,
2013, may not receive Direct Subsidized Loans for more than 150 percent
of the published length of the educational program in which the
borrower is enrolled. Under the changes made by MAP-21, if the borrower
exceeds this Direct Subsidized Loan limit, the borrower also becomes
responsible for the accruing interest on the Direct Subsidized Loans.
We intend to publish final regulations by January 2014.
B. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended
In 2010 the Administration released the Blueprint for Reform: The
Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the
President's plan for revising the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (ESEA) and replacing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB). The blueprint can be found at the following Web site: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html.
Additionally, as we continue to work with Congress on reauthorizing
the ESEA, we are implementing a plan to provide flexibility on certain
provisions of current law for States that are willing to embrace
reform. The mechanisms we are using will ensure continued
accountability and commitment to quality education for all students
while providing States with increased flexibility to implement State
and local reforms to improve student achievement.
C. Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006
In 2012, we released Investing in America's Future: A Blueprint for
Transforming Career and Technical Education, our plan for a
reauthorized Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006
(2006 Perkins Act). The Blueprint can be found at the following Web
site: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/cte/transforming-career-technical-education.pdf.
The 2006 Perkins Act made important changes in Federal support for
career and technical education (CTE), such as the introduction of a
requirement that all States offer ``programs of study.'' These changes
in the 2006 Perkins Act helped to improve the learning experiences of
CTE students but did not go far enough to systemically create better
outcomes for students and employers competing in a 21st-century global
economy. The Administration's Blueprint would usher in a new era of
rigorous, relevant, and results-driven CTE shaped by four core
principles: (1) Alignment. Effective alignment between high-quality CTE
programs and labor market needs to equip students with 21st-century
skills and prepare them for in-demand occupations in high-growth
industry sectors; (2) Collaboration. Strong collaboration among
secondary and postsecondary institutions, employers, and industry
partners to improve the quality of CTE programs; (3) Accountability.
Meaningful accountability for improving academic outcomes and building
technical and employability skills in CTE programs for all students,
based upon common definitions and clear metrics for performance; and
(4) Innovation. Increased emphasis on innovation supported by systemic
reform of State policies and practices to support CTE implementation of
effective practices at the local level. The Administration's Blueprint
proposal reflects a commitment to promoting equity and quality across
these alignment, collaboration, accountability, and innovation efforts
in order to ensure that more students have access to high-quality CTE
programs.
D. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
The Secretary published a notice of proposed rulemaking on
September 18, 2013 (78 FR 57324), to amend regulations under Part B of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regarding local
maintenance of effort (MOE) to ensure that all parties involved in
implementing, monitoring,
[[Page 948]]
and auditing local educational agency (LEA) compliance with MOE
requirements understand the rules. Specifically, we are seeking public
comment on proposed amendments to the regulation regarding local MOE to
clarify existing policy and make other related changes regarding: (1)
The compliance standard; (2) the eligibility standard; (3) the level of
effort required of an LEA in the year after it fails to maintain effort
under section 613(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the IDEA; and (4) the consequence
for a failure to maintain local effort.
III. Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of the entries on this
list may be completed actions that do not appear in The Regulatory
Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov
in the Completed Actions section. These rulemakings can also be found
on Regulations.gov. The final agency plan can be found at: www.ed.gov.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do we expect this rulemaking
RIN Title of to significantly reduce
rulemaking burden on small businesses?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1810-AB16.............. Title I-- No.
Improving the
Academic
Achievement of
the
Disadvantaged.
1820-AB64.............. Assistance to No.
States for the
Education of
Children with
Disabilities--Pu
blic Benefits or
Insurance.
1820-AB65.............. Assistance to No.
States for the
Education of
Children with
Disabilities--Ma
intenance of
Effort.
1820-AB66.............. American Indian No.
Vocational
Rehabilitation
Services Program.
1820-AB67.............. Disability and No.
Rehabilitation
Research
Projects and
Centers Program:
Disability and
Rehabilitation
Research:
Research
Fellowships;
Special Projects
and
Demonstrations
for Spinal Cord
Injuries.
1840-AD05.............. Title IV of the No.
Higher Education
Act of 1965, as
Amended--Income-
Based Repayment,
Income-
Contingent
Repayment, and
Total and
Permanent
Disability.
1840-AD08.............. Titles III and V No.
of the Higher
Education Act,
as Amended.
1840-AD11.............. Federal Pell Yes.
Grant Program.
1840-AD12.............. Transitioning Undetermined.
from the FFEL
Program to the
Direct Loan
Program and Loan
Rehabilitation
under the FFEL,
Direct Loan, and
Perkins Loan
Programs.
1840-AD14.............. Negotiated Undetermined.
Rulemaking Under
Title IV of HEA.
1840-AD15.............. Gainful No.
Employment.
1890-AA14.............. Direct Grant No.
Programs and
Definitions that
Apply to
Department
Regulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Principles for Regulating
Over the next year other regulations may be needed because of new
legislation or programmatic changes. In developing and promulgating
regulations we follow our Principles for Regulating, which determine
when and how we will regulate. Through consistent application of the
following principles, we have eliminated unnecessary regulations and
identified situations in which major programs could be implemented
without regulations or with limited regulatory action.
In deciding when to regulate, we consider the following:
Whether regulations are essential to promote quality and
equality of opportunity in education.
Whether a demonstrated problem cannot be resolved without
regulation.
Whether regulations are necessary to provide a legally
binding interpretation to resolve ambiguity.
Whether entities or situations subject to regulation are
similar enough that a uniform approach through regulation would be
meaningful and do more good than harm.
Whether regulations are needed to protect the Federal
interest, that is, to ensure that Federal funds are used for their
intended purpose and to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse.
In deciding how to regulate, we are mindful of the following
principles:
Regulate no more than necessary.
Minimize burden to the extent possible, and promote
multiple approaches to meeting statutory requirements if possible.
Encourage coordination of federally funded activities with
State and local reform activities.
Ensure that the benefits justify the costs of regulating.
To the extent possible, establish performance objectives
rather than specify compliance behavior.
Encourage flexibility, to the extent possible and as
needed to enable institutional forces to achieve desired results.
ED--OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION (OPE)
Proposed Rule Stage
40. Gainful Employment
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001 to 1003; 20 U.S.C. 1070g; 20 U.S.C.
1085; 20 U.S.C. 1088; 20 U.S.C. 1091 to 1092; 20 U.S.C. 1094; 20 U.S.C.
1099c; 20 U.S.C. 1099c-1
CFR Citation: 34 CFR 668.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Secretary proposes amendments to the regulations for
the Federal Student Aid programs authorized under title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The proposed amendments
follow a negotiated rulemaking conducted by the Department in the fall
of 2013. Specifically, a negotiating committee met in September and
November of 2013 to prepare proposed regulations regarding measures for
determining whether certain postsecondary educational programs lead to
gainful employment in a recognized occupation, the conditions under
which these educational programs remain eligible for the title IV
Federal Student Aid programs, and requirements for reporting and
disclosure of relevant information.
Statement of Need: The Secretary proposes amendments to the
regulations for the title IV, HEA Federal Student Aid programs. The
proposed amendments follow a negotiated rulemaking conducted by the
Department in September and November of 2013 to prepare proposed
regulations regarding measures for determining whether certain
[[Page 949]]
postsecondary educational programs lead to gainful employment in a
recognized occupation, the conditions under which these educational
programs remain eligible for the title IV Federal Student Aid programs,
and requirements for reporting and disclosure of relevant information.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Secretary proposes amendments to the
regulations for the Federal Student Aid programs authorized under title
IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).
Alternatives: To be determined.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be determined.
Risks: To be determined.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: John A. Kolotos, Department of Education, Office of
Postsecondary Education, Room 8018, 1990 K Street NW., Washington, DC
20006-8502, Phone: 202 502-7762, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1840-AD15
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The Department of Energy (Department or DOE) makes vital
contributions to the Nation's welfare through its activities focused on
improving national security, energy supply, energy efficiency,
environmental remediation, and energy research. The Department's
mission is to:
Promote dependable, affordable and environmentally sound
production and distribution of energy;
Advance energy efficiency and conservation;
Provide responsible stewardship of the Nation's nuclear
weapons;
Provide a responsible resolution to the environmental
legacy of nuclear weapons production; and
Strengthen U.S. scientific discovery, economic
competitiveness, and improve quality of life through innovations in
science and technology.
The Department's regulatory activities are essential to achieving
its critical mission and to implementing major initiatives of the
President's National Energy Policy. Among other things, the Regulatory
Plan and the Unified Agenda contain the rulemakings the Department will
be engaged in during the coming year to fulfill the Department's
commitment to meeting deadlines for issuance of energy conservation
standards and related test procedures. The Regulatory Plan and Unified
Agenda also reflect the Department's continuing commitment to cut
costs, reduce regulatory burden, and increase responsiveness to the
public.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory
Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov
in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can
also be found on Regulations.gov. The final agency plan can be found at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/other/2011-regulatory-action-plans/departmentofenergyregulatoryreformplanaugust2011.pdf.
Rulemakings Subject to Retrospective Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small business burden
RIN Title reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1904-AB57.............. Standards for
Battery Chargers
and External
Power Supplies.
1904-AC46.............. Alternative This rule is expected to
Efficiency reduce burden on small
Determination manufacturers of covered
Methods and products and equipment.
Alternate Rating
Methods.
1904-AC70.............. Waiver and This rule is expected to
Interim Waiver reduce burden on small
for Consumer manufacturers of covered
Products and products and equipment.
Commercial and
Industrial
Equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial
Equipment
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) requires DOE to set
appliance efficiency standards at levels that achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified. The Distribution Transformer and Microwave Oven
standards, which were already published in 2013, have an estimated net
benefit to the nation of up to $16.3 billion over 30 years. By 2045,
these standards are estimated to save enough energy to operate the
current inventory of all U.S. homes for about three months.
The Department continues to follow its schedule for setting new
appliance efficiency standards. These rulemakings are expected to save
American consumers billions of dollars in energy costs.
The overall plan for implementing the schedule is contained in the
Report to Congress under section 141 of EPACT 2005, which was released
on January 31, 2006. This plan was last updated in the August 2012
report to Congress and now includes the requirements of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). The reports to
Congress are posted at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/schedule_setting.html.
Estimate of Combined Aggregate Costs and Benefits
The regulatory actions included in this Regulatory Plan for battery
chargers
[[Page 950]]
and external power supplies, walk-in coolers and freezers, metal halide
lamp fixtures, manufactured housing, commercial refrigeration
equipment, residential furnace fans, and commercial and industrial
electric motors may provide significant benefits to the Nation. DOE
believes that the benefits to the Nation of the proposed energy
standards for metal halide lamp fixtures, commercial refrigeration
equipment and walk-in coolers and freezers (energy savings, consumer
average lifecycle cost savings, increase in national net present value,
and emission reductions) outweigh the costs (loss of industry net
present value and life-cycle cost increases for some consumers). In the
proposed rulemakings, DOE estimated that these regulations would
produce energy savings of 7.19 to 7.49quads over thirty years. The net
benefit to the Nation was estimated to be between $11.16 billion
(seven-percent discount rate) and $31.57 billion (three-percent
discount rate). DOE believes that the proposed energy standards for
external power supplies, residential furnace fans, and commercial and
industrial electric motors will also be beneficial to the Nation.
However, because DOE has not yet proposed candidate standard levels for
this equipment, DOE cannot provide an estimate of combined aggregate
costs and benefits for this action. DOE will, however, in compliance
with all applicable law, issue standards that provide the maximum
energy savings that are technologically feasible and economically
justified. Estimates of energy savings will be provided when DOE issues
the notice of proposed rulemakings for external power supplies,
residential furnace fans, and commercial and industrial electric
motors.
BILLING CODE &P
DOE--ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY (EE)
Proposed Rule Stage
41. Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-in Coolers and Walk-in
Freezers
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 2012.
Abstract: The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act require that DOE
establish maximum energy consumption levels for walk-in coolers and
walk-in freezers and directs the Department of Energy to develop
performance based energy conservation standards that are
technologically feasible and economically justified.
Statement of Need: EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency
standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment, which has
the effect of eliminating inefficient appliances and equipment from the
market.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 312 of EISA 2007 establishes
definitions and standards for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers.
EISA 2007 directs DOE to establish performance-based standards for this
equipment (42 U.S.C. 6313 (f)(4)).
Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to
review standards and to revise standards to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is
technologically feasible and economically justified. In making this
determination, DOE conducts a thorough analysis of the alternative
standard levels, including the existing standard, based on the criteria
specified by the statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE believes that the benefits to
the Nation of the proposed energy standards for commercial
refrigeration equipment (such as energy savings, consumer average
lifecycle cost savings, an increase in national net present value, and
emission reductions) outweigh the burdens (such as loss of industry net
present value). DOE estimates that energy savings from electricity will
be 5.39 quads over 30 years and the benefit to the Nation will be
between $8.6 billion and $24.3 billion.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: Public Meeting, Framework 01/06/09 74 FR 411
Document Availability.
Notice: Public Meeting, Data 04/05/10 75 FR 17080
Availability.
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 04/14/10 75 FR 41103
Comment Period End.................. 05/28/10
NPRM................................ 09/11/13 78 FR 55781
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/12/13
Final Action........................ 04/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in EO 13132.
Additional Information: Comments pertaining to this rule may be
submitted electronically to [email protected].
URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/30.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Charles Llenza, Office of Building Technologies
Program, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202
586-2192, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1904-AB85.
RIN: 1904-AB86
DOE--EE
42. Energy Efficiency Standards for Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 2012.
Abstract: Section 324 of the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to require DOE
issue a final rule by January 1, 2012, to determine if the energy
conservation standards should be amended.
Statement of Need: EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency
standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment, including
metal halide lamp fixtures.
Summary of Legal Basis: Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42
U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. Pursuant to EPCA,
any new or amended energy conservation standard that the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) prescribes for certain products, such as
metal halide lamp fixtures, shall be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)), and result in a
[[Page 951]]
significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to
review standards and to revise standards to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is
technologically feasible and economically justified. In making this
determination, DOE conducts a thorough analysis of the alternative
standard levels, including the existing standard, based on the criteria
specified by the statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE believes that the benefits to
the Nation of the proposed energy standards for metal halide lamp
fixtures (such as energy savings, consumer average lifecycle cost
savings, an increase in national net present value, and emission
reductions) outweigh the burdens (such as loss of industry net present
value). DOE estimates that energy savings from electricity will range
from 0.80 quads to 1.1 quads over 30 years and the benefit to the
Nation will be between $0.95 billion and $3.2 billion.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: Public Meeting, Framework 12/30/09 74 FR 69036
Document Availability.
Comment Period End.................. 01/29/10
Notice: Public Meeting, Data 04/01/11 76 FR 18127
Availability.
Comment Period End.................. 05/16/11
NPRM................................ 08/20/13 78 FR 51464
NPRM Comment Period End............. 10/21/13
Final Action........................ 01/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
URL For More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/metal_halide_lamp_ballasts.html.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Lucy DeButts, Office of Buildings Technologies
Program, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202
287-1604, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1904-AC00
DOE--EE
43. Energy Efficiency Standards for Manufactured Housing
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 17071
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 460.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, December 19, 2011.
Abstract: The rule would establish energy efficiency standards for
manufactured housing and a system to ensure compliance with, and
enforcement of, the standards.
Statement of Need: EISA 2007 requires minimum energy efficiency
standards for appliances, which has the effect of eliminating
inefficient appliances and equipment from the market.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 413 of EISA 2007, 42 U.S.C. 17071,
directs DOE to develop and publish energy standards for manufactured
housing.
Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct a rulemaking to
establish standards based on the most recent version of the
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), except in cases in which
the Secretary finds that the IECC is not cost effective or a more
stringent standard would be more cost effective based on the impact of
the IECC on the purchase price of manufactured housing and on total
lifecycle construction and operating costs.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Because DOE has not yet proposed
energy efficiency standards, DOE cannot provide an estimate of combined
aggregate costs and benefits for these actions. DOE will, however, in
compliance with all applicable law, issue standards that provide for
increased energy efficiency that are economically justified. Estimates
of energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the notice of
proposed rulemaking.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 02/22/10 75 FR 7556
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 03/24/10
Request for Infommation............. 06/25/13 78 FR 37995
NPRM................................ 09/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL For More Information: www.energycodes.gov/status/mfg_housing.stm.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Mohammed Khan, Office of Building Technologies
Program, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202
586-7892, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1904-AC11
DOE--EE
44. Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigeration
Equipment
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(5)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 2013.
Abstract: DOE is reviewing and updating energy conservation
standards, as required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, to
reflect technological advances. All amended standards must be
technologically feasible and economically justified. As required by
EPCA, DOE published previously a final rule establishing energy
conservation standards for ice-cream freezers, self-contained
commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers without
doors, for equipment manufactured after January 1, 2012. (74 FR 1092,
Jan. 9, 2009) DOE is required to issue a final rule for this second
review of energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration
equipment no later than January 1, 2013.
Statement of Need: EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency
standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment, including
commercial refrigeration equipment.
Summary of Legal Basis: Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42
U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. Pursuant to EPCA,
any new or amended energy conservation standard that the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) prescribes for certain products, such as
commercial refrigeration equipment, shall be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)), and
result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B))
Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to
review
[[Page 952]]
standards and to revise standards to achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically
feasible and economically justified. In making this determination, DOE
conducts a thorough analysis of the alternative standard levels,
including the existing standard, based on the criteria specified by the
statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE believes that the benefits to
the Nation of the proposed energy standards for commercial
refrigeration equipment (such as energy savings, consumer average
lifecycle cost savings, an increase in national net present value, and
emission reductions) outweigh the burdens (such as loss of industry net
present value). DOE estimates that energy savings from electricity will
be 1 quad over 30 years and the benefit to the Nation will be between
$1.61 billion and $4.07 billion.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: Public Meeting, Framework 05/06/10 75 FR 24824
Document Availability.
Comment Period End.................. 06/07/10
Notice: Public Meeting, Data 03/30/11 76 FR 17573
Availability.
Comment Period End.................. 05/16/11
NPRM................................ 09/11/13 78 FR 55889
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/12/13
Final Action........................ 02/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standard/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/27.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Charles Llenza, Office of Building Technologies
Program, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Phone: 202
586-2192, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1904-AC19
DOE--EE
45. Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Furnace Fans
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295 (f)(4)(D)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, December 31, 2013.
Abstract: DOE is initiating its first rulemaking to consider new
energy conservation standards or energy use standards for purposes of
circulating air through duct work, as required under 42 U.S.C.
6295(f)(4)(D). DOE commonly refers to these products as ``residential
furnace fans.'' EPCA, as amended, requires DOE to publish a final rule
establishing any final energy conservation or energy use standards not
later than December 31, 2013.
Statement of Need: EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency
standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment, including
residential furnace fans.
Summary of Legal Basis: Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42
U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. Pursuant to EPCA,
any new or amended energy conservation standard that the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) prescribes for certain products, such as
residential furnace fans, shall be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)), and result in a
significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)
Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to
review standards and to revise standards to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is
technologically feasible and economically justified. In making this
determination, DOE conducts a thorough analysis of the alternative
standard levels, including the existing standard, based on the criteria
specified by the statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Because DOE has not yet proposed
candidate standard levels for this equipment, DOE cannot provide an
estimate of combined aggregate costs and benefits for these actions.
DOE will, however, in compliance with all applicable law, issue
standards that provide the maximum energy savings that are
technologically feasible and economically justified. Estimates of
energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the notice of proposed
rulemaking for this equipment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: Public Meeting, Framework 06/03/10 75 FR 31323
Document Availability.
Comment Period End.................. 07/06/10 .......................
Preliminary Analysis................ 07/10/12 77 FR 40530
Comment Period End.................. 09/10/12 .......................
NPRM; Public Meeting................ 10/25/13 78 FR 64067
NPRM Comment Period End............. 12/24/13 .......................
Public Meeting...................... 12/03/13 .......................
Final Action........................ 12/00/13 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in EO 13132.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Ronald B. Majette, Program Manager, Office of
Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 586-7935, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1904-AC21.
RIN: 1904-AC22
DOE--EE
46. Energy Efficiency Standards for Certain Commercial and Industrial
Electric Motors
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(4)(B)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431.25.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, December 19, 2012.
Abstract: Consistent with changes made by the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), DOE is amending its electric
motor standards by expanding the scope of the electric
[[Page 953]]
motors that would be regulated. Under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, DOE must publish a final rule
determining whether to amend its standards no later than 24 months
after the effective date of the previous final rule.
Statement of Need: EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency
standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment, including
commercial and industrial electric motors.
Summary of Legal Basis: Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42
U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. Pursuant to EPCA,
any new or amended energy conservation standard that the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) prescribes for certain products, such as
electric motors, shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement
in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically
justified (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)), and result in a significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)).
Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to
review standards and to revise standards to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is
technologically feasible and economically justified. In making this
determination, DOE conducts a thorough analysis of the alternative
standard levels, including the existing standard, based on the criteria
specified by the statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Because DOE has not yet proposed
candidate standard levels for this equipment, DOE cannot provide an
estimate of combined aggregate costs and benefits for these actions.
DOE will, however, in compliance with all applicable law, issue
standards that provide the maximum energy savings that are
technologically feasible and economically justified. Estimates of
energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the notice of proposed
rulemaking for this equipment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: Public Meeting; Framework 09/28/10 75 FR 59657
Document Availability.
Comment Period End.................. 11/24/10 .......................
Preliminary Analysis................ 07/23/12 77 FR 43015
Comment Period End.................. 09/07/12 .......................
NPRM................................ 11/00/13 .......................
Final Action........................ 05/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in EO 13132.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
URL For More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/electric_motors.html.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: James Raba, Office of Building Technologies
Program, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202
586-8654, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Duplicate of 1904-AC14.
RIN: 1904-AC28
DOE--EE
Final Rule Stage
47. Energy Efficiency Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power
Supplies
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 1, 2011.
Abstract: In addition to the existing general definition of
``external power supply,'' the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (EISA) defines a ``class A external power supply'' and sets
efficiency standards for those products. EISA directs DOE to publish a
final rule to determine whether the standards set for class A external
power supplies should be amended along with standards for other classes
of external power supplies that DOE determines satisfy the necessary
statutory criteria. EISA also requires DOE to issue a final rule
prescribing energy conservation standards for battery chargers, if
technologically feasible and economically justified or to determine
that no energy conservation standard is technically feasible and
economically justified.
Statement of Need: EPCA requires minimum energy standards for
appliances, which has the effect of eliminating inefficient appliances
and equipment from the market.
Summary of Legal Basis: Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A of title III
(42 U.S.C. 6291 to 6309) provides for the Energy Conservation Program
for Consumer Products Other than Automobiles. EPCA directs DOE to
conduct a rulemaking to establish energy conservation standards for
battery chargers or determine that no energy conservation standard is
technically feasible and economically justified (42 U.S.C. 6295
(u)(1)(E)(i)-(ii)and (w)(3)(D)).
In addition to the existing general definition of ``external power
supply,'' EPCA defines a ``Class A external power supply'' (42 U.S.C.
6291(36)(C)) and sets efficiency standards for those products (42
U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)). EPCA directs DOE to publish a final rule to
determine whether amended standards should be set for external power
supplies or classes of external power supplies. If such determination
is positive, DOE would include any amended or new standards as part of
that final rule. DOE completed this determination in 2012. 75 FR 27170
(May 14, 2010)
Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to
review standards and to revise standards to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is
technologically feasible and economically justified. In making this
determination, DOE conducts a thorough analysis of the alternative
standard levels, including the existing standard, based on the criteria
specified by the statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE believes that the benefits to
the Nation of the proposed energy standards for battery chargers and
external power supplies (such as energy savings, consumer average
lifecycle cost savings, an increase in national net present value, and
emission reductions) outweigh the burdens (such as loss of industry net
present value). DOE estimates that energy savings from electricity will
be 2.16 quads over 30 years and the benefit to the Nation will be
between $6.68 billion and $12.44 billion.
Timetable:
[[Page 954]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: Public Meeting, Framework 06/04/09 74 FR 26816
Document Availability.
Comment Period End.................. 07/20/09
Notice: Public Meeting, Data 09/15/10 75 FR 56021
Availability.
Comment Period End.................. 10/15/10
Final Rule (Technical Amendment).... 09/19/11 76 FR 57897
NPRM................................ 03/27/12 77 FR 18478
Final Rule: Technical Amendment..... 04/16/12 77 FR 22472
NPRM Comment Period End............. 05/29/12
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........ 06/29/12 77 FR 38743
Reopened NPRM Comment Period End.... 07/16/12
Request for Information............. 03/26/13 78 FR 18253
RFI Comment Period End.............. 05/28/13
Final Action........................ 12/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in E.O. 13132.
Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O.
13563.
URL For More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Jeremy Dommu, Office of Building Technologies
Program, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202
586-9870, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1904-AB75.
RIN: 1904-AB57
BILLING CODE-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Statement of Regulatory Priorities for Fiscal Year 2014
As the lead federal agency responsible for protecting the health of
all Americans and providing supportive services for vulnerable
populations, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
implements programs that strengthen the health care system; advance
scientific knowledge and innovation; improve the health, safety, and
well-being of the American people; increase efficiency, transparency,
and accountability of HHS programs; and strengthen the nation's health
and human services infrastructure.
The Department's regulatory agenda for Fiscal Year 2014 advances
this mission by issuing rules that will: Increase access to health care
for all Americans and strengthen the Medicare program, the nation's
largest insurance provider; support the President's commitment to
implement strategies to reduce gun violence; build from previous
experiences to safeguard the nation's food supply; promote children's
health and well-being through programs that target those critical early
years; arm consumers with information to help them make healthy
choices; and marshal the best research and technology available to
streamline and modernize the health care delivery and medical product
availability systems. This overview highlights several regulations that
best exemplify these priorities.
Expanding Coverage in the Private Health Care Market and Strengthening
Medicare
The Department continues to implement Affordable Care Act
provisions that expand health insurance coverage and promote health
care security for all Americans. Millions of Americans--including
women, families, seniors, and small business owners--are already
benefitting from the Affordable Care Act. As the Department begins open
enrollment in the Health Insurance Marketplaces, we will continue to
provide guidance to states, providers, and insurers to enhance the
experience of individuals and families accessing the Marketplaces. In
addition, the Department plans to publish other rules that would
enhance the protections of the Affordable Care Act.
[ssquf] For example, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) is preparing to monitor and update policies related to the Health
Insurance Marketplaces based on experience with initial open enrollment
to address emerging needs of states, health care providers, and
insurers.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Exchange: Eligibility, Enrollment, and Appeals Updates
Proposed Rule (RIN: 0938-AS02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] CMS, along with the Departments of Labor and the Treasury,
recently published a final rule to implement the Mental Health Parity
and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) of 2008, which requires parity
between mental health or substance use disorder benefits and medical/
surgical benefits with respect to financial requirements and treatment
limitations under group health plans and health insurance coverage
offered in connection with a group health plan. The Affordable Care Act
builds on MHPAEA and requires coverage of mental health and substance
use disorder services as one of ten essential health benefits
categories. Under the essential health benefits rule, individual and
small group health plans are required to comply with these parity
regulations. This rule, in conjunction with the Affordable Care Act
provisions will expand mental health and substance use disorder
benefits and parity protections for 62 million Americans.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.mentalhealth.gov/get-help/health-insurance/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMS has also identified a number of opportunities to strengthen the
Medicare program by updating rules related to health care payments and
issuing rules to help root out potential waste, fraud, and abuse.
[ssquf] In one such rule, CMS will propose certain qualification
standards regarding the types of prosthetic and orthotic devices
billable to the Medicare program.\3\ This rule continues the
Department's efforts to identify and eliminate avenues for Medicare
fraud and works to protect the Medicare Trust Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and
Supplies (DMEPOS): Special Payment Rules (RIN: 0938-AR84).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] In addition, CMS will update several Medicare provider
payment rules to better reflect the state of practice and be responsive
to feedback from providers.\4\ These rules, which are published
annually, provide predictability for health care providers so they can
manage their finances appropriately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System for Acute Care
Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System
and Fiscal Year 2015 Rates (RIN: 0938-AS11); CY 2015 Revisions to
Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other
Revisions to Medicare Part B (0938-AS12); CY 2015 Hospital
Outpatient PPS Policy Changes and Payment Rates, and CY 2015
Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System Policy Changes and Payment
Rates (0938-AS15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advancing Strategies To Reduce Gun Violence
On April 23, 2013, the Department published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting public input on issues
[[Page 955]]
related to the HIPAA Privacy Rule and reporting to the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System (NICS) the identities of individuals
subject to a federal mental health prohibitor that disqualifies the
individuals from possessing or receiving a firearm. The ANPRM also
announced the Department's consideration of a proposal to modify the
HIPAA Privacy Rule to expressly permit certain covered entities to
disclose to NICS the identities of individuals subject to the federal
mental health prohibitor. This NPRM will address public comments
received in response to the ANPRM and includes proposals to help
facilitate NICS reporting.
Safeguarding the Nation's Food Supply
FDA will continue its work to implement the Food Safety
Modernization Act and other statutory authorities related to food
safety, working with public and private partners to build a new system
of food safety oversight. In the past year, FDA has issued significant
proposed rules on preventive controls for human food and produce
safety, as well as foreign supplier verification for importers and
accreditation of third-party auditors. This year, FDA will continue its
work to enhance its oversight of the nation's food supply, including
publishing rules that will help curb the development of antimicrobial
resistance in food products. For example:
[ssquf] FDA recently issued a proposed rule establishing preventive
controls in the manufacture and distribution of animal feeds.\5\ This
regulation, as well as a companion piece related to human foods,
constitute the heart of the food safety program by instituting uniform
practices for the manufacture and distribution of food products to
ensure that those products are safe for consumption and will not cause
or spread disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis and
Risk-Benefit Preventive Controls for Food for Animals Proposed Rule
(RIN: 0910-AG10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] In another proposed rule, FDA is codifying a provision in
the Animal Drug User Fee Amendments of 2008 that requires sponsors of
antimicrobial new animal drug products to annually report the amount of
antimicrobial active ingredient in those drugs that are sold or
distributed for use in food-producing animals, as well as outline other
requirements for collecting additional drug distribution data. This
rule will help FDA address the problem of antimicrobial resistance and
will help ensure that FDA has the necessary information to examine
safety concerns related to the use of antibiotics in food-producing
animals.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Reports of Distribution and Sales Information for
Antimicrobial Active Ingredients Used in Food-Producing Animals
Proposed Rule (RIN: 0910-AG45).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promoting Children's Health and Well-Being
The Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) regulatory
portfolio includes rules that promote children's health and well-being
by strengthening programs that serve children and their families.
Specifically, ACF rules support the President's Early Learning
Initiative: A series of new investments that will establish a continuum
of high-quality early learning for a child--beginning at birth and
continuing to age five.
[ssquf] For example, one final rule would provide the first
comprehensive update of Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)
regulations since 1998.\7\ The CCDF is a federal program that provides
formula grants to states, territories, and tribes. The program provides
financial assistance to low-income families to access child care so
that they can work or attend a job training or educational program. It
also provides funding to improve the quality of child care and increase
the supply and availability of care for all families, including those
who receive no direct assistance through CCDF. This final rule would
make improvements in four key areas: (1) Health and safety; (2) child
care quality; (3) family-friendly policies that promote continuity of
care and support working families; and (4) program integrity. These
changes reflect current research and knowledge about the early care and
education sector, state innovations in policies and practices over the
past decade, and increased recognition that high quality child care
both supports work for low-income parents and promotes children's
learning and healthy development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Child Care and Development Fund Reforms to Support Child
Development and Working Families Final Rule (RIN: 0970-AC53).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] Another final rule would amend Head Start program
eligibility standards, as a component of an ongoing effort to
strengthen the Head Start program and help ensure for children and
families most in need access to this high-quality educational
program.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Head Start Eligibility Determination Final Rule (RIN: 0970-
AC46).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Empowering Americans To Make Healthy Choices in the Marketplace
As of 2010, more than one-third of U.S. adults \9\ and 17% of all
children and adolescents \10\ in the United States are obese,
representing a dramatic increase in the rise of this health status.
Since 1980, the prevalence of obesity among children and adolescents
has almost tripled.\11\ Obesity has both immediate and long-term
effects on the health and quality of life of those affected, increasing
their risk for chronic diseases, including heart disease, type 2
diabetes, certain cancers, stroke, and arthritis--as well as increasing
medical costs for the individual and the health system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html.
\10\ http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/index.html.
\11\ http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building on the momentum of the First Lady's ``Let's Move''
initiative and the Secretary's leadership, HHS has marshaled the skills
and expertise from across the Department to address this epidemic with
research, public education, and public health strategies. Adding to
this effort, FDA will issue several rules designed to provide more
useful, easy to understand dietary information--tools that will help
millions of American families identify healthy choices in the
marketplace.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See http://www.letsmove.gov/eat-healthy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] One final rule will require restaurants and similar retail
food establishments with 20 or more locations to list calorie content
information for standard menu items on restaurant menus and menu
boards, including drive-through menu boards.\13\ Other nutrient
information--total calories, fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium,
total carbohydrates, sugars, fiber, and total protein--would have to be
made available in writing upon request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Food Labeling: Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in
Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments Final Rule (RIN:
0910-AG57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] A second final rule will require vending machine operators
who own or operate 20 or more vending machines to disclose calorie
content for some items.\14\ The Department anticipates that such
information will ensure that patrons of chain restaurants and vending
machines have nutritional information about the food they are
consuming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Food Labeling: Calorie Labeling of Articles of Food Sold in
Vending Machines Final Rule (RIN: 0910-AG56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] A third proposed rule would revise the nutrition and
supplement facts labels on packaged food, which has not been updated
since 1993 when mandatory nutrition labeling of food was first
required. The aim of the proposed revision is to provide updated and
easier to read nutrition information
[[Page 956]]
on the label to help consumers maintain healthy dietary practices.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Food Labeling; Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement
Facts Labels Proposed Rule (RIN: 0910-AF22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] Another proposed rule will focus on the serving sizes of
foods that can reasonably consumed in one serving. This rule would
provide consumers with nutrition information based on the amount of
food that is typically eaten as a serving, which would assist consumers
in maintaining healthy dietary practices.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably
Be Consumed At One Eating Occasion; Duel Column Labeling; and
Modifying the Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed Final Rule
(RIN: 0910-AF23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reducing the Harms of Tobacco Use
In 2009, Congress enacted the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act, which authorized FDA to regulate tobacco for the first
time in history. Under the Tobacco Control Act, FDA has responsibility
for regulating the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of
tobacco products to protect the public health and for reducing tobacco
use by minors. In the coming year, FDA plans to issue a proposed rule
that would clarify which products containing tobacco, in addition to
cigarettes, are subject to FDA oversight.\17\ This rule would also
allow FDA to establish regulatory standards on the sale and
distribution of tobacco products, such as age-related access
restrictions and rules on advertising and promotion, as appropriate, to
protect public health. This rule will help FDA target its efforts to
identify and regulate tobacco products that are intended to entice
children and youth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``Tobacco Products'' Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act (RIN: 0910-AG38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modernizing Medical Product Safety and Availability
In 2012, Congress gave FDA new authorities under the Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation Act to support its core mission of
safeguarding the quality of medical products available to the public
while ensuring the availability of innovative products to promote the
public health. Similar to its work in the food safety, nutrition, and
tobacco control spheres, FDA works diligently to implement regulations
springing from this new statutory authority with a focus on enhancing
FDA oversight and protecting the quality of medical products in the
global drug supply chain; improving the availability of needed drugs
and devices; and promoting better-informed decisions by health
professionals and patients.
[ssquf] For example, a newly issued regulatory proposal would
require manufacturers of certain drugs, such as drugs used for cancer
treatments, anesthesia drugs, and other drugs that are critical to the
treatment of serious diseases and life-threatening conditions, to
report discontinuances or interruptions in the manufacturing of these
products.\18\ This rule would help FDA address and potentially prevent
drug shortages and would help inform providers and public health
officials earlier about potential drug shortages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Revision of Postmarketing Reporting Requirements: Permanent
Discontinuance or Interruption in Manufacturing of Certain Drug and
Biological Products (Drug Shortages) Proposed Rule (RIN: 0910-AG88).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] Another recent proposed rule would update FDA's regulations
to reflect the increased use of generic drugs in the current
marketplace and create parity between brand name and generic drug
manufacturers with regards to the ability to update product labeling.
In this rule, FDA would propose to allow generic drug manufacturers to
independently update product labeling to reflect certain types of newly
acquired safety information through submission of a ``changes being
effected'' supplement, irrespective of whether the revised labeling
differs from that of the corresponding brand name drug.\19\ The rule
would also propose the process by which information regarding a
``changes being effected'' labeling supplement would be made publicly
available during FDA's review, so that the public can have timely
access to this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Supplemental Applications Proposing Labeling Changes for
Approved Drugs Proposed Rule (RIN: 0910-AG94).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Streamlining Regulations To Reduce Regulatory Burdens
Consistent with the President's Executive Order 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' the Department remains committed to
reducing regulatory burden on states, health care providers and
suppliers, and other regulated industries by updating rules to align
with emerging health and safety standards, eliminating outdated
procedures, streamlining rules, and providing flexibility to use
technology.
[ssquf] CMS continues its retrospective review efforts by proposing
rules to update safety standards, eliminate redundancies, and reduce
burden for patients and providers. For example, one proposed rule would
amend the fire safety standards for hospitals, long-term care
facilities, intermediate care facilities for the intellectually
disabled (ICFs/ID), ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), hospices which
provide in-patient services, religious non-medical health care
institutions, and Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE)
facilities.\20\ Further, this proposed rule would adopt the most recent
edition of the Life Safety Code (LSC) and eliminate references in our
regulations to all earlier editions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Fire Safety Requirements for Certain Health Care Facilities
Proposed Rule (RIN: 0938-AR72).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] In another rule, CMS, working with the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and the Office for Civil Rights, will amend the
Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) regulations
to allow laboratories to provide patients with direct access to
completed test results at the patient's request.\21\ This rule supports
the Administration's transparency initiative by allowing consumers to
make informed decisions about their care and treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ CLIA Program and HIPAA Privacy Rule: Patients' Access to
Test Reports (RIN: 0938-AQ38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] In a major undertaking, the Department and White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy will propose revisions to the
ethical rules governing research on human subjects, often referred to
as the Common Rule.\22\ The Common Rule governs institutions and
researchers supported by HHS, and researchers throughout much of the
federal government, in the conduct of research on humans. The proposed
revisions will aim to better protect human subjects who are involved in
research while facilitating research and reducing burden, delay, and
ambiguity for investigators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections
for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for
Investigators Proposed Rule (RIN: 0937-AA02).
HHS--OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS (OCR)
Proposed Rule Stage
48. HIPAA Privacy Rule and the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System (NICS)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 104-191; President's Gun Violence
Reduction Executive Actions
CFR Citation: 45 CFR 164.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would modify the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule to
expressly permit certain HIPAA covered entities to disclose to
[[Page 957]]
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) the
identities of individuals who are subject to a Federal ``mental health
prohibitor'' that disqualifies them from possessing or receiving a
firearm.
Statement of Need: This proposed rule is needed to ensure that
entities that perform involuntary commitments or make adjudications
causing individuals to be disqualified from possessing or receiving a
firearm under the Federal mental health prohibitor can report to the
NICS.
Summary of Legal Basis: On January 16, 2013, President Barack Obama
announced 23 Executive actions aimed at curbing gun violence across the
nation, including a specific commitment to address unnecessary legal
barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act, which may prevent states from making information
available to the NICS.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The rule does not establish any new
requirements and is expected to be cost neutral. Possible unquantified
benefits include increased flexibility for States and covered entities
to report to the NICS, and increased public safety as a result of
increased reporting to the NICS.
Risks: Not applicable.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 04/23/13 78 FR 23872
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 06/07/13
NPRM................................ 12/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: State.
URL For More Information: www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy.
Agency Contact: Andra Wicks, Department of Health and Human
Services, Office for Civil Rights, 200 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 202 205-2292, Fax: 202 205-4786, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0945-AA05
HHS--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)
Proposed Rule Stage
49. Food Labeling; Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts
Labels
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 U.S.C. 343; 21 U.S.C. 371
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 101.9; 21 CFR 101.36.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: FDA is proposing to amend the labeling regulations for
conventional foods and dietary supplements to provide updated nutrition
information on the label to assist consumers in maintaining healthy
dietary practices. If finalized, this rule will modernize the nutrition
information found on the Nutrition Facts label, as well as the format
and appearance of the label.
Statement of Need: Almost all of the regulations for the nutrition
labeling of foods and dietary supplements have not been amended since
mandatory nutrition labeling was first required in 1993. New scientific
evidence and consumer research has become available in the last 18
years that can be used to update the content and appearance of
information on the Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels so that
consumers can use the information more effectively to select foods that
will assist them to maintain healthy dietary practices.
Summary of Legal Basis: FDA's legal basis derives from sections
201, 403, and 701(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Alternatives: The Agency will consider different options for the
amount of time that manufacturers have to come into compliance with the
requirements of this regulation, when finalized, so that the economic
burden to industry can be minimized.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: If finalized, this rule will affect
all foods that are currently required to bear nutrition labeling. It
will have a significant cost to industry because all food labels will
have to be updated. Much of the information currently provided on the
Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels is based on old reference
values and scientific information. The proposed changes would provide
more current information to assist consumers in constructing a
healthful diet. The potential benefit from the proposed rule stems from
the improvement in diet among the U.S. population. Diet is a
significant factor in the reduction in risk of chronic diseases such as
coronary heart disease, certain types of cancer, stroke, diabetes, and
obesity.
Risks: If information on the Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts
label is not updated, reference values that serve as the basis for the
percent Daily Value will continue to be based on old scientific
evidence, and consumers could believe that they are consuming an
appropriate amount of nutrients when, in fact, they are not. In
addition, consumers would not be able to determine the amount of
specific nutrients in a food product because mandatory declaration of
those nutrients is not currently required. Furthermore, consumers may
continue to overlook information on the label because it is not
displayed prominently on the label. Changes to the reference values,
nutrients declared on the label, and changes to the format and
appearance of the label would reduce the risk of consumers making food
choices in the absence of necessary information.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 07/11/03 68 FR 41507
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 10/09/03
Second ANPRM........................ 04/04/05 70 FR 17008
Second ANPRM Comment Period End..... 06/20/05
Third ANPRM......................... 11/02/07 72 FR 62149
Third ANPRM Comment Period End...... 01/31/08
NPRM................................ 12/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in EO 13132.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under EO
13563.
Agency Contact: Blakeley Fitzpatrick, Interdisciplinary Scientist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration,
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-830), HFS-830, 5100
Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-1450,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AF22
[[Page 958]]
HHS--FDA
50. Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be
Consumed at One-Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating,
Modifying, and Establishing Certain RACCs
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 U.S.C. 343; 21 U.S.C. 371
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 101.9; 21 CFR 101.12.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: FDA is proposing to amend its labeling regulations for
foods to provide updated Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed (RACCs)
for certain food categories. If finalized, this rule would provide
consumers with nutrition information based on the amount of food that
is customarily consumed, which would assist consumers in maintaining
healthy dietary practices. In addition to updating certain RACCs, FDA
is also considering amending the definition of single-serving
containers; amending the definition of serving size for breath mints;
and providing for dual-column labeling, which would provide nutrition
information per serving and per container, for certain containers.
Statement of Need: The regulations for serving sizes for nutrition
labeling of foods have not been amended since mandatory nutrition
labeling was first required in 1993. New scientific evidence,
consumption data, and consumer research has become available in the
last 18 years that can be used to update the serving size information
on Nutrition Facts labels to reflect the amount of food customarily
consumed. This will allow consumers to use the serving size information
more effectively to select foods that will promote maintenance of
healthy dietary practices.
Summary of Legal Basis: FDA's legal basis derived from sections
201, 403 and 701(a) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Alternatives: The Agency will consider different options for the
amount of time that manufacturers have to come into compliance with the
requirements of this regulation, if finalized, so that the economic
burden to industry can be minimized. The Agency also intends to publish
this regulation simultaneously with other regulations requiring changes
to Nutrition Fact labels to ease economic burden on manufacturers.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: If finalized, this rule will affect
most foods that are currently required to bear nutrition labeling. It
will have a significant cost to industry because food labels on all
affected foods will have to be updated. Much of the information
currently provided on the Nutrition Facts labels is based on old
reference values and scientific information. The proposed changes would
provide more current information to assist consumers in constructing a
healthful diet.
Risks: If serving size information on the Nutrition Facts label is
not updated, reference amounts customarily consumed that serve as the
basis for serving sizes will continue to be based on old consumption
data. Proposed updates to the serving size listed on the Nutrition
Facts label will be based on current nationwide consumption data.
Without these updates, consumers will not have current information to
assist them in constructing a healthy diet.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 04/04/05 70 FR 17010
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 06/20/05
NPRM................................ 12/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in EO 13132.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Agency Contact: Cherisa Henderson, Nutritionist, Department of
Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, HFS-830, 5100
Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 202 402-1450, Fax:
301 436-1191, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AF23
HHS--FDA
51. Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-
Based Preventive Controls for Food for Animals
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 U.S.C. 331; 21 U.S.C. 342; 21
U.S.C. 350c; 21 U.S.C. 350d note; 21 U.S.C. 350g; 21 U.S.C. 350g note;
21 U.S.C. 371; 21 U.S.C. 374; 42 U.S.C. 264; 42 U.S.C. 243; 42 U.S.C.
271; * * *
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 507.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, October 2011, Final Rule to
publish 9 months after close of comment period.
The legal deadline for FDA under the Food Safety Modernization Act
to promulgate proposed regulations is October 2011 for certain
requirements, with a final rule to publish 9 months after the close of
the comment period. The Food Safety Modernization Act mandates that FDA
promulgate final regulations for certain other provisions by July 2012.
Finally, the FDA Amendments Act of 2007 directs FDA to publish final
regulations for a subset of the proposed requirements by September
2009.
Abstract: FDA is proposing regulations for preventive controls for
animal food, including ingredients and mixed animal feed. This action
is intended to provide greater assurance that food marketed for all
animals, including pets, is safe.
Statement of Need: Regulatory oversight of the animal food industry
has traditionally been limited and focused on a few known safety
issues, so there could be potential human and animal health problems
that remain unaddressed. The massive pet food recall due to
adulteration of pet food with melamine and cyanuric acid in 2007 is a
prime example. The actions taken by two protein suppliers in China
affected a large number of pet food suppliers in the United States and
created a nationwide problem. By the time the cause of the problem was
identified, melamine- and cyanuric acid-contaminated ingredients
resulted in the adulteration of millions of individual servings of pet
food. Congress passed FSMA, which the President signed into law on
January 4, 2011 (Pub. L. 111-353). Section 103 of FSMA amended the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) by adding section 418
(21 U.S.C. 350g) Hazard Analysis and Risk Based Preventive Controls. In
enacting FSMA, Congress sought to improve the safety of food in the
United States by taking a risk-based approach to food safety,
emphasizing prevention. Section 418 of the FD&C Act requires owners,
operators, or agents in charge of food facilities to develop and
implement a written plan that describes and documents how their
facility will implement the hazard analysis and preventive controls
required by this section.
Summary of Legal Basis: FDA's authority for issuing this rule is
provided in FSMA (Pub. L. 111-353),
[[Page 959]]
which amended the FD&C Act by establishing section 418, which directed
FDA to publish implementing regulations. FSMA also amended section 301
of the FD&C Act to add 301(uu) that states the operation of a facility
that manufactures, processes, packs, or holds food for sale in the
United States, if the owner, operator, or agent in charge of such
facility is not in compliance with section 418 of the FD&C Act, is a
prohibited act.
FDA is also issuing this rule under the certain provisions of
section 402 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342) regarding adulterated food.
In addition, section 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371(a))
authorizes the Agency to issue regulations for the efficient
enforcement of the Act.
To the extent the regulations are related to communicable disease,
FDA's legal authority also derives from sections 311, 361, and 368 of
the Public Health Services Act (42 U.S.C. 243, 264 and 271). Finally,
FDA is acting under the direction of section 1002(a) of title X of
FDAAA of 2007 (21 U.S.C. 2102) which requires the Secretary to
establish processing standards for pet food.
Alternatives: The Food Safety Modernization Act requires this
rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The benefits of the proposed rule
would result from fewer cases of contaminated animal food ingredients
or finished animal food products. Discovering contaminated food
ingredients before they are used in a finished product would reduce the
number of recalls of contaminated animal food products. Benefits would
include reduced medical treatment costs for animals, reduced loss of
market value of live animals, reduced loss of animal companionship, and
reduced loss in value of animal food products. More stringent
requirements for animal food manufacturing would maintain public
confidence in the safety of animal foods and protect animal and human
health. FDA lacks sufficient data to quantify the benefits of the
proposed rule.
The compliance costs of the proposed rule would result from the
additional labor and capital required to perform the hazard analyses,
write and implement the preventive controls, monitor and verify the
preventive controls, take corrective actions if preventive controls
fail to prevent feeds from becoming contaminated, and implement
requirements from the operations and practices section.
Risks: FDA is proposing this rule to provide greater assurance that
food intended for animals is safe and will not cause illness or injury
to animals. This rule would implement a risk-based, preventive controls
food safety system intended to prevent animal food containing hazards,
which may cause illness or injury to animals or humans, from entering
into the food supply. The rule would apply to domestic and imported
animal food (including raw materials and ingredients). Fewer cases of
animal food contamination would reduce the risk of serious illness and
death to animals.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM............................... 10/29/13 78 FR 64736
NPRM Comment Period End............ 02/26/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Kim Young, Deputy Director, Division of Compliance,
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration,
Center for Veterinary Medicine, Room 106 (MPN-4, HFV-230), 7519
Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, Phone: 240 276-9207, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG10
HHS--FDA
52. ``Tobacco Products'' Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.; The Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act; Pub. L. 111-31; The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
(Tobacco Control Act) provides the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own
tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FD&C Act), as amended by the Tobacco Control Act, permits FDA to
issue regulations deeming other tobacco products to be subject to the
FD&C Act. This proposed rule would deem products meeting the statutory
definition of ``tobacco product'' to be subject to the FD&C Act and
would specify additional restrictions.
Statement of Need: Currently, the Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) provides FDA with immediate
authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own
tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. The Tobacco Control Act also permits
FDA to issue regulations deeming other tobacco products that meet the
statutory definition of ``tobacco product'' to also be subject to the
Food Drug & Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). This regulation is necessary to
afford FDA the authority to regulate these products which include
hookah, electronic cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, other novel
tobacco products, and future tobacco products.
Summary of Legal Basis: This should include a description of the
legal basis for the action and whether any aspect of the action is
required by statute or court order (section 4(c)(I)(C) of EO 12866).
Section 901 of the FD&C Act, as amended by the Tobacco Control Act,
permits FDA to issue regulations deeming other tobacco products to be
subject to the FD&C Act. Section 906(d) provides FDA with the authority
to propose restrictions on the sale and distribution of tobacco
products, including restrictions on the access to, and the advertising
and promotion of, tobacco products if FDA determines that such
regulation would be appropriate for the protection of the public
health.
Alternatives: This should describe, to the extent possible, the
alternatives the agency has considered or will consider for analysis
(section 4(c)(1)(B) of EO 12866). Special consideration should be given
to flexible approaches that ``reduce burdens'' and maintain ``freedom
of choice for the public'' (section 4 of EO 13563).
In addition to the benefits and costs of the proposed rule, FDA has
estimated the benefits and costs of several alternatives to the
proposed rule: deeming only, but exempt newly-deemed products from
certain requirements; exempt certain classes of products from certain
requirements; deeming only, with no additional provisions; and changes
to the compliance periods.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This should include ``preliminary
estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits'' of the regulatory
action (section 4(c)(1)(B) of E.O. 12866). Under E.O. 13563, agencies
must ``use the best available
[[Page 960]]
techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and
costs as accurately as possible.'' Consistent with previous guidance we
have provided concerning the implementation of E.O. 12866, the
description of costs should include both capital (upfront) costs and
annual (recurring) costs. If the benefits are difficult to quantify, we
encourage you, to the extent possible, to use nominal units (for
example, health effects or injuries avoided) for benefits. Avoid the
misclassification of transfer payments as costs or benefits. You should
appropriately discount both costs and benefits. To the extent that you
cannot quantify costs and benefits, you should describe them in
narrative form. (The Unified Agenda format does not permit the use of a
columnar format for cost and benefit information. Please provide these
data using a narrative format.)
The proposed rule has two parts: one part deems all tobacco
products to be subject to the FD&C Act; the other part proposes
additional provisions that would apply to newly-deemed products as well
as to other covered tobacco products. The proposed deeming action
differs from most public health regulations in that it is an enabling
regulation. In other words, in addition to directly subjecting newly-
deemed ``tobacco products'' to the substantive requirements of Chapter
IX of the FD&C Act, it enables FDA to issue further public health
regulations related to such products. Thus, almost all the potential
benefits and most of the costs that flow from the proposed deeming
action would be realized in stages over the long term. The proposed
rule would generate some immediate quantifiable benefits by dissuading
smokers of small and large cigars, thereby improving health and
longevity; it would impose costs in the form of registration,
submission, labeling, and other requirements.
Risks: This should include, if applicable, a description of ``how
the magnitude of the risk addressed by the action relates to other
risks within the jurisdiction of the agency'' (section 4(c)(1)(D) of
E.O. 12866). You should include 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 reduction
effort to other risks and risk reduction efforts within the agency's
jurisdiction.
Adolescence is the peak time for tobacco use initiation and
experimentation. In recent years, new and emerging tobacco products,
sometimes referred to as ``novel tobacco products,'' have been
developed and are becoming an increasing concern to public health due,
in part, to their appeal to youth and young adults. Non-regulated
tobacco products come in many forms, including electronic cigarettes,
nicotine gels, and certain dissolvable tobacco products (i.e., those
dissolvable products that do not currently meet the definition of
smokeless tobacco under 21 U.S.C. 387(18) because they do not contain
cut, ground, powdered, or leaf tobacco and instead contain nicotine
extracted from tobacco), and these products are widely available. This
deeming rule is necessary to provide FDA with authority to regulate
these products (e.g., registration, product and ingredient listing,
user fees for certain products, premarket requirements, and
adulteration and misbranding provisions). In addition, the additional
restrictions that FDA seeks to promulgate for the proposed deemed
products would reduce initiation and increase cessation (particularly
among youth). This rule is consistent with other approaches that the
Agency has taken to address the tobacco epidemic and is particularly
necessary given that consumer use may be gravitating to the proposed
deemed products.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Agency Contact: May Nelson, Regulatory Counsel, Department of
Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for
Tobacco Products, 9200 Corporate Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20850, Phone:
877 287-1373, Fax: 240 276-3904, Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AG38
HHS--FDA
53. Reports of Distribution and Sales Information for Antimicrobial
Active Ingredients Used in Food-Producing Animals
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b(l)(3)
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 514.80.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Section 105 of the Animal Drug User Fee Amendments of
2008 amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) to
require that the sponsor of each antimicrobial new animal drug product
submit an annual report to the Food and Drug Administration on the
amount of each antimicrobial active ingredient in the drug product that
is sold or distributed for use in food-producing animals, including any
distributor-labeled product. In addition to codifying these
requirements, FDA is exploring additional drug distribution data
collection.
Statement of Need: Section 105 of the Animal Drug User Fee
Amendments of 2008 (ADUFA) amended section 512 of the FD&C Act to
require that the sponsor of each new animal drug product that contains
an antimicrobial active ingredient submit an annual report to the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency) on the amount of each
antimicrobial active ingredient in the drug product that is sold or
distributed for use in food-producing animals, including information on
any distributor-labeled product. This legislation was enacted to assist
FDA in its continuing analysis of the interactions (including drug
resistance), efficacy, and safety of antibiotics approved for use in
both humans and food-producing animals (H. Rpt. 110-804). This proposed
rulemaking is to codify these requirements. In addition, FDA is
exploring the establishment of other reporting requirements to provide
for the collection of additional drug distribution data, including
reporting sales and distribution data by species.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 105 of ADUFA (110 Pub. L. 316; 122
Stat. 3509) amended section 512 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360b) to
require that sponsors of applications for new animal drugs containing
an antimicrobial active ingredient submit an annual report to the Food
and Drug Administration on the amount of each such ingredient in the
drug that is sold or distributed for use in food-producing animals,
including information on any distributor-labeled product. FDA is also
issuing this rule under its authority under section 512(l) of the FD&C
Act to collect information relating to approved new animal drugs.
Alternatives: This rulemaking codifies the Congressional mandate of
ADUFA section 105. The annual reporting required under ADUFA is
necessary to address potential problems concerning the safety and
effectiveness of antimicrobial new animal drugs. Less
[[Page 961]]
frequent data collection would hinder this purpose.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Sponsors of antimicrobial drugs sold
for use in food-producing animals currently report sales and
distribution data to the Agency under section 105 of ADUFA; this
rulemaking will codify a current statutory requirement. There may be a
minimal additional labor cost if any other reporting requirement is
proposed. Additional data beyond the reporting requirements specified
in ADUFA section 105 will help the Agency better understand how the use
of medically important antimicrobial drugs in food-producing animals
may relate to antimicrobial resistance.
Risks: Section 105 of ADUFA was enacted to address the problem of
antimicrobial resistance, and to help ensure that FDA has the necessary
information to examine safety concerns related to the use of
antibiotics in food-producing animals. 154 Cong. Rec. H7534.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 07/27/12 77 FR 44177
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 09/25/12 .......................
ANPRM Comment Period Extended....... 11/26/12 77 FR 59156
NPRM................................ 04/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Sharon Benz, Supervisory Animal Scientist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration,
Center for Veterinary Medicine, MPN-4, Room 2648, HFV-220, 7529
Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, Phone: 240 453-6864, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG45
HHS--FDA
54. Revision of Postmarketing Reporting Requirements Discontinuance or
Interruption in Supply of Certain Products (Drug Shortages)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: Secs 506C, 506C-1, 506D, and 506F of the FDA&C
Act, as amended by title X (Drug Shortages) of FDASIA, Pub. L. 112-144,
July 9, 2012
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 314.81; 21 CFR 314.91.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, January 9, 2014, Not later than 18
months after the date of enactment of FDASIA, FDA must adopt the final
regulation implementing section 506C as amended.
Section 1001 of FDASIA states that not later than 18 months after
the date of enactment of FDASIA, the Secretary shall adopt a final
regulation implementing section 506C as amended.
Abstract: FDASIA amends the FD&C Act to require manufacturers of
certain drug products to report discontinuances or interruptions in the
manufacturing of these products 6 months prior to the discontinuance or
interruption, or if that is not possible, as soon as practicable.
Manufacturers must notify FDA of a discontinuance or interruption in
the manufacture of drugs that are life-supporting, life-sustaining or
intended for use in the prevention or treatment of a debilitating
disease or condition. The regulation may include biological products
within the notification requirements if it would benefit public health.
Statement of Need: The Food and Drug Administration Safety and
Innovation Act (FDASIA), Public Law 112-144 (July 9, 2012), amends the
FD&C Act to require manufacturers of certain drug products to report to
FDA discontinuances or interruptions in the production of these
products that are likely to meaningfully disrupt supply 6 months prior
to the discontinuance or interruption, or if that is not possible, as
soon as practicable. FDASIA also amends the FD&C Act to include other
provisions related to drug shortages. Drug shortages have a significant
impact on patient access to critical medications and the number of drug
shortages has risen steadily since 2005 to a high of 251 shortages in
2011. Notification to FDA of a shortage or an issue that may lead to a
shortage is critical--FDA was able to prevent more than 100 shortages
in the first three quarters of 2012 due to early notification. This
rule will implement the FDASIA drug shortages provisions, allowing FDA
to more quickly and efficiently respond to shortages, thereby improving
patient access to critical medications and promoting public health.
Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 506C, 506C-1, 506D, 506E, and 506F
of the FD&C Act, as amended by title X (Drug Shortages) of FDASIA.
Alternatives: The principal alternatives assessed were to provide
guidance on voluntary notification to FDA or to continue to rely on the
requirements under the current interim final rule on notification.
These alternatives would not meet the statutory requirement to issue
the final regulation required by title X, section 1001 of FDASIA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The rule would increase the modest
reporting costs associated with notifying FDA of discontinuances or
interruptions in the production of certain drug products. The rule
would generate benefits in the form of the value of public health gains
through more rapid and effective FDA responses to potential or actual
drug shortages that otherwise would limit patient access to critical
medications.
Risks: Drug shortages can significantly impede patient access to
critical, sometimes life-saving, medications. Drug shortages,
therefore, can pose a serious risk to public health and patient safety.
This rule will require early notification of potential shortages,
enabling FDA to more quickly and effectively respond to potential or
actual drug shortages that otherwise would limit patient access to
critical medications.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/04/13 78 FR 65904
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/03/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Valerie Jensen, Department of Health and Human
Services, Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, Building 22, Room
6202, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20903, Phone: 301
796-0737.
RIN: 0910-AG88
HHS--FDA
55. Supplemental Applications Proposing Labeling Changes for Approved
Drugs and Biological Products
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 U.S.C. 331; 21 U.S.C. 352; 21
U.S.C. 353; 21 U.S.C. 355; 21 U.S.C. 371; 42 U.S.C. 262; * * *
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 314.70; 21 CFR 314.97; 21 CFR 314.150; 21 CFR
601.12.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would amend the regulations regarding
new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated new drug applications
(ANDAs), and biologics license applications (BLAs) to revise and
clarify procedures for changes to the labeling of an approved
[[Page 962]]
drug to reflect certain types of newly acquired information in advance
of FDA's review of such change. The proposed rule would describe the
process by which information regarding a ``changes being effected''
(CBE) labeling supplement submitted by an NDA or ANDA holder would be
made publicly available during FDA's review of the labeling change. The
proposed rule also would clarify requirements for the NDA holder for
the reference listed drug and all ANDA holders to submit conforming
labeling revisions after FDA has taken an action on the NDA and/or ANDA
holder's CBE labeling supplement. These proposed revisions to FDA's
regulations would create parity between NDA holders and ANDA holders
with respect to submission of CBE labeling supplements.
Statement of Need: In the current marketplace, approximately 80
percent of drugs dispensed are generic drugs approved in ANDAs. ANDA
holders, like NDA holders and BLA holders, are required to promptly
review all adverse drug experience information obtained or otherwise
received, and comply with applicable reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. However, under current FDA regulations, ANDA holders are
not permitted to use the CBE supplement process in the same manner as
NDA holders and BLA holders to independently update product labeling
with certain newly acquired safety information. This regulatory
difference recently has been determined to mean that an individual can
bring a product liability action for ``failure to warn'' against an NDA
holder, but generally not an ANDA holder. This may alter the incentives
for generic drug manufacturers to comply with current requirements to
conduct robust postmarketing surveillance, evaluation, and reporting,
and to ensure that their product labeling is accurate and up-to-date.
Accordingly, there is a need for ANDA holders to be able to
independently update product labeling to reflect certain newly acquired
safety information as part of the ANDA holder's independent
responsibility to ensure that its product labeling is accurate and up-
to-date. Allowing ANDA holders to update product labeling through CBE
supplements in the same manner as NDA holders and BLA holders may
improve communication of important, newly acquired drug safety
information to prescribing healthcare providers and the public.
Summary of Legal Basis: The FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) and
the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) provide FDA with authority over the
labeling for drugs and biological products, and authorize the Agency to
enact regulations to facilitate FDA's review and approval of
applications regarding the labeling for those products. FDA's authority
to extend the CBE supplement process for certain safety-related
labeling changes to ANDA holders arises from the same authority under
which FDA's regulations relating to NDA holders and BLA holders were
issued.
Alternatives: FDA considered several alternatives that would allow
certain requirements of the proposed rule to vary, such as proposing a
new category of supplements for certain labeling changes being effected
in 30 days.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The economic benefits to the public
health from adoption of the proposed rule are not quantified. By
allowing all application holders to update labeling based on newly
acquired information that meets the criteria for a CBE supplement,
communication of important drug safety information to prescribing
health care providers and the public could be improved. The primary
estimate of the costs of the proposed rule includes costs to ANDA and
NDA holders for submitting and reviewing CBE supplements.
Risks: This proposed rule is intended to remove obstacles to the
prompt communication of safety-related labeling changes that meet the
regulatory criteria for a CBE supplement. The proposed rule may
encourage generic drug companies to participate more actively with FDA
in ensuring the timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of drug safety
labeling in accordance with current regulatory requirements. FDA's
posting of information on its Web site regarding the safety-related
labeling changes proposed in pending CBE supplements would enhance
transparency and facilitate access by health care providers and the
public so that such information may be used to inform treatment
decisions.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/13/13 78 FR 67985
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/13/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Janice L. Weiner, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration,
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, WO 51, Room 6304, 10903 New
Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, Phone: 301 796-3601,
Fax: 301 847-8440, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG94
HHS--FDA
56. Veterinary Feed Directive
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 354; 21 U.S.C. 360b; 21 U.S.C. 360ccc;
21 U.S.C. 360ccc-1; 21 U.S.C. 371
CFR Citation: 21 CFR 514; 21 CFR 558.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Animal Drug Availability Act created a new category
of products called veterinary feed directive drugs (VFD drugs). This
rulemaking is intended to provide for the increased efficiency of the
VFD program.
Statement of Need: Before 1996, two options existed for regulating
the distribution of animal drugs, including drugs in animal feed: (1)
over-the-counter (OTC) and (2) prescription (Rx). In 1996 the Animal
Drug Availability Act (ADAA) created a new category of products called
veterinary feed directive (VFD) drugs. VFD drugs are new animal drugs
intended for use in or on animal feed, which are limited to use under
the professional supervision of a licensed veterinarian in the course
of the veterinarian's professional practice. In order for animal feed
containing a VFD drug to be used in animals, a licensed veterinarian
must first issue an order, called a veterinary feed directive (or VFD),
providing for such use. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the
Agency) finalized its regulation to implement the VFD-related
provisions of the ADAA in December 2000.
Since that time, FDA has received informal comments that the VFD
process is overly burdensome. As a result, FDA began exploring ways to
improve the VFD program's efficiency. To that end, FDA published an
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on March 29, 2010 (75 FR 15387),
and draft text of a proposed regulation, which it published April 13,
2012 (77 FR 22247). The proposed revisions to the VFD process are also
intended to support the Agency's initiative to transition certain new
animal drug products containing medically important antimicrobial drugs
from an OTC status to a status that requires veterinary oversight.
The proposed rule, if finalized, will make the following changes to
the VFD
[[Page 963]]
regulations at section 558.6 (21 CFR 558.6): 1) Reorganize the VFD
regulations to make them more user-friendly. This proposal will replace
the six subsections of the existing regulations with three subsections
that better identify what is expected from each party involved in the
VFD process; 2) Provide increased flexibility for licensed
veterinarians and animal producers to align with the most recent
practice standards, technological and medical advances, and practical
considerations, to assure the safe and effective use of VFD drugs; 3)
Provide for the continued availability through the current feed mill
distribution system of those Category I drugs that move to VFD
dispensing status. This will prevent potential shortages of
antimicrobial drugs needed by food animal producers for judicious
therapeutic uses on their farms and ranches; and 4) Lower the
recordkeeping burden for all involved parties to align with other feed
manufacturing recordkeeping requirements, thus eliminating the need for
two separate filing systems.
Summary of Legal Basis: FDA's authority for issuing this rule is
provided in the ADAA (Pub. L. 104-250), which amended the Federal Food,
Drug, & Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) by establishing section 504.
Alternatives: An alternative to the proposed rule that would ease
the burden on VFD drug manufacturers would be to allow additional time
to comply with the proposed labeling requirements for currently
approved VFD drugs, for example, 1 or more years after the final rule
becomes effective. This would not affect any new VFD drug approvals
after the effective date of the final rule, and it could provide a
transition period for current VFD manufacturers to coordinate the
labeling changes to the specimen labeling, representative labeling, the
VFD form itself, and advertising within the usual frequency of label
changes.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The estimated one-time costs to
industry from this proposed rule, if finalized, are the costs to review
the rule and prepare a compliance plan. In addition FDA estimates that
the government will incur costs associated with reviewing the VFD drug
labeling supplements that are expected to be submitted by VFD drug
manufacturers. The expected benefit of this proposal is a general
improvement in the efficiency of the VFD process. Additionally, the
reduction in veterinarian labor costs due to this rule is expected to
result in an annual cost savings.
Risks: As FDA begins to implement the judicious use principles for
medically important antimicrobial drugs based on the framework set
forth in Guidance for Industry 209, which published April 13,
2012, it is critical that the Agency makes the VFD program as efficient
as possible for stakeholders while maintaining adequate protection for
human and animal health. The provisions included in this proposed rule
are based on stakeholder input received in response to multiple
opportunities for public comment, and represent FDA's best effort to
strike the appropriate balance between protection of human and animal
health and programmatic efficiency.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 03/29/10 75 FR 15387
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 06/28/10
NPRM................................ 11/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Sharon Benz, Supervisory Animal Scientist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration,
Center for Veterinary Medicine, MPN-4, Room 2648, HFV-220, 7529
Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, Phone: 240 453-6864. Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG95
HHS--FDA
Final Rule Stage
57. Food Labeling: Calorie Labeling of Articles of Food Sold in Vending
Machines
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 U.S.C. 343; 21 U.S.C. 371
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: FDA published a proposed rule to establish requirements
for nutrition labeling of certain food items sold in certain vending
machines. FDA also proposed the terms and conditions for vending
machine operators registering to voluntarily be subject to the
requirements. FDA is issuing a final rule, and taking this action to
carry out section 4205 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act.
Statement of Need: This rulemaking was mandated by section 4205 of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act).
Summary of Legal Basis: On March 23, 2010, the Affordable Care Act
(Pub. L. 111-148) was signed into law. Section 4205 amended 403(q)(5)
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) by, among other
things, creating new clause (H) to require that vending machine
operators, who own or operate 20 or more machines, disclose calories
for certain food items. FDA has the authority to issue this rule under
sections 403(q)(5)(H) and 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
343(q)(5)(H), and 371(a)). Section 701(a) of the FD&C Act vests the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, and, by delegation, the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) with the authority to issue regulations
for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act.
Alternatives: Section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act requires the
Secretary (and by delegation, the FDA) to establish by regulation
requirements for calorie labeling of articles of food sold from covered
vending machines. Therefore, there are no alternatives to rulemaking.
FDA has analyzed alternatives that may reduce the burden of the
rulemaking, including analyzing the benefits and costs of: Restricting
the flexibility of the format for calorie disclosure, lengthening the
compliance time, and extending the coverage of the rule to bulk vending
machines without selection buttons.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Any vending machine operator
operating fewer than 20 machines may voluntarily choose to be covered
by the national standard. It is anticipated that vending machine
operators that own or operate 20 or more vending machines will bear
costs associated with adding calorie information to vending machines.
FDA initially estimated that the total cost of complying with section
4205 of the Affordable Care Act and this rulemaking would be
approximately $25.8 million initially, with a recurring cost of
approximately $24 million.
Because comprehensive national data for the effects of vending
machine labeling do not exist, FDA has not quantified the benefits
associated with section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act and this
rulemaking. Some studies have shown that some consumers consume fewer
calories when calorie content information is displayed at the point of
purchase. Consumers will benefit from having this important nutrition
information to assist them in making healthier choices when consuming
food away from home. Given the very high costs associated with obesity
and its associated health risks, FDA estimates
[[Page 964]]
that if 0.02 percent of the adult obese population reduces energy
intake by at least 100 calories per week, then the benefits of section
4205 of the Affordable Care Act and this rulemaking would be at least
as large as the costs.
Risks: Americans now consume an estimated one-third of their total
calories from foods prepared outside the home and spend almost half of
their food dollars on such foods. This rule will provide consumers with
information about the nutritional content of food to enable them to
make healthier food choices, and may help mitigate the trend of
increasing obesity in America.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/06/11 76 FR 19238
NPRM Comment Period End............. 07/05/11
Final Action........................ 02/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in EO 13132.
Agency Contact: Daniel Reese, Food Technologist, Department of
Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), 5100 Paint Branch Parkway,
College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-2126, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG56
HHS--FDA
58. Food Labeling: Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in
Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 U.S.C. 343; 21 U.S.C. 371
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: FDA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to
establish requirements for nutrition labeling of standard menu items in
chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments. FDA also
proposed the terms and conditions for restaurants and similar retail
food establishments registering to voluntarily be subject to the
Federal requirements. FDA is issuing a final rule, and taking this
action to carry out section 4205 of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act.
Statement of Need: This rulemaking was mandated by section 4205 of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act).
Summary of Legal Basis: On March 23, 2010, the Affordable Care Act
(Pub. L. 111-148) was signed into law. Section 4205 of the Affordable
Care Act amended 403(q)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FD&C Act) by, among other things, creating new clause (H) to require
that certain chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments
with 20 or more locations disclose certain nutrient information for
standard menu items. FDA has the authority to issue this rule under
sections 403(a)(1), 403(q)(5)(H), and 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
343(a)(1), 343(q)(5)(H), and 371(a)). Section 701(a) of the FD&C Act
vests the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and, by delegation,
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with the authority to issue
regulations for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act.
Alternatives: Section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act requires the
Secretary, and by delegation the FDA, to establish by regulation
requirements for nutrition labeling of standard menu items for covered
restaurants and similar retail food establishments. Therefore, there
are no alternatives to rulemaking. FDA has analyzed alternatives that
may reduce the burden of this rulemaking, including analyzing the
benefits and costs of expanding and contracting the set of
establishments covered by this rule and shortening or lengthening the
compliance time relative to the rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Chain restaurants and similar retail
food establishments covered by the Federal law operating in local
jurisdictions that impose different nutrition labeling requirements
will benefit from having a uniform national standard. Any restaurant or
similar retail food establishment with fewer than 20 locations may
voluntarily choose to be covered by the national standard. It is
anticipated that chain restaurants with 20 or more locations will bear
costs for adding nutrition information to menus and menu boards. FDA
initially estimated that the total cost of section 4205 and this
rulemaking would be approximately $80 million, annualized over 10
years, with a low annualized estimate of approximately $33 million and
a high annualized estimate of approximately $125 million over 10 years.
These costs (which are subject to change in the final rule) included an
initial cost of approximately $320 million with an annually recurring
cost of $45 million.
Because comprehensive national data for the effects of menu
labeling do not exist, FDA has not quantified the benefits associated
with section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act and this rulemaking. Some
studies have shown that some consumers consume fewer calories when
menus have information about calorie content displayed. Consumers will
benefit from having important nutrition information for the
approximately 30 percent of calories consumed away from home. Given the
very high costs associated with obesity and its associated health
risks, FDA estimates that if 0.6 percent of the adult obese population
reduces energy intake by at least 100 calories per week, then the
benefits of section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act and this rule will
be at least as large as the costs.
Risks: Americans now consume an estimated one-third of their total
calories on foods prepared outside the home and spend almost half of
their food dollars on such foods. Unlike packaged foods that are
labeled with nutrition information, foods in restaurants, for the most
part, do not have nutrition information that is readily available when
ordered. Dietary intake data have shown that obese Americans consume
over 100 calories per meal more when eating food away from home rather
than food at home. This rule will provide consumers information about
the nutritional content of food to enable them to make healthier food
choices and may help mitigate the trend of increasing obesity in
America.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/06/11 76 FR 19192
NPRM Comment Period End............. 07/05/11
Final Action........................ 02/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in EO 13132.
Agency Contact: Daniel Reese, Food Technologist, Department of
Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), 5100
[[Page 965]]
Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-2126,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG57
HHS--CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS)
Proposed Rule Stage
59. Fire Safety Requirements for Certain Health Care Facilities (CMS-
3277-P)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 403; 42 CFR 416; 42 CFR 418; 42 CFR 460; 42
CFR 482; 42 CFR 483; 42 CFR 485.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would amend the fire safety standards
for hospitals; critical access hospital long-term care facilities;
intermediate care facilities for the intellectually disabled;
ambulatory surgery centers hospices, which provide in-patient services;
religious non-medical health care institutions; and programs of all-
inclusive care for the elderly facilities. Further, this proposed rule
would adopt the 2012 edition of the Life Safety Code and eliminate
references in our regulations to all earlier editions.
Statement of Need: By adopting the 2012 editions of the Life Safety
Code (NFPA 101) and the Health Care Facilities Code (NFPA 99) we will
bring CMS standards up-to-date with the most recent requirements.
Currently, Medicare and Medicaid facilities are following the 2000 NFPA
101 Life Safety Code standards, and CMS regulations do not require
compliance with NFPA 99.
Summary of Legal Basis: The rule would amend certain provisions of
the Social Security Act in order to adopt fire safety standards for
hospitals, critical access hospitals, long-term care facilities,
intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual
disabilities, ambulatory surgery centers, hospices which provide
inpatient services, religious non-medical health care institutions, and
programs of all-inclusive care for the elderly facilities.
Alternatives: None. A rule is needed to update requirements for
Medicare and Medicaid facilities.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We estimate that the effect of this
rule will not be economically significant and the cost for facilities
to implement this rule will be minimal.
Risks: None. We expect the health care, fire safety, and building
safety communities will support this rule.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under EO
13563.
Agency Contact: Kristin Shifflett, Health Insurance Specialist
Clinical Standard Group, Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Clinical Standards
and Quality, Mail Stop S3-02-01, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD
21244, Phone: 410 786-4133, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AR72
HHS--CMS
60. Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies
(DMEPOS): Special Payment Rules (CMS-6012-P)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1395m(h)(1); Pub. L. 106-554 (BIPA), sec
427
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 424.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would specify the qualification
standards and the type of prosthetic and orthotic devices billable to
the Medicare program. It also proposes the accreditation deadline for
the entities billing orthotics and prosthetics and identifies the
DMEPOS product categories exempt from accreditation requirements.
Statement of Need: CMS believes it is the intent of the Congress to
strengthen DMEPOS supplier standards in order to protect beneficiaries
and ensure the integrity of the Medicare program. Historically, there
has been no Medicare requirement that a supplier of prosthetics and
custom fabricated orthotics be certified or meet educational
requirements other than what a state law may require. This proposed
rule would provide a basis to improve the quality of orthotics and
prosthetics furnished to Medicare beneficiaries by establishing minimum
national supplier and practitioner qualifications and accreditation
requirements for DMEPOS suppliers.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1834(h) of the Social Security Act
(the Act) establishes the payment rules for orthotics and prosthetics
that are described in section 1861(s)(9) of the Act and in our
regulations.
Alternatives: None. A rule is necessary to implement the proposed
provisions.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This proposed rule is expected to
provide savings for the Medicare program by establishing stringent
safeguards that would protect the Medicare Trust Fund. It would also
provide a basis to improve the provision and the quality of prosthetics
and custom fabricated orthotics to Medicare beneficiaries by
establishing that DMEPOS suppliers have the qualifications, specialized
education, training, licensure, and certification.
Risks: Not publishing this proposed rule puts Medicare
beneficiaries at risk. Beneficiaries would be best served by
establishing safeguards that would provide a basis to improve the
provision of quality prosthetics and custom fabricated orthotics to
Medicare beneficiaries by establishing practitioner qualifications and
accreditation requirements for DMEPOS suppliers.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Sandra Bastinelli, Health Insurance Specialist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone:
410 786-3630, Email: sandra [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AR84
HHS--CMS
61. Eligibility, Enrollment, and Appeals Updates (CMS-9949-P)
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 11-148 secs 1301 to 1304; secs 1311 to
1313; secs 1321 and 1322; secs 1331 and 1332; secs 1334 and 1402
CFR Citation: 45 CFR 155; 45 CFR 156.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would update policy based on
experience with initial open enrollment.
Statement of Need: The Affordable Care Act establishes an initial
open
[[Page 966]]
enrollment period beginning October 1, 2013, and annual open enrollment
periods in subsequent years. CMS expects that updates or revisions to
existing policy may be necessary based on our experience with the
initial open enrollment. These updates would be implemented before the
second open enrollment period begins.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule would address updates to
provisions included in Title I of the Affordable Care Act.
Alternatives: None. Revisions made to the existing Exchange
regulations would require rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: An estimate of costs or benefits
will be completed once the necessary policy updates have been
determined.
Risks: If this rule is not published, the Exchanges may not
continue to function optimally.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Manasse Spencer, Health Insurance Specialist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone:
410 786-1642, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AS02
HHS--CMS
62. Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System for Acute
Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment
System and Fiscal Year 2015 Rates (CMS-1607-P)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: Sec. 1886(d) of the Social Security Act
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 2014. Final, Statutory,
August 1, 2014.
Abstract: This annual proposed rule would revise the Medicare
hospital inpatient and long-term care hospital prospective payment
systems for operating and capital-related costs. This proposed rule
would implement changes arising from our continuing experience with
these systems.
Statement of Need: CMS annually revises the Medicare hospital
inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS) for operating and capital-
related costs to implement changes arising from our continuing
experience with these systems. In addition, we describe the proposed
changes to the amounts and factors used to determine the rates for
Medicare hospital inpatient services for operating costs and capital-
related costs. Also, CMS annually updates the payment rates for the
Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for inpatient hospital
services provided by long-term care hospitals (LTCHs). The rule
solicits comments on the proposed IPPS and LTCH payment rates and new
policies. CMS will issue a final rule containing the payment rates for
the FY 2015 IPPS and LTCHs at least 60 days before October 1, 2014.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Social Security Act (the Act) sets
forth a system of payment for the operating costs of acute care
hospital inpatient stays under Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance)
based on prospectively set rates. The Act requires the Secretary to pay
for the capital-related costs of hospital inpatient and long term care
stays under a PPS. Under these systems, Medicare payment for hospital
inpatient and long term care operating and capital-related costs is
made at predetermined, specific rates for each hospital discharge.
These changes would be applicable to services furnished on or after
October 1, 2014.
Alternatives: None. This implements a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted
for FY 2015.
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, inpatient
hospital and LTCH services will not be paid appropriately beginning
October 1, 2014.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in EO 13132.
Agency Contact: Roechel Kujawa, Health Insurance Specialist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Mail Stop C4-07-07, 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-9111, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0938-AS11
HHS--CMS
63. CY 2015 Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician
Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Medicare Part B (CMS-1612-P)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: Social Security Act, secs 1102, 1871 and 1848
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2014.
Abstract: This annual proposed rule would revise payment polices
under the Medicare physician fee schedule, and make other policy
changes to payment under Medicare Part B. These changes would apply to
services furnished beginning January 1, 2015.
Statement of Need: The statute requires that we establish each
year, by regulation, payment amounts for all physicians' services
furnished in all fee schedule areas. This rule would implement changes
affecting Medicare Part B payment to physicians and other Part B
suppliers. The final rule has a statutory publication date of November
1, 2014, and an implementation date of January 1, 2015.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1848 of the Social Security Act
(the Act) establishes the payment for physician services provided under
Medicare. Section 1848 of the Act imposes a deadline of no later than
November 1 for publication of the final rule or final physician fee
schedule.
Alternatives: None. This implements a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted
for CY 2015.
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, physician
services will not be paid appropriately, beginning January 1, 2015.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Kathy Bryant, Deputy Director, Division of
Practitioner
[[Page 967]]
Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services, Mail Stop C4-01-27, 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-3448, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0938-AS12
HHS--CMS
64. CY 2015 Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System
(PPS) Policy Changes and Payment Rates, and CY 2015 Ambulatory Surgical
Center Payment System Policy Changes and Payment Rates (CMS-1613-P)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: sec 1833 of the Social Security Act
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2014.
Abstract: This annual proposed rule would revise the Medicare
hospital outpatient prospective payment system (PPS) to implement
statutory requirements and changes arising from our continuing
experience with this system. The proposed rule describes changes to the
amounts and factors used to determine payment rates for services. In
addition, the rule proposes changes to the ambulatory surgical center
payment system list of services and rates.
Statement of Need: Medicare pays over 4,000 hospitals for
outpatient department services under the hospital outpatient
prospective payment system (OPPS). The OPPS is based on groups of
clinically similar services called ambulatory payment classification
groups (APCs). CMS annually revises the APC payment amounts based on
the most recent claims data, proposes new payment policies, and updates
the payments for inflation using the hospital operating market basket.
Medicare pays roughly 5,000 Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs) under
the ASC payment system. CMS annually revises the payment under the ASC
payment system, proposes new policies, and updates payments for
inflation. CMS will issue a final rule containing the payment rates for
the 2015 OPPS and ASC payment system at least 60 days before January 1,
2015.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1833 of the Social Security Act
establishes Medicare payment for hospital outpatient services and ASC
services. The rule revises the Medicare hospital OPPS and ASC payment
system to implement applicable statutory requirements. In addition, the
rule describes changes to the outpatient APC system, relative payment
weights, outlier adjustments, and other amounts and factors used to
determine the payment rates for Medicare hospital outpatient services
paid under the prospective payment system as well as changes to the
rates and services paid under the ASC payment system. These changes
would be applicable to services furnished on or after January 1, 2015.
Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted
for CY 2015.
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, outpatient
hospital and ASC services will not be paid appropriately beginning
January 1, 2015.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Marjorie Baldo, Health Insurance Specialist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare Management, Mail Stop C4-03-06,
7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-4617,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AS15
HHS--CMS
Final Rule Stage
65. CLIA Programs And HIPAA Privacy Rule; Patients' Access to Test
Reports (CMS-2319-F)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 263a
CFR Citation: 42 CFR 493; 45 CFR 164.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This CMS-CDC-OCR rule amends the Clinical Laboratory
Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) regulations to specify that, upon
a patient's request, the laboratory may provide access to completed
test reports that, using the laboratory's authentication process, can
be identified as belonging to that patient. Subject to conforming
amendments, the rule retains the existing provisions that provide for
release of test reports to authorized persons and, if applicable, the
individuals (or their personal representative) responsible for using
the test reports and, in the case of reference laboratories, the
laboratory that initially requested the test. In addition, this rule
also amends the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule to provide individuals the right to receive
their test reports directly from laboratories by removing the
exceptions for CLIA-certified laboratories and CLIA-exempt laboratories
from the provision that provides individuals with the right of access
to their protected health information.
Statement of Need: The current CLIA regulations and related laws of
the states and territories pose potential barriers to the laboratory
exchange of test reports directly with the patient. This rule
implements changes that support of the Secretary's efforts of achieving
patient-centered and health IT-enabled health care and allow patients
direct access to their test reports from a laboratory
Summary of Legal Basis: The final rule removes the exceptions to an
individual's right of access related to CLIA and CLIA-exempt
laboratories. HIPAA-covered laboratories will be required to provide an
individual (or the individual's personal representative) with access,
upon request, to the individual's completed test reports (and other
information maintained in a designated record set) in accordance with
the provisions of section 164.524 of the Privacy regulations.
Alternatives: Several alternatives were considered before selecting
the approach in this final rule to provide access to laboratory test
reports upon a patient's request. One alternative would have been to
leave the regulations as written without making any changes. However,
this option would leave in place the restrictions on patients' direct
access to their laboratory test results and would therefore impede the
goal of promoting patient-centered health care. Another alternative
would have been to revise the definition of ``authorized person'' under
CLIA to specifically include a patient as an authorized person. This
alternative was not considered feasible because the definition of
``authorized person'' in the CLIA regulations also permits individuals
to order tests, and it defers to state law for authorization. A last
alternative considered would have been to require the laboratory to
automatically provide each test report directly to each patient rather
than the permissive approach to provide patients access to their
reports upon request. However, this alternative would have
[[Page 968]]
had the potential of significantly increasing the cost for laboratories
since 100 percent of the 350 million to 703 million test reports issued
annually would need to be provided to the patients.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We estimate that this rule will not
have an economically significant impact on laboratories. It will
facilitate the ability of patients to compare test results over time
and to share this information with future physicians or multiple
physicians. This improved information sharing is likely to improve
health care, especially for patients and providers who do not have
access to electronic health records in the near term.
Risks: None. This rule will allow laboratories to use existing
processes for patient access or develop new procedures that are
appropriate for their facility. It expands an individual's right of
access to include receiving test reports directly from laboratories.
This rule does not alter the role of the ordering or treating provider
in reporting and explaining test results to patients.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/14/11 76 FR 56712
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/14/11 .......................
Final Action........................ 11/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: State.
Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under EO
13563.
Agency Contact: Judith Yost, Director, Division of Laboratory
Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services, Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, 7500
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850, Phone: 410 786-3531,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AQ38
HHS--ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)
Final Rule Stage
66. Head Start Eligibility Determination
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule would amend Head Start program regulations to
clarify and strengthen procedures for determining eligibility for Head
Start program enrollment, including procedures to document and verify
such eligibility. The intent is to reduce the risk of providing Head
Start services to persons who are ineligible for those services.
Statement of Need: This final rule will amend Head Start program
regulations to clarify and strengthen procedures for determining
eligibility for Head Start program enrollment, including procedures to
document and verify such eligibility. The intent is to reduce the risk
of providing Head Start services to persons who are ineligible for
those services. The final rule directly responds to the findings of an
investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that the
Head Start program is at risk of having over-income children enrolled
while legitimate under-income and categorically eligible children are
put on wait lists.
Summary of Legal Basis: This final rule is published under the
authority granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by
section 644(c) of the Head Start Act, as amended by the Improving Head
Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, as well as sections
645(a)(1)(A) and 645A(c) of the Act.
Alternatives: Upon learning of GAO's investigation findings, the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) immediately took
numerous actions within our statutory and regulatory authority to
respond to GAO's findings and to bolster program integrity efforts
across the Head Start and Early Head Start programs; prevent future
fraud and mismanagement; and ensure that every slot is reserved for an
eligible child. For example, ACF issued a Program Instruction on May
10, 2010, entitled, ''Income Eligibility for Enrollment'' (ACF-PI-HS-
10-01), which reminds grantees of their legal obligations to verify the
eligibility of each child served and determine eligibility in
accordance with the Head Start statute and regulations, as well as the
serious consequences for falsifying eligibility determinations.
However, we believe GAO's findings necessitate the implementation of
new enrollment procedures, as contained in this final regulation, in
order to reiterate and strengthen the requirements. Therefore, we are
issuing this final regulation with requirements for Head Start and
Early Head Start agency staff regarding verification, documentation,
and certification of the information submitted by the applicants prior
to determining if a pregnant woman or child is eligible for
participation in a Head Start or Early Head Start program. This final
regulation will ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent in conformance
with the purpose and requirements of the Head Start Act and that the
neediest children and families in our country benefit from the
program's services.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There will not be a significant
economic impact from this final rule. The estimated total cost of
implementation of these rules for all grantees is approximately
$132,188 annually.
Risks: Not applicable.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/18/11 76 FR 14841
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/18/11 .......................
Final Action........................ 04/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Colleen Rathgeb, Division Director, Policy and
Budget, HS, Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, 1250 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20024,
Phone: 202 205-7378, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0970-AC46
HHS--ACF
67. Child Care and Development Fund Reforms To Support Child
Development and Working Families
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Sec. 658E and other provisions of the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, as amended
CFR Citation: 45 CFR 98.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule would provide the first comprehensive update of
Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) regulations since 1998. It would
make changes in four key areas: (1) Improving health and safety; (2)
improving the quality of child care; (3) establishing family-friendly
policies; and (4) strengthening program integrity. The rule seeks to
retain much of the flexibility afforded to States, territories, and
tribes consistent with the nature of a block grant.
Statement of Need: The CCDF program has far-reaching implications
for America's poorest children. It provides child care assistance to
1.6
[[Page 969]]
million children from nearly 1 million low-income working families and
families who are attending school or job training. Half of the children
served are living at or below poverty level. In addition, children who
receive CCDF are cared for alongside children who do not receive CCDF,
by approximately 570,000 participating child care providers, some of
whom lack basic assurances needed to ensure children are safe, healthy,
and learning. Since 1996, a body of research has demonstrated the
importance of the early years on brain development and has shown that
high-quality, consistent child care can positively impact later success
in school and life. This is especially true for low-income children who
face a school readiness and achievement gap and can benefit the most
from high-quality early learning environments. In light of this
research, many States, territories, and tribes, working collaboratively
with the Federal Government, have taken important steps over the last
15 years to make the CCDF program more child-focused and family-
friendly; however, implementation of these evidence-informed practices
is uneven across the country and critical gaps remain. This regulatory
action is needed in order to increase accountability in the CCDF
program by ensuring that all children receiving federally funded child
care assistance are in safe, quality programs that both support their
parent's labor market participation, and help children develop the
tools and skills they need to reach their full potential. A major focus
of this final rule is to raise the bar on quality by establishing a
floor of health and safety standards for child care paid for with
Federal funds. National surveys have demonstrated that most parents
logically assume that their child care providers have had a background
check, have had training in child health and safety, and are regularly
monitored. However, State policies surrounding the training and
oversight of child care providers vary widely. In some States, many
children receiving CCDF subsidies are cared for by providers that have
little to no oversight with respect to compliance with basic standards
designed to safeguard children's well-being, such as first-aid and safe
sleep practices. This can leave children in unsafe conditions, even as
their care is being funded with public dollars. In addition, the final
rule empowers all parents who choose child care, regardless of whether
they receive a Federal subsidy, with better information to make the
best choices for their children. This includes providing parents with
information about the quality of child care providers and making
information about providers' compliance with health and safety
regulations more transparent so that parents can be aware of the safety
track record of providers when it's time to choose child care.
Summary of Legal Basis: This final regulation is being issued under
the authority granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by
the CCDBG Act (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) and section 418 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 618).
Alternatives: The Administration for Children and Families
considered a range of approaches to improve early childhood care and
education, including administrative and regulatory action. ACF has
taken administrative actions to recommend that States adopt stronger
health and safety requirements and provided technical assistance to
States. Despite these efforts to assist States in making voluntary
reforms, unacceptable health and safety lapses remain. An alternative
to this rule would be to take no regulatory action or to limit the
nature of the required standards and the degree to which those
standards are prescriptive. ACF believes this rulemaking is the
preferable alternative to ensure children's health and safety and
promote their learning and development.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Changes in this final rule directly
benefit children and parents who use CCDF assistance to pay for child
care. The 1.6 million children who are in child care funded by CCDF
would have stronger protections for their health and safety, which
addresses every parent's paramount concern. All children in the care of
a participating CCDF provider will be safer because that provider is
more knowledgeable about health and safety issues. In addition, the
families of the 12 million children who are served in child care will
benefit from having clear, accessible information about the safety
compliance records and quality indicators of providers available to
them as they make critical choices about where their children will be
cared for while they work. Provisions also will benefit child care
providers by encouraging States to invest in high quality child care
providers and professional development and to take into account quality
when they determine child care payment rates. A primary reason for
revising the CCDF regulations is to better reflect current State and
local practices to improve the quality of child care. Therefore, there
are a significant number of States, territories, and tribes that have
already implemented many of these policies. The cost of implementing
the changes in this final rule will vary depending on a State's
specific situation. ACF does not believe the costs of this final
regulatory action would be economically significant and that the
tremendous benefits to low-income children justify costs associated
with this final rule.
Risks: Not applicable.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/20/13 78 FR 29422
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/05/13 .......................
Final Action........................ 06/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: State, Tribal.
Agency Contact: Andrew Williams, Policy Division Director,
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children
and Families, Office of Child Care, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW.,
Washington, DC 20447, Phone: 202 401-4795, Fax: 202 690-5600, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0970-AC53
BILLING CODE 4150-24-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)
Fall 2013 Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) was created
in 2003 pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-
296. DHS has a vital mission: To secure the Nation from the many
threats we face. This requires the dedication of more than 225,000
employees in jobs that range from aviation and border security to
emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility
inspector. Our duties are wide-ranging, but our goal is clear--keeping
America safe.
Our mission gives us six main areas of responsibility:
1. Prevent Terrorism and Enhance Security,
2. Secure and Manage Our Borders,
3. Enforce and Administer our Immigration Laws,
4. Safeguard and Secure Cyberspace,
5. Ensure Resilience to Disasters, and
6. Mature and Strengthen DHS.
In achieving these goals, we are continually strengthening our
partnerships with communities, first
[[Page 970]]
responders, law enforcement, and government agencies--at the State,
local, tribal, Federal, and international levels. We are accelerating
the deployment of science, technology, and innovation in order to make
America more secure, and we are becoming leaner, smarter, and more
efficient, ensuring that every security resource is used as effectively
as possible. For a further discussion of our main areas of
responsibility, see the DHS Web site at http://www.dhs.gov/our-mission.
The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's fall
2013 regulatory plan and in the agenda support the Department's
responsibility areas listed above. These regulations will improve the
Department's ability to accomplish its mission.
The regulations we have identified in this year's fall regulatory
plan continue to address legislative initiatives including, but not
limited to, the following acts: The Implementing Recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act of 2008 (9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53 (Aug. 3,
2007); Public Law 109-295 (Oct. 4, 2006); the Consolidated Natural
Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), Public Law No. 110-220 (May 7, 2008); the
Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act),
Public Law 109-347 (Oct. 13, 2006); the Consolidated Security, Disaster
Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, Public Law 110-329
(Sep. 30, 2008), and the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA), Public
Law 113-2 (Jan. 29, 2013).
DHS strives for organizational excellence and uses a centralized
and unified approach in managing its regulatory resources. The Office
of the General Counsel manages the Department's regulatory program,
including the agenda and regulatory plan. In addition, DHS senior
leadership reviews each significant regulatory project to ensure that
the project fosters and supports the Department's mission.
The Department is committed to ensuring that all of its regulatory
initiatives are aligned with its guiding principles to protect civil
rights and civil liberties, integrate our actions, build coalitions and
partnerships, develop human resources, innovate, and be accountable to
the American public.
DHS is also committed to the principles described in Executive
Orders 13563 and 12866 (as amended). Both Executive Orders direct
agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts,
and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility.
Finally, the Department values public involvement in the
development of its regulatory plan, agenda, and regulations, and takes
particular concern with the impact its rules have on small businesses.
DHS and each of its components continue to emphasize the use of plain
language in our notices and rulemaking documents to promote a better
understanding of regulations and increased public participation in the
Department's rulemakings.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Pursuant to Executive Order 13563 ``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), DHS identified the following
regulatory actions as associated with retrospective review and
analysis. Some of the regulatory actions on the below list may be
completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. You can
find more information about these completed rulemakings in past
publications of the Unified Agenda (search the Completed Actions
sections) on www.reginfo.gov. Some of the entries on this list,
however, are active rulemakings. You can find entries for these
rulemakings on www.regulations.gov.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIN Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1615-AB92......................................... Employment
Authorization for
Certain H-4
Spouses.
1615-AB95......................................... Immigration Benefits
Business
Transformation:
Nonimmigrants;
Student and
Exchange Visitor
Program.
1625-AA16......................................... Implementation of
the 1995 Amendments
to the
International
Convention on
Standards of
Training,
Certification, and
Watchkeeping (STCW)
for Seafarers,
1978.
1625-AB38......................................... Update to Maritime
Security.
1625-AB80......................................... Revision to
Transportation
Worker
Identification
Credential (TWIC)
Requirements for
Mariners.
1625-XXXX......................................... Inland Waterways
Navigation
Regulations.
1651-AA96......................................... Definition of Form I-
94 to Include
Electronic Format.
1651-AA94......................................... Internet Publication
of Administrative
Seizure/Forfeiture
Notices.
1651-XXXX......................................... Passenger List/Crew
List I-418.
1652-AA43......................................... Modification of the
Aviation Security
Infrastructure Fee
(ASIF) (Market
Share).
1652-AA61......................................... Standardized
Vetting,
Adjudication, and
Redress Services.
1653-AA44......................................... Amendment to
Accommodate Process
Changes with SEVIS
II Implementation.
1660-AA75......................................... Debris Removal:
Eligibility of
Force Account Labor
Straight-Time Costs
Under the Public
Assistance Program
for Hurricane
Sandy.
1660-AA77......................................... Change in Submission
Requirements for
State Mitigation
Plans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
Pursuant to Sections 3 and 4(b) of Executive Order 13609
``Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation'' (May 1, 2012), DHS
has identified the following regulatory actions that have significant
international impacts. Some of the regulatory actions on the below list
may be completed actions. You can find more information about these
completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda
(search the Completed Actions sections) on www.reginfo.gov. Some of the
entries on this list, however, are active rulemakings. You can find
entries for these rulemakings on www.regulations.gov.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIN Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1625-AB38......................................... Updates to Maritime
Security.
1651-AA70......................................... Importer Security
Filing and
Additional Carrier
Requirements.
[[Page 971]]
1651-AA72......................................... Changes to the Visa
Waiver Program To
Implement the
Electronic System
for Travel
Authorization
(ESTA) Program.
1651-AA98......................................... Amendments to
Importer Security
Filing and
Additional Carrier
Requirements.
1651-AA96......................................... Definition of Form I-
94 to Include
Electronic Format.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS participates in some international regulatory cooperation
activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant
regulations. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard is the primary U.S.
representative to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and
plays a major leadership role in establishing international standards
in the global maritime community. IMO's work to establish international
standards for maritime safety, security, and environmental protection
closely aligns with the U.S. Coast Guard regulations. As an IMO member
nation, the U.S. is obliged to incorporate IMO treaty provisions not
already part of U.S. domestic policy into regulations for those vessels
affected by the international standards. Consequently, the U.S. Coast
Guard initiates rulemakings to harmonize with IMO international
standards such as treaty provisions and the codes, conventions,
resolutions, and circulars that supplement them.
Also, President Obama and Prime Minister Harper created the Canada-
U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) in February 2011. The RCC is
an initiative between both federal governments aimed at pursuing
greater alignment in regulation, increasing mutual recognition of
regulatory practices and establishing smarter, more effective and less
burdensome regulations in specific sectors. The Canada-U.S. RCC
initiative arose out of the recognition that high level, focused, and
sustained effort would be required to reach a more substantive level of
regulatory cooperation. Since its creation in early 2011, the U.S.
Coast Guard has participated in stakeholder consultations with their
Transport Canada counterparts and the public, drafted items for
inclusion in the RCC Action Plan, and detailed work plans for each
included Action Plan item.
The fall 2013 regulatory plan for DHS includes regulations from DHS
components--including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS), the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),
and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which have active
regulatory programs. In addition, it includes regulations from the
Department's major offices and directorates such as the National
Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). Below is a discussion of
the fall 2013 regulatory plan for DHS regulatory components, offices,
and directorates.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) administers
immigration benefits and services while protecting and securing our
homeland. USCIS has a strong commitment to welcoming individuals who
seek entry through the U.S. immigration system, providing clear and
useful information regarding the immigration process, promoting the
values of citizenship, and assisting those in need of humanitarian
protection. Based on a comprehensive review of the planned USCIS
regulatory agenda, USCIS will promulgate several rulemakings to
directly support these commitments and goals.
Regulations To Facilitate Retention of High-Skilled Workers
Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses. USCIS
will propose to amend its regulations to extend eligibility for
employment authorization to H-4 dependent spouses of principal H-1B
nonimmigrants who have begun the process of seeking lawful permanent
resident status through employment and have extended their authorized
period of admission or ``stay'' in the United States under section
104(c) or 106(a) of Public Law 106-313, also known as the American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21).
Allowing the eligible class of H-4 dependent spouses to work encourages
professionals with high-demand skills to remain in the country and help
spur innovation and growth of U.S. businesses.
Enhancing Opportunities for High-Skilled Workers. USCIS will
propose to amend its regulations affecting high-skilled workers within
the nonimmigrant classifications for specialty occupation professionals
from Chile and Singapore (H-1B1) and from Australia (E-3), to include
these classifications in the list of classes of aliens authorized for
employment incident to status with a specific employer, to extend
automatic employment authorization extensions with pending extension of
stay requests, and to update filing procedures. USCIS will also propose
to amend regulations regarding continued employment authorization for
nonimmigrant workers in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (CNMI)--only Transitional Worker (CW-1) classification.
Finally, USCIS will propose amendments related to the immigration
classification for employment-based first preference (EB-1) outstanding
professors or researchers to allow the submission of comparable
evidence. These changes will encourage and facilitate the employment
and retention of these high-skilled workers.
Improvements to the Immigration System
Requirements for Filing Motions and Administrative Appeals. USCIS
will propose to revise the procedural regulations governing appeals and
motions to reopen or reconsider before its Administrative Appeals
Office, and to require that applicants and petitioners exhaust
administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of an
unfavorable decision. The changes proposed by the rule will streamline
the procedures before the Administrative Appeals Office and improve the
efficiency of the adjudication process.
Regulations Related to the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana
Islands. This final rule amends DHS and Department of Justice (DOJ)
regulations to comply with the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of
2008 (CNRA). The CNRA extends the immigration laws of the United States
to the Consolidated Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). In 2009, USCIS
issued an interim final rule to implement conforming amendments to the
DHS and DOJ regulations. This joint DHS-DOJ final rule titled
``Application of Immigration Regulations to the CNMI'' would finalize
the 2009 interim final rule.
Regulatory Changes Involving Humanitarian Benefits
Asylum and Withholding Definitions. USCIS plans a regulatory
proposal to amend the regulations that govern asylum eligibility and
refugee status determinations. The amendments are expected to revise
the portions of the
[[Page 972]]
existing regulations that deal with determinations of whether suffered
or feared persecution is on account of a protected ground, the
requirements for establishing that the government is unable or
unwilling to protect the applicant, and the definition of membership in
a particular social group. This proposal would provide greater clarity
and consistency in this important area of the law.
Exception to the Persecution Bar for Asylum, Refugee, or Temporary
Protected Status, and Withholding of Removal. In a joint rulemaking,
DHS and DOJ will propose amendments to existing DHS and DOJ regulations
to resolve ambiguity in the statutory language precluding eligibility
for asylum, refugee resettlement, temporary protected status, and
withholding or removal of an applicant who ordered, incited, assisted,
or otherwise participated in the persecution of others. The proposed
rule would provide a limited exception for persecutory actions taken by
the applicant under duress and would clarify the required level of the
applicant's knowledge of the persecution.
``T'' and ``U'' Nonimmigrants. USCIS plans additional regulatory
initiatives related to T nonimmigrants (victims of trafficking) and U
nonimmigrants (victims of criminal activity). USCIS hopes to provide
greater consistency in eligibility, application and procedural
requirements for these vulnerable groups, their advocates, and the
community through these regulatory initiatives. These rulemakings will
contain provisions to adjust documentary requirements for this
vulnerable population and provide greater clarity to the law
enforcement community.
Application of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2008. In a joint rulemaking, DHS and DOJ will propose
amendments to implement the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2008 (TVPRA). This statute specified that USCIS has
initial jurisdiction over an asylum application filed by an
unaccompanied alien child in removal proceedings before an immigration
judge. DHS and DOJ implemented this legislation with interim procedures
that the TVPRA mandated within 90 days after enactment. The proposed
rule would amend both agencies' regulations to finalize the procedures
to determine when an alien child is unaccompanied and how jurisdiction
would be transferred to USCIS for initial adjudication of the child's
asylum application. In addition, this rule would address adjustment of
status for special immigrant juveniles and voluntary departure for
unaccompanied alien children in removal proceedings.
United States Coast Guard
The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) is a military, multi-mission,
maritime service of the United States and the only military
organization within DHS. It is the principal federal agency responsible
for maritime safety, security, and stewardship and delivers daily value
to the Nation through multi-mission resources, authorities, and
capabilities.
Effective governance in the maritime domain hinges upon an
integrated approach to safety, security, and stewardship. The Coast
Guard's policies and capabilities are integrated and interdependent,
delivering results through a network of enduring partnerships. The
Coast Guard's ability to field versatile capabilities and highly-
trained personnel is one of the U.S. Government's most significant and
important strengths in the maritime environment.
America is a maritime nation, and our security, resilience, and
economic prosperity are intrinsically linked to the oceans. Safety,
efficient waterways, and freedom of transit on the high seas are
essential to our well-being. The Coast Guard is leaning forward, poised
to meet the demands of the modern maritime environment. The Coast Guard
creates value for the public through solid prevention and response
efforts. Activities involving oversight and regulation, enforcement,
maritime presence, and public and private partnership foster increased
maritime safety, security, and stewardship.
The statutory responsibilities of the Coast Guard include ensuring
marine safety and security, preserving maritime mobility, protecting
the marine environment, enforcing U.S. laws and international treaties,
and performing search and rescue. The Coast Guard supports the
Department's overarching goals of mobilizing and organizing our Nation
to secure the homeland from terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and
other emergencies. The rulemaking projects identified for the Coast
Guard in the Unified Agenda, and the rules appearing in the fall 2013
Regulatory Plan below, contribute to the fulfillment of those
responsibilities and reflect our regulatory policies.
Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping
(STCW) for Seafarers, 1978. The International Maritime Organization
(IMO) comprehensively amended the International Convention on Standards
of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) for Seafarers,
1978, in 1995 and 2010. The 1995 amendments came into force on February
1, 1997. This project implements those amendments by revising current
rules to ensure that the Coast Guard complies with the STCW
Convention's requirements. The Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on November 17, 2009, and supplemental NPRMs
(SNPRMs) on March 23, 2010 and August 1, 2011. The proposed changes are
primarily substantive and: (1) Are necessary to continue to give full
and complete effect to the STCW Convention; (2) incorporate lessons
learned from implementation of the STCW through the interim rule and
through policy letters and Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circulars;
and (3) attempt to clarify regulations that have generated confusion.
The Coast Guard has reviewed and analyzed public comments to the SNPRM,
and intends to publish a final rule complying with the requirements of
the newly amended STCW Convention. This rulemaking is associated with
DHS's retrospective review and analysis efforts.
Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and
Automatic Identification System. The Coast Guard intends to expand the
applicability of notice of arrival and departure (NOAD) and automatic
identification system (AIS) requirements to include more commercial
vessels. This rule, once final, would expand the applicability of
notice of arrival (NOA) requirements to include additional vessels,
establish a separate requirement for vessels to submit notices of
departure (NOD) when departing for a foreign port or place, set forth a
mandatory method for electronic submission of NOA and NOD, and modify
related reporting content, timeframes, and procedures. This rule would
also extend the applicability of AIS requirements beyond Vessel Traffic
Service (VTS) areas to all U.S. navigable waters and require additional
commercial vessels install and use AIS. These changes are intended to
improve navigation safety, enhance our ability to identify and track
vessels, and heighten the Coast Guard's overall maritime domain
awareness, thus helping the Coast Guard address threats to maritime
transportation safety and security and mitigate the possible harm from
such threats.
Offshore Supply Vessels of 6000 or more GT ITC. The Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2010 (the Act) removed the size limit on offshore
[[Page 973]]
supply vessels (OSVs) and directed the Coast Guard to issue, as soon as
practicable, an interim rule to implement section 617 of the Act. As
required by the Act, this interim rule is intended to provide for the
safe carriage of oil, hazardous substances, and individuals in addition
to crew on OSVs of at least 6000 gross tonnage as measured under the
International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships (6,000 GT
ITC). In developing the regulation, the Coast Guard is taking into
account the characteristics of OSVs, their methods of operation, and
their service in support of exploration, exploitation, or production of
offshore mineral or energy resources.
United States Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the federal agency
principally responsible for the security of our Nation's borders, both
at and between the ports of entry and at official crossings into the
United States. CBP must accomplish its border security and enforcement
mission without stifling the flow of legitimate trade and travel. The
primary mission of CBP is its homeland security mission, that is, to
prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United
States. An important aspect of this priority mission involves improving
security at our borders and ports of entry, but it also means extending
our zone of security beyond our physical borders.
CBP is also responsible for administering laws concerning the
importation into the United States of goods, and enforcing the laws
concerning the entry of persons into the United States. This includes
regulating and facilitating international trade; collecting import
duties; enforcing U.S. trade, immigration and other laws of the United
States at our borders; inspecting imports, overseeing the activities of
persons and businesses engaged in importing; enforcing the laws
concerning smuggling and trafficking in contraband; apprehending
individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally; protecting
our agriculture and economic interests from harmful pests and diseases;
servicing all people, vehicles and cargo entering the United States;
maintaining export controls; and protecting U.S. businesses from theft
of their intellectual property.
In carrying out its priority mission, CBP's goal is to facilitate
the processing of legitimate trade and people efficiently without
compromising security. Consistent with its primary mission of homeland
security, CBP intends to finalize several rules during the next fiscal
year that are intended to improve security at our borders and ports of
entry. CBP is also automating some procedures that increase
efficiencies and reduce the costs and burdens to travelers. We have
highlighted some of these rules below.
Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). On June 9, 2008,
CBP published an interim final rule amending DHS regulations to
implement the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) for
aliens who wish to enter the United States under the Visa Waiver
Program (VWP) at air or sea ports of entry. This rule is intended to
fulfill the requirements of section 711 of the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act). The rule
establishes ESTA and delineates the data field DHS has determined will
be collected by the system. The rule requires that each alien traveling
to the United States under the VWP must obtain electronic travel
authorization via the ESTA System in advance of such travel. VWP
travelers may obtain the required ESTA authorization by electronically
submitting to CBP biographic and other information that was previously
submitted to CBP via the I-94W Nonimmigrant Alien Arrival/Departure
Form (I-94W). ESTA became mandatory on January 12, 2009. Therefore, VWP
travelers must either obtain travel authorization in advance of travel
under ESTA or obtain a visa prior to traveling to the United States.
The shift from a paper to an electronic form and requiring the data
in advance of travel enables CBP to determine before the alien departs
for the U.S., the eligibility of nationals from VWP countries to travel
to the United States and to determine whether such travel poses a law
enforcement or security risk. By modernizing the VWP, the ESTA
increases national security and provides for greater efficiencies in
the screening of international travelers by allowing for vetting of
subjects of potential interest well before boarding, thereby reducing
traveler delays based on lengthy processes at ports of entry. On August
9, 2010, CBP published an interim final rule amending the ESTA
regulations to require ESTA applicants to pay a congressionally
mandated fee which is the sum of two amounts, a $10 travel promotion
fee for an approved ESTA and a $4.00 operational fee for the use of
ESTA set by the Secretary of Homeland Security to at least ensure the
recovery of the full costs of providing and administering the ESTA
system. During the next fiscal year, CBP intends to issue a final rule
that will finalize the two ESTA rulemakings, the 2008 ESTA interim
final rule and the 2010 ESTA fee interim final rule.
Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements. The
Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act)
calls for CBP to promulgate regulations to require the electronic
transmission of additional data elements for improved high-risk
targeting. This includes appropriate security elements of entry data
for cargo destined for the United States by vessel prior to loading of
such cargo on vessels at foreign seaports. The SAFE Port Act requires
that the information collected reasonably improve CBP's ability to
identify high-risk shipments to prevent smuggling and ensure cargo
safety and security.
On November 25, 2008, CBP published an interim final rule titled
``Importer Security filing and Additional Carrier Requirements,''
amending CBP Regulations to require carriers and importers to provide
to CBP, via a CBP approved electronic data interchange system,
information necessary to enable CBP to identity high-risk shipments to
prevent smuggling and ensure cargo safety and security. This rule,
which became effective on January 26, 2009, improves CBP risk
assessment and targeting capabilities, facilitates the prompt release
of legitimate cargo following its arrival in the United States, and
assists CBP in increasing the security of the global trading system.
The comment period for the interim final rule ended on June 1, 2009.
CBP has conducted a structured review of data elements for which CBP
provided certain flexibilities for compliance in the interim final rule
and is analyzing the comments in light of the structured review. CBP
intends to publish a final rule during the next fiscal year.
Implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. CBP published
an interim final rule in November 2008 amending the DHS regulations to
replace the current Guam Visa Waiver Program with a new Guan-CNMI Visa
Waiver Program. This rule implements portions of the Consolidated
National Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), which extends the immigration
laws of the United States to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (CNMI) and among others things, provides for a visa waiver
program for travel to Guam and the CNMI. The amended regulations set
forth the requirements for nonimmigrant visitors who seek admission for
business or pleasure and solely for entry into and stay on Guam or the
CNMI without a visa. The rule also establishes six ports of entry in
the CNMI for purposes of administering and enforcing the Guam-CNMI Visa
Waiver
[[Page 974]]
Program. CBP intends to issue a final rule during the next fiscal year.
Definition of Form I-94 To Include Electronic Format. On March 27,
2013, CBP published an interim final rule titled ``Definition of Form
I-94 to Include Electronic Format.'' DHS issues the Form I-94 to
certain aliens and uses the Form I-94 for various purposes such as
documenting status in the United States, the approved length of stay,
and departure. DHS generally issues the Form I-94 to aliens at the time
they lawfully enter the United States. The rule amended the DHS
regulations to add a new definition of the term ``Form I-94,'' which
includes the collection of arrival/departure and admission or parole
information by DHS, whether in paper or electronic format. The
definition also clarified various terms that are associated with the
use of the Form I-94 to accommodate an electronic version of the Form
I-94. The rule also added a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant DHS admission
or parole stamp in a foreign passport to the list of documents
designated as evidence of alien registration. These revisions to the
regulations will enable DHS to transition to an automated process
whereby DHS will create a Form I-94 in an electronic format based on
passenger, passport and visa information DHS currently obtains
electronically from air and sea carriers and the Department of State as
well as through the inspection process. CBP intends to publish a final
rule during the next fiscal year.
In the above paragraphs, DHS discusses the CBP regulations that
foster DHS's mission. CBP also issues regulations related to the
mission of the Department of the Treasury. Under section 403(1) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, the former-U.S. Customs Service,
including functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto,
transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security. As part of the
initial organization of DHS, the Customs Service inspection and trade
functions were combined with the immigration and agricultural
inspection functions and the Border Patrol and transferred into CBP. It
is noted that certain regulatory authority of the U.S. Customs Service
relating to customs revenue function was retained by the Department of
the Treasury (see the Department of the Treasury Regulatory Plan). In
addition to its plans to continue issuing regulations to enhance border
security, CBP, during fiscal year 2014, expects to continue to issue
regulatory documents that will facilitate legitimate trade and
implement trade benefit program. CBP regulations regarding the customs
revenue function are discussed in the Regulatory Plan of the Department
of the Treasury.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) does not have any
significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2014.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have
any significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2014.
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ICE is the principal criminal investigative arm of the Department
of Homeland Security and one of the three Department components charged
with the civil enforcement of the Nation's immigration laws. Its
primary mission is to protect national security, public safety, and the
integrity of our borders through the criminal and civil enforcement of
Federal law governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration.
During fiscal year 2014, ICE will pursue rulemaking actions to make
improvements in three critical subject areas: Setting national
standards to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse and assault
in DHS confinement facilities; enabling Libyan nationals, who were
previously barred from doing so, to engage in aviation or nuclear-
related studies in the United States; and updating and enhancing
policies and procedures governing the Student and Exchange Visitor
Program (SEVP).
Setting National Standards To Prevent, Detect, and Respond to
Sexual Abuse and Assault in DHS Confinement Facilities. In cooperation
with DHS and CBP, ICE will set national detention standards to prevent,
detect, and respond to sexual abuse and assault in DHS confinement
facilities. For purposes of this rulemaking, DHS confinement facilities
are broken down into two distinct types: (1) immigration detention
facilities and (2) holding facilities. The final standards will reflect
existing ICE and other DHS detention policies.
This regulation is in response to the President's May 17, 2012
Memorandum titled ``Implementing the Prison Rape Elimination Act.'' The
President issued the Memorandum on the same day that the Department of
Justice issued its final rule in response to the Prison Rape
Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA), 42 U.S.C. 15601 et seq. President
Obama's Memorandum affirmed the goals of PREA and directed Federal
agencies with confinement facilities to propose and institute rules or
procedures necessary to satisfy the requirements of PREA. Additionally,
the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA), which
was enacted on March 7, 2013, included a section addressing sexual
abuse in custodial settings. On December 19, 2012, DHS issued a
proposed rule, which proposed standards for preventing, detecting, and
responding to sexual abuse and assault in DHS confinement facilities.
DHS intends to issue the final rule during fiscal year 2014.
Enabling Libyan Nationals To Engage in Aviation or Nuclear-Related
Studies in the United States. ICE is considering regulatory action that
would rescind the regulatory provisions promulgated in 1983 that
terminated the nonimmigrant status and barred the granting of certain
immigration benefits to Libyan nationals and foreign nationals acting
on behalf of Libyan entities who are engaging in or seeking to obtain
studies or training in aviation maintenance, flight operations, or
nuclear-related fields. As the U.S. and U.N. have lifted most of the
restrictions and sanctions that had been imposed toward Libya, the U.S.
Government and the Government of Libya have normalized their
relationship and are working to establish robust diplomatic, military,
and economic ties. The rescission of this regulation would permit DHS
and other agencies of the U.S. Government to continue to improve
outreach to Libyan counterparts. This rulemaking would rescind the
restrictions that deny nonimmigrant status and benefits to a specific
group of Libyan nationals. DHS intends to issue a rulemaking on this
matter in fiscal year 2014.
Updating and Enhancing Limitations on Designated School Official
Assignment and Study by F-2 and M-2 Nonimmigrants. ICE is working on
revising the current regulation that limits the number of designated
school officials (DSOs) that may be nominated for the oversight of each
school's campus(es) where international students are enrolled. In
addition, ICE is working to modify the regulatory restrictions placed
on the dependents of an F-1 or M-1 nonimmigrant student, in order to
permit F-2 and M-2 nonimmigrants to enroll in less than a full course
of study at an SEVP-certified school. Currently, schools are limited to
ten DSOs per school or per campus in a multi-campus school. ICE has
found that the current DSO limit of ten per campus is too constraining,
especially in schools that have large numbers of F and M nonimmigrant
students. ICE believes that, in many circumstances,
[[Page 975]]
elimination of a DSO limit may improve the capability of DSOs to meet
their liaison, reporting and oversight responsibilities. In addition,
ICE recognizes that there is increasing global competition to attract
the best and brightest international students to study in our schools.
Allowing a more flexible approach--by permitting F-2 and M-2
nonimmigrant spouses and children to engage in study in the United
States at SEVP-certified schools, so long as that study does not amount
to a full course of study--will provide greater incentive for
international students to travel to the United States for their
education.
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.
Ammonium Nitrate Security Program. Recognizing both the economic
importance of ammonium nitrate and the fact that ammonium nitrate is
susceptible to use by terrorists in explosive devices, Congress granted
DHS the authority to ``regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium
nitrate by an ammonium nitrate facility . . . to prevent the
misappropriation or use of ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism.''
This authority is contained in section 563 of the Fiscal Year 2008 DHS
Appropriations Act, which amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
This authority is contained in a new Secure Handling of Ammonium
Nitrate subtitle of the Homeland Security Act (HSA) (Subtitle J, 6
U.S.C. 488-488i).
The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate provisions of the HSA
direct DHS to promulgate regulations requiring potential buyers and
sellers of ammonium nitrate to register with DHS, in order to obtain
ammonium nitrate registration numbers from DHS. The HSA also requires
DHS to screen each applicant against the Terrorist Screening Database.
The statute also requires sellers of ammonium nitrate to verify the
identities of those individuals seeking to purchase ammonium nitrate;
to record certain information about each sale or transfer of ammonium
nitrate; and to report thefts and losses of ammonium nitrate to federal
authorities.
On October 29, 2008, DHS published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) for a Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program.
DHS received a number of public comments. DHS reviewed those comments
and published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 3, 2011.
DHS accepted public comments concerning the NPRM until December 1,
2011, and is now reviewing and adjudicating the public comments as the
Department moves forward in developing a final rule for an Ammonium
Nitrate Security Program.
The final rule is intended to aid the Federal Government in its
efforts to prevent the misappropriation of ammonium nitrate for use in
acts of terrorism and to limit terrorists' abilities to threaten the
Nation's critical infrastructure and key resources. By securing the
Nation's supply of ammonium nitrate through the implementation of this
rule, it will be more difficult for terrorists to obtain ammonium
nitrate materials for use in terrorist acts.
Transportation Security Administration
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) protects the
Nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for
people and commerce. TSA is committed to continuously setting the
standard for excellence in transportation security through its people,
processes, and technology as we work to meet the immediate and long-
term needs of the transportation sector.
In fiscal year 2014, TSA will promote the DHS mission by
emphasizing regulatory efforts that allow TSA to better identify,
detect, and protect against threats against various modes of the
transportation system, while facilitating the efficient movement of the
traveling public, transportation workers, and cargo.
Passenger Screening Using Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT). TSA
intends to issue a final rule to amend its civil aviation regulations
to address whether screening and inspection of an individual, conducted
to control access to the sterile area of an airport or to an aircraft,
may include the use of advanced imaging technology (AIT). TSA published
an NPRM on March 26, 2012, to comply with the decision rendered by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Columbia Circuit in Electronic
Privacy Information Center (EPIC) v. U.S. Department of Homeland
Security on July 15, 2011. 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The Court
directed TSA to conduct notice and comment rulemaking on the use of AIT
in the primary screening of passengers.
Security Training for Surface Mode Employees. TSA will propose
regulations to enhance the security of several non-aviation modes of
transportation. In particular, TSA will propose regulations requiring
freight railroad carriers, public transportation agencies (including
rail mass transit and bus systems), passenger railroad carriers, and
over-the-road bus operators to conduct security training for front line
employees. This regulation would implement sections 1408 (Public
Transportation), 1517 (Freight Railroads), and 1534(a) (Over the Road
Buses) of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act
of 2008 (9/11 Act). In compliance with the definitions of frontline
employees in the pertinent provisions of the 9/11 Act, the notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) would define which employees are required to
undergo training. The NPRM would also propose definitions for
transportation security-sensitive materials, as required by section
1501 of the 9/11 Act.
Aircraft Repair Station Security. TSA will finalize a rule
requiring repair stations that are certificated by the Federal Aviation
Administration under 14 CFR part 145 to adopt and implement standard
security programs and to comply with security directives issued by TSA.
On November 18, 2009, TSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM). The final rule will also codify the scope of TSA's existing
inspection program and could require regulated parties to allow DHS
officials to enter, inspect, and test property, facilities, and records
relevant to repair stations. This rulemaking action will implement
section 1616 of the 9/11 Act.
Standardized Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Process and Fees.
TSA is developing a proposed rule to revise and standardize the
procedures, adjudication criteria, and fees for most of the security
threat assessments (STA) of individuals that TSA conducts. DHS is
considering a proposal that would include procedures for conducting
STAs for transportation workers from almost all modes of
transportation, including those covered under the 9/11 Act. In
addition, TSA will propose equitable fees to cover the cost of the STAs
and credentials for some personnel. TSA plans to identify new
efficiencies in processing STAs and ways to streamline existing
regulations by simplifying language and removing redundancies.
As part of this proposed rule, TSA will propose revisions to the
Alien Flight Student Program (AFSP) regulations. TSA published an
interim final rule for ASFP on September 20, 2004. TSA regulations
require aliens seeking to train at Federal Aviation Administration-
regulated flight schools to complete an application and undergo an STA
prior to beginning flight
[[Page 976]]
training. There are four categories under which students currently
fall; the nature of the STA depends on the student's category. TSA is
considering changes to the AFSP that would improve equity among fee
payers and enable the implementation of new technologies to support
vetting.
United States Secret Service
The United States Secret Service does not have any significant
regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2014.
DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2014
A more detailed description of the priority regulations that
comprise DHS's fall 2013 regulatory plan follows.
DHS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OS)
Final Rule Stage
68. Ammonium Nitrate Security Program
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, sec 563,
subtitle J--Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate, Pub. L. 110-161
CFR Citation: 6 CFR 31
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, May 26, 2008, Publication of
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Final, Statutory, December 26, 2008,
Publication of Final Rule.
Abstract: This rulemaking will implement the December 2007
amendment to the Homeland Security Act entitled ``Secure Handling of
Ammonium Nitrate.'' The amendment requires the Department of Homeland
Security to ``regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate by an
ammonium nitrate facility . . .to prevent the misappropriation or use
of ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism.''
Statement of Need: Pursuant to section 563 of the 2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, subtitle J--Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate,
Public Law 110-161, the Department of Homeland Security is required to
promulgate a rulemaking to create a registration regime for certain
buyers and sellers of ammonium nitrate. This rule would create that
regime, and would aid the Federal Government in its efforts to prevent
the misappropriation of ammonium nitrate for use in acts of terrorism.
By preventing such misappropriation, this rule could limit terrorists'
abilities to threaten the public and to threaten the Nation's critical
infrastructure and key resources. By securing the Nation's supply of
ammonium nitrate, it should be much more difficult for terrorists to
obtain ammonium nitrate materials for use in improvised explosive
devices. As a result, there is a direct value in the deterrence of a
catastrophic terrorist attack using ammonium nitrate, such as the
Oklahoma City attack that killed over 160 and injured 853 people.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 563 of the 2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, subtitle J--Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate,
Public Law 110-161, authorizes and requires this rulemaking.
Alternatives: The Department considered several alternatives when
developing the Ammonium Nitrate Security Program proposed rule. The
alternatives considered were: (a) Register individuals applying for an
AN Registered User Number using a paper application (via facsimile or
the U.S. mail) rather than through in person application at a local
Cooperative Extension office or only through a web-based portal; (b)
verify AN Purchasers through both an Internet based verification portal
and call center rather than only a verification portal or call center;
(c) communicate with applicants for an AN Registered User Number
through U.S. Mail rather than only through email or a secure web-based
portal; (d) establish a specific capability within the Department to
receive, process, and respond to reports of theft or loss rather than
leverage a similar capability which already exists with the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); (e) require AN
Facilities to maintain records electronically in a central database
provided by the Department rather than providing flexibility to the AN
Facility to maintain their own records either in paper or
electronically; (f) require agents to register with the Department
prior to the sale or transfer of ammonium nitrate involving an agent
rather than allow oral confirmation of the agent with the AN Purchaser
on whose behalf the agent is working; and (g) exempt explosives from
this regulation rather than not exempting them. As part of its notice
of proposed rulemaking, the Department sought public comment on the
numerous alternative ways in which the Department could carry out the
requirements of the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate provisions of
the Homeland Security Act.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In its proposed rule, the Department
estimated the number of entities that purchase ammonium nitrate to
range from 64,950 to 106,200. These purchasers include farms,
fertilizer mixers, farm supply wholesalers and cooperatives (co-ops),
golf courses, landscaping services, explosives distributors, mines,
retail garden centers, and lab supply wholesalers. The Department
estimated the number of entities that sell ammonium nitrate to be
between 2,486 and 6,236, many of which are also purchasers. These
sellers include ammonium nitrate fertilizer and explosive
manufacturers, fertilizer mixers, farm supply wholesalers and co-ops,
retail garden centers, explosives distributors, fertilizer applicator
services, and lab supply wholesalers. Individuals or firms that provide
transportation services within the distribution chain may be
categorized as sellers, agents, or facilities depending upon their
business relationship with the other parties to the transaction. The
total number of potentially regulated farms and other businesses ranges
from 64,986 to 106,236 (including overlap between the categories).
The cost of the proposed rule ranges from $300 million to $1,041
million over 10 years at a 7 percent discount rate. The primary
estimate is the mean which is $670.6 million. For comparison, at a 3
percent discount rate, the cost of the program ranges from $364 million
to $1.3 billion with a primary (mean) estimate of $814 million. The
average annualized cost for the program ranges from $43 million to $148
million (with a mean of $96 million), also employing a 7 percent
discount rate.
Because the value of the benefits of reducing risk of a terrorist
attack is a function of both the probability of an attack and the value
of the consequence, it is difficult to identify the particular risk
reduction associated with the implementation of this rule. These
elements and related qualitative benefits include point of sale
identification requirements and requiring individuals to be screened
against the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), resulting in known bad
actors being denied the ability to purchase ammonium nitrate.
The Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent terrorist
attacks within the United States and to reduce the vulnerability of the
United States to terrorism. By preventing the misappropriation or use
of ammonium nitrate in acts of terrorism, this rulemaking will support
the Department's efforts to prevent terrorist attacks and reduce the
Nation's vulnerability to terrorist attacks. This rulemaking is
complementary to other
[[Page 977]]
Department programs seeking to reduce the risks posed by terrorism,
including the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program (which
seeks in part to prevent terrorists from gaining access to dangerous
chemicals) and the Transportation Worker Identification Credential
program (which seeks in part to prevent terrorists from gaining access
to certain critical infrastructure), among other programs.
Risks: Explosives containing ammonium nitrate are commonly used in
terrorist attacks. Such attacks have been carried out both domestically
and internationally. The 1995 Murrah Federal Building attack in
Oklahoma City claimed the lives of 167 individuals and demonstrated
firsthand to America how ammonium nitrate could be misused by
terrorists. In addition to the Murrah Building attack, the Provisional
Irish Republican Army used ammonium nitrate as part of its London,
England bombing campaign in the early 1980s. More recently, ammonium
nitrate was used in the 1998 East African Embassy bombings and in the
November 2003 bombings in Istanbul, Turkey. Additionally, since the
events of 9/11, stores of ammonium nitrate have been confiscated during
raids on terrorist sites around the world, including sites in Canada,
England, India, and the Philippines.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 10/29/08 73 FR 64280
Correction.......................... 11/05/08 73 FR 65783
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 12/29/08
NPRM................................ 08/03/11 76 FR 46908
Notice of Public Meetings........... 10/07/11 76 FR 62311
Notice of Public Meetings........... 11/14/11 76 FR 70366
NPRM Comment Period End............. 12/01/11
Final Rule.......................... 03/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in EO 13132.
URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Jon MacLaren, Chief, Rulemaking Section, Department
of Homeland Security, Office of the Secretary, Infrastructure Security
Compliance Division (NPPD/ISCD), Mail Stop 0610, 245 Murray Lane SW.,
Arlington, VA 20598-0610, Phone: 703 235-5263, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1601-AA52
DHS--U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS)
Proposed Rule Stage
69. Asylum and Withholding Definitions
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1158; 8 U.S.C. 1226; 8
U.S.C. 1252; 8 U.S.C. 1282
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 2; 8 CFR 208.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule proposes to amend Department of Homeland
Security regulations that govern asylum eligibility. The amendments
focus on portions of the regulations that deal with the definitions of
membership in a particular social group, the requirements for failure
of State protection, and determinations about whether persecution is
inflicted on account of a protected ground. This rule codifies long-
standing concepts of the definitions. It clarifies that gender can be a
basis for membership in a particular social group. It also clarifies
that a person who has suffered or fears domestic violence may under
certain circumstances be eligible for asylum on that basis. After the
Board of Immigration Appeals published a decision on this issue in
1999, Matter of R-A-, Int. Dec. 3403 (BIA 1999), it became clear that
the governing regulatory standards required clarification. The
Department of Justice began this regulatory initiative by publishing a
proposed rule addressing these issues in 2000.
Statement of Need: This rule provides guidance on a number of key
interpretive issues of the refugee definition used by adjudicators
deciding asylum and withholding of removal (withholding) claims. The
interpretive issues include whether persecution is inflicted on account
of a protected ground, the requirements for establishing the failure of
State protection, and the parameters for defining membership in a
particular social group. This rule will aid in the adjudication of
claims made by applicants whose claims fall outside of the rubric of
the protected grounds of race, religion, nationality, or political
opinion. One example of such claims which often fall within the
particular social group ground concerns people who have suffered or
fear domestic violence. This rule is expected to consolidate issues
raised in a proposed rule in 2000 and to address issues that have
developed since the publication of the proposed rule. This rule should
provide greater stability and clarity in this important area of the
law. This rule will also provide guidance to the following
adjudicators: USCIS asylum officers, Department of Justice Executive
Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) immigration judges, and members of
the EOIR Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
Summary of Legal Basis: The purpose of this rule is to provide
guidance on certain issues that have arisen in the context of asylum
and withholding adjudications. The 1951 Geneva Convention relating to
the Status of Refugees contains the internationally accepted definition
of a refugee. United States immigration law incorporates an almost
identical definition of a refugee as a person outside his or her
country of origin ``who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is
unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of,
that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion.'' Section 101(a)(42) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Alternatives: A sizable body of interpretive case law has developed
around the meaning of the refugee definition. Historically, much of
this case law has addressed more traditional asylum and withholding
claims based on the protected grounds of race, religion, nationality,
or political opinion. In recent years, however, the United States
increasingly has encountered asylum and withholding applications with
more varied bases, related, for example, to an applicant's gender or
sexual orientation. Many of these new types of claims are based on the
ground of ``membership in a particular social group,'' which is the
least well-defined of the five protected grounds within the refugee
definition.
On December 7, 2000, DOJ published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register providing guidance on the definitions of ``persecution'' and
``membership in a particular social group.'' Before DHS publishes a new
proposed rule, DHS will consider how the nexus between persecution and
a protected ground might be further conceptualized; how membership in a
particular social group might be defined and evaluated; and what
constitutes a State's inability or unwillingness to protect the
applicant where the persecution arises from a non-State actor. The
alternative to publishing this rule would be to allow the standards
governing this area of law to continue to develop piecemeal
[[Page 978]]
through administrative and judicial precedent. This approach has
resulted in inconsistent and confusing standards, and the Department
has therefore determined that promulgation of the new proposed rule is
necessary.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: By providing a clear framework for
key asylum and withholding issues, we anticipate that adjudicators will
have clear guidance, increasing administrative efficiency and
consistency in adjudicating these cases. The rule will also promote a
more consistent and predictable body of administrative and judicial
precedent governing these types of cases. We anticipate that this will
enable applicants to better assess their potential eligibility for
asylum, and to present their claims more efficiently when they believe
that they may qualify, thus reducing the resources spent on
adjudicating claims that do not qualify. In addition, a more consistent
and predictable body of law on these issues will likely result in fewer
appeals, both administrative and judicial, and reduce associated
litigation costs. The Department has no way of accurately predicting
how this rule will impact the number of asylum applications filed in
the United States. Based on anecdotal evidence and on the reported
experience of other nations that have adopted standards under which the
results are similar to those we anticipate for this rule, we do not
believe this rule will cause a change in the number of asylum
applications filed.
Risks: The failure to promulgate a final rule in this area presents
significant risk of further inconsistency and confusion in the law. The
Government's interests in fair, efficient, and consistent adjudications
would be compromised.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/07/00 65 FR 76588
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/22/01 .......................
NPRM................................ 06/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: CIS No. 2092-00 Transferred from RIN 1115-
AF92.
Agency Contact: Ted Kim, Deputy Chief, Asylum Division, Office of
Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW., Suite 6030, Washington, DC 20259, Phone: 202 272-1614, Fax:
202 272-1994, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AA41
DHS--USCIS
70. Exception to the Persecution Bar for Asylum, Refugee, and Temporary
Protected Status, and Withholding of Removal
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1158; 8
U.S.C. 1226; Pub. L. 107-26; Pub. L. 110-229
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1; 8 CFR 207; 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 240; 8 CFR 244;
8 CFR 1001; 8 CFR 1208; 8 CFR 1240.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This joint rule proposes amendments to Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations to
describe the circumstances under which an applicant will continue to be
eligible for asylum, refugee, or temporary protected status, special
rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and
Central American Relief Act, and withholding of removal, even if DHS or
DOJ has determined that the applicant's actions contributed, in some
way, to the persecution of others when the applicant's actions were
taken when the applicant was under duress.
Statement of Need: This rule resolves ambiguity in the statutory
language precluding eligibility for asylum, refugee, and temporary
protected status of an applicant who ordered, incited, assisted, or
otherwise participated in the persecution of others. The proposed
amendment would provide a limited exception for actions taken by the
applicant under duress and clarify the required levels of the
applicant's knowledge of the persecution.
Summary of Legal Basis: In Negusie v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1159
(2009), the Supreme Court addressed whether the persecutor bar should
apply where an alien's actions were taken under duress. DHS believes
that this is an appropriate subject for rulemaking and proposes to
amend the applicable regulations to set out its interpretation of the
statute. In developing this regulatory initiative, DHS has carefully
considered the purpose and history behind enactment of the persecutor
bar, including its international law origins and the criminal law
concepts upon which they are based.
Alternatives: DHS did consider the alternative of not publishing a
rulemaking on these issues. To leave this important area of the law
without an administrative interpretation would confuse adjudicators and
the public.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The programs affected by this rule
exist so that the United States may respond effectively to global
humanitarian situations and assist people who are in need. USCIS
provides a number of humanitarian programs and protection to assist
individuals in need of shelter or aid from disasters, oppression,
emergency medical issues, and other urgent circumstances. This rule
will advance the humanitarian goals of the asylum/refugee program, and
other specialized programs. The main benefits of such goals tend to be
intangible and difficult to quantify in economic and monetary terms.
These forms of relief have not been available to individuals who
engaged in persecution of others under duress. This rule will allow an
exception to this bar from protection for applicants who can meet the
appropriate evidentiary standard. Consequently, this rule may result in
a small increase in the number of applicants for humanitarian programs.
To the extent a small increase in applicants occurs, there could be
additional fee costs incurred by these applicants.
Risks: If DHS were not to publish a regulation, the public would
face a lengthy period of confusion on these issues. There could also be
inconsistent interpretations of the statutory language, leading to
significant litigation and delay for the affected public.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Ronald W. Whitney, Deputy Chief, Refugee and Asylum
Law Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Office of Chief Counsel, 20 Massachusetts Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 415 293-1244, Fax: 202 272-1411,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AB89
DHS--USCIS
71. Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses
Priority: Other Significant.
[[Page 979]]
Legal Authority: INA sec 214(a)(1) 8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1); INA
274A(h)(3) 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3); 8 CFR 274a.12(c); sec 104(c) of Pub.
L. 106-313; sec 106(a) of Pub. L. 106-313; . . .
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 274a.12(c).
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to
amend its regulations by extending the availability of employment
authorization to certain H-4 dependent spouses of principal H-1B
nonimmigrants who have begun the process of seeking lawful permanent
resident status through employment. Allowing the eligible class of H-4
dependent spouses to work encourages professionals with high demand
skills to remain in the country and help spur the innovation and growth
of U.S. companies.
Statement of Need: DHS believes that allowing for extension of H-1B
status past the 6th year for workers who are the beneficiaries of
certain pending or approved employment-based immigrant petitions or
labor certification applications would minimize the disruption to U.S.
businesses employing H-1B workers that would result if such workers
were required to leave the United States. DHS recognizes that the
limitation on the period of stay is not the only event that could cause
an H-1B worker to leave his or her employment and cause disruption to
the employer's business, inclusive of the loss of significant time and
money invested in the immigration process. The rule, as proposed by
this NPRM, is intended to mitigate some of the negative economic
effects of limiting H-1B households to one income during lengthy
waiting periods in the adjustment of status process. Also, this rule
will encourage H-1B skilled workers to not abandon their adjustment
application because their H-4 spouse is unable to work.
Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 103(a), and 274A(h)(3) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) generally authorize the Secretary
to provide for employment authorization for aliens in the United
States. In addition, section 214(a)(1) of the INA authorizes the
Secretary to prescribe regulations setting terms and conditions of
admission of nonimmigrants.
Alternatives: An alternative considered by DHS was to permit
employer authorization for all H-4 dependent spouses. Congress has
expressed concern with avoiding the disruption to U.S. businesses
caused by the required departure of H-1B workers (for whom the
businesses intended to file employment-based immigrant visa petitions)
upon the expiration of workers' maximum six-year period of authorized
stay. Although the inability of an H-4 spouse to work may cause an H-1B
worker to consider departing from the United States prior to his or her
eligibility for an H-1B extension. This alternative was rejected in
favor of the proposed process to limit employment authorization to the
smaller sub-class of H-4 nonimmigrants who intend to remain in the
United States permanently.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed changes would only
impact spouses of H-1B workers who have been admitted or have extended
their stay under the provisions of AC21. The costs of the rule would
stem from filing fees and the opportunity costs of time associated with
filing an Application for Employment Authorization for those eligible
H-4 spouses who decide to seek employment while residing in the United
States. Allowing certain H-4 spouses the opportunity to work would
result in a negligible increase to the overall domestic labor force.
The benefits of this rule are retaining highly-skilled persons who
intend to adjust to lawful permanent resident status. This is important
when considering the contributions of these individuals to the U.S.
economy, including advances in entrepreneurial and research and
development endeavors, which are highly correlated with overall
economic growth and job creation. In addition, the proposed amendments
would bring U.S. immigration laws more in line with other countries
that seek to attract skilled foreign workers.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O.
13563.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Kevin J. Cummings, Chief, Business and Foreign
Workers Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Phone: 202 272-1470, Fax: 202
272-1480, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AB92
DHS--USCIS
72. Application of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 to Unaccompanied Alien Children
Seeking Asylum
Priority: Other Significant.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-457
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule implements the provisions of the William
Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008
(TVPRA), Public Law 110-457, 122 Stat. 5074 (Dec. 23, 2008) relating to
unaccompanied alien children seeking asylum. Specifically, the rule
proposes to amend Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department
of Justice (DOJ) regulations relating to asylum applications filed by
unaccompanied alien children. The rule will amend both DHS and DOJ
regulations to reflect that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) has initial jurisdiction over any asylum application filed by
an unaccompanied alien child. The rule will also add new special
procedures for all children in interviews before USCIS officers and for
unaccompanied alien children in proceedings before immigration judges
in the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Statement of Need: The TVPRA mandated promulgation of regulations
taking into account the specialized needs of unaccompanied alien
children and addressing both procedural and substantive aspects of
handling unaccompanied alien children's cases. This rule will replace
existing agency guidance on the specialized needs of unaccompanied
alien children. The rule will also incorporate policies in agency
guidance implementing the TVPRA. Such guidance has been in effect since
March 2009 and, based on experience gained in following the guidance,
will be revised in the rule.
Summary of Legal Basis: The purpose of this rule is to comply with
the TVPRA mandate to promulgate regulations taking into account the
specialized needs of unaccompanied alien children and addressing both
procedural and substantive aspects of handling unaccompanied alien
children's cases.
Alternatives: N/A.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule will codify existing
agency
[[Page 980]]
guidance on the specialized needs of unaccompanied alien children in
accordance with implementing the TVPRA. In addition, the regulation
will codify improvements that DHS has implemented over the passage of
time since TVPRA to incorporate lessons learned and operational
efficiencies for USCIS and EOIR. DHS anticipates that this rule would
result in benefits both to the Federal Government by streamlining the
processing of cases for asylum by unaccompanied children, and to the
public by ensuring that DHS regulations are transparent in the
eligibility and application requirements for this vulnerable
population. DHS anticipates that any costs associated with establishing
eligibility for asylum under the TVPRA would be outweighed by the
benefits of this rulemaking.
Risks: N/A.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Federal.
Agency Contact: Ted Kim, Deputy Chief, Asylum Division, Office of
Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW., Suite 6030, Washington, DC 20259, Phone: 202 272-1614, Fax:
202 272-1994, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AB96
DHS--USCIS
73. Administrative Appeals Office: Procedural Reforms To Improve
Efficiency
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8
U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1304; 6 U.S.C. 112
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 205; 8 CFR 210; 8 CFR
214; 8 CFR 245a; 8 CFR 320; 8 CFR 105 (new); . . .
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule revises the requirements and
procedures for the filing of motions and appeals before the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
and its Administrative Appeals Office. The proposed changes are
intended to streamline the existing processes for filing motions and
appeals and will reduce delays in the review and appellate process.
This rule also proposes additional changes necessitated by the
establishment of DHS and its components.
Statement of Need: This rule proposes to make numerous changes to
streamline the current appeal and motion processes which: (1) Will
result in cost savings to the Government, applicants, and petitioners;
and (2) will provide for a more efficient use of USCIS officer and
clerical staff time, as well as more uniformity with Board of
Immigration Appeals appeal and motion processes.
Summary of Legal Basis: 5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8
U.S.C. 1101 and notes 1102, 1103, 1151, 1153, 1154, 1182, 1184, 1185
note (sec. 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458; title VII of Pub. L. 110-229),
1186a, 1187, 1221,1223, 1225 to 1227, 1255a, and 1255a note, 1281,
1282, 1301 to 1305, 1324a, 1356, 1372, 1379, 1409(c), 1443 to 1444,
1448, 1452, 1455, 1641, 1731 to 1732; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 48 U.S.C. 1901,
1931 note; section 643, Public Law 104-208, 110, Stat. 3009-708;
section 141 of the Compacts of Free Association with the Federated
States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and with
the Government of Palau; title VII of Public Law 110-229; Public Law
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); Public Law 82-414, 66
Stat. 173, 238, 254, 264; title VII of Public Law 110-229; E.O. 12356.
Alternatives: The alternative to this rule would be to continue
under the current process without change.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: As a result of streamlining the
appeal and motion process, DHS anticipates quantitative and qualitative
benefits to DHS and the public. We also anticipate cost savings to DHS
and applicants as a result of the proposed changes.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Previously 1615-AB29 (CIS 2311-04), which
was withdrawn in 2007.
Agency Contact: William K. Renwick, Supervisory Citizenship and
Immigration Appeals Officer, Department of Homeland Security, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Administrative Appeals Office,
Washington, DC 20529-2090, Phone: 703 224-4501, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Duplicate of 1615-AB29.
RIN: 1615-AB98
DHS--USCIS
74. Enhancing Opportunities for H-1B1, CW-1, and E-3 Nonimmigrants and
EB-1 Immigrants
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1151; 8
U.S.C. 1153; 8 U.S.C. 1154; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C.
1186a; 8 U.S.C. 1255; 8 U.S.C. 1641; . . .
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 248; 8 CFR 274a.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to
amend its regulations affecting high-skilled workers within the
nonimmigrant classifications for specialty occupation professionals
from Chile and Singapore (H-1B1) and from Australia (E-3), and the
immigration classification for employment-based first preference (EB-1)
outstanding professors and researchers. Additionally, it proposes to
amend regulations regarding continued employment authorization for
nonimmigrant workers in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (CNMI)--Only Transitional Worker (CW-1) classification. DHS
proposes changes that would harmonize the regulations for E-3, H-1B1,
and CW-1 nonimmigrant classifications with existing regulations for
other similarly situated nonimmigrant classifications. DHS is proposing
these changes to the regulations to benefit these high-skilled workers
and CW-1 transitional workers by removing unnecessary hurdles that
place such workers at a disadvantage when compared to similarly
situated workers in other visa classifications.
Statement of Need: DHS proposes changes to harmonize the
regulations for E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1 nonimmigrant classifications with
the existing regulations for other, similarly situated nonimmigrant
classifications. These changes to the regulations would benefit these
highly skilled workers and CW-1 transitional workers by removing
unnecessary hurdles that place such workers at a disadvantage when
compared to similarly situated workers in other visa classifications.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The portion of the proposed rule
addressing E-3 and H-1B1, and CW-1 nonimmigrant classifications would
extend the period of authorized employment while requests for an
[[Page 981]]
extension of stay for these employment-based nonimmigrant visa
classifications are being reviewed. The regulations at 8 CFR
274a.12(b)(20) generally provide aliens in specific nonimmigrant
classifications with authorization to continue employment with the same
employer for a 240-day period beyond the period specified on the
Arrival-Departure Record, Form I-94, as long as a timely application
for an extension of stay is filed on an alien's behalf. This provision
applies only to the classifications specified in the regulation which
does not currently include the E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1 nonimmigrant
classifications. By harmonizing the regulations for E-3, H-1B1, and CW-
1 nonimmigrants with the other listed nonimmigrant classifications,
this proposed rule would provide equity for these nonimmigrants
relative to other nonimmigrant classifications.
The proposed rule also would help employers of E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1
nonimmigrants avoid potential interruptions of employment for E-3, H-
1B1, and CW-1 employees during the period that requests for an
extension of these employment-based nonimmigrant visa classifications
are being reviewed. These disruptions could result in lost wages for an
employee and lost productivity for an employer. DHS does not have data
on the number of employers or E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1 nonimmigrants
experiencing disruption in employment by not receiving an approval of
the extension before the expiration date specified on the Arrival-
Departure Record or the duration (length of time) of any disruption.
The portion of the proposed rule addressing the evidentiary
requirements for the EB-1 outstanding professor and researcher
employment-based immigrant classification would allow for the
submission of comparable evidence (achievements not listed in the
criteria such as important patents or prestigious, peer-reviewed
funding grants) for that listed in 8 CFR 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A) through (F)
to establish that the EB-1 professor or researcher is recognized
internationally as outstanding in his or her academic field. Similar to
the benefits of harmonizing E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1 provisions, the
harmonization of the evidentiary requirements for EB-1 outstanding
professors and researchers with other comparable employment-based
immigrant classifications would provide equity for EB-1 outstanding
professors and researchers relative to those other employment-based
visa categories. The proposed rule may also facilitate petitioners'
recruitment of the EB-1 outstanding professors and researchers by
expanding the range of evidence that may be adduced to support their
petitions.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Kevin J. Cummings, Chief, Business and Foreign
Workers Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Phone: 202 272-1470, Fax: 202
272-1480, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AC00
DHS--USCIS
Final Rule Stage
75. Classification for Victims of Severe Forms of Trafficking in
Persons; Eligibility for T Nonimmigrant Status
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101 to
1104; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 U.S.C. 1201; 8
U.S.C. 1224 to 1227; 8 U.S.C. 1252 to 1252a; 22 U.S.C. 7101; 22 U.S.C.
7105; Pub. L. 113-4
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 274a; 8 CFR
299.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: T classification was created by 107(e) of the Victims of
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA), Public Law
106-386. The T nonimmigrant classification was designed for eligible
victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons who aid law
enforcement with their investigation or prosecution of the traffickers,
and who can establish that they would suffer extreme hardship involving
unusual and severe harm if they were removed from the United States.
The rule streamlines application procedures and responsibilities for
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and provides guidance to the
public on how to meet certain requirements to obtain T nonimmigrant
status. Several reauthorizations, including the Violence Against Women
Act (VAWA) of 2013, Public Law 113-4, have made amendments to the T
nonimmigrant status provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization
Act. This rule implements those amendments.
Statement of Need: T nonimmigrant status is available to eligible
victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons who: (1) Are victims
of a severe form of trafficking in persons (defined by section 103 of
the TVPA), (2) are physically present in the United States, American
Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or at a port of
entry, on account of trafficking (including the alien having been
allowed entry into the United States for participation in investigative
or judicial processes associated with an act or perpetrator of
trafficking), (3) have complied with any reasonable request for
assistance in the investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking
in persons (or are under 18 years of age or are unable to cooperate due
to physical or psychological trauma), and (4) would suffer extreme
hardship involving unusual and severe harm if removed from the United
States. This rule addresses the essential elements that must be
demonstrated for classification as a T nonimmigrant alien and
implements statutory amendments to these elements, streamlines the
procedures to be followed by applicants to apply for T nonimmigrant
status, and evidentiary guidance to assist in the application process.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 107(e) of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act (TVPA), Public Law 106-386, as amended, established the
T classification to provide immigration relief for certain eligible
victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons who assist law
enforcement authorities in investigating and prosecuting the
perpetrators of these crimes.
Alternatives: To provide victims with immigration benefits and
services, keeping in mind the purpose of the T visa also being a law
enforcement tool, DHS is considering and using suggestions from
stakeholders in developing this regulation. These suggestions came in
the form of public comment to the 2002 interim final rule as well as
from over ten years of experience with the T nonimmigrant status
program, including regular meetings with stakeholders and regular
outreach events.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Applicants for T nonimmigrant status
do not pay application or biometric fees. The anticipated benefits of
these expenditures include: Assistance to trafficked victims and their
families, prosecution of traffickers in persons, and the elimination of
abuses caused by
[[Page 982]]
trafficking activities. Benefits which may be attributed to the
implementation of this rule are expected to be: (1) An increase in the
number of cases brought forward for investigation and/or prosecution;
(2) Heightened awareness by the law enforcement community of
trafficking in persons; and (3) Streamlining the application process
for victims.
Risks: There is a 5,000-person limit to the number of individuals
who can be granted T-1 status per fiscal year. Eligible applicants who
are not granted T-1 status due solely to the numerical limit will be
placed on a waiting list maintained by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS).
To protect T-1 applicants and their families, USCIS will use
various means to prevent the removal of T-1 applicants on the waiting
list, and their family members who are eligible for derivative T
status, including its existing authority to grant deferred action,
parole, and stays of removal.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 01/31/02 67 FR 4784
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 03/04/02
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 04/01/02
End.
Interim Final Rule.................. 12/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Additional Information: Transferred from RIN 1115-AG19.
Agency Contact: Maureen A. Dunn, Chief, Family Immigration and
Victim Protection Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20
Massachusetts Avenue NW., Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202
272-1470, Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AA59
DHS--USCIS
76. New Classification for Victims of Criminal Activity; Eligibility
for the U Nonimmigrant Status
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8
U.S.C. 1101 (note); 8 U.S.C. 1102; Pub. L. 113-4
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR
299.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule sets forth application and eligibility
requirements for U nonimmigrant status. The U classification is for
non-U.S. Citizen/Lawful Permanent Resident victims of certain crimes
who cooperate with an investigation or prosecution of those crimes.
There is a limit of 10,000 principals per fiscal year. This rule
establishes the procedures to be followed to petition for the U
nonimmigrant classifications. Specifically, the rule addresses the
essential elements that must be demonstrated to receive the
nonimmigrant classification, procedures that must be followed to file a
petition and evidentiary guidance to assist in the petitioning process.
Eligible victims will be allowed to remain in the United States if
granted U nonimmigrant status. The Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2008, Public Law 110-457, and the Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA) of 2013, Public Law 113-4, made amendments to
the U nonimmigrant status provisions of the Immigration and Nationality
Act. The Department of Homeland Security had issued an interim final
rule in 2007. DHS will issue another interim final rule to make the
changes required by the legislation.
Statement of Need: This regulation is necessary to allow alien
victims of certain crimes to petition for U nonimmigrant status. U
nonimmigrant status is available to eligible victims of certain
qualifying criminal activity who: (1) Has suffered substantial physical
or mental abuse as a result of the qualifying criminal activity; (2)
the alien possesses information about the crime; (3) the alien has
been, is being, or is likely to be helpful in the investigation or
prosecution of the crime; and (4) the criminal activity took place in
the United States, including military installations and Indian country,
or the territories or possessions of the United States. This rule
addresses the eligibility requirements that must be met for
classification as a U nonimmigrant alien and implements statutory
amendments to these requirements, streamlines the procedures to
petition for U nonimmigrant status, and provides evidentiary guidance
to assist in the petition process.
Summary of Legal Basis: Congress created the U nonimmigrant
classification in the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000
(BIWPA) to provide immigration relief for alien victims of certain
qualifying criminal activity and who are helpful to law enforcement in
the investigation or prosecution of these crimes.
Alternatives: To provide victims with immigration benefits and
services and keeping in mind the purpose of the U visa as a law
enforcement tool, DHS is considering and using suggestions from
stakeholders in developing this regulation. These suggestions came in
the form of public comment from the 2007 interim final rule as well as
USCIS' six years of experience with the U nonimmigrant status program,
including regular meetings and outreach events with stakeholders and
law enforcement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS estimated the total annual cost
of this interim rule to petitioners to be $6.2 million in the interim
final rule published in 2007. This cost included the biometric services
fee, the opportunity cost of time needed to submit the required forms,
the opportunity cost of time required and cost of traveling to visit a
USCIS Application Support Center. DHS is currently in the process of
updating our cost estimates since U nonimmigrant visa petitioners are
no longer required to pay the biometric services fee.
The anticipated benefits of these expenditures include assistance
to victims of qualifying criminal activity and their families and
increases in arrests and prosecutions of criminals nationwide.
Additional benefits include heightened awareness by law enforcement of
victimization of aliens in their community, and streamlining the
petitioning process so that victims may benefit from this immigration
relief.
Risks: There is a statutory cap of 10,000 principal U nonimmigrant
visas that may be granted per fiscal year at INA 214(p)(2). Eligible
petitioners who are not granted principal U-1 nonimmigrant status due
solely to the numerical limit will be placed on a waiting list
maintained by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
To protect U-1 petitioners and their families, USCIS will use
various means to prevent the removal of U-1 petitioners and their
eligible family members on the waiting list, including exercising its
authority to allow deferred action, parole, and stays of removal, in
cooperation with other DHS components.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 09/17/07 72 FR 53013
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 10/17/07 .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 11/17/07 .......................
End.
Interim Final Rule.................. 09/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 983]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Additional Information: Transferred from RIN 1115-AG39.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Maureen A. Dunn, Chief, Family Immigration and
Victim Protection Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20
Massachusetts Avenue NW., Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202
272-1470, Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AA67
DHS--USCIS
77. Application of Immigration Regulations to the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-229
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 208 and 209; 8 CFR 214 and 215; 8 CFR 217; 8
CFR 235; 8 CFR 248; 8 CFR 264; 8 CFR 274a.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 28, 2009, Consolidated
Natural Resources Act (CNRA) of 2008.
Abstract: This final rule amends the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations to
comply with the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA). The
CNRA extends the immigration laws of the United States to the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). This rule
finalizes the interim rule and implements conforming amendments to
their respective regulations.
Statement of Need: This rule finalizes the interim rule to conform
existing regulations with the CNRA. Some of the changes implemented
under the CNRA affect existing regulations governing both DHS
immigration policy and procedures and proceedings before the
immigration judges and the Board. Accordingly, it is necessary to make
amendments both to the DHS regulations and to the DOJ regulations. The
Secretary and the Attorney General are making conforming amendments to
their respective regulations in this single rulemaking document.
Summary of Legal Basis: Congress extended the immigration laws of
the United States to the CNMI. The stated purpose of the CNRA is to
ensure effective border control procedures, to properly address
national security and homeland security concerns by extending U.S.
immigration law to the CNMI (phasing-out the CNMI's nonresident
contract worker program while minimizing to the greatest extent
practicable the potential adverse economic and fiscal effects of that
phase-out), to maximize the CNMI's potential for future economic and
business growth, and to assure worker protections from the potential
for abuse and exploitation.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs: The interim rule established
basic provisions necessary for the application of the INA to the CNMI
and updated definitions and existing DHS and DOJ regulations in areas
that were confusing or in conflict with how they are to be applied to
implement the INA in the CNMI. As such, that rule made no changes that
had identifiable direct or indirect economic impacts that could be
quantified.
Benefits: This final rule makes additional regulatory changes in
order to lessen the adverse impacts of the CNRA on employers and
employees in the CNMI and assist the CNMI in its transition to the INA.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 10/28/09 74 FR 55725
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 11/27/09 .......................
End.
Correction.......................... 12/22/09 74 FR 67969
Final Action........................ 09/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: CIS 2460-08.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Kevin J. Cummings, Chief, Business and Foreign
Workers Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Phone: 202 272-1470, Fax: 202
272-1480, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1615-AB76, Related to 1615-AB75.
RIN: 1615-AB77
DHS--U.S. COAST GUARD (USCG)
Final Rule Stage
78. Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping
(STCW) for Seafarers, 1978
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103; 46 U.S.C. 71; 46 U.S.C. 73; DHS
Delegation No. 0170.1
CFR Citation: 46 CFR 10; 46 CFR 11; 46 CFR 12; 46 CFR 15.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The International Maritime Organization (IMO)
comprehensively amended the International Convention on Standards of
Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) for Seafarers, 1978,
in 1995 and 2010. The 1995 amendments came into force on February 1,
1997. This project implements those amendments by revising current
rules to ensure that the United States complies with their requirements
on: The training of merchant mariners, the documenting of their
qualifications, and watch-standing and other arrangements aboard
seagoing merchant ships of the United States. In addition, the Coast
Guard has identified the need for additional changes to the interim
rule issued in 1997. This project supports the Coast Guard's broad role
and responsibility of maritime safety. It also supports the roles and
responsibilities of the Coast Guard of reducing deaths and injuries of
crew members on domestic merchant vessels and eliminating substandard
vessels from the navigable waters of the United States.The Coast Guard
published an NPRM on November 17, 2009, and Supplemental NPRMs (SNPRM)
on March 23, 2010 and August 1, 2011.
At a June 2010 diplomatic conference, the IMO adopted additional
amendments to the STCW convention which change the minimum training
requirements for seafarers. In response to feedback and to the adoption
of those amendments, the Coast Guard developed a second Supplemental
NPRM to incorporate the 2010 Amendments into the 1990 interim rule.
Statement of Need: The Coast Guard proposed to amend its
regulations to implement changes to its interim rule published on June
26, 1997. These proposed amendments go beyond changes found in the
interim rule and seek to more fully incorporate the requirements of the
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW), in the
requirements for the credentialing of
[[Page 984]]
United States merchant mariners. The new changes are primarily
substantive and: (1) Are necessary to continue to give full and
complete effect to the STCW Convention; (2) Incorporate lessons learned
from implementation of the STCW through the interim rule and through
policy letters and NVICs; and (3) Attempt to clarify regulations that
have generated confusion.
Summary of Legal Basis: The authority for the Coast Guard to
prescribe, change, revise, or amend these regulations is provided under
46 U.S.C. 2103 and 46 U.S.C. chapters 71 and 73; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Alternatives: For each proposed change, the Coast Guard has
considered various alternatives. We considered using policy statements,
but they are not enforceable. We also considered taking no action, but
this does not support the Coast Guard's fundamental safety and security
mission. Additionally, we considered comments made during our 1997
rulemaking to formulate our alternatives. When we analyzed issues, such
as license progression and tonnage equivalency, the alternatives chosen
were those that most closely met the requirements of STCW.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In the SNPRM, we estimated the
annualized cost of this rule over a 10-year period to be $32.8 million
per year at a 7 percent discount rate. We estimate the total 10-year
cost of this rulemaking to be $230.7 million at a 7 percent discount
rate.
The changes in anticipated costs since the publication of 2009 NPRM
are due to the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention: Medical
examinations and endorsements, leadership and management skills, engine
room management training, tankerman endorsements, safety refresher
training, and able seafarer deck and engine certification requirements.
However, there would be potential savings from the costs of training
requirements as the Coast Guard would accept various methods for
demonstrating competence, including the on-the-job training and
preservation of the ``hawsepipe'' programs.
We anticipate the primary benefit of this rulemaking is to ensure
that the U.S. meets its obligations under the STCW Convention. Another
benefit is an increase in vessel safety and a resulting decrease in the
risk of shipping casualties.
Risks: No risks.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Meeting................... 08/02/95 60 FR 39306
Supplemental NPRM Comment Period End 09/29/95 .......................
Notice of Inquiry................... 11/13/95 60 FR 56970
Comment Period End.................. 01/12/96 .......................
NPRM................................ 03/26/96 61 FR 13284
Notice of Public Meetings........... 04/08/96 61 FR 15438
NPRM Comment Period End............. 07/24/96 .......................
Notice of Intent.................... 02/04/97 62 FR 5197
Interim Final Rule.................. 06/26/97 62 FR 34505
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 07/28/97 .......................
NPRM................................ 11/17/09 74 FR 59353
NPRM Comment Period End............. 02/16/10 .......................
Supplemental NPRM................... 03/23/10 75 FR 13715
Supplemental NPRM................... 08/01/11 76 FR 45908
Public Meeting Notice............... 08/02/11 76 FR 46217
Supplemental NPRM Comment Period End 09/30/11 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 11/00/13 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Additional Information: The docket number for this rulemaking is
USCG-2004-17914. The docket is located at www.regulations.gov. The old
docket number is CGD 95-062.
Includes Retrospective Review under EO 13563.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Mark Gould, Project Manager, CG-OES-1, Department
of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr.
Avenue SE., STOP 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, Phone: 202 372-1409,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1625-AA16
DHS--USCG
79. Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and
Automatic Identification System
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223; 33 U.S.C. 1225; 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46
U.S.C. 3716; 46 U.S.C. 8502 and ch 701; sec 102 of Pub. L. 107-295; EO
12234
CFR Citation: 33 CFR 62; 33 CFR 66; 33 CFR 160; 33 CFR 161; 33 CFR
164; 33 CFR 165; 33 CFR 101; 33 CFR 110; 33 CFR 117; 33 CFR 151; 46 CFR
4; 46 CFR 148.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would expand the applicability for Notice
of Arrival and Departure (NOAD) and Automatic Identification System
(AIS) requirements. These expanded requirements would better enable the
Coast Guard to correlate vessel AIS data with NOAD data, enhance our
ability to identify and track vessels, detect anomalies, improve
navigation safety, and heighten our overall maritime domain awareness.
The NOAD portion of this rulemaking could expand the applicability
of the NOAD regulations by changing the minimum size of vessels covered
below the current 300 gross tons, require a notice of departure when a
vessel is departing for a foreign port or place, and mandate electronic
submission of NOAD notices to the National Vessel Movement Center. The
AIS portion of this rulemaking would expand current AIS carriage
requirements for the population identified in the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS) Convention and the Marine Transportation Marine Transportation
Security Act (MTSA) of 2002.
Statement of Need: There is no central mechanism in place to
capture vessel, crew, passenger, or specific cargo information on
vessels less than or equal to 300 gross tons (GT) intending to arrive
at or depart from U.S. ports unless they are arriving with certain
dangerous cargo (CDC) or at a port in the 7th Coast Guard District; nor
is there a requirement for vessels to submit notification of departure
information. The lack of NOAD information of this large and diverse
population of vessels represents a substantial gap in our maritime
domain awareness (MDA). We can minimize this gap and enhance MDA by
expanding NOAD applicability to vessels greater than 300 GT, all
foreign commercial vessels and all U.S. commercial vessels coming from
a foreign port, and further enhance (and corroborate) MDA by tracking
those vessels (and others) with AIS. This information is necessary in
order to expand our MDA and provide The Nation maritime safety and
security.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking is based on congressional
authority provided in the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (see 33 U.S.C.
1223(a)(5), 1225, 1226, and 1231) and section 102 of the Maritime
[[Page 985]]
Transportation Security Act of 2002 (codified at 46 U.S.C. 70114).
Alternatives: Our goal is to extend our MDA and to identify
anomalies by correlating vessel NOAD data with AIS data. NOAD and AIS
information from a greater number of vessels, as proposed in this
rulemaking, would expand our MDA. We considered expanding NOAD and AIS
to even more vessels, but we determined that we needed additional
legislative authority to expand AIS beyond what we propose in this
rulemaking, and that it was best to combine additional NOAD expansion
with future AIS expansion. Although not in conjunction with a proposed
rule, the Coast Guard sought comment regarding expansion of AIS
carriage to other waters and other vessels not subject to the current
requirements (68 FR 39369, Jul. 1, 2003; USCG 2003-14878; see also 68
FR 39355). Those comments were reviewed and considered in drafting this
rule and are available in this docket. To fulfill our statutory
obligations, the Coast Guard needs to receive AIS reports and NOADs
from vessels identified in this rulemaking that currently are not
required to provide this information. Policy or other nonbinding
statements by the Coast Guard addressed to the owners of these vessels
would not produce the information required to sufficiently enhance our
MDA to produce the information required to fulfill our Agency
obligations.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rulemaking will enhance the
Coast Guard's regulatory program by making it more effective in
achieving the regulatory objectives, which, in this case, is improved
MDA. We provide flexibility in the type of AIS system that can be used,
allowing for reduced cost burden. This rule is also streamlined to
correspond with Customs and Border Protection's APIS requirements,
thereby reducing unjustified burdens. We are further developing
estimates of cost and benefit that were published in 2008. In the 2008
NPRM, we estimated that both segments of the proposed rule would affect
approximately 42,607 vessels. The total number of domestic vessels
affected is approximately 17,323 and the total number of foreign
vessels affected is approximately 25,284. We estimated that the 10-year
total present discounted value or cost of the proposed rule to U.S.
vessel owners is between $132.2 and $163.7 million (7 and 3 percent
discount rates, respectively, 2006 dollars) over the period of
analysis.
The Coast Guard believes that this rule, through a combination of
NOAD and AIS, would strengthen and enhance maritime security. The
combination of NOAD and AIS would create a synergistic effect between
the two requirements. Ancillary or secondary benefits exist in the form
of avoided injuries, fatalities, and barrels of oil not spilled into
the marine environment. In the 2008 NPRM, we estimated that the total
discounted benefit (injuries and fatalities) derived from 68 marine
casualty cases analyzed over an 8-year data period from 1996 to 2003
for the AIS portion of the proposed rule is between $24.7 and $30.6
million using $6.3 million for the value of statistical life (VSL) at 7
percent and 3 percent discount rates, respectively. Just based on
barrels of oil not spilled, we expect the AIS portion of the proposed
rule to prevent 22 barrels of oil from being spilled annually.
The Coast Guard may revise costs and benefits for the final rule to
reflect changes resulting from public comments.
Risks: Considering the economic utility of U.S. ports, waterways,
and coastal approaches, it is clear that a terrorist incident against
our U.S. Maritime Transportation System (MTS) would have a direct
impact on U.S. users and consumers and could potentially have a
disastrous impact on global shipping, international trade, and the
world economy. By improving the ability of the Coast Guard both to
identify potential terrorists coming to the United States while the
terrorists are far from our shores and to coordinate appropriate
responses and intercepts before the vessel reaches a U.S. port, this
rulemaking would contribute significantly to the expansion of MDA, and
consequently is instrumental in addressing the threat posed by
terrorist actions against the MTS.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/16/08 73 FR 76295
Notice of Public Meeting............ 01/21/09 74 FR 3534
Notice of Second Public Meeting..... 03/02/09 74 FR 9071
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/15/09
Notice of Second Public Meeting 04/15/09
Comment Period End.
Final Rule.......................... 06/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: We have indicated in past notices and
rulemaking documents, and it remains the case, that we have worked to
coordinate implementation of AIS MTSA requirements with the development
of our ability to take advantage of AIS data (68 FR 39355 and 39370,
Jul. 1, 2003).
The docket number for this rulemaking is USCG-2005-21869. The
docket can be found at www.regulations.gov.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: LCDR Michael D. Lendvay, Program Manager, Office of
Commercial Vessel, Foreign and Offshore Vessel Activities Div. (CG-CVC-
2), Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin
Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7501, Washington, DC 20593-7501,
Phone: 202 372-1218, Email: [email protected].
Jorge Arroyo, Project Manager, Office of Navigation Systems (CG-
NAV-1), Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin
Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7418, Washington, DC 20593-7418,
Phone: 202 372-1563, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1625-AA93, Related to 1625-AB28.
RIN: 1625-AA99
DHS--USCG
80. Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC); Card Reader
Requirements
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226; 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. ch 701;
50 U.S.C. 191 and 192; EO 12656
CFR Citation: 33 CFR, subchapter H.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, August 20, 2010, SAFE Port Act,
codified at 46 U.S.C. 70105(k). The final rule is required 2 years
after the commencement of the pilot program.
The final rule is required 2 years after the commencement of the
pilot program.
Abstract: The Coast Guard is establishing electronic card reader
requirements for maritime facilities and vessels to be used in
combination with TSA's Transportation Worker Identification Credential.
Congress enacted several statutory requirements within the Security and
Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006 to guide regulations
pertaining to TWIC readers, including the need to evaluate TSA's final
pilot program report as part of the TWIC reader rulemaking. During the
rulemaking process, we will take into account the final pilot data and
the
[[Page 986]]
various conditions in which TWIC readers may be employed. For example,
we will consider the types of vessels and facilities that will use TWIC
readers, locations of secure and restricted areas, operational
constraints, and need for accessibility. Recordkeeping requirements,
amendments to security plans, and the requirement for data exchanges
(i.e., Canceled Card List) between TSA and vessel or facility owners/
operators will also be addressed in this rulemaking.
Statement of Need: The Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA)
of 2002 explicitly required the issuance of a biometric transportation
security card to all U.S. merchant mariners and to workers requiring
unescorted access to secure areas of MTSA-regulated facilities and
vessels. On May 22, 2006, the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) and the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) to carry out this statute, proposing a Transportation Worker
Identification Credential (TWIC) Program where TSA conducts security
threat assessments and issues identification credentials, while the
Coast Guard requires integration of the TWIC into the access control
systems of vessels, facilities, and Outer Continental Shelf facilities.
Based on comments received during the public comment period, TSA and
the Coast Guard split the TWIC rule. The final TWIC rule, published in
January of 2007, addressed the issuance of the TWIC and use of the TWIC
as a visual identification credential at access control points. In an
ANPRM, published in March of 2009, and NPRM, published in April of
2013, the Coast Guard proposed a risk-based approach to TWIC reader
requirements and included proposals to classify MTSA-regulated vessels
and facilities into one of three risk groups, based on specific factors
related to TSI consequence, and apply TWIC reader requirements for
vessels and facilities in conjunction with their relative risk-group
placement.
This rulemaking is necessary to comply with the SAFE Port Act and
to complete the implementation of the TWIC Program in our ports. By
requiring electronic card readers at vessels and facilities, the Coast
Guard will further enhance port security and improve access control
measures.
Summary of Legal Basis: The statutory authorities for the Coast
Guard to prescribe, change, revise, or amend these regulations are
provided under 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. chapter 701; 50 U.S.C.
191, 192; Executive Order 12656, 3 CFR 1988 Comp., p. 585; 33 CFR 1.05-
1, 6.04-11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
Alternatives: The implementation of TWIC reader requirements is
mandated by the SAFE Port Act. We considered several alternatives in
the formulation of this proposal. These alternatives were based on risk
analysis of different combinations of facility and vessel populations
facing TWIC reader requirements. The preferred alternative selected
allowed the Coast Guard to target the highest risk entities while
minimizing the overall burden.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The main cost drivers of this rule
are the acquisition and installation of TWIC readers and the
maintenance of the affected entity's TWIC reader system. Initial Costs,
which we would distribute over a phased-in implementation period,
consist predominantly of the costs to purchase, install, and integrate
approved TWIC readers into their current physical access control
system. Recurring annual costs will be driven by costs associated with
canceled card list updates, opportunity costs associated with delays
and replacement of TWICs that cannot be read, and maintenance of the
affected entity's TWIC reader system. As reported in the NPRM
Regulatory Analysis, the total 10-year total industry and government
cost for the TWIC is $234.3 million undiscounted and $186.1 discounted
at 7 percent. The benefits of the rulemaking include the enhancement of
the security of vessel ports and other facilities by ensuing that only
individuals who hold valid TWICs are granted unescorted access to
secure areas at those locations. Rule We estimate the annualized cost
of this rule to industry to be $26.5 million at a 7 percent discount
rate.
Risks: USCG used risk-based decision-making to develop this
rulemaking. Based on this analysis, the Coast Guard has proposed
requiring higher-risk vessels and facilities to meet the requirements
for electronic TWIC inspection, while continuing to allow lower-risk
vessels and facilities to use TWIC as a visual identification
credential.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 03/27/09 74 FR 13360
Notice of Public Meeting............ 04/15/09 74 FR 17444
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 05/26/09 .......................
Notice of Public Meeting Comment 05/26/09 .......................
Period End.
NPRM................................ 03/22/13 78 FR 20558
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 05/10/13 78 FR 27335
NPRM Comment Period Extended End.... 06/20/13 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 04/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: The docket number for this rulemaking is
USCG-2007-28915. The docket can be found at www.regulations.gov.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: LCDR Loan O'Brien, Project Manager, Department of
Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant, (CG-FAC-2), 2703
Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7501, Washington, DC 20593-
7501, Phone: 202 372-1133, Email: loan.t.o'[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1625-AB02.
RIN: 1625-AB21
DHS--USCG
81. Offshore Supply Vessels of at Least 6000 GT ITC
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-281, sec 617
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, January 1, 2012, Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2010.
Abstract: The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 removed the
size limit on offshore supply vessels (OSVs). The Act also directed the
Coast Guard to issue, as soon as is practicable, a regulation to
implement section 617 of the Act and to ensure the safe carriage of
oil, hazardous substances, and individuals in addition to the crew on
vessels of at least 6,000 gross tonnage as measured under the
International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships (6,000 GT
ITC). Accordingly, the Coast Guard's rule will address design, manning,
carriage of personnel, and related topics for OSVs of at least 6,000 GT
ITC. This rulemaking will meet the requirements of the Act and will
support the Coast Guard's mission of marine safety, security, and
stewardship.
[[Page 987]]
Statement of Need: In section 617 of Public Law 111-281, Congress
removed OSV tonnage limits and instructed the Coast Guard to promulgate
regulations to implement the amendments and authorities of section 617.
Additionally, Congress directed the Coast Guard to ensure the safe
carriage of oil, hazardous substances, and individuals in addition to
the crew on OSVs of at least 6,000 GT ITC.
Summary of Legal Basis: The statutory authority to promulgate these
regulations is found in section 617(f) of Public Law 111-281.
Alternatives: The Coast Guard Authorization Act removed OSV tonnage
limits and the Coast Guard will examine alternatives during the
development of the regulatory analysis.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Coast Guard is currently
developing a regulatory impact analysis of regulations that ensure the
safe carriage of oil, hazardous substances, and individuals in addition
to the crew on OSVs of at least 6,000 GT ITC. A potential benefit of
this rulemaking is the ability of industry to expand and take advantage
of new commercial opportunities in the building of larger OSVs.
Risks: No risks.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 02/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: LCDR Heather Mattern, Program Manager (CG-ENG-1),
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther
King Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, Phone: 202
372-1361, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1625-AB62
DHS--U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (USCBP)
Final Rule Stage
82. Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements
(Section 610 Review)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 109-347, sec 203; 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C.
66; 19 U.S.C. 1431; 19 U.S.C. 1433 to 1434; 19 U.S.C. 1624; 19 U.S.C.
2071 (note); 46 U.S.C. 60105
CFR Citation: 19 CFR 4; 19 CFR 12.3; 19 CFR 18.5; 19 CFR 103.31a;
19 CFR 113; 19 CFR 123.92; 19 CFR 141.113; 19 CFR 146.32; 19 CFR 149;
19 CFR 192.14.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This final rule implements the provisions of section 203
of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006. On
November 25, 2008, CBP published an interim final rule (CBP Dec. 08-46)
in the Federal Register (73 FR 71730), that finalized most of the
provisions proposed in the NPRM. The interim final rule did not
finalize six data elements that were identified as areas of potential
concern for industry during the rulemaking process and, for which, CBP
provided some type of flexibility for compliance with those data
elements. CBP solicited public comment on these six data elements,
conducted a structured review, and also invited comments on the revised
Regulatory Assessment and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. [See
73 FR 71782-85 for regulatory text and 73 CFR 71733-34 for general
discussion.] The remaining requirements of the rule were adopted as
final. CBP plans to issue a final rule after CBP completes a structured
review of the flexibilities and analyzes the comments.
Statement of Need: This rule improves CBP's risk assessment and
targeting capabilities and enables the agency to facilitate the prompt
release of legitimate cargo following its arrival in the United States.
The information will assist CBP in increasing the security of the
global trading system and, thereby, reducing the threat to the United
States and world economy.
Summary of Legal Basis: Pursuant to section 203 of the Security and
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-347, 6 U.S.C.
943) (SAFE Port Act), the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting
through the Commissioner of CBP, must promulgate regulations to require
the electronic transmission of additional data elements for improved
high-risk targeting, including appropriate security elements of entry
data for cargo destined to the United States by vessel prior to loading
of such cargo on vessels at foreign seaports.
Alternatives: CBP is considering whether to maintain the
flexibilities on the data elements that were not finalized in the
interim final rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: CBP is currently developing a
regulatory impact analysis based on the comments and the structured
review of the data elements not finalized in the interim final rule.
Risks: No risks.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/02/08 73 FR 90
NPRM Comment Period End............. 03/03/08
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 02/01/08 73 FR 6061
NPRM Comment Period End............. 03/18/08
Interim Final Rule.................. 11/25/08 73 FR 71730
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 01/26/09
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 06/01/09
End.
Correction.......................... 07/14/09 74 FR 33920
Correction.......................... 12/24/09 74 FR 68376
Final Action........................ 08/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Craig Clark, Program Manager, Vessel Manifest &
Importer Security Filing, Office of Cargo and Conveyance Security,
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229, Phone: 202 344-
3052, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1651-AA70
DHS--USCBP
83. Changes to the Visa Waiver Program To Implement the Electronic
System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) Program
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1187
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 217.5.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: CBP issued an interim final rule which implemented the
Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) for aliens who travel
to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) at air or sea
ports of entry. Under the rule, VWP travelers must provide certain
biographical information to CBP
[[Page 988]]
electronically before departing for the United States. This advance
information allows CBP to determine before their departure whether
these travelers are eligible to travel to the United States under the
VWP and whether such travel poses a security risk. The interim final
rule also fulfilled the requirements of section 711 of the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act). In
addition to fulfilling a statutory mandate, the rule serves the twin
goals of promoting border security and legitimate travel to the United
States. By modernizing the VWP, the ESTA increases national security
and provides for greater efficiencies in the screening of international
travelers by allowing for vetting of subjects of potential interest
well before boarding, thereby reducing traveler delays at the ports of
entry. CBP requested comments on all aspects of the interim final rule
and plans to issue a final rule after completion of the comment
analysis.
Statement of Need: The rule fulfills the requirements of section
711 of the 9/11 Act to develop and implement a fully automated
electronic travel authorization system in advance of travel for VWP
travelers. The advance information allows CBP to determine before their
departure whether VWP travelers are eligible to travel to the United
States and to determine whether such travel poses a law enforcement or
security risk. In addition to fulfilling a statutory mandate, the rule
serves the twin goals of promoting border security and legitimate
travel to the United States. ESTA increases national security by
allowing for vetting of subjects of potential interest before they
depart for the United States. It promotes legitimate travel to the
United States by providing for greater efficiencies in the screening of
travelers thereby reducing traveler delays upon arrival at U.S. ports
of entry.
Summary of Legal Basis: The ESTA program is based on congressional
authority provided under section 711 of the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-53) and
section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C.
1187.
Alternatives: When developing the interim final rule, CBP
considered three alternatives to this rule:
1. The ESTA requirements in the rule, but with a $1.50 fee per each
travel authorization (more costly).
2. The ESTA requirements in the rule, but with only the name of the
passenger and the admissibility questions on the I-94W form (less
burdensome).
3. The ESTA requirements in the rule, but only for the countries
entering the VWP after 2009 (no new requirements for VWP, reduced
burden for newly entering countries).
CBP determined that the rule provides the greatest level of
enhanced security and efficiency at an acceptable cost to traveling
public and potentially affected air carriers.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The purpose of ESTA is to allow DHS
and CBP to establish the eligibility of certain foreign travelers to
travel to the United States under the VWP, and whether the alien's
proposed travel to the United States poses a law enforcement or
security risk. Upon review of such information, DHS will determine
whether the alien is eligible to travel to the United States under the
VWP.
Costs to Air & Sea Carriers: CBP estimated that eight U.S.-based
air carriers and eleven sea carriers will be affected by the rule. An
additional 35 foreign-based air carriers and five sea carriers will be
affected. CBP concluded that costs to air and sea carriers to support
the requirements of the ESTA program could cost $137 million to $1.1
billion over the next 10 years depending on the level of effort
required to integrate their systems with ESTA, how many passengers they
need to assist in applying for travel authorizations, and the discount
rate applied to annual costs.
Costs to Travelers: ESTA will present new costs and burdens to
travelers in VWP countries who were not previously required to submit
any information to the U.S. Government in advance of travel to the
United States. Travelers from Roadmap countries who become VWP
countries will also incur costs and burdens, though these are much less
than obtaining a nonimmigrant visa (category B1/B2), which is currently
required for short-term pleasure or business to travel to the United
States. CBP estimated that the total quantified costs to travelers will
range from $1.1 billion to $3.5 billion depending on the number of
travelers, the value of time, and the discount rate. Annualized costs
are estimated to range from $133 million to $366 million.
Benefits: As set forth in section 711 of the 9/11 Act, it was the
intent of Congress to modernize and strengthen the security of the Visa
Waiver Program under section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187) by simultaneously enhancing program security
requirements and extending visa-free travel privileges to citizens and
eligible nationals of eligible foreign countries that are partners in
the war on terrorism.
By requiring passenger data in advance of travel, CBP may be able
to determine, before the alien departs for the United States, the
eligibility of citizens and eligible nationals from VWP countries to
travel to the United States under the VWP, and whether such travel
poses a law enforcement or security risk. In addition to fulfilling a
statutory mandate, the rule serves the twin goals of promoting border
security and legitimate travel to the United States. By modernizing the
VWP, ESTA is intended to both increase national security and provide
for greater efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by
allowing for the screening of subjects of potential interest well
before boarding, thereby reducing traveler delays based on potentially
lengthy processes at U.S. ports of entry.
CBP concluded that the total benefits to travelers could total $1.1
billion to $3.3 billion over the period of analysis. Annualized
benefits could range from $134 million to $345 million.
In addition to these benefits to travelers, CBP and the carriers
should also experience the benefit of not having to administer the I-
94W except in limited situations. While CBP has not conducted an
analysis of the potential savings, it should accrue benefits from not
having to produce, ship, and store blank forms. CBP should also be able
to accrue savings related to data entry and archiving. Carriers should
realize some savings as well, though carriers will still have to
administer the Customs Declaration forms for all passengers aboard the
aircraft and vessel.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Action................ 06/09/08 73 FR 32440
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 08/08/08
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 08/08/08
End.
Notice--Announcing Date Rule Becomes 11/13/08 73 FR 67354
Mandatory.
Final Action........................ 01/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Additional Information: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id_visa/esta/.
[[Page 989]]
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Suzanne Shepherd, Director, Electronic System for
Travel Authorization, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229,
Phone: 202 344-2073, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1651-AA83.
RIN: 1651-AA72
DHS--USCBP
84. Implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program (Section 610
Review)
Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-229, sec 702
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 100.4; 8 CFR 212.1; 8 CFR 233.5; 8 CFR 235.5;
19 CFR 4.7b; 19 CFR 122.49a.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 4, 2008, Pub. L. 110-
229.
Abstract: This rule amends Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
regulations to implement section 702 of the Consolidated Natural
Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA). This law extends the immigration laws of
the United States to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(CNMI) and provides for a joint visa waiver program for travel to Guam
and the CNMI. This rule implements section 702 of the CNRA by amending
the regulations to replace the current Guam Visa Waiver Program with a
new Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. The amended regulations set forth
the requirements for nonimmigrant visitors who seek admission for
business or pleasure and solely for entry into and stay on Guam or the
CNMI without a visa. This rule also establishes six ports of entry in
the CNMI for purposes of administering and enforcing the Guam-CNMI Visa
Waiver Program. Section 702 of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act
of 2008 (CNRA), subject to a transition period, extends the immigration
laws of the United States to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (CNMI) and provides for a visa waiver program for travel to
Guam and/or the CNMI. On January 16, 2009, the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), through CBP, issued an interim final rule in the
Federal Register replacing the then-existing Guam Visa Waiver Program
with the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program and setting forth the
requirements for nonimmigrant visitors seeking admission into Guam and/
or the CNMI under the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. As of November 28,
2009, the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program is operational. This program
allows nonimmigrant visitors from eligible countries to seek admission
for business or pleasure for entry into Guam and/or the CNMI without a
visa for a period of authorized stay not to exceed forty-five days.
This rulemaking would finalize the January 2009 interim final rule.
Statement of Need: Previously, aliens who were citizens of eligible
countries could apply for admission to Guam at a Guam port of entry as
nonimmigrant visitors for a period of fifteen (15) days or less, for
business or pleasure, without first obtaining a nonimmigrant visa,
provided that they are otherwise eligible for admission. Section 702(b)
of the CNRA, supersedes the Guam visa waiver program by providing for a
visa waiver program for Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program). Section 702(b)
required DHS to promulgate regulations within 180 days of enactment of
the CNRA to allow nonimmigrant visitors from eligible countries to
apply for admission into Guam and the CNMI, for business or pleasure,
without a visa, for a period of authorized stay of no longer than
forty-five (45) days.
Under the interim final rule, a visitor seeking admission under the
Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program must be a national of an eligible country
and must meet the requirements enumerated in the current Guam visa
waiver program as well as additional requirements that bring the Guam-
CNMI Visa Waiver Program into soft alignment with the U.S. Visa Waiver
Program provided for in 8 CFR 217. The country eligibility requirements
take into account the intent of the CNRA and ensure that the
regulations meet current border security needs. The country eligibility
requirements are designed to: (1) Ensure effective border control
procedures, (2) properly address national security and homeland
security concerns in extending U.S. immigration law to the CNMI, and
(3) maximize the CNMI's potential for future economic and business
growth. This interim rule also provided that visitors from the People's
Republic of China and Russia have provided a significant economic
benefit to the CNMI. However, nationals from those countries cannot, at
this time, seek admission under the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program due
to security concerns. Pursuant to section 702(a) of the CNRA, which
extends the immigration laws of the United States to the CNMI, this
rule also establishes six ports of entry in the CNMI to enable the
Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary) to administer and
enforce the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program is based
on congressional authority provided under 702(b) of the Consolidated
Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA).
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: CBP is currently evaluating the
costs and benefits associated with finalizing the interim final rule.
The most significant change for admission to the CNMI as a result of
the rule was for visitors from those countries who are not included in
either the existing U.S. Visa Waiver Program or the Guam-CNMI Visa
Waiver Program established by the rule. These visitors must apply for
U.S. visas, which require in-person interviews at U.S. embassies or
consulates and higher fees than the CNMI assessed for its visitor entry
permits. These are losses associated with the reduced visits from
foreign travelers who no longer visited the CNMI upon implementation of
this rule. The anticipated benefits of the rule were enhanced security
that would result from the federalization of the immigration functions
in the CNMI.
Risks: No risks.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 01/16/09 74 FR 2824
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 01/16/09
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 03/17/09
End.
Technical Amendment; Change of 05/28/09 74 FR 25387
Implementation Date.
Final Action........................ 06/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Paul Minton, CBP Officer (Program Manager),
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229, Phone: 202 344-
2723, Email: [email protected].
[[Page 990]]
Related RIN: Related to 1651-AA81.
RIN: 1651-AA77
DHS--USCBP
85. Definition of Form I-94 to Include Electronic Format
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1201; 8
U.S.C. 1301; 8 U.S.C. 1303 to 1305; 5 U.S.C. 301; Pub. L. 107-296, 116
stat 2135; 6 U.S.C. 1 et seq.
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1.4; 8 CFR 264.1(b).
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Currently, CBP generally issues the Form I-94 to aliens
at the time they lawfully enter the United States. CBP is transitioning
to an automated process whereby it will create a Form I-94 in an
electronic format based on passenger, passport, and visa information
currently obtained electronically from air and sea carriers and the
Department of State as well as through the inspection process. The Form
I-94 is issued by DHS to certain aliens upon arrival in the United
States or when changing status in the United States. The Form I-94 is
used to document arrival and departure and provides evidence of the
terms of admission or parole. Prior to this rule, the Form I-94 was
solely a paper form that was completed by the alien upon arrival. After
the implementation of the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS)
following 9/11, CBP began collecting information on aliens traveling by
air or sea to the United States electronically from carriers in advance
of arrival. For aliens arriving in the United States by air or sea, CBP
obtains almost all of the information contained on the paper Form I-94
electronically and in advance via APIS. The few fields on the Form I-94
that are not collected via APIS are either already collected by the
Department of State and transmitted to CBP or can be collected by the
CBP Officer from the individual at the time of inspection. This means
that CBP no longer needs to collect Form I-94 information as a matter
of course directly from aliens traveling to the United States by air or
sea. At this time, the automated process will apply only to aliens
arriving at air and sea ports of entry.
Statement of Need: This rule makes the necessary changes to the
regulations to enable CBP to transition to an automated process whereby
CBP will create an electronic Form I-94 based on the information in its
databases.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 103(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) generally authorizes the Secretary of Homeland
Security to establish such regulations and prescribe such forms of
reports, entries, and other papers necessary to carry out his or her
authority to administer and enforce the immigration and nationality
laws and to guard the borders of the United States against illegal
entry of aliens.
Alternatives: CBP considered two alternatives to this rule:
eliminating the paper Form I-94 in the air and sea environments
entirely and providing the paper Form I-94 to all travelers who are not
B-1/B-2 travelers. Eliminating the paper Form I-94 option for refugees,
applicants for asylum, parolees, and those travelers who request one
would not result in a significant cost savings to CBP and would harm
travelers who have an immediate need for an electronic Form I-94 or who
face obstacles to accessing their electronic Form I-94. A second
alternative to the rule is to provide a paper Form I-94 to any
travelers who are not B-1/B-2 travelers. Under this alternative,
travelers would receive and complete the paper Form I-94 during their
inspection when they arrive in the United States. The electronic Form
I-94 would still be automatically created during the inspection, but
the CBP Officer would need to verify that the information appearing on
the form matches the information in CBP's systems. In addition, CBP
would need to write the Form I-94 number on each paper Form I-94 so
that their paper form matches the electronic record. As noted in the
analysis, 25.1 percent of aliens are non-B-1/B-2 travelers. Filling out
and processing this many paper Forms I-94 at airports and seaports
would increase processing times considerably. At the same time, it
would only provide a small savings to the individual traveler.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: With the implementation of this
rule, CBP will no longer collect Form I-94 information as a matter of
course directly from aliens traveling to the United States by air or
sea. Instead, CBP will create an electronic Form I-94 for foreign
travelers based on the information in its databases. This rule makes
the necessary changes to the regulations to enable CBP to transition to
an automated process.
Both CBP and aliens would bear costs as a result of this rule. CBP
would bear costs to link its data systems and to build a Web site so
aliens can access their electronic Forms I-94. CBP estimates that the
total cost for CBP to link data systems, develop a secure Web site, and
fully automate the Form I-94 fully will equal about $1.3 million in
calendar year 2012. CBP will incur costs of $0.09 million in subsequent
years to operate and maintain these systems. Aliens arriving as
diplomats and students would bear costs when logging into the Web site
and printing electronic I-94s. The temporary workers and aliens in the
``Other/Unknown'' category bear costs when logging into the Web site,
traveling to a location with public internet access, and printing a
paper copy of their electronic Form I-94. Using the primary estimate
for a traveler's value of time, aliens would bear costs between $36.6
million and $46.4 million from 2013 to 2016. Total costs for this rule
for 2013 would range from $34.2 million to $40.1 million, with a
primary estimate of costs equal to $36.7 million.
CBP, carriers, and foreign travelers would accrue benefits as a
result of this rule. CBP would save contract and printing costs of
$15.6 million per year of our analysis. Carriers would save a total of
$1.3 million in printing costs per year. All aliens would save the
eight-minute time burden for filling out the paper Form I-94 and
certain aliens who lose the Form I-94 would save the $330 fee and 25-
minute time burden for filling out the Form I-102. Using the primary
estimate for a traveler's value of time, aliens would obtain benefits
between $112.6 million and $141.6 million from 2013 to 2016. Total
benefits for this rule for 2013 would range from $110.7 million to
$155.6 million, with a primary estimate of benefits equal to $129.5
million.
Overall, this rule results in substantial cost savings (benefits)
for foreign travelers, carriers, and CBP. CBP anticipates a net benefit
in 2013 of between $59.7 million and $98.7 million for foreign
travelers, $1.3 million for carriers, and $15.5 million for CBP. Net
benefits to U.S. entities (carriers and CBP) in 2013 total $16.8
million. CBP anticipates the total net benefits to both domestic and
foreign entities in 2013 range from $76.5 million to $115.5 million. In
our primary analysis, the total net benefits are $92.8 million in 2013.
For the primary estimate, annualized net benefits range from $78.1
million to $80.0 million, depending on the discount rate used.
Risks: N/A.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 03/27/13 78 FR 18457
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 04/26/13 .......................
End.
[[Page 991]]
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 04/26/13 .......................
Final Action........................ 10/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O.
13563.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Suzanne Shepherd, Director, Electronic System for
Travel Authorization, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229,
Phone: 202 344-2073, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1651-AA96
DHS--TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA)
Proposed Rule Stage
86. Security Training for Surface Mode Employees
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; Pub. L. 110-53, secs. 1408, 1517,
and 1534
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1570; 49 CFR 1580; 49 CFR 1582
(new); 49 CFR 1584 (new).
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2007, Interim Rule
for public transportation agencies is due 90 days after date of
enactment.
Final, Statutory, February 3, 2008, Rule for railroads and over-
the-road buses are due 6 months after date of enactment.
Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule for public transportation
agencies is due 1 year after date of enactment.
According to sec. 1408 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121
Stat. 266), interim final regulations for public transportation
agencies are due 90 days after the date of enactment (Nov. 1, 2007),
and final regulations are due 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act. According to sec. 1517 of the same Act, final regulations for
railroads and over-the-road buses are due no later than 6 months after
the date of enactment.
Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) intends
to propose a new regulation to address the security of freight
railroads, public transportation, passenger railroads, and over-the-
road buses in accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act). As required by the 9/11 Act,
the rulemaking will propose that certain railroads, public
transportation agencies, and over-the-road bus companies provide
security training to their frontline employees in the areas of security
awareness, operational security, incident prevention and response, and
security exercises that test effectiveness of training. The rulemaking
will also propose extending security coordinator and reporting security
incident requirements applicable to rail operators under current 49 CFR
part 1580 to the non-rail transportation components of covered public
transportation agencies and over-the-road buses. The regulation will
take into consideration any current security training requirements or
best practices.
Statement of Need: Employee training is an important and effective
tool for averting or mitigating potential terrorist attacks by
terrorists or others with malicious intent who may target surface
transportation and plan or perpetrate actions that may cause
significant injuries, loss of life, or economic disruption.
Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 114; sections 1408, 1517, and
1534 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266).
Alternatives: TSA is required by statute to publish regulations
requiring security training programs for these owner/operators. As part
of its notice of proposed rulemaking, TSA will seek public comment on
the alternative ways in which the final rule could carry out the
requirements of the statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA has not quantified benefits.
TSA, however, expects that the primary benefit of the Security Training
NPRM will be the enhancement of the United States surface
transportation security by reducing the vulnerability of surface mode
transportation employees.
Risks: The Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent
terrorist attacks within the United States and to reduce the
vulnerability of the United States to terrorism. By providing for
security training for personnel, TSA intends in this rulemaking to
reduce the risk of a terrorist attack on this transportation sector.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Local.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Chandru (Jack) Kalro, Deputy Director, Surface
Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-
28, HQ, E, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571
227-1145, Fax: 571 227-2935, Email: [email protected].
Monica Grasso, Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch--Cross
Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation
Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry
Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E10, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA
20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-3329, Email: [email protected].
David Kasminoff, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards
Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, HQ, E12, 601 South
12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-3583, Fax: 571
227-1378, Email: [email protected].
Traci Klemm, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards
Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, HQ, E12, 601 South
12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-3596, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA56, Merged with 1652-AA57, Merged
with 1652-AA59.
RIN: 1652-AA55
DHS--TSA
87. Standardized Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Services
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114, 5103A, 44903 and 44936; 46 U.S.C.
70105; 6 U.S.C. 469; Pub. L. 110-53, secs. 1411, 1414, 1520, 1522 and
1602
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) intends
to
[[Page 992]]
propose new regulations to revise and standardize the procedures,
adjudication criteria, and fees for most of the security threat
assessments (STA) of individuals for which TSA is responsible. The
scope of the rulemaking will include transportation workers from all
modes of transportation who are required to undergo an STA, including
surface maritime and aviation workers. In accordance with the
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11
Act), the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) will address STAs for
frontline employees for public transportation agencies and railroads.
In addition, TSA will propose fees to cover the cost of all STAs.
TSA plans to improve efficiencies in processing STAs and streamline
existing regulations by simplifying language and removing redundancies.
As part of this proposed rule, TSA will propose revisions to the
Alien Flight Student Program (AFSP) regulations. TSA published an
interim final rule for ASFP on September 20, 2004. TSA regulations
require aliens seeking to train at Federal Aviation Administration-
regulated flight schools to complete an application and undergo an STA
prior to beginning flight training. There are four categories under
which students currently fall; the nature of the STA depends on the
student's category. TSA is considering changes to the AFSP that would
improve the equity among fee payers and enable the implementation of
new technologies to support vetting.
Statement of Need: Through this rulemaking, TSA proposes to carry
out statutory mandates to perform security threat assessments (STA) of
certain transportation workers pursuant to the 9/11 Act. Also, TSA
proposes to fully satisfy 6 U.S.C. 469, which requires TSA to fund
security threat assessment and credentialing activities through user
fees. The proposed rulemaking would reduce reliance on appropriations
for certain vetting services; minimize redundant background checks; and
increase transportation security by enhancing identification and
immigration verification standards.
Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 114(f): Under the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (ATSA), (Pub. L. 170-71, Nov. 19, 2001, 115
Stat. 597), TSA assumed responsibility to assess security in all modes
of transportation and minimize threats to national and transportation
security. TSA is required to vet certain aviation workers pursuant to
49 U.S.C. 44903 and 44936. TSA is required to vet individuals with
unescorted access to maritime facilities pursuant to the Maritime
Transportation Security Act (MTSA) (Pub. L. 107-295, sec. 102, Nov. 25,
2002, 116 Stat. 2064), codified at 46 U.S.C. 70105.
Pursuant to the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA
PATRIOT Act) (Pub. L. 107-56, Oct. 25, 2001, 115 Stat. 272), TSA vets
individuals seeking hazardous materials endorsements (HME) for
commercial drivers licensed by the States.
In the Implementing Recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Act of
2007 (Pub. L. 110-53, Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 266), Congress directed
TSA to vet additional populations of transportation workers, including
certain public transportation and railroad workers.
In 6 U.S.C. 469, Congress directed TSA to fund vetting and
credentialing programs in the field of transportation through user
fees.
Alternatives: TSA considered a number of viable alternatives to
lessen the impact of the proposed regulations on entities deemed
``small'' by the Small Business Administration (SBA) standards. This
included: (1) Extending phone pre-enrollment to populations eligible to
enroll via the Web; and (2) changing the current delivery and
activation process for applicants to receive credentials through the
mail rather than returning to the enrollment center. These alternatives
are discussed in detail in the proposed rule and regulatory evaluation.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA conducted a regulatory
evaluation to estimate the costs regulated entities, individuals, and
TSA would incur to comply with the requirements of the NPRM. The NPRM
would impose new requirements for some individuals, codify existing
requirements not included in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and
modify current STA requirements for many transportation workers. The
primary benefits of the NPRM are that it would reduce reliance on
appropriations to cover certain vetting services; improve security by
requiring new and enhanced vetting; reduce the need for redundant
background checks; and improve TSA's vetting product, process, and
structure. TSA estimates that the NPRM would result in a cost savings
to the alien flight student program. The estimated total savings for
alien flight students, over a 5-year period is approximately $18
million at 7 percent discount rate.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O.
13563.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Hao--y Tran Froemling, Acting Director, Program
Management Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation
Security Administration, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, TSA-10,
HQ, E6, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6010, Phone: 571
227-2782, Email: [email protected].
Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch-Cross Modal
Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-
28, HQ, E10, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone:
571 227-3329, Email: [email protected].
John Vergelli, Attorney, Regulations and Security Standards
Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, DHS, TSA, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, HQ, E12,
601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-4416,
Fax: 571 227-1378, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA35.
RIN: 1652-AA61
DHS--TSA
Final Rule Stage
88. Aircraft Repair Station Security
Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; 49 U.S.C. 44924
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1554.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, August 8, 2004, Rule within 240
days of the date of enactment of Vision 100.
Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule within 1 year after the date
of enactment of 9/11 Commission Act.
Section 611(b)(1) of Vision 100--Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176; Dec. 12, 2003; 117 Stat. 2490),
codified at 49 U.S.C. 44924, requires that TSA issue ``final
regulations to ensure the security of foreign and domestic aircraft
repair
[[Page 993]]
stations.'' Section 1616 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/
11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-531; Aug. 3, 2007; 21 Stat. 266)
requires TSA issue a final rule on foreign repair station security.
Abstract: Pursuant to the requirements of section 611 of Vision
100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act and section 1616 of the 9/
11 Commission Act of 2007, the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) is developing a regulation to improve the security of domestic
and foreign aircraft repair stations. TSA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on November 18, 2009, and requested public
comment by January 19, 2010. At the request of the stakeholders, TSA
extended the comment period to February 19, 2010; this provided the
aviation industry and other interested entities and individuals
additional time to submit comments. The NPRM proposed to require
certain repair stations that are certificated by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to adopt and carry out a security program. TSA is
working on a final rule that would finalize this rulemaking project.
Throughout the development of this rulemaking, TSA has coordinated its
efforts with the FAA to ensure that the rulemaking does not interfere
with FAA's ability or authority to regulate part 145 repair station
safety matters.
Statement of Need: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
proposed regulations to improve the security of domestic and foreign
aircraft repair stations. The NPRM proposed to require certain repair
stations that are certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration
to adopt and carry out a security program. The NPRM proposed to codify
the scope of TSA's existing inspection program. The proposal also
provides procedures for repair stations to seek review of any TSA
determination that security measures are deficient.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 611(b)(1) of Vision 100--Century of
Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176; Dec. 12, 2003; 117 Stat.
2490), codified at 49 U.S.C. 44924, requires that TSA issue ``final
regulations to ensure the security of foreign and domestic aircraft
repair stations'' within 240 days from date of enactment of Vision 100.
Section 1616 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266) requires that
the FAA may not certify any foreign repair stations if the regulations
are not issued within 1 year after the date of enactment of the 9/11
Commission Act unless the repair station was previously certificated or
is in the process of certification.
Alternatives: TSA is required by statute to publish regulations for
aircraft repair stations. As part of its notice of proposed rulemaking,
TSA sought public comment on the numerous alternative ways in which the
final rule could carry out the requirements of the statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In the NPRM, TSA anticipated costs
to aircraft repair stations mainly related to the establishment of
security programs. The NPRM estimated total cost of the program is
$344.4 million (10-year, undiscounted) and $241 million (discounted at
7 percent). As TSA tightens security in other areas of aviation, repair
stations increasingly may become attractive targets for terrorist
organizations attempting to evade aviation security protections
currently in place. TSA also used a break-even analysis to assess the
trade-off between the beneficial effects and the costs of implementing
the rulemaking. The NPRM break-even analysis used three attack
scenarios to determine the degree to which the rule must reduce the
overall risk of a terrorist attack in order for the expected benefits
to justify the estimated rule costs. TSA is revising the NPRM costs and
benefits estimates for the final rule.
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. In the regulation, TSA
will focus on preventing unauthorized access to repair work and to
aircraft to prevent sabotage or hijacking.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice--Public Meeting; Request for 02/24/04 69 FR 8357
Comments.
Report to Congress.................. 08/24/04
NPRM................................ 11/18/09 74 FR 59873
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/19/10
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 12/29/09 74 FR 68774
NPRM Extended Comment Period End.... 02/19/10
Final Rule.......................... 11/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Shawn Gallagher, Regional Security Inspector,
Compliance Programs, Repair Stations, Department of Homeland Security,
Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Operations,
TSA-29, HQ, E5, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6029, Phone:
571 227-4005, Email: [email protected].
Monica Grasso, Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch--Cross
Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation
Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry
Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E10, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA
20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-3329, Email: [email protected].
Linda L. Kent, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Security
Standards Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation
Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, HQ, E12,
601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-2675,
Fax: 571 227-1381, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1652-AA38
DHS--TSA
89. Passenger Screening Using Advanced Imaging Technology
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 44925
CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1540.107.
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) intends
to issue a final rule to address whether screening and inspection of an
individual, conducted to control access to the sterile area of an
airport or to an aircraft, may include the use of advanced imaging
technology (AIT). The NPRM was published on March 26, 2012, to comply
with the decision rendered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in Electronic Privacy Information Center
(EPIC) v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security on July 15, 2011. 653
F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The Court directed TSA to conduct notice and
comment rulemaking on the use of AIT in the primary screening of
passengers.
Statement of Need: TSA is issuing a final rule to respond to the
decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit in EPIC v. DHS 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
Summary of Legal Basis: In its decision in EPIC v. DHS 653 F.3d 1
[[Page 994]]
(D.C. Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit found that TSA failed to justify its failure to conduct notice
and comment rulemaking and remanded to TSA for further proceedings.
Alternatives: As alternatives to the preferred regulatory proposal
presented in the NPRM, TSA examined three other options. These
alternatives include a continuation of the screening environment prior
to 2008 (no action), increased use of physical pat-down searches that
supplements primary screening with walk through metal detectors
(WTMDs), and increased use of explosive trace detection (ETD) screening
that supplements primary screening with WTMDs. These alternatives, and
the reasons why TSA rejected them in favor of the proposed rule, are
discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of the AIT NPRM Regulatory Evaluation.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA reports that the net cost of AIT
deployment from 2008-2011 has been $841.2 million (undiscounted) and
that TSA has borne over 99 percent of all costs related to AIT
deployment. TSA projects that from 2012-2015 net AIT related costs will
be approximately $1.5 billion (undiscounted), $1.4 billion at a three
percent discount rate, and $1.3 billion at a seven percent discount
rate. During 2012-2015, TSA estimates it will also incur over 98
percent of AIT-related costs with equipment and personnel costs being
the largest categories of expenditures.
The operations described in this rule produce benefits by reducing
security risks through the deployment of AIT that is capable of
detecting both metallic and non-metallic weapons and explosives.
Terrorists continue to test our security measures in an attempt to find
and exploit vulnerabilities. The threat to aviation security has
evolved to include the use of non-metallic explosives. AIT is a proven
technology based on laboratory testing and field experience and is an
essential component of TSA's security screening because it provides the
best opportunity to detect metallic and nonmetallic anomalies concealed
under clothing.
Risks: DHS aims to prevent terrorist attacks and to reduce the
vulnerability of the United States to terrorism. By screening
passengers with AIT, TSA will reduce the risk that a terrorist will
smuggle a non-metallic threat on board an aircraft.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/26/13 78 FR 18287
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/24/13 .......................
Final Rule.......................... 09/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Chawanna Carrington, Project Manager, Passenger
Screening Program, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation
Security Administration, Office of Security Capabilities, TSA-16, HQ,
601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6016, Phone: 571 227-2958,
Fax: 571 227-1931, Email: [email protected].
Monica Grasso, Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch--Cross
Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation
Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry
Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E10, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA
20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-3329, Email: [email protected].
Linda L. Kent, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Security
Standards Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation
Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, HQ, E12,
601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-2675,
Fax: 571 227-1381, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1652-AA67
DHS--U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (USICE)
Proposed Rule Stage
90. Adjustments to Limitations on Designated School Official Assignment
and Study by F-2 and M-2 Nonimmigrants
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101 to 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C.
1184
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214.2(f)(15); 8 CFR 214.3(a); 8 CFR 214.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The proposed rule would revise 8 CFR parts 214.2 and
214.3. First, it would provide additional flexibility to schools in
determining the number of designated school officials (DSOs) to
nominate for the oversight of the school's campuses where international
students are enrolled. Current regulation limits the number of DSOs to
10 per school, or 10 per campus in a multi-campus school. Second, the
proposed rule would permit F-2 and M-2 spouses and children
accompanying academic and vocational nonimmigrant students with F-1 or
M-1 nonimmigrant status to enroll in study at an SEVP-certified school
so long as any study remains less than a full course of study.
Statement of Need: The Department of Homeland Security proposes to
amend its regulations under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program to
improve management of international student programs and increase
opportunities for study by spouses and children of nonimmigrant
students. The proposed rule would grant school officials more
flexibility in determining the number of designated school officials
(DSOs) to nominate for the oversight of campuses. The rule also would
provide greater incentive for international students to study in the
United States by permitting accompanying spouses and children of
academic and vocational nonimmigrant students with F-1 or M-1
nonimmigrant status to enroll in less than a full course of study at an
SEVP-certified school.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The anticipated costs of the NPRM
derive from the existing requirements for the training and reporting to
DHS of additional DSOs. The primary benefits of the NPRM are providing
flexibility to schools in the number of DSOs allowed and providing
greater incentive for international students to study in the United
States by permitting accompanying spouses and children of academic and
vocational nonimmigrant students in F-1 or M-1 status to enroll in
study at a SEVP-certified school so long as they are not engaged in a
full course of study.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Agency Contact: Katherine H. Westerlund, Acting Unit Chief, SEVP
Policy, Student and Exchange Visitor Program, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Potomac Center
North, 500 12th Street SW., STOP 5600, Washington, DC 20536-5600,
Phone:
[[Page 995]]
703 603-3414, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Previously reported as 1615-AA19.
RIN: 1653-AA63
DHS--USICE
Final Rule Stage
91. Standards To Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and
Assault in Confinement Facilities (Section 610 Review)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8
U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182
CFR Citation: 6 CFR 115.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, September 3, 2013, VAWA
Reauthorization Act.
VAWA Reauthorization Act.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to
issue final regulations setting detention standards to prevent, detect,
and respond to sexual abuse and assault in DHS confinement facilities.
These regulations address and respond to public comments received on
the notice of proposed rulemaking published December 19, 2012, at 77 FR
75300.
Statement of Need: The purpose of this rulemaking is to finalize
regulations setting standards to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual
abuse in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confinement facilities.
The standards build on current U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) Performance Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) and other
DHS detention policies. Also, this rulemaking is a response to the
President's May 17, 2012 Memorandum, ``Implementing the Prison Rape
Elimination Act,'' which directs all agencies with Federal confinement
facilities to propose rules or procedures setting standards to prevent,
detect, and respond to sexual abuse in confinement facilities. In
addition, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013
requires DHS to publish a final rule adopting national standards for
the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of rape and sexual
assault in immigration detention and holding facilities. See Public Law
113-4 (Mar. 7, 2013).
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The final rule will impose standards
to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse and assault in DHS
confinement facilities. These facilities consist of immigration
detention facilities and holding facilities. The standards will impose
new requirements for some facilities and codify current requirements
for other facilities. Such standards will require Federal, State, and
local agencies, as well as private entities that operate confinement
facilities, to incur costs in implementing and complying with those
standards. The primary benefit of the rule will be improvements to the
prevention, detection, and response to sexual abuse and assault. DHS
will follow DOJ methodology for monetizing the value of preventing
sexual abuse incidents, which includes consideration for costs of
medical and mental health care treatment as well as pain, suffering,
and diminished quality of life, among other factors. DHS will use a
break-even analysis to assess the trade-off between the beneficial
effects of the regulation and the costs of implementing the rule. The
break-even analysis uses the monetized estimates of incidents avoided
to determine the degree to which the regulation must reduce the annual
incidence of sexual abuse for the costs of compliance to break even
with the monetized benefits of the standards. This does not include
non-monetizable benefits of sexual abuse avoidance. The rule will
include a Regulatory Impact Assessment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/19/12 77 FR 75300
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 02/07/13 78 FR 8987
NPRM Comment Period End............. 02/19/13 .......................
NPRM Extended Comment Period End.... 02/26/13 .......................
Final Action........................ 11/00/13 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Agency Contact: Alexander Hartman, Regulatory Coordinator,
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20536, Phone: 202 732-
6202, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1653-AA65
DHS--USICE
92. Rescinding Suspension of Enrollment for Certain F and M
Nonimmigrant Students From Libya and Third Country Nationals Acting on
Behalf of Libyan Entities
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1102; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8
U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C. 1186a; 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 U.S.C.
1221; 8 U.S.C. 1281; 8 U.S.C. 1282; 8 U.S.C. 1301 to 1305; 8 U.S.C.
1372; 48 U.S.C. 1806
CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214.5.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending its
regulations by rescinding the regulatory provisions promulgated in 1983
that terminated the nonimmigrant status and barred the granting of
certain immigration benefits to Libyan nationals and foreign nationals
acting on behalf of Libyan entities who are engaging in or seeking to
obtain studies or training in aviation maintenance, flight operations,
or nuclear-related fields. The United States Government and the
Government of Libya have normalized their relationship and most of the
restrictions and sanctions imposed by the United States and the United
Nations toward Libya have been lifted. Therefore, DHS, after
consultation with the Department of State and the Department of
Defense, is considering rescinding the restrictions that deny
nonimmigrant status and benefits to a specific group of Libyan
nationals.
Statement of Need: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will
amend its regulations by rescinding the regulatory provisions
promulgated in 1983 that terminated the nonimmigrant status and barred
the granting of certain immigration benefits to Libyan nationals and
foreign nationals acting on behalf of Libyan entities who are engaging
in or seeking to obtain studies or training in aviation maintenance,
flight operations, or nuclear-related fields. The United States
Government and the Government of Libya have normalized their diplomatic
relations and most of the restrictions and sanctions imposed by the
United States and the United Nations toward Libya have been lifted.
Therefore, DHS, after consultation with the Department of State and the
Department of Defense, finds it necessary to rescind the restrictions
that deny nonimmigrant status and benefits to a specific group of
Libyan nationals.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The regulatory action will rescind
the regulation which prohibits Libyan
[[Page 996]]
nationals, or any other foreign nationals acting on behalf of Libyan
entities, from engaging in aviation maintenance, flight operation, or
nuclear-related studies or training in the United States. The
rescission would permit DHS and other agencies of the U.S. government
to provide training and technical assistance in the justice, defense,
and border security sectors to the new Libyan government. This will
contribute to the growing relationship between the two governments.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Action........................ 03/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Agency Contact: Katherine H. Westerlund, Acting Unit Chief, SEVP
Policy, Student and Exchange Visitor Program, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Potomac Center
North, 500 12th Street SW., STOP 5600, Washington, DC 20536-5600,
Phone: 703 603-3414, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1653-AA69
BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Regulatory Plan for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 highlights some of the most
significant regulatory initiatives that HUD seeks to complete during
the upcoming fiscal year. As the Federal agency that serves as the
nation's housing agency, committed to addressing the housing needs of
Americans, promoting economic and community development, and enforcing
the nation's fair housing laws, HUD plays a significant role in the
lives of families and communities throughout America. Through its
programs, HUD works to strengthen the housing market and protect
consumers; meet the need for quality affordable rental homes; utilize
housing as a platform for improving quality of life; and build
inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination.
The rules highlighted in the Regulatory Plan for FY 2014 focus on
the following elements of establishing sustainable communities:
promoting energy efficiency in construction and rehabilitation of
housing assisted with HUD funds, and planning for and implementing pre-
disaster and adaptative mitigation strategies to establish disaster-
resilient communities. The focus on energy efficiency is consistent
with President Obama's call, in his State of the Union Address, for
Federal, State and local Governments and the American public to focus
on investments in energy efficiency.
Promoting Energy Efficiency. Given the scale and scope of HUD's
expenditures on utilities, at a time of shrinking Federal budgets, this
is a critical fiscal issue as well as one that has significant
implications for housing affordability and the financial security of
the HUD-assisted housing market. The level of expenditures on energy-
related rental costs by HUD is substantial, both in relation to HUD's
annual budget and total energy-related expenditures by the Federal
Government. In the marketplace, energy costs are also a significant
cost burden for lower-income families. This burden, especially when
added to housing and transportation costs, can create difficulties for
these families in covering other household expenses. Energy costs can
also affect the financial stability of multifamily housing. Secretary
Donovan's direction that energy efficiency be prioritized in HUD
programs and this Regulatory Plan is consistent with these realities.
Establishing Disaster-Resilient Communities. The devastation caused
by Hurricane Sandy reminded the nation of the importance of
establishing building codes to help ensure that housing is located and
built to withstand the impacts of existing risks and those associated
with future climate change, in hard hit regions and across the country.
HUD's strategic plan focuses on promoting the use of climate-resilient
and disaster resistant development patterns, building siting, design,
and construction. Such focus should help facilitate the establishment
of disaster-resilient and sustainable communities.
Priority: Promoting Energy Efficiency While Maintaining Affordability
Much of HUD's portfolio of public and assisted housing was built
before the advent of modern energy codes, creating both environmental
and affordability challenges for building owners, residents, and the
Federal Government. Toward that end, HUD has been reviewing energy-
efficiency standards across the Department to work toward standardizing
energy efficiency and green goals and establishing uniform tracking and
reporting systems. One of the concerns in applying energy efficiency
standards to HUD's public and assisted housing or to new HUD-assisted
housing construction or rehabilitation is that it could potentially
affect the affordability of such housing. In the regulatory action
described herein, HUD (together with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA)) proposes to bring HUD programs into compliance with the most
recent energy efficiency codes required by the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA) and to present an analysis that the
compliance with the updated codes would not negatively affect the
availability or affordability of new construction of single and
multifamily housing covered by EISA.
Regulatory Action: HUD-USDA Joint Notice on Affordability
Determination--Energy Efficiency Standards
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) establishes
procedures for HUD and the USDA to adopt revisions to the 2006
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and ASHRAE 90.1-2004,
subject to (1) a determination that the revised codes do not negatively
affect the availability or affordability of new construction of single
and multifamily housing covered by the Act, and (2) a determination by
the Secretary of Energy that the revised codes ``would improve energy
efficiency.'' This action would announce HUD's and USDA's preliminary
determination that the 2009 IECC and (with the exception of Hawaii)
ASHRAE 90.1-2007 will not negatively affect the affordability and
availability of housing covered by the Act.
As required by the Energy Conservation and Production Act, the
Department of Energy (DOE) has published Final Determinations that the
2009 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2007 standards would improve energy
efficiency. This Notice therefore announces the results of HUD and
USDA's analysis of housing impacted by the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-
2007.
In this notice, HUD submits that ``affordability'' is a measure of
whether a home built to the updated energy code is affordable to
potential home buyers or renters and ``availability'' of housing is a
measure associated with whether builders will make such housing
available to consumers at the higher
[[Page 997]]
code level--i.e., whether the higher cost per unit as a result of
complying with the revised code will impact whether that unit is likely
to be built or not.
Based on DOE findings on improvements in energy efficiency and
energy savings, and HUD and USDA determinations on housing
affordability and availability presented in the notice, HUD and USDA
submit for comment that HUD and USDA have determined that adoption of
the codes will not adversely impact the affordability or the
availability of the covered housing.
Priority: Assessing Energy and Physical Needs of Public Housing
HUD's energy strategy is designed to address the issue of
residential energy costs, an aging public and assisted housing stock,
and growing fiscal demands on HUD's budget to cover household and
rental property utility costs. HUD also hopes to address the
disproportionate energy cost burden on low- and moderate-income
families, and improve the health and quality of HUD-assisted housing
for building residents. Toward that end, through the Recovery Act
Management and Performance System, work has begun to enable the
collection of energy-efficient unit data and establish a baseline for
tracking energy investments made through the Public Housing Capital
Fund grant program.
Regulatory Action: Public Housing Energy Audits and Physical Needs
Assessments
This final rule updates and enhances HUD's requirements for energy
audits and physical needs assessments (PNA's) conducted by housing
authorities in order to assess the energy needs and physical needs of
their projects. The revisions to the energy audit requires the
performance of substantially more useful energy audits than the current
regulation and lays the foundation for potential future incentives or
other tools for implementing energy conservation measures or green
measures. Also, the rule facilitates greater synchronization between
the energy audit and the PNA, so that energy audit data can be better
integrated into the PNA and allow for future capital planning
activities which take into consideration possible energy savings. By
requiring greater coordination between the PNA and the energy audit,
the rule ensures that energy-saving recommendations from the energy
audit may result in work items to address physical needs.
Priority: Building for Resiliency While Maintaining Affordability
As communities begin to recover from the devastating effects of
Hurricane Sandy, HUD has determined that it is important to recognize
lessons learned and employ mitigation actions that ensure that
structures located in floodplains are built or rebuilt stronger, safer,
and less vulnerable to future flooding events.
Regulatory Action: Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands;
Building at Base Flood Elevations Plus 1
This proposed rule would require that new construction and
substantial improvements to structures in a floodplain be elevated or
flood-proofed to a base flood elevation of best available data of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) plus one foot. HUD's
experience in the wake of Hurricane Sandy indicates that unless
structures in floodplains are properly designed, constructed and
elevated, they may not withstand future severe flooding events.
Building to FEMA's best available data plus one foot will reduce
property damage, economic loss, and loss of life, and will also benefit
homeowners by reducing flood insurance rates. The best available data
plus one foot standard proposed by this rule was made after considering
the last ten years of FEMA flood mitigation efforts and provides, in
HUD's view, the best assessment of risk. This higher elevation provides
an extra buffer of one foot above the best available data to ensure the
long term resilience of communities. It also takes into account
projected sea level rise, which is not considered in current FEMA maps
and flood insurance costs. Building to this standard will, consistent
with the executive order, reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the
impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and promote
sound, sustainable, long-term planning informed by a more accurate
evaluation of risk and take into account possible sea level rise.
Aggregate Costs and Benefits
Executive Order 12866, as amended, requires the agency to provide
its best estimate of the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all
regulations included in the agency's Regulatory Plan that will be made
effective in calendar year 2014. HUD expects that the neither the total
economic costs nor the total efficiency gains will exceed $100 million.
Priority Regulations in HUD's FY 2014 Regulatory Plan
HUD--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Proposed Rule Stage
Affordability Determination--Energy Efficiency Standards
Priority: Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12709; 42 U.S.C. 6833; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d)
CFR Citation: 24 CFR Chapter 1.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)
establishes procedures for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to
adopt revisions to the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code
(IECC) and ASHRAE 90.1-2004, subject to (1) a determination that the
revised codes do not negatively affect the availability or
affordability of new construction of single and multifamily housing
covered by the Act, and (2) a determination by the Secretary of Energy
that the revised codes ``would improve energy efficiency.'' \1\ This
Notice announces HUD and USDA's preliminary determination that the 2009
IECC and (with the exception of Hawaii) ASHRAE 90.1-2007 will not
negatively affect the affordability and availability of housing covered
by the Act. As of July 2013, 32 States plus the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam have already adopted the
2009 IECC, its equivalent or a higher standard for single family homes,
and 38 States plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and Guam have adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007, its equivalent
or a higher standard for multifamily buildings. The remaining States
committed to adopting these codes under provisions of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. For those States that
have not yet adopted either of these standards, this Notice relies on
several studies that show that these codes are overwhelmingly cost
effective, in that the incremental cost of the 2009 IECC code is
typically less than 0.5% of total construction costs, and those costs
pay for themselves very quickly through energy savings. According to
one study, simple paybacks for the 2009 IECC average 3.45 years, and
``mortgage paybacks'' on these additional
[[Page 998]]
investments are typically less than 1 year (on average 10.25 months).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Section
481(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of Need: Section 481 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA) amends the energy code provisions contained
in Section 109 of Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of
1990 (Cranston-Gonzalez). Section 109(a) of Cranston-Gonzalez, as
amended by EISA, allowed for HUD and USDA to collaborate and develop
their own energy efficiency building standards for statutorily
specified HUD and USDA programs if the agencies developed standards met
or exceeded the 2006 IECC or ASHRAE 90.1-2004. However, if the two
agencies did not act on this option, EISA specifies that the 2006 IECC
and ASHRAE 90.1-2004 would apply.
The two agencies did not develop independent energy efficiency
building standards, and therefore the 2006 IECC or ASHRAE 90.1-2004
currently apply to covered HUD and USDA programs. Section 109(d) of
Cranston-Gonzalez establishes procedures for updating agency standards
following revisions to the 2006 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2004 code
standards. Section 109(d) provides that revisions to the IECC or ASHRAE
codes will apply to HUD and/or USDA's programs if (1) either agency
``make(s) a determination that the revised codes do not negatively
affect the availability or affordability'' of new construction housing
covered by the Act, and (2) the Secretary of the Department of Energy
(DOE) has made a determination under section 304 of the Energy
Conservation and Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6833) that the revised codes
would improve energy efficiency (see 42 U.S.C. 12709(d)). Since DOE has
made its determination of improved efficiency, HUD and USDA must assess
the impact of the more recent codes on the affordability and
availability of HUD- and USDA-funded new construction is currently
being assessed by the two agencies. This notice presents that
assessment.
Summary of Legal Basis: In the absence of HUD and USDA developing
their own energy efficiency codes, EISA provides for the automatic
application of 2006 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2004. As revised IECC and
ASHRAE codes are produced, under EISA, HUD and USDA must, following
DOE's determination of revised codes improving energy efficiency (if
that is in fact DOE's determination), provide an assessment of the
impact of the revised codes on the affordability and availability of
housing under the covered programs. If HUD and USDA determine no
negative impact, the revised codes then become the applicable codes.
Alternatives: The alternative provided to HUD and USDA under EISA
was to develop their own energy efficiency codes. HUD and USDA did not
exercise that option. IECC and ASHRAE are familiar energy codes,
revised codes, as required by statute, are reviewed by DOE as a measure
to determine improved or enhanced energy efficiency. A new energy
efficiency code developed by HUD and USDA would have introduced a new
code with which builders would have to comply. As the joint HUD-USDA
notice states, well over 30 States have adopted IECC and ASHRAE as
governing building codes.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In its assessment of improved
efficiency, which includes a cost-benefit analysis, for each of the 35
States and the District of Columbia examined by DOE, DOE identified
every building element that would change as a result of adopting the
2009 IECC in that State. Assuming a standard reference house, DOE used
a computer model to assess building energy savings that would be
achieved under the new code. DOE's model assumed a 2,400 square foot
house with regional modifications to foundation systems that reflect
local building practices. After analyzing the impact for each state,
DOE found that, on a national basis, compliance with the 2009 IECC will
yield an annual median cost savings of $243.37, ranging from a high of
$468 in Kansas to a low of $200.50 in Massachusetts.
With respect to costs, and based on studies that DOE relied upon it
was determined that the weighted average incremental cost of complying
with the 2009 IECC over existing state codes would be $840.77, yielding
a median annual energy cost savings of $243.37, for a simple payback of
3.45 years. This weighted average incremental cost of $840.77
represents less than 0.32 percent of the average cost of a new home
estimated by BCAP in 2009 ($267,451).
Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/13
NPRM Comment Period End
Final Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: No.
Agency Contact: Michael Freedberg, Office of Sustainable Housing
and Communities, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Phone: 202-402-4366.
RIN: 2501-ZA01
BILLING CODE-P
HUD--OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING
Final Rule Stage
Public Housing Energy Audits and Physical Needs Assessments
Priority: Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437g, 42 U.S.C. 1437z-2, 42 U.S.C.
1437z-7, and 3535(d)
CFR Citation: 24 CFR Parts 905, 965.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This final rule revises: (1) HUD's energy audit
requirements applicable to HUD's public housing program for the purpose
of clarifying such requirements, as well as identifying energy
conservation measures (ECMs) that need to be addressed in the audit and
procedures for improved coordination with physical needs assessments;
and (2) HUD's existing codified regulations governing a physical needs
assessment (PNA) undertaken by a public housing agency (PHA). A PNA
identifies all of the work that a PHA would need to undertake to bring
each of its projects up to the applicable modernization and energy
conservation standards.
With respect to the energy audit requirements, the final rule
distinguishes between ``core ECMs'' that must be addressed and
``advanced ECMs'' that may be addressed. The rule establishes minimum
requirements for energy auditors. With respect to the PNA, this rule
would require PHAs to project the current modernization and life-cycle
replacement repair needs of its projects over a 20-year period, rather
than a 5-year period, because the 20-year period coincides better with
the useful life of individual properties and their building components
and systems to ensure the long-term viability of the property.
Additionally, this rule provides for integration of the performance of
the PNA with the performance of an energy audit, and basic
qualifications for PNA providers.
Statement of Need: In an environment of competing priorities,
managers need tools to prioritize needs and to model alternative
strategies. A PNA an energy audit are essential tools to a long term
strategy for the proactive management of property to move away from
inefficient and reactionary management that contributes to property
deterioration and obsolescence. Strategies to reduce
[[Page 999]]
energy costs are key to HUDs mission of providing long term affordable
housing to those most in need--funds spent on utilities are not spent
on property improvements and reduce the proportion of tenant rent
payments that are used more usefully for physical maintenance and
improvement. Energy audits reveal strategies for saving limited
resources that can be recycled into more improvements than would
otherwise occur.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-
58 (Approved August 8, 2005), amended section 9(d)(1) of the U.S.
Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. 1437g(d)(1), to add at subparagraphs (K)
and (L), as two of the capital and management activities under the
capital fund, improvement of energy use and water efficiency, and
``integrated utility management and capital planning to maximize energy
conservation and efficiency measures.'' This rule provides for the
integrated utility management and capital planning necessary to fulfill
this mandate.
Alternatives: HUD determined that its primary alternative was to
not revise its regulations concerning physical needs assessment and
energy audits. Other than inaction, there is not an alternative to:
Extending the requirement to perform a physical needs assessment to all
PHAs to provide the data needed for better management of the Capital
Fund; to changing the current 5-year term of the required PNA to a 20-
year term to create a useful strategic planning tool for authorities,
and to provide HUD with longer term visibility of needs in the housing
portfolio; or to implementing provisions of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 requiring ``integrated utility management and capital planning to
maximize energy conservation and efficiency measures.'' However, the
current lack of integration between energy audits and the PNA, as well
as the overly short life-cycle planning period, make inaction a non-
viable approach when it comes to assuring that HUD's requirements for
the capital fund are in compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
that the PHA's capital needs will be met, and that actions taken to
meet those needs will be integrated with necessary energy improvements.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: With respect to the energy audit,
there are minor costs to the extent that the requirements for the
energy audit in this rule exceed the current requirements. HUD's
analysis suggests that using conservative assumptions, the economic
burden of energy audits to PHAs would be $39,864,536 ($32.86x
1,213,163) every 5 years, or $7,972,907 annually. A mitigating
adjustment of 50 percent to account for the existing burden is not an
unreasonable assumption. Such an adjustment would reduce the 5-year and
annual additional burden to $19,932,268 and $3,986,453, respectively.
With respect to PNAs, HUD estimates that full compliance with the
rule will cost PHAs, collectively, up to $29 million once every 5 years
or an average of $5.9 million annually. The rule will not have any
budgetary impact to the Federal Government, as costs to implement the
PNA will be accommodated within HUD's existing budget authority.
There are also benefits to this rule. With respect to energy
audits, for example, if this rule resulted in a 10 percent increase in
efficiency, that would translate into significant savings for PHAs,
which often pay for utilities in the form of a utility allowance for
residents. With respect to PNAs, benefits include identifying capital
expenses far enough in advance to allow for consideration of the most
efficient method of payment; identifying synergies in the timing and
intensity of capital improvements, and avoiding duplicative or wasteful
expenditures; making possible a preventive maintenance strategy to
maximize the useful life of property components; encouraging the
implementation of energy efficiency measures; and increased occupancy
and enhanced health and safety as a result of more habitable units.
Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/17/11 .......................
NPRM Comment Period End............. 1/18/12 .......................
Final Action........................ 3/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: No.
Agency Contact: Jeffrey Riddel, Director, Office of Capital
Improvements, Office of Public and Indian Housing, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Phone: 202 402-7378.
RIN: RIN 2577-AC84, RIN-2577-AC81
BILLING CODE-P
HUD--OFFICE OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Proposed Rule Stage
Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands; Building at Base
Flood Elevations Plus 1
Priority: Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 4332; and Executive Order
11991, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p.123
CFR Citation: 24 CFR Parts 50 and 55.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: As communities begin to recover from the devastating
effects of Hurricane Sandy, HUD has determined that it is important to
recognize lessons learned to employ mitigation actions that ensure that
structures located in floodplains are built or rebuilt stronger, safer,
and less vulnerable to future flooding events. As a result, this
proposed rule would require that new construction and substantial
improvements to structures in a floodplain be elevated or flood-proofed
to the base flood elevation of the best available data of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) plus one foot. For non-residential
structures that are not critical actions,, HUD is also proposing that
grantees may, as an alternative to designing and building at base flood
elevation plus one foot, design and construct projects such that below
the flood level, using the best available flood data plus one foot, the
structure is flood-proofed. HUD would, except for changing ``base flood
level'' to ``base flood elevation plus one foot,'' adopt the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's definition of flood-proofing. Building to
this standard will, consistent with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain
Management), reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of
floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and promote sound,
sustainable, long-term planning informed by a more accurate evaluation
of risk and take into account possible sea level rise.
Statement of Need: HUD's experience in the wake of Hurricane Sandy
is that unless structures in floodplains are properly designed,
constructed and elevated, they may not withstand future severe flooding
events. Building to FEMA's best available data plus one foot will
reduce property damage, economic loss, and loss of life, and will also
benefit homeowners by reducing flood insurance rates. The best
available data plus one foot standard proposed by this rule was made
after considering the last ten years of FEMA flood mitigation efforts
and provides, in HUD's view, the best assessment of risk. This higher
[[Page 1000]]
elevation provides an extra buffer of one foot above the best available
data to ensure the long term resilience of communities. It also takes
into account projected sea level rise, which is not considered in
current FEMA maps and flood insurance costs.
Summary of Legal Basis: Executive Order 11988 (E.O. 11988)
entitled, ``Floodplain Management'' issued May 24, 1977 (published on
May 25, 1977 at 42 FR 26951) requires Federal agencies to avoid to the
extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with
the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and
indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a
practicable alternative. A floodplain refers to the lowland and
relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including
flood-prone areas of offshore islands that, at a minimum, are subject
to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year (often
referred to as the ``100-year'' flood or ``base flood''). Consistent
with E.O. 11988, when no practicable alternative exists to floodplain
development, HUD requires the design or modification of the proposed
action to minimize potential adverse impact to and from the floodplain.
HUD has implemented E.O. 11988 and its 8 step review process through
regulations at 24 CFR part 55.
Alternatives: Two alternatives exist that would produce the same
effect as the current rule, an actuarially fair flood insurance program
and complete prohibition of new construction or substantial
rehabilitation in areas below an equivalent flood plain level, which as
mentioned below in the discussion of an anticipated costs and benefits,
averages to approximately the 250-year level. The actuarially fair
flood insurance program would need to be established by legislation and
the complete prohibition of new construction or substantial
rehabilitation in areas below and equivalent flood plain level is
action that would likely need to be taken by State and/or local
jurisdictions and likely not to occur. Therefore this rule is
undertaken to help ensure that HUD funds are used prudently in
connection with any new construction or substantial rehabilitation in
areas below flood plain level.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Increasing the base elevation of a
structure in a floodplain will increase the construction cost and
decrease the annual flood insurance premium. The additional cost for
each additional foot of vertical elevation varies from 0.3 percent-0.5
percent of the base building cost.\1\ The construction cost for
multifamily properties averages $100,000 per unit for new construction.
The average size of HUD-assisted properties in 100-year floodplains is
approximately 100 units. [2] Thus, construction costs per property
total approximately $10.0 million. Applying the midpoint of the cost
range stated above, 0.4 percent, construction costs would increase by
$40,000 per property. HUD estimates that approximately 75 properties
are placed in service annually in 100-year floodplains and therefore
would be affected by this rule. It is not clear, however, how many of
these are built to BFE+1, so these estimates should be considered an
upper bound. The aggregate annual cost of adding this increase to an
owners mortgage at 3.5 percent, would increase costs $3.264 million
assuming a 3 percent discount rate and $2.146 million assuming a 7
percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 2012, Congress passed the Flood Insurance Reform Act
which calls on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and
other agencies, to make a number of changes to the way the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is run. Key provisions of the
legislation will require the NFIP to raise rates to reflect true
flood risk. Depending on when actuarially fair rates are applied,
the impact of this rule would significantly decrease as the market
failure, which this rule addresses, is eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The benefits of this rule include decreased flood insurance
premiums for property owners and decreased costs to tenants to avoided
search costs for temporary replacement housing and lost wages. The
annual premium for the maximum multifamily coverage of $250,000 at the
100-year flood level is $1,359. This decreases to $660 at one foot
above the 100-year flood plain level for an annual savings of $699.
Assuming a 30-year useful life and returns to these savings to the
owner of 3.5 percent annually, the discounted savings for a property
totals $23,303, and $1.748 million in aggregate assuming a 3 percent
discount rate, and $13,962 per property or $1.047 million in aggregate
assuming a 7 percent discount rate.
The significant benefits also accrue to tenants who avoid costs of
moving from a flooded property. The family cost of moving a two-bedroom
apartment costs approximately $800 plus lost wages. This analysis uses
the national median hourly wage reported by BLS of $16.71. If an
affected households' wage earners are unable to work for a combined 40
hours each due to a flood-related apartment search and move, a family
would lose $668. Combined, a flood would cost each tenant $1,468. There
is a 1 percent chance each year that a 100-year flood will occur.
Increasing the base elevation by one foot would place the building, on
average, to a 250-year flood plane, which has a 0.4 percent probability
of occurring each year. Thus, this rule decreases the annual risk by
0.6 percent. The discounted value of decreased expected tenant costs is
$8.81 per tenant ($1,468 * 0.6%). The discounted 30-year value of these
avoided costs is $178 per tenant assuming a 3 percent discount rate and
$117 per tenant assuming a 7 percent discount rate. Aggregating over
100 tenants per property and 75 properties, the total benefit to
tenants is $1.334 million assuming a 3 percent discount rate and $0.877
million assuming a 7 percent discount rate.
There are also unvalued benefits to tenants of avoiding relocation.
Being forced to relocate on short notice creates considerable stress
and uncertainty for families. Further, some families may not be able to
find affordable housing in their immediate area and will be forced to
move far, sometimes out of State. Long distance moves removes a family
from their local social network leads and adds additional stress not
only on adults, but also on children who may be forced to enroll in
difference schools.
Finally, this rule also eliminates renovations and replacements
that are paid for by FEMA insurance claims. Flood damage could require
various internal renovations and replacement of necessary building
utility systems, including electrical and heating systems. Although
flood insurance covers $250,000, this analysis assumes approximately
$50,000 in damage per property. This damage represents a cost to
society that would otherwise not have occurred in the presence of
actuarially fair insurance rates. The discounted value of this cost for
100 properties totals $0.454 million assuming a 3 percent discount rate
and $0.299 million assuming a 7 percent discount.
Valued benefits of this rule total $3.536 million assuming a 3
percent discount rate and $2.223 million assuming a 7 percent discount.
Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/01/14 .......................
NPRM Comment Period End
Final Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: No.
[[Page 1001]]
Agency Contact: Danielle Schopp, Director Office of Environment and
Energy, Office of Community Planning and Development, U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, Phone: 202-708-1201.
RIN: 2501
HUD--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (HUDSEC)
Proposed Rule Stage
93. Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands; Building
Elevation (FR-5717)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d); ; 42 U.S.C. 3001, et seq., EO
11990; EO 11988
CFR Citation: 24 CFR 50; 24 CFR 55.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: As communities begin to recover from the devastating
effects of Hurricane Sandy, HUD has determined that it is important to
recognize lessons learned to employ mitigation actions that ensure that
structures located in floodplains are built or rebuilt stronger, safer,
and less vulnerable to future flooding events. As a result, this
proposed rule would require, as part of the decisionmaking process
established to ensure compliance with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain
Management) that new construction or substantial improvement in a
floodplain be elevated or floodproofed to the base flood elevation of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's best available data plus one
foot. Building to this standard will, consistent with the executive
order, reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on
human safety, health, and welfare, and promote sound, sustainable,
long-term planning informed by a more accurate evaluation of risk and
take into account possible sea level rise. This rule also proposes to
revise a categorical exclusion available when HUD performs the
environmental review by making it consistent with changes to a similar
categorical exclusion that is available to HUD grantees or other
responsible entities when they perform the environmental review. This
change will make the review standard identical regardless of whether
HUD or a grantee is performing the review.
Statement of Need: HUD's experience in the wake of Hurricane Sandy
is that unless structures in floodplains are properly designed,
constructed and elevated, they may not withstand future severe flooding
events. Building to FEMA's best available data plus one foot will
reduce property damage, economic loss, and loss of life, and will also
benefit homeowners by reducing flood insurance rates. The best
available data plus one foot standard proposed by this rule was made
after considering the last ten years of FEMA flood mitigation efforts
and provides, in HUD's view, the best assessment of risk. This higher
elevation provides an extra buffer of one foot above the best available
data to ensure the long term resilience of communities. It also takes
into account projected sea level rise, which is not considered in
current FEMA maps and flood insurance costs.
Summary of Legal Basis: Executive Order 11988 (E.O. 11988)
entitled, ``Floodplain Management'' issued May 24, 1977 (published on
May 25, 1977 at 42 FR 26951) requires Federal agencies to avoid to the
extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with
the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and
indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a
practicable alternative. A floodplain refers to the lowland and
relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including
flood-prone areas of offshore islands that, at a minimum, are subject
to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year (often
referred to as the ``100-year'' flood or ``base flood''). Consistent
with E.O. 11988, when no practicable alternative exists to floodplain
development, HUD requires the design or modification of the proposed
action to minimize potential adverse impact to and from the floodplain.
HUD has implemented E.O. 11988 and its 8 step review process through
regulations at 24 CFR part 55.
Alternatives: Two alternatives exist that would produce the same
effect as the current rule, an actuarially fair flood insurance program
and complete prohibition of new construction or substantial
rehabilitation in areas below an equivalent flood plain level, which as
mentioned below in the discussion of an anticipated costs and benefits,
averages to approximately the 250-year level. The actuarially fair
flood insurance program would need to be established by legislation and
the complete prohibition of new construction or substantial
rehabilitation in areas below and equivalent flood plain level is
action that would likely need to be taken by State and/or local
jurisdictions and likely not to occur. Therefore this rule is
undertaken to help ensure that HUD funds are used prudently in
connection with any new construction or substantial rehabilitation in
areas below flood plain level.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Increasing the base elevation of a
structure in a floodplain will increase the construction cost and
decrease the annual flood insurance premium. The additional cost for
each additional foot of vertical elevation varies from 0.3 percent-0.5
percent of the base building cost. The construction cost for
multifamily properties averages $100,000 per unit for new construction.
The average size of HUD-assisted properties in 100-year floodplains is
approximately 100 units. [2] Thus, construction costs per property
total approximately $10.0 million. Applying the midpoint of the cost
range stated above, 0.4 percent, construction costs would increase by
$40,000 per property. HUD estimates that approximately 75 properties
are placed in service annually in 100-year floodplains and therefore
would be affected by this rule. It is not clear, however, how many of
these are built to BFE+1, so these estimates should be considered an
upper bound. The aggregate annual cost of adding this increase to an
owners mortgage at 3.5 percent, would increase costs $3.264 million
assuming a 3 percent discount rate and $2.146 million assuming a 7
percent discount rate.
The benefits of this rule include decreased flood insurance
premiums for property owners and decreased costs to tenants to avoided
search costs for temporary replacement housing and lost wages. The
annual premium for the maximum multifamily coverage of $250,000 at the
100-year flood level is $1,359. This decreases to $660 at one foot
above the 100-year flood plain level for an annual savings of $699.
Assuming a 30-year useful life and returns to these savings to the
owner of 3.5 percent annually, the discounted savings for a property
totals $23,303, and $1.748 million in aggregate assuming a 3 percent
discount rate, and $13,962 per property or $1.047 million in aggregate
assuming a 7 percent discount rate.
The significant benefits also accrue to tenants who avoid costs of
moving from a flooded property. The family cost of moving a two-bedroom
apartment costs approximately $800 plus lost wages. This analysis uses
the national median hourly wage reported by BLS of $16.71. If an
affected households' wage earners are unable to work for a combined 40
hours each due to a flood-related apartment search and move, a family
would lose $668. Combined, a flood would cost each tenant $1,468. There
is a 1 percent chance each year that a 100-year flood will occur.
Increasing the base elevation by one foot would place the building, on
average, to a 250-year
[[Page 1002]]
flood plane, which has a 0.4 percent probability of occurring each
year. Thus, this rule decreases the annual risk by 0.6 percent. The
discounted value of decreased expected tenant costs is $8.81 per tenant
($1,468 * 0.6%). The discounted 30-year value of these avoided costs is
$178 per tenant assuming a 3 percent discount rate and $117 per tenant
assuming a 7 percent discount rate. Aggregating over 100 tenants per
property and 75 properties, the total benefit to tenants is $1.334
million assuming a 3 percent discount rate and $0.877 million assuming
a 7 percent discount rate.
There are also unvalued benefits to tenants of avoiding relocation.
Being forced to relocate on short notice creates considerable stress
and uncertainty for families. Further, some families may not be able to
find affordable housing in their immediate area and will be forced to
move far, sometimes out of state. Long distance moves removes a family
from their local social network leads and adds additional stress not
only on adults, but also on children who may be forced to enroll in
difference schools.
Finally, this rule also eliminates renovations and replacements
that are paid for by FEMA insurance claims. Flood damage could require
various internal renovations and replacement of necessary building
utility systems, including electrical and heating systems. Although
flood insurance covers $250,000, this analysis assumes approximately
$50,000 in damage per property. This damage represents a cost to
society that would otherwise not have occurred in the presence of
actuarially fair insurance rates. The discounted value of this cost for
100 properties totals $0.454 million assuming a 3 percent discount rate
and $0.299 million assuming a 7 percent discount.
Valued benefits of this rule total $3.536 million assuming a 3
percent discount rate and $2.223 million assuming a 7 percent discount.
Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/14 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Jerimiah Sanders, Environmental Review Division,
Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202
402-4571.
RIN: 2501-AD62
HUD--HUDSEC
94. Affordability Determination--Energy Efficiency Standards
(FR-5647-N-01)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)
requires the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to adopt the most recent
revisions to the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and
ASHRAE 90.1-2004, subject to (1) a determination that the revised codes
do not negatively affect the availability or affordability of new
construction of single and multifamily housing covered by the Act, and
(2) a determination by the Secretary of Energy that the revised codes
``would improve energy efficiency.'' This Notice announces HUD and
USDA's preliminary determination that the 2009 IECC and (with the
exception of Hawaii) ASHRAE 90.1-2007 will not negatively affect the
affordability and availability of housing covered by the Act. As of
November 2012, 32 States plus the District of Columbia have already
adopted the 2009 IECC for single family homes, and 35 States plus the
District of Columbia have adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 for multifamily
buildings. The remaining States are committed to adopting these codes
under provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
of 2009. For those States that have not yet adopted either of these
standards, this Notice relies on several studies that show that these
codes are overwhelmingly cost effective, in that the incremental cost
of the 2009 IECC code is typically less than 0.5 percent of total
construction costs, and those costs pay for themselves very quickly
through energy savings. According to one study, simple paybacks for the
2009 IECC average 3.45 years, and ``mortgage paybacks'' on these
additional investments are typically less than 1 year (on average 10.25
months).
Statement of Need: Section 481 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA) amends the energy code provisions contained
in Section 109 of Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of
1990 (Cranston-Gonzalez). Section 109(a) of Cranston-Gonzalez, as
amended by EISA, allowed for HUD and USDA to collaborate and develop
their own energy efficiency building standards for statutorily
specified HUD and USDA programs if the agencies developed standards met
or exceeded the 2006 IECC or ASHRAE 90.1-2004. However, if the two
agencies did not act on this option, EISA specifies that the 2006 IECC
and ASHRAE 90.1-2004 would apply.
The two agencies did not develop independent energy efficiency
building standards, and therefore the 2006 IECC or ASHRAE 90.1-2004
currently apply to covered HUD and USDA programs. Section 109(d) of
Cranston-Gonzalez establishes procedures for updating agency standards
following revisions to the 2006 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2004 code
standards. Section 109(d) provides that revisions to the IECC or ASHRAE
codes will apply to HUD and/or USDA's programs if (1) either agency
``make(s) a determination that the revised codes do not negatively
affect the availability or affordability'' of new construction housing
covered by the Act, and (2) the Secretary of the Department of Energy
(DOE) has made a determination under section 304 of the Energy
Conservation and Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6833) that the revised codes
would improve energy efficiency (see 42 U.S.C. 12709(d)). Since DOE has
made its determination of improved efficiency, HUD and USDA must assess
the impact of the more recent codes on the affordability and
availability of HUD- and USDA-funded new construction is currently
being assessed by the two agencies. This notice presents that
assessment.
Summary of Legal Basis: In the absence of HUD and USDA developing
their own energy efficiency codes, EISA provides for the automatic
application of 2006 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2004. As revised IECC and
ASHRAE codes are produced, under EISA, HUD and USDA must, following
DOE's determination of revised codes improving energy efficiency (if
that is in fact DOE's determination), provide an assessment of the
impact of the revised codes on the affordability and availability of
housing under the covered programs. If HUD and USDA determine no
negative impact, the revised codes then become the applicable codes.
Alternatives: The alternative provided to HUD and USDA under EISA
was to develop their own energy efficiency codes. HUD and USDA did not
exercise that option. IECC and ASHRAE are familiar energy codes,
revised codes, as required by statute, are reviewed by DOE as a measure
to determine improved or enhanced energy
[[Page 1003]]
efficiency. A new energy efficiency code developed by HUD and USDA
would have introduced a new code with which builders would have to
comply. As the joint HUD-USDA notice states, well over 30 States have
adopted IECC and ASHRAE as governing building codes.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In its assessment of improved
efficiency, which includes a cost-benefit analysis, for each of the 35
States and the District of Columbia examined by DOE, DOE identified
every building element that would change as a result of adopting the
2009 IECC in that State. Assuming a standard reference house, DOE used
a computer model to assess building energy savings that would be
achieved under the new code. DOE's model assumed a 2,400 square foot
house with regional modifications to foundation systems that reflect
local building practices. After analyzing the impact for each State,
DOE found that, on a national basis, compliance with the 2009 IECC will
yield an annual median cost savings of $243.37, ranging from a high of
$468 in Kansas to a low of $200.50 in Massachusetts.
With respect to costs, and based on studies that DOE relied upon it
was determined that the weighted average incremental cost of complying
with the 2009 IECC over existing state codes would be $840.77, yielding
a median annual energy cost savings of $243.37, for a simple payback of
3.45 years. This weighted average incremental cost of $840.77
represents less than 0.32 percent of the average cost of a new home
estimated by BCAP in 2009 ($267,451).
Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Michael Freedberg, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Office of the Secretary, 451 7th St. SW., Washington, DC
20410, Phone: 202 402-4366.
RIN: 2501-AD64
HUD--OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING (PIH)
Final Rule Stage
95. Public Housing Energy Audits and Physical Needs Assessments (FR-
5507)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d)
CFR Citation: 24 CFR 905.300.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, December 2011.
Abstract: This final rule consolidates the Physical Needs
Assessment (PNA) rule (FR-5361) with the Public Housing Energy Audit
rule (FR-5507). With respect to the energy audit, the rule would
distinguish between ``core energy conservation measures'' (ECMs) that
must be addressed and ``advanced ECMs'' that may be addressed. The rule
would also establish minimum requirements for energy auditors and moves
the energy audit requirements to a different part of HUD's title of the
Code of Federal Regulations. With respect to the PNA, the rule would
require public housing agencies to project current modernization and
life-cycle replacement repair needs of its projects over a 20-year
period, rather than a 5-year period, to better coincide with the useful
life of individual properties and their building components and systems
to ensure the long-term viability of the property. HUD would
consolidate these two rules to facilitate greater synchronization
between the energy audit and the PNA, so that energy audit data can be
better integrated into the PNA and allow for future capital planning
activities that take into consideration possible energy savings.
Statement of Need: In an environment of competing priorities,
managers need tools to prioritize needs and to model alternative
strategies. A PNA an energy audit are essential tools to a long-term
strategy for the proactive management of property to move away from
inefficient and reactionary management that contributes to property
deterioration and obsolescence. Strategies to reduce energy costs are
key to HUDs mission of providing long-term affordable housing to those
most in need--funds spent on utilities are not spent on property
improvements and reduce the proportion of tenant rent payments that are
used more usefully for physical maintenance and improvement. Energy
audits reveal strategies for saving limited resources that can be
recycled into more improvements than would otherwise occur.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law
109-58 (Approved August 8, 2005), amended section 9(d)(1) of the U. S.
Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. 1437g(d)(1), to add at subparagraphs (K)
and (L), as two of the capital and management activities under the
capital fund, improvement of energy use and water efficiency, and
``integrated utility management and capital planning to maximize energy
conservation and efficiency measures.'' This rule provides for the
integrated utility management and capital planning necessary to fulfill
this mandate.
Alternatives: HUD determined that its primary alternative was to
not revise its regulations concerning physical needs assessment and
energy audits. Other than inaction, there is not an alternative to:
extending the requirement to perform a physical needs assessment to all
PHAs to provide the data needed for better management of the Capital
Fund; to changing the current 5 year term of the required PNA to a 20
year term to create a useful strategic planning tool for authorities,
and to provide HUD with longer term visibility of needs in the housing
portfolio; or to implementing provisions of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 requiring ``integrated utility management and capital planning to
maximize energy conservation and efficiency measures''. However, the
current lack of integration between energy audits and the PNA, as well
as the overly short life-cycle planning period, make inaction a non-
viable approach when it comes to assuring that HUD's requirements for
the capital fund are in compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
that the PHA's capital needs will be met, and that actions taken to
meet those needs will be integrated with necessary energy improvements.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: With respect to the energy audit,
there are minor costs to the extent that the requirements for the
energy audit in this rule exceed the current requirements. HUD's
analysis suggests that using conservative assumptions, the economic
burden of energy audits to PHAs would be $39,864,536 ($32.86 x
1,213,163) every 5 years, or $7,972,907 annually. A mitigating
adjustment of 50 percent to account for the existing burden is not an
unreasonable assumption. Such an adjustment would reduce the 5-year and
annual additional burden to $19,932,268 and $3,986,453, respectively.
With respect to PNAs, HUD estimates that full compliance with the
rule will cost PHAs, collectively, up to $29 million once every 5 years
or an average of $5.9 million annually. The rule will not have any
budgetary impact to the Federal Government, as costs to
[[Page 1004]]
implement the PNA will be accommodated within HUD's existing budget
authority.
There are also benefits to this rule. With respect to energy
audits, for example, if this rule resulted in a 10 percent increase in
efficiency, that would translate into significant savings for PHAs,
which often pay for utilities in the form of a utility allowance for
residents. With respect to PNAs, benefits include identifying capital
expenses far enough in advance to allow for consideration of the most
efficient method of payment; identifying synergies in the timing and
intensity of capital improvements, and avoiding duplicative or wasteful
expenditures; making possible a preventive maintenance strategy to
maximize the useful life of property components; encouraging the
implementation of energy efficiency measures; and increased occupancy
and enhanced health and safety as a result of more habitable units.
Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/17/11 76 FR 71287
NPRM Comment Period End............. 01/18/12
Final Action........................ 04/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Jeffrey Riddel, Director, Capital Program Division,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public and
Indian Housing, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202
402-7378.
RIN: 2577-AC84
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of the Interior (DOI) is the principal Federal
steward of our Nation's public lands and resources, including many of
our cultural treasures. DOI serves as trustee to Native Americans and
Alaska native trust assets and is responsible for relations with the
island territories under United States jurisdiction. The Department
manages more than 500 million acres of Federal lands, including 401
park units, 560 wildlife refuges, and approximately 1.7 billion of
submerged offshore acres. These areas include natural resources that
are essential for America's industry--oil and gas, coal, and minerals
such as gold and uranium. On public lands and the Outer Continental
Shelf, Interior provides access for renewable and conventional energy
development and manages the protection and restoration of surface mined
lands.
The Department protects and recovers endangered species; protects
natural, historic, and cultural resources; manages water projects that
are a lifeline and economic engine for many communities in the West;
manages forests and fights wildfires; manages Federal energy resources;
regulates surface coal mining operations; reclaims abandoned coal
mines; educates children in Indian schools; and provides recreational
opportunities for over 400 million visitors annually in the Nation's
national parks, public lands, national wildlife refuges, and recreation
areas.
The DOI will continue to review and update its regulations and
policies to ensure that they are effective and efficient, and that they
promote accountability and sustainability. The DOI will emphasize
regulations and policies that:
Promote environmentally responsible, safe, and balanced
development of renewable and conventional energy on our public lands
and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS);
Use the best available science to ensure that public
resources are protected, conserved, and used wisely;
Preserve America's natural treasures for future
generations;
Improve the nation-to-nation relationship with American
Indian tribes;
Promote partnerships with States, tribes, local
governments, other groups, and individuals to achieve common goals; and
Promote transparency, fairness, accountability, and the
highest ethical standards while maintaining performance goals.
Major Regulatory Areas
The DOI bureaus implement congressionally mandated programs through
their regulations. Some of these regulatory programs include:
Developing onshore and offshore energy, including
renewable, mineral, oil and gas, and other energy resources;
Regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations
on public and private lands;
Managing migratory birds and preserving marine mammals and
endangered species;
Managing dedicated lands, such as national parks, wildlife
refuges, National Landscape Conservation System lands, and American
Indian trust lands;
Managing public lands open to multiple use;
Managing revenues from American Indian and Federal
minerals;
Fulfilling trust and other responsibilities pertaining to
American Indians and Alaska Natives;
Managing natural resource damage assessments; and
Managing assistance programs.
Regulatory Policy
The DOI's regulatory programs seek to operate programs
transparently, efficiently, and cooperatively while maximizing
protection of our land, resources, and environment in a fiscally
responsible way by:
(1) Protecting Natural, Cultural, and Heritage Resources.
The Department's mission includes protecting and providing access
to our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honoring our trust
responsibilities to tribes. We are committed to this mission and to
applying laws and regulations fairly and effectively. Our priorities
include protecting public health and safety, restoring and maintaining
public lands, protecting threatened and endangered species,
ameliorating land- and resource-management problems on public lands,
and ensuring accountability and compliance with Federal laws and
regulations.
(2) Sustainably Using Energy, Water, and Natural Resources.
Since the beginning of the Obama Administration, the Department has
focused on renewable energy issues and has established priorities for
environmentally responsible development of renewable energy on public
lands and the OCS. Industry has started to respond by investing in the
development of wind farms off the Atlantic seacoast and solar, wind,
and geothermal energy facilities throughout the West. Power generation
from these new energy sources produces virtually no greenhouse gases
and, when done in an environmentally responsible manner, harnesses with
minimum impact abundant renewable energy. The Department will continue
its intra- and inter-departmental efforts to move forward with the
environmentally responsible review and permitting of renewable energy
projects on public lands, and will identify how its regulatory
processes can be improved to facilitate the responsible development of
these resources.
In implementing these priorities through its regulations, the
Department
[[Page 1005]]
will create jobs and contribute to a healthy economy while protecting
our signature landscapes, natural resources, wildlife, and cultural
resources.
(3) Empowering People and Communities.
The Department strongly encourages public participation in the
regulatory process and will continue to actively engage the public in
the implementation of priority initiatives. Throughout the Department,
individual bureaus and offices are ensuring that the American people
have an active role in managing our Nation's public lands and
resources.
For example, every year FWS establishes migratory bird hunting
seasons in partnership with flyway councils composed of State fish and
wildlife agencies. FWS also holds a series of public meetings to give
other interested parties, including hunters and other groups,
opportunities to participate in establishing the upcoming season's
regulations. Similarly, BLM uses Resource Advisory Councils to advise
on management of public lands and resources. These citizen-based groups
allow individuals from all backgrounds and interests to have a voice in
management of public lands.
In June 2013, NPS published the final rule revising the regulations
for management of demonstrations and the sale or distribution of
printed matter in most areas of the National Park System to allow a
small-group exception to permit requirements. In essence, under
specific criteria, demonstrations and the sale or distribution of
printed matter involving 25 or fewer persons may be held in designated
areas, without first obtaining a permit; i.e. making it easier for
individuals and small groups to express their views.
Retrospective Review of Regulations
President Obama's Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to make
the regulatory system work better for the American public. Regulations
should ``. . . protect public health, welfare, safety, and our
environment while promoting economic growth, innovation,
competitiveness, and job creation.'' DOI's plan for retrospective
regulatory review identifies specific efforts to relieve regulatory
burdens, add jobs to the economy, and make regulations work better for
the American public while protecting our environment and resources. The
DOI plan seeks to strengthen and maintain a culture of retrospective
review by consolidating all regulatory review requirements into DOI's
annual regulatory plan.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOI conducts regulatory review under numerous statutes,
Executive orders, memoranda, and policies, including but not limited
to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563, and the DOI Departmental Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In examining its existing regulations, DOI has also taken a hybrid
regulatory approach, incorporating flexible, performance based
standards with existing regulatory requirements where possible to
strengthen safety and environmental protection across the onshore and
offshore oil and natural gas industry while minimizing additional
burdens on the economy. The Department routinely meets with
stakeholders to solicit feedback and gather input on how to incorporate
performance based standards. DOI has received helpful public input
through this process and will continue to participate in this effort
with relevant interagency partners as part of its retrospective
regulatory review.
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following Regulation
Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated with
retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final
retrospective review of regulations plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduces burdens on small
Bureau Title & RIN Description business?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Natural Resources Oil and Gas Royalty DOI is exploring a Yes.
Revenue. Valuation. simplified market-based
1012-AA13.......... approach to arrive at
the value of oil and
gas for royalty
purposes that could
dramatically reduce
accounting and
paperwork requirements
and costs on industry
and better ensure
proper royalty
valuation by creating a
more transparent
royalty calculation
method.
Fish and Wildlife Service........ ESA Section 7 Court decisions rendered No.
Consultation over the last decade
Process; regarding the adequacy
Incidental Take of incidental take
Statements. statements have
1018-AX85.......... prompted us, along with
the National Marine
Fisheries Service
(NOAA, Commerce), to
consider clarifying our
regulations concerning
two aspects of issuance
of incidental take
statements during
section 7 consultation
under the Endangered
Species Act. A proposed
rule published on
September 4, 2013. The
proposed regulatory
changes specifically
address the use of
surrogates to express
the limit of exempted
take and how to
determine when deferral
of an incidental take
exemption is
appropriate. This is a
joint rulemaking with
NOAA.
[[Page 1006]]
Fish and Wildlife Service........ Regulations The proposed rule would No.
Governing amend existing
Designation of regulations governing
Critical Habitat the designation of
Under Section 4 of critical habitat under
the ESA. section 4 of the
1018-AX86.......... Endangered Species Act.
The proposed amendments
would make minor edits
to the scope and
purpose, add and remove
some definitions, and
clarify the criteria
for designating
critical habitat. A
number of factors,
including litigation
and FWS's experience
over the years in
interpreting and
applying the statutory
definition of critical
habitat, have
highlighted the need to
clarify or revise the
current regulations.
This is a joint
rulemaking with NOAA.
Fish and Wildlife Service........ Policy Regarding This draft policy would No.
Implementation of articulate our position
Section 4(b)(2) of on how we consider
the Endangered partnerships and
Species Act. conservation plans,
1018-AX87.......... habitat conservation
plans, tribal lands,
military lands, and
Federal lands in the
exclusion process. This
draft policy is meant
to complement the
proposed amendments to
our regulations
regarding exclusions
from critical habitat
and is intended to
clarify expectations
regarding critical
habitat and provide for
a credible,
predictable, and
simplified critical-
habitat-exclusion
process. This policy
would foster clarity
and consistency in the
designation of critical
habitat in an effort to
ensure that the
purposes of the
Endangered Species Act
are fully met. We will
seek public review and
comment on the proposed
policy. This is a joint
policy with NOAA.
Fish and Wildlife Service........ ESA Section 7 The proposed rule would No.
Consultation amend the existing
Regulations; regulations governing
Definition of section 7 consultation
``Destruction or under the Endangered
Adverse Species Act to revise
Modification'' of the definition of
Critical Habitat. ``destruction or
1018-AX88.......... adverse modification''
of critical habitat.
The current regulatory
definition has been
invalidated by the
courts for being
inconsistent with the
language of the
Endangered Species Act.
The revised definition
will provide the
Services and Federal
agencies with greater
clarity in how to
ensure that any action
they authorize, fund,
or carry out is not
likely to result in the
destruction or adverse
modification of
critical habitat,
consistent with section
7(a)(2) of the ESA. We
therefore need to
propose a revised
definition and seek
public review and
comment. This is a
joint rulemaking with
NOAA.
Bureau of Indian Affairs......... Procedures for The Department is No.
Establishing that examining its
an Indian Group regulations governing
Exists as an the process and
Indian Tribe. criteria by which
1076-AF18.......... Indian groups are
federally acknowledged
as Indian tribes to
determine how
regulatory changes
could increase
transparency,
timeliness, efficiency,
and flexibility, while
maintaining the
integrity of the
acknowledgment process.
National Park Service, Fish and Commercial Filming This joint effort Yes.
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land on Public Lands. between the National
Mgt), Bureau of Reclamation, and 1024-AD30.......... Park Service, Fish and
Bureau of Indian Affairs. Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Land
Management, Bureau of
Reclamation, and Bureau
of Indian Affairs has
created consistent
regulations and a
unified DOI fee
schedule for commercial
filming and still
photography on public
land. It provides the
commercial filming
industry with a
predictable fee for
using Federal lands,
while earning the
Government a fair
return for the use of
the land. The final
regulation was
published on August 22,
2013. The proposed fee
schedule with request
for public comment was
published on the same
date. Following comment
analyses a final fee
schedule will be
published.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOI bureaus work to make our regulations easier to comply with and
understand. Our regulatory process ensures that bureaus share ideas on
how to reduce regulatory burdens while meeting the requirements of the
laws they enforce and improving their stewardship of the environment
and resources. Results include:
Effective stewardship of our Nation's resources in a way
that is responsive to the needs of small businesses;
Increased benefits per dollars spent by carefully
evaluating the economic effects of planned rules; and
Improved compliance and transparency by use of plain
language in our regulations and guidance documents.
Bureaus and Offices Within DOI
The following sections give an overview of some of the major
regulatory priorities of DOI bureaus and offices.
[[Page 1007]]
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) administers and manages 55
million acres of surface land and 57 million acres of subsurface
minerals held in trust by the United States for Indians and Indian
tribes, provides services to approximately 1.9 million Indians and
Alaska Natives, and maintains a government-to-government relationship
with the 566 federally recognized Indian tribes. BIA's mission is to
enhance the quality of life, promote economic opportunity, and protect
and improve the trust assets of American Indians, Indian tribes, and
Alaska Natives, as well as to provide quality education opportunities
to students in Indian schools.
In the coming year, BIA will continue its focus on improved
management of trust responsibilities with each regulatory review and
revision. BIA will also continue to promote economic development in
Indian communities by ensuring the regulations support, rather than
hinder, productive land management. In addition, BIA will focus on
updating Indian education regulations and on other regulatory changes
to increase transparency in support of the President's Open Government
Initiative.
In the coming year, BIA's regulatory priorities are to:
Develop regulations to meet the Indian trust reform goals
for rights-of-ways across Indian land.
Develop regulatory changes necessary for improved Indian
education.
BIA is reviewing regulations that require the Bureau of Indian
Education to follow 23 different State adequate yearly progress
standards; the review will determine whether a uniform standard would
better meet the needs of students at Bureau-funded schools. With regard
to undergraduate education, the Bureau of Indian Education is reviewing
regulations that address grants to tribally controlled community
colleges and other Indian education regulations. These reviews will
identify provisions that need to be updated to comply with applicable
statutes and ensure that the proper regulatory framework is in place to
support students of Bureau-funded schools.
Develop regulatory changes to reform the process for
Federal acknowledgment of Indian tribes.
Over the years, BIA has received significant comments from American
Indian groups and members of Congress on the Federal acknowledgment
process. Most of these comments claim that the current process is
cumbersome and overly restrictive. BIA is reviewing the Federal
acknowledgment regulations to determine how regulatory changes may
streamline the acknowledgment process and clarify criteria by which an
Indian group is examined.
Revise regulations to reflect updated statutory provisions
and increase transparency.
BIA is making a concentrated effort to improve the readability and
precision of its regulations. Because trust beneficiaries often turn to
the regulations for guidance on how a given BIA process works, BIA is
ensuring that each revised regulation is written as clearly as possible
and accurately reflects the current organization of the Bureau. The
Bureau is also simplifying language and eliminating obsolete
provisions. In the coming year, the Bureau also plans to revise
regulations regarding rights-of-way (25 CFR 169); Indian Reservation
Roads (25 CFR 170); and certain regulations specific to the Osage
Nation.
Bureau of Land Management
BLM manages the 245-million-acre National System of Public Lands,
located primarily in the western States, including Alaska, and the 700-
million-acre subsurface mineral estate located throughout the Nation.
In doing so, BLM manages such varied uses as energy and mineral
development, outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, and forestry and
woodlands products. BLM's complex multiple-use mission affects the
lives of millions of Americans, including those who live near and visit
the public lands, as well as those who benefit from the commodities,
such as minerals, energy, or timber, produced from the lands' rich
resources. In undertaking its management responsibilities, BLM seeks to
conserve our public lands' natural and cultural resources and sustain
the health and productivity of the public lands for the use and
enjoyment of present and future generations. In the coming year, BLM's
highest regulatory priorities include:
Revising antiquated hydraulic fracturing regulations.
BLM's existing regulations applicable to hydraulic fracturing were
promulgated over 20 years ago and do not reflect modern technology. In
seeking to modernize its requirements and ensure the protection of our
Nation's public lands, BLM has proposed a rule that would disclose to
the public chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing on public land and
Indian land, strengthen regulations related to well-bore integrity, and
address issues related to flowback water.
Creating a competitive process for offering lands for
solar and wind energy development.
BLM is preparing a proposed rule that would establish an efficient
competitive process for leasing public lands for solar and wind energy
development. The amended regulations would establish competitive
bidding procedures for lands within designated solar and wind energy
development leasing areas, define qualifications for potential bidders,
and structure the financial arrangements necessary for the process. The
proposed rule would enhance BLM's ability to capture fair market value
for the use of public lands, ensure fair access to leasing
opportunities for renewable energy development, and foster the growth
and development of the renewable energy sector of the economy.
Preventing waste of produced oil and gas and regulating
use for beneficial purposes.
A proposed rule would cover the prevention of waste by minimizing
the amount of venting and flaring that takes place on oil and gas
production facilities on Federal and Indian lands. It would also
delineate which activities qualify for beneficial use of the oil and
gas resource to ensure that proper royalties are paid on oil and gas
removed from Federal and Trust lands.
Seeking public input on managing waste mine methane.
BLM plans to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)
requesting information from the public that might assist the bureau in
the establishment of a program to capture, use, or destroy waste mine
methane from Federal coal leases and Federal leases for other solid
minerals.
Ensuring a fair return to the American taxpayer for oil
shale development.
The rule would encourage responsible development of federal oil
shale resources and evaluate necessary safeguards to protect scarce
water resources and important wildlife habitat while assuring a fair
royalty to the American people.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) promotes energy
independence, environmental protection and economic development through
responsible, science-based management of offshore conventional and
renewable energy resources. It is dedicated to fostering the
development of both conventional and renewable energy and mineral
resources on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in an
[[Page 1008]]
efficient and effective manner, balancing the need for economic growth
with the protection of the environment and conservation of the nation's
scarce resources. The Bureau is committed to fostering the expansion of
domestic energy production, domestic energy independence and providing
essential revenues to support the economic development of the country.
BOEM thoughtfully considers and balances the potential environmental
impacts involved in exploring and extracting these resources. BOEM's
near-term regulatory agenda will focus on a number of issues,
including:
Expanding renewable energy resources.
As part of President Obama's comprehensive plan to move our economy
toward domestic clean energy sources, BOEM is holding offshore
renewable energy lease sales for the first time in U.S. history. BOEM
is preparing to develop a number of standards and criteria to
facilitate the more effective use of wind turbine technology on the
OCS. The Bureau is completing a rulemaking to provide additional time
for applicants for renewable projects to submit certain plans for which
BOEM found the regulatory timeline to be unreasonable. This is designed
to provide an appropriate balance between ensuring diligent progress on
our renewable energy leases and accounting for the needs of renewable
energy developers.
Two proposed rulemakings address recommendations submitted to BOEM
by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies and its
stakeholders. Specifically, these include recommendations to: Develop
and incorporate state of the art wind turbine design standards and to
clarify the role of Certified Verification Agents as part of the
process of designing, fabricating, and installing offshore wind energy
facilities for the OCS.
Promoting safe drilling activities on the Alaska Outer
Continental Shelf.
BOEM, jointly with the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement (BSEE), is developing proposed rules to promote safe,
responsible, and effective drilling activities on the Alaska Outer
Continental Shelf, while also ensuring the protection of Alaska's
coastal communities and the marine environment.
Protecting the Environment.
In a continuing effort to minimize the risk that oil spills will
occur and that the effects of any future potential spills can be
minimized and fully mitigated, BOEM is raising the limits of liability
associated with future spills up to the statutory maximum. BOEM is also
revising its regulations designed to oversee the Oil Spill Financial
Responsibility process for which it is responsible. In addition,
working in close conjunction with the U.S. Coast Guard and the
Department of Justice, BOEM is making a concerted effort to make sure
that all necessary resources will be made available to address all
potential contingencies of an oil spill and associated damages.
Updating BOEM's Air Quality Program.
Until recently, the Department of the Interior (DOI) has exercised
jurisdiction for air quality only for OCS sources operating in the Gulf
of Mexico. In fiscal year 2012, Congress expanded DOI's authority by
transferring to it responsibility for monitoring OCS air quality off
the north coast of Alaska. In light of this change, BOEM is undertaking
a thorough review of its air quality program. BOEM intends to exercise
its mandate by ensuring the responsible development of natural
resources in both regions by ensuring that regulations are developed to
appropriately balance environmental needs and requirements against the
needs for economic development. In doing this, BOEM is consulting and
coordinating its efforts with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Park Service and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Protecting OCS Sand, Gravel, and Shell Resources.
In light of the continuing need to provide resources to protect the
coast from natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy, BOEM is developing
policies and goals to formally address the use of OCS sand, gravel, or
shell resources funded by the Federal government. These policies are
intended to ensure that necessary sand and gravel resources remain
available to help communities that have been harmed by hurricanes and
other disasters, so that beaches and other natural resources can
effectively be restored, without adversely impacting the development of
transmission lines and pipelines needed for energy development
projects. Taken together, these policies will ensure that the
development of renewable and conventional energy resources continues to
take place in areas adjacent to key sand and gravel resource zones and
that sand and gravel resources continue to be available for
construction projects, shore protection, beach replenishment, or
wetlands restoration purposes.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
BSEE's mission is to regulate safety, emergency preparedness,
environmental responsibility and appropriate development and
conservation of offshore oil and natural gas resources. BSEE's
regulatory priorities are guided by the BSEE FY 2012-2015 Strategic
Plan, which includes two strategic goals to focus the Bureau's
priorities in fulfillment of its mission:
[squ] Regulate, enforce, and respond to OCS development using the
full range of authorities, policies, and tools to compel safety and
environmental responsibility and appropriate development of offshore
oil and natural gas resources.
[squ] Build and sustain the organizational, technical, and
intellectual capacity within and across BSEE's key functions--capacity
that keeps pace with OCS industry technology improvements, innovates in
regulation and enforcement, and reduces risk through systemic
assessment and regulatory and enforcement actions.
The Three-Year Strategic Plan reflects the intent of BSEE to build
a bureau capable of keeping pace with the rapidly advancing
technologies employed by the industry, building and sustaining its
organizational, technical, and intellectual capacity, and instilling a
commitment to safe practices at all levels of offshore operations, at
all times. Additionally, the strategic plan incorporates BSEE's
approach to address numerous recommendations contained in Government
Accountability Office, Office of Inspector General (OIG), and other
external reports.
BSEE has identified the following four areas of regulatory
priorities: (1) Compliance; (2) Oil Spill Response; (3) Alaska; and (4)
Managing and Mitigating Risk. Among the specific regulatory priorities
that will be BSEE's priorities over the course of the next year are:
Compliance.
BSEE will finalize revisions of its rule on production safety
systems and expand the use of lifecycle analysis of critical equipment.
This rule addresses issues such as subsurface safety devices, safety
device testing, and expands the requirements for operating production
systems on the OCS.
Oil Spill Response.
BSEE will update regulations for offshore oil spill response
planning and preparedness. This rule will incorporate lessons learned
from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill, improved preparedness capability
standards, and
[[Page 1009]]
applicable research findings. This regulatory update will establish
standards that drive owners, lessees, and operators to use all
applicable tools in a system-based plan that demonstrates the ability
to respond to oil spills quickly and effectively.
Alaska.
BSEE is working with BOEM on a joint proposed rule to promote safe,
responsible, and effective drilling activities on the Alaska OCS while
ensuring protection of Alaska's communities and marine environment.
Managing and Mitigating Risk.
BSEE will develop a proposed rule containing requirements on
blowout preventers and critical reforms in the areas of well design,
well control, casing, cementing, real-time monitoring, and subsea
containment. This proposed rule will address and implement multiple
recommendations resulting from various investigations from the Macondo
blowout.
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 priorities for the upcoming year include:
Simplifying valuation regulations.
ONRR plans to simplify the regulations at 30 CFR part 1206 for
establishing the value for royalty purposes of: (1) Oil and natural gas
produced from Federal leases; and (2) coal and geothermal resources
produced from Federal and Indian leases. Additionally, the proposed
rules would consolidate sections of the regulations common to all
minerals, such as definitions and instructions regarding how a payor
should request a valuation determination. ONRR published Advance
Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) to initiate the rulemaking
process and to obtain input from interested parties.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) was
created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA). Under SMCRA, OSM has two principal functions--the regulation
of surface coal mining and reclamation operations and the reclamation
and restoration of abandoned coal mine lands. In enacting SMCRA,
Congress directed OSM to ``strike a balance between protection of the
environment and agricultural productivity and the Nation's need for
coal as an essential source of energy.'' In response to its statutory
mandate, OSM has sought to develop and maintain a stable regulatory
program that is safe, cost-effective, and environmentally sound. A
stable regulatory program ensures that the coal mining industry has
clear guidelines for operation and reclamation, and that citizens know
how the program is being implemented.
OSM's Federal regulatory program sets minimum requirements for
obtaining a permit for surface and underground coal mining operations,
sets performance standards for those operations, requires reclamation
of lands and waters disturbed by mining, and requires enforcement to
ensure that the standards are met. OSM is the primary regulatory
authority for SMCRA enforcement until a State or Indian tribe develops
its own regulatory program, which is no less effective than the Federal
program. When a State or Indian tribe achieves ``primacy,'' it assumes
direct responsibility for permitting, inspection, and enforcement
activities under its federally approved regulatory program. The
regulatory standards in Federal program states and in primacy states
are essentially the same with only minor, non-substantive differences.
Today, 24 States have primacy, including 23 of the 24 coal producing
States. OSM's regulatory priorities for the coming year will focus on:
Stream Protection.
Protect streams and related environmental resources from the
adverse effects of surface coal mining operations; and
Coal Combustion Residues.
Establish Federal standards for the beneficial use of coal
combustion residues on active and abandoned coal mines.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is to work
with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and
plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people. FWS also helps ensure a healthy environment for people by
providing opportunities for Americans to enjoy the outdoors and our
shared natural heritage.
FWS fulfills its responsibilities through a diverse array of
programs that:
Protect and recover endangered and threatened species;
Monitor and manage migratory birds;
Restore native aquatic populations and nationally
significant fisheries;
Enforce Federal wildlife laws and regulate international
trade;
Conserve and restore wildlife habitat such as wetlands;
Help foreign governments conserve wildlife through
international conservation efforts;
Distribute Federal funds to States, territories, and
tribes for fish and wildlife conservation projects; and
Manage the more than 150-million-acre National Wildlife
Refuge System, which protects and conserves fish and wildlife and their
habitats and allows the public to engage in outdoor recreational
activities.
Over the course of the next year, FWS regulatory priorities will
include:
Critical habitat regulations under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA).
FWS will issue rules to clarify definitions of ``critical habitat''
and ``destruction or adverse modification,'' to improve our
consultation process in regard to issuing incidental take statements,
and otherwise make improvements to the process of critical habitat
designation.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act regulatory reform.
In an effort to promote renewable energy while carrying out our
responsibility to protect certain species of birds, we will finalize
our proposal to revise our regulations for permits for nonpurposeful
take of eagles. By proposing to extend the maximum term for
programmatic permits to 30 years, as long as certain requirements are
met, we will facilitate the development of renewable energy projects
that are designed to be in operation for many decades.
Protecting refuges.
We will issue a proposed rule to ensure that all operators
conducting oil or gas operations on NWRS lands do so in a manner that
prevents or minimizes damage to the lands, visitor values, and
management objectives.
Making regulations more user-friendly.
We will issue rules to amend the format of the ESA lists to make
them more user-friendly for the public, to correct errors in regard to
taxonomy, to include rules issued by the National Marine Fisheries
Service for marine species, and to more clearly describe areas where
listed species are protected.
National Park Service
NPS preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and
values within more than 400 units of the
[[Page 1010]]
National Park System encompassing nearly 84 million acres of lands and
waters for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future
generations. NPS also cooperates with partners to extend the benefits
of natural and resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout
the United States and the world.
To achieve this mission NPS adheres to the following guiding
principles:
Excellent Service: Providing the best possible service to
park visitors and partners.
Productive Partnerships: Collaborating with Federal,
State, tribal, and local governments, private organizations, and
businesses to work toward common goals.
Citizen Involvement: Providing opportunities for citizens
to participate in the decisions and actions of the National Park
Service.
Heritage Education: Educating park visitors and the
general public about their history and common heritage.
Outstanding Employees: Empowering a diverse workforce
committed to excellence, integrity, and quality work.
Employee Development: Providing developmental
opportunities and training so employees have the ``tools to do the
job'' safely and efficiently.
Wise Decisions: Integrating social, economic,
environmental, and ethical considerations into the decision-making
process.
Effective Management: Instilling a performance management
philosophy that fosters creativity, focuses on results, and requires
accountability at all levels.
Research and Technology: Incorporating research findings
and new technologies to improve work practices, products, and services.
NPS' regulatory priorities for the coming year include:
Managing Off Road Vehicle Use
(1) Curecanti National Recreation Area: A proposed rule published
in July of 2013. The rule would designate routes and areas within
Curecanti National Recreation Area where off-road vehicles (ORVs) and
snowmobiles will be allowed within the recreation area. ORV use will
primarily occur below the high water line of the Blue Mesa Reservoir.
The rule also would provide for designation of new snowmobile access
points and designates snowmobile routes from the access points to the
frozen surface of the Blue Mesa Reservoir.
(2) Fire Island National Seashore: The rule would define applicable
terms, designates driving routes, driving conditions, and establishes
permit conditions for ORV use within Fire Island National Seashore.
(3) Wrangell St.-Elias National Preserve: The rule would (i)
designate trails in the Nabesna District of Wrangell-St. Elias National
Preserve where ORVs may be used for recreational purposes; (ii) impose
ORV size and weight restrictions; and (iii) close areas to ORV use for
subsistence purposes in designated wilderness.
(4) Lake Meredith NRA: The rule would designate ORV routes,
addresses required safety equipment, speed limits and clarifies ORV use
for the benefit of NPS personnel and the public.
(5) Glen Canyon NRA: The rule would authorize ORV use, designate
routes and areas, and establish criteria for operation of ORVs.
Managing Bicycling
NPS rules would authorize and manage designate bicycles routes and
allow for management of bicycle use on designated routes at Cuyahoga
Valley National Park, New River Gorge National River, Chattahoochee
NRA, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, and Lake Meredith National
Recreation Area.
Implementing the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act
(1) A rule will correct inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the 43
CFR part 10 regulations, implementing the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act, which have been identified by or
brought to the attention of the Department of the Interior.
(21) A new rule would establish a process for disposition of
Unclaimed Human Remains and Funerary Objects discovered after November
16, 1990, on Federal or Indian Lands.
(2) A rule revising the existing regulations would describe the
NAGPRA process in plain language with clear time parameters, eliminate
ambiguity, clarify terms, and include Native Hawaiians in the process.
The rule would eliminate unnecessary requirements for museums and would
not add process or new information collection.
Regulating Non-Federal Oil and Gas Activity on NPS Land
The rule would account for new technology and industry practices,
eliminate regulatory exemptions, update new legal requirements, remove
caps on bond amounts, and allow the NPS to recover compliance costs
associated with administering the regulations.
Bureau of Reclamation
The Bureau of Reclamation's mission is to manage, develop, and
protect water and related resources in an environmentally and
economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. To
accomplish this mission, we employ management, engineering, and science
to achieve effective and environmentally sensitive solutions.
Reclamation projects provide: Irrigation water service, municipal
and industrial water supply, hydroelectric power generation, water
quality improvement, groundwater management, fish and wildlife
enhancement, outdoor recreation, flood control, navigation, river
regulation and control, system optimization, and related uses. We have
continued to focus on increased security at our facilities. As we
undertake our responsibilities, we are continually reviewing the
regulations and policies that govern our work and considering potential
improvements to streamline our processes while protecting our nation's
water resources and the environment.
BILLING CODE 4310-10-P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)--FALL 2013
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The mission of the Department of Justice is to enforce the law and
defend the interests of the United States according to the law, to
ensure public safety against foreign and domestic threats, to provide
Federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime, to seek just
punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior, and to ensure the
fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. In
carrying out its mission, the Department is guided by four core values:
(1) Equal justice under the law; (2) honesty and integrity; (3)
commitment to excellence; and (4) respect for the worth and dignity of
each human being. The Department of Justice is primarily a law
enforcement agency, not a regulatory agency; it carries out its
principal investigative, prosecutorial, and other enforcement
activities through means other than the regulatory process.
The regulatory priorities of the Department include initiatives in
the areas of civil rights, criminal law enforcement and immigration.
These initiatives are summarized below. In addition, several other
components of the Department carry out important responsibilities
through the regulatory
[[Page 1011]]
process. Although their regulatory efforts are not separately discussed
in this overview of the regulatory priorities, those components have
key roles in implementing the Department's anti-terrorism and law
enforcement priorities.
Civil Rights Division
The Department is including five disability nondiscrimination
rulemaking initiatives in its Regulatory Plan: (1) Implementation of
the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 in the ADA regulations (titles II and
III); (2) Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 in the
Department's section 504 regulations; (3) Nondiscrimination on the
Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations: Movie Captioning and
Audio Description; (4) Accessibility of Web Information and Services of
State and Local Governments; and (5) Accessibility of Web Information
and Services of Public Accommodations.
The Department's other disability nondiscrimination rulemaking
initiatives, while important priorities for the Department's rulemaking
agenda, will be included in the Department's long-term actions for
fiscal year 2015. As will be discussed more fully below, these
initiatives include: (1) Accessibility of Medical Equipment and
Furniture; (2) Accessibility of Beds in Guestrooms with Mobility
Features in Places of Lodging; (3) Next Generation 9-1-1 Services; and
(4) Accessibility of Equipment and Furniture. The Department will also
be revising its regulations for Coordination of Enforcement of Non-
Discrimination in Federally Assisted Programs.
ADA Amendments Act. In September 2008, Congress passed the ADA
Amendments Act, which revises the definition of ``disability'' to more
broadly encompass impairments that substantially limit a major life
activity. In early fiscal year 2014, the Department plans to propose
amendments to both its title II and title III ADA regulations and the
Department plans to propose amendments to its section 504 regulations
to implement the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 in the last quarter of
fiscal year 2014.
Captioning and Audio Description in Movie Theaters. Title III of
the ADA requires public accommodations to take ``such steps as may be
necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is treated
differently because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services,
unless the covered entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would
cause a fundamental alteration or would result in an undue burden.'' 42
U.S.C. section 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). Both open and closed captioning and
audio recordings are examples of auxiliary aids and services that
should be provided by places of public accommodations, 28 CFR section
36.303(b)(1)-(2). The Department stated in the preamble to its 1991
rule that ``[m]ovie theaters are not required . . . to present open-
captioned films,'' 28 CFR part 36, app. C (2011), but it did not
address closed captioning and audio description in movie theaters. In
the movie theater context, ``closed captioning'' refers to captions
that only the patron requesting the closed captions can see because the
captions are delivered to the patron at or near the patron's seat.
Audio description is a technology that enables individuals who are
blind or have low vision to enjoy movies by providing a spoken
narration of key visual elements of a visually delivered medium, such
as actions, settings, facial expressions, costumes, and scene changes.
Since 1991, there have been many technological advances in the area
of closed captioning and audio description for first-run movies. In
June 2008, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
to revise the ADA title III regulation, 73 FR 34466, in which the
Department stated that it was considering options for requiring that
movie theater owners or operators exhibit movies that are captioned or
that provide video (narrative) description. The Department issued an
ANPRM on July 26, 2010, to obtain more information regarding issues
raised by commenters; to seek comment on technical questions that arose
from the Department's research; and to learn more about the status of
digital conversion. In addition, the Department sought information
regarding whether other technologies or areas of interest (e.g., 3D)
have developed or are in the process of development that would either
replace or augment digital cinema or make any regulatory requirements
for captioning and audio description more difficult or expensive to
implement. The Department received approximately 1171 public comments
in response to its movie captioning and audio description ANPRM. The
Department is in the process of completing its review of these comments
and expects to publish an NPRM addressing captioning and audio
description in movie theaters in early fiscal year 2014.
Web site Accessibility. The Internet as it is known today did not
exist when Congress enacted the ADA, yet today the World Wide Web plays
a critical role in the daily personal, professional, civic, and
business life of Americans. The ADA's expansive nondiscrimination
mandate reaches goods and services provided by public accommodations
and public entities using Internet Web sites. Being unable to access
Web sites puts individuals at a great disadvantage in today's society,
which is driven by a dynamic electronic marketplace and unprecedented
access to information. On the economic front, electronic commerce, or
``e-commerce,'' often offers consumers a wider selection and lower
prices than traditional, ``brick-and-mortar'' storefronts, with the
added convenience of not having to leave one's home to obtain goods and
services. For individuals with disabilities who experience barriers to
their ability to travel or to leave their homes, the Internet may be
their only way to access certain goods and services. Beyond goods and
services, information available on the Internet has become a gateway to
education, socializing, and entertainment.
The Internet is also dramatically changing the way that
governmental entities serve the public. Public entities are
increasingly providing their constituents access to government services
and programs through their Web sites. Through Government Web sites, the
public can obtain information or correspond with local officials
without having to wait in line or be placed on hold. They can also pay
fines, apply for benefits, renew State-issued identification, register
to vote, file taxes, request copies of vital records, and complete
numerous other everyday tasks. The availability of these services and
information online not only makes life easier for the public but also
often enables governmental entities to operate more efficiently and at
a lower cost.
The ADA's promise to provide an equal opportunity for individuals
with disabilities to participate in and benefit from all aspects of
American civic and economic life will be achieved in today's
technologically advanced society only if it is clear to State and local
governments, businesses, educators, and other public accommodations
that their Web sites must be accessible. Consequently, the Department
is considering amending its regulations implementing title II and title
III of the ADA to require public entities and public accommodations
that provide products or services to the public through Internet Web
sites to make their sites accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities.
In particular, the Department's ANPRM on Web site accessibility
sought public comment regarding what standards, if any, it should adopt
for Web site accessibility, whether the
[[Page 1012]]
Department should adopt coverage limitations for certain entities, like
small businesses, and what resources and services are available to make
existing Web sites accessible to individuals with disabilities. The
Department also solicited comments on the costs of making Web sites
accessible and on the existence of any other effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives to making Web sites accessible. The Department
received approximately 440 public comments and is in the process of
reviewing these comments. The Department anticipates publishing
separate NPRMs addressing Web site accessibility pursuant to titles II
and III of the ADA. The Department projects publishing the title II Web
site Accessibility NPRM in early fiscal year 2014 with the publication
of the title III NPRM to follow towards the middle of fiscal year 2014.
The final rulemaking initiatives from the 2010 ANPRMs are included
in the Department's long-term priorities projected for fiscal year
2015:
Next Generation 9-1-1. This ANPRM sought information on possible
revisions to the Department's regulation to ensure direct access to
Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG 9-1-1) services for individuals with
disabilities. In 1991, the Department of Justice published a regulation
to implement title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA). That regulation requires public safety answering points (PSAPs)
to provide direct access to persons with disabilities who use analog
telecommunication devices for the deaf (TTYs), 28 CFR 35.162. Since
that rule was published, there have been major changes in the types of
communications technology used by the general public and by people who
have disabilities that affect their hearing or speech. Many individuals
with disabilities now use the Internet and wireless text devices as
their primary modes of telecommunications. At the same time, PSAPs are
planning to shift from analog telecommunications technology to new
Internet-Protocol (IP)-enabled NG 9-1-1 services that will provide
voice and data (such as text, pictures, and video) capabilities. As
PSAPs transition from the analog systems to the new technologies, it is
essential that people with communication disabilities be able to use
the new systems. Therefore, the Department published this ANPRM to
begin to develop appropriate regulatory guidance for PSAPs that are
making this transition. The Department is in the process of completing
its review of the approximately 146 public comments it received in
response to its NG 9-1-1 ANPRM and expects to publish an NPRM
addressing accessibility of NG 9-1-1 in fiscal year 2015.
Equipment and Furniture. Both title II and title III of the ADA
require covered entities to make reasonable modifications in their
programs or services to facilitate participation by persons with
disabilities. In addition, covered entities are required to ensure that
people are not excluded from participation because facilities are
inaccessible or because the entity has failed to provide auxiliary
aids. The use of accessible equipment and furniture is often critical
to an entity's ability to provide a person with a disability equal
access to its services. Changes in technology have resulted in the
development and improved availability of accessible equipment and
furniture that benefit individuals with disabilities. The 2010 ADA
Standards include accessibility requirements for some types of fixed
equipment (e.g., ATMs, washing machines, dryers, tables, benches and
vending machines) and the Department plans to look to these standards
for guidance, where applicable, when it proposes accessibility
standards for equipment and furniture that is not fixed. The ANPRM
sought information about other categories of equipment, including beds
in accessible guest rooms, and medical equipment and furniture. The
Department received approximately 420 comments in response to its ANPRM
and is in the process of reviewing these comments. The Department plans
to publish in early fiscal year 2015 a separate NPRM pursuant to title
III of the ADA on beds in accessible guest rooms and a more detailed
ANPRM pursuant to titles II and III of the ADA that focuses solely on
accessible medical equipment and furniture. The remaining items of
equipment and furniture addressed in the 2010 ANPRM will be the subject
of an NPRM that the Department anticipates publishing in late fiscal
year 2015.
Coordination of Enforcement of Non-Discrimination in Federally
Assisted Programs. In addition to the foregoing disability-related
regulatory initiatives, the Department is planning to revise the co-
ordination regulations implementing title VI of the Civil Rights Act,
which have not been updated in over 30 years. Among other things, the
updates will revise outdated provisions, streamline procedural steps,
streamline and clarify provisions regarding information and data
collection, promote opportunities to encourage public engagement, and
incorporate current law regarding meaningful access for individuals who
are limited English proficient.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
ATF issues regulations to enforce the Federal laws relating to the
manufacture and commerce of firearms and explosives. ATF's mission and
regulations are designed to, among other objectives, curb illegal
traffic in, and criminal use of, firearms and explosives, and to assist
State, local, and other Federal law enforcement agencies in reducing
crime and violence. The Department is including one rulemaking
initiative from ATF in its Regulatory Plan. The Department is planning
to finalize a proposed rule to amend ATF's regulations regarding the
making or transferring of a firearm under the National Firearms Act. As
proposed, this rule would (1) add a definition for the term
``responsible person''; (2) require each responsible person of a
corporation, trust or legal entity to complete a specified form, and to
submit photographs and fingerprints; and (3) modify the requirements
regarding the certificate of the chief law enforcement officer.
ATF will continue, as a priority during fiscal year 2014, to seek
modifications to its regulations governing commerce in firearms and
explosives. ATF plans to issue regulations to finalize the current
interim rules implementing the provisions of the Safe Explosives Act,
title XI, subtitle C, of Public Law 107-296, the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 (enacted Nov. 25, 2002). ATF also has begun a rulemaking
process that will lead to promulgation of a revised set of regulations
(27 CFR part 771) governing the procedure and practice for proposed
denial of applications for explosives licenses or permits and proposed
revocation of such licenses and permits. In addition, ATF also has
several other rulemaking initiatives as part of the Department's
rulemaking agenda.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13563 ``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,'' ATF has proposed a rulemaking proceeding to amend
existing regulations and extend the term of import permits for
firearms, ammunition, and defense articles from 1 year to 2 years. The
additional time will allow importers sufficient time to complete the
importation of an authorized commodity before the permit expires and
eliminate the need for importers to submit new and duplicative import
applications. ATF believes that extending the term of import permits
will result in substantial cost and time savings for both ATF and
industry.
[[Page 1013]]
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
DEA is the primary agency responsible for coordinating the drug law
enforcement activities of the United States and also assists in the
implementation of the President's National Drug Control Strategy. DEA
implements and enforces Titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug
Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and the Controlled Substances
Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 801-971), as amended, and referred to
as the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). DEA's mission is to enforce the
CSA and its regulations and bring to the criminal and civil justice
system those organizations and individuals involved in the growing,
manufacture, or distribution of controlled substances and listed
chemicals appearing in or destined for illicit traffic in the United
States. DEA promulgates the CSA implementing regulations in title 21 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 1300 to 1321. The CSA and
its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and
eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals
into the illicit market while ensuring a sufficient supply of
controlled substances and listed chemicals for legitimate medical,
scientific, research, and industrial purposes.
Pursuant to its statutory authority, DEA continuously evaluates new
and emerging substances to determine whether such substances should be
controlled under the CSA. During fiscal year 2014, in addition to
initiating temporary scheduling actions to prevent immediate harm to
the public safety, DEA will also consider petitions to schedule or
reschedule various substances. Among other regulatory reviews and
initiatives, DEA also plans to finalize regulations implementing the
Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-273) to
provide means for individuals to safely and securely dispose of
controlled substances.
Bureau of Prisons
The Federal Bureau of Prisons issues regulations to enforce the
Federal laws relating to its mission: to protect society by confining
offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based
facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately
secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities
to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. During the next
12 months, in addition to other regulatory objectives aimed at
accomplishing its mission, the Bureau will continue its ongoing efforts
to: streamline regulations, eliminating unnecessary language and
improving readability; improve disciplinary procedures through a
revision of the subpart relating to the disciplinary process; reduce
the introduction of contraband through various means, such as
clarifying drug and alcohol surveillance testing programs; protect the
public from continuing criminal activity committed within prison; and
enhance the Bureau's ability to more closely monitor the communications
of high-risk inmates.
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
On March 1, 2003, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(HSA), the responsibility for immigration enforcement and border
security and for providing immigration-related services and benefits,
such as naturalization, immigrant petitions, and work authorization,
was transferred from the Justice Department's former Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) to the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). However, the immigration judges and the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) in EOIR remain part of the Department of Justice. The
immigration judges adjudicate approximately 400,000 cases each year to
determine whether aliens should be ordered removed from the United
States or should be granted some form of relief from removal. The Board
has jurisdiction over appeals from the decisions of immigration judges,
as well as other matters. Accordingly, the Attorney General has a
continuing role in the conducting of removal hearings, the granting of
relief from removal, and custody determinations regarding the detention
of aliens pending completion of removal proceedings. The Attorney
General also is responsible for civil litigation and criminal
prosecutions relating to the immigration laws.
In several pending rulemaking actions, the Department is working to
revise and update the regulations relating to removal proceedings in
order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the hearings,
including, but not limited to: a joint regulation with DHS to provide
guidance on a number of issues central to the adjudication of
applications for asylum and withholding of removal; a joint regulation
with DHS to provide, with respect to applicants who are found to have
engaged in persecution of others, a limited exception for actions taken
by the applicant under duress; a joint regulation with DHS to implement
procedures that address the specialized needs of unaccompanied alien
children in removal proceedings pursuant to the William Wilberforce
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008; a proposed
regulation to establish procedures for the filing and adjudication of
motions to reopen removal, deportation, and exclusion proceedings based
upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; and a proposed
regulation to improve the recognition and accreditation process for
organizations and representatives that appear in immigration
proceedings before EOIR. Finally, in response to Executive Order 13653,
the Department is retrospectively reviewing EOIR's regulations to
eliminate regulations that unnecessarily duplicate DHS's regulations
and update outdated references to the pre-2002 immigration system.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory
Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov
in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can
also be found on Regulations.gov. The final Justice Department plan can
be found at: http://www.justice.gov/open/doj-rr-final-plan.pdf
[[Page 1014]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIN Title Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1140-AA42........................ Importation of The regulations in
Arms, 27 CFR 447 and 479
Ammunition and generally provide
Implements of that firearms,
War and ammunition, and
Machine Guns, defense articles
Destructive may not be imported
Devices, and into the United
Certain Other States except
Firearms; pursuant to a
Extending the permit. Section
Term of Import 447.43 provides
Permits. that import permits
are valid for one
year from their
issuance date. ATF
will consider
whether these
regulations could
be revised to
achieve the same
regulatory
objective in a
manner that is less
burdensome for both
industry and ATF.
This rulemaking
could reduce
paperwork burdens
on the small
entities that apply
for these permits
by as much as half.
1125-AA71........................ Retrospective Advance notice of
Regulatory future rulemaking
Review Under concerning appeals
E.O. 13563 of of DHS decisions (8
8 CFR Parts CFR part 1103),
1003, 1103, documentary
1211, 1212, requirements for
1215, 1216, aliens (8 CFR parts
1235. 1211 and 1212),
control of aliens
departing from the
United States (8
CFR part 1215),
procedures
governing
conditional
permanent resident
status (8 CFR part
1216), and
inspection of
individuals
applying for
admission to the
United States (8
CFR part 1235). A
number of
attorneys, firms,
and organizations
in immigration
practice are small
entities. EOIR
believes this rule
will improve the
efficiency and
fairness of
adjudications
before EOIR by, for
example,
eliminating
duplication,
ensuring
consistency with
the Department of
Homeland Security's
regulations in
chapter I of title
8 of the CFR, and
delineating more
clearly the
authority and
jurisdiction of
each agency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 13609--Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
The Department is not currently engaged in international regulatory
cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to
significant regulations.
DOJ--CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION (CRT)
Proposed Rule Stage
96. Implemenation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Title II and
TitleE III of the ADA)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-325; 42 U.S.C. 12134(a); 42 U.S.C.
12186(b)
CFR Citation: 28 CFR 35; 28 CFR 36.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule would propose to amend the Department's
regulations implementing title II and title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 28 CFR part 35 and 28 CFR part 36, to implement
changes to the ADA enacted in the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Public
Law 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (Sept. 25, 2008). The ADA Amendments Act
took effect on January 1, 2009.
The ADA Amendments Act amended the Americans with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq., to clarify terms within the definition of
disability and to establish standards that must be applied to determine
if a person has a covered disability. These changes are intended to
mitigate the effects of the Supreme Court's decisions in Sutton v.
United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999), and Toyota Motor Manufacturing v.
Williams, 534, U.S. 184 (2002). Specifically, the ADA Amendments Act
(1) adds illustrative lists of ``major life activities,'' including
``major bodily functions,'' that provide more examples of covered
activities and covered conditions than are now contained in agency
regulations (sec. 3[2]); (2) clarifies that a person who is ``regarded
as'' having a disability does not have to be regarded as being
substantially limited in a major life activity (sec. 3[3]); and (3)
adds rules of construction regarding the definition of disability that
provide guidance in applying the term ``substantially limits'' and
prohibit consideration of mitigating measures in determining whether a
person has a disability (sec. 3[4]).
Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to bring the Department's
ADA regulations into compliance with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008,
which became effective on January 1, 2009. In addition, this rule is
necessary to make the Department's ADA title II and title III
regulations consistent with the ADA title I regulations issued on March
25, 2011 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
incorporating the ADA Amendments Act definition of disability.
Summary of Legal Basis: The summary of the legal basis of authority
for this regulation is set forth above in the abstract.
Alternatives: In order to ensure consistency in application of the
ADA Amendments Act across titles I, II and III of the ADA, this rule is
intended to be consistent with the language of the EEOC's rule
implementing the ADA Amendments Act with respect to title I of the ADA
(employment). The Department will, however, consider alternative
regulatory language suggested by commenters so long as it maintains
that consistency.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department's preliminary
analysis indicates that the proposed rule would not be ``economically
significant,'' that is, the rule will not have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million, or adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy, the environment, public health or
safety or State, local or tribal governments or communities. According
to the Department's preliminary analysis, it is anticipated that the
rule will cost between $36.32 million and $61.8 million in the first
year (the year with the highest costs). The Department estimates that
in the first year of the implementation of the proposed rule,
approximately 142,000 students will take advantage of additional
testing accommodations than otherwise would have been able to without
the changes made to the definition of disability to conform to the ADA
Amendments Act. The Department believes that this will result in
benefits for many of these individuals in the form of significantly
higher earnings potential. The Department expects that the rule will
also have significant non-quantifiable benefits to persons with newly
covered disabilities in other contexts, such as benefits of non-
exclusion from the programs, services and activities of state and local
governments and public accommodations, and the benefits of access to
reasonable modifications of policies, practices and procedures to meet
their needs in a variety of contexts. In this NPRM, the Department will
be soliciting public comment in response to its preliminary analysis.
Risks: The ADA authorizes the Attorney General to enforce the ADA
and to promulgate regulations implementing the law's requirements.
[[Page 1015]]
Failure to update the Department's regulations to conform to statutory
changes and to be consistent with the EEOC regulations under title I of
the ADA will interfere with the Department's enforcement efforts and
lead to confusion about the law's requirements among entities covered
by titles I, II and III of the ADA, as well as members of the public.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 11/00/13 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, Chief, Department of Justice,
Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514-0301.
RIN: 1190-AA59
DOJ--CRT
97. Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-325; 29 U.S.C. 794 (sec 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended); EO 12250 (45 FR 72955; 11/04/
1980)
CFR Citation: 28 CFR 39; 28 CFR 41; 28 CFR 42, subpart G.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule would propose to amend the Department's
regulations implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
as amended, 28 CFR part 39 and part 42, subpart G, and its regulation
implementing Executive Order 12250, 28 CFR part 41, to reflect
statutory amendments to the definition of disability applicable to
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which were enacted in the ADA
Amendments Act of 2008, Public Law 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (Sep. 25,
2008). The ADA Amendments Act took effect on January 1, 2009.
The ADA Amendments Act revised 29 U.S.C. section 705, to make the
definition of disability used in the nondiscrimination provisions in
title V of the Rehabilitation Act consistent with the amended ADA
requirements. These amendments (1) add illustrative lists of ``major
life activities,'' including ``major bodily functions,'' that provide
more examples of covered activities and covered conditions than are now
contained in agency regulations (sec. 3[2]); (2) clarify that a person
who is ``regarded as'' having a disability does not have to be regarded
as being substantially limited in a major life activity (sec. 3[3]);
and (3) add rules of construction regarding the definition of
disability that provide guidance in applying the term ``substantially
limits'' and prohibit consideration of mitigating measures in
determining whether a person has a disability (sec. 3[4]).
The Department anticipates that these changes will be published for
comment in a proposed rule within the next 12 months. During the
drafting of these revisions, the Department will also review the
currently published rules to ensure that any other legal requirements
under the Rehabilitation Act have been properly addressed in these
regulations.
Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to bring the Department's
prior section 504 regulations into compliance with the ADA Amendments
Act of 2008, which became effective on January 1, 2009.
Summary of Legal Basis: The summary of the legal basis of authority
for this regulation is set forth above in the abstract.
Alternatives: Because this NPRM implements statutory changes to the
Section 504 definition of disability, there are no appropriate
alternatives to issuing this NPRM.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department's preliminary
assessment in this early stage of the rulemaking process is that this
rule will not be ``economically significant,'' that is, that the rule
will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million, or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, the environment, public health or safety or State, local or
tribal Governments or communities. The Department's Section 504 rule
will incorporate the same changes made by the ADA Amendments Act to the
definition of disability as are included in the proposed changes to the
ADA title II and title III rules (1190-AA59), which will be published
in the Federal Register in the near future. Therefore, we do not
believe that the revisions to the Department's existing Section 504
federally assisted regulations will have any additional economic
impact, because public and private entities that receive federal
financial assistance from the Department are also likely to be subject
to titles II or III of the ADA. The Department expects to consider
further the economic impact of the proposed rule on the Department's
existing Section 504 federally conducted regulations, but anticipates
that the rule will not be economically significant within the meaning
of Executive Order 12866. This is because the revisions to these
regulations will only apply to the Department's programs and activities
and how those programs and activities are operated so as to ensure
compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements of Section 504. In
the NPRM, the Department will be soliciting public comment in response
to its initial assessment of the impact of the proposed rule.
Risks: Failure to update the Department's Section 504 regulations
to conform to statutory changes will interfere with the Department's
enforcement efforts and lead to confusion about the law's requirements
among entities that receive Federal financial assistance from the
Department or who participate in its federally conducted programs.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, Chief, Department of Justice,
Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514-0301.
RIN: 1190-AA60
DOJ--CRT
98. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web
Information and Services of Public Accommodations
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.
CFR Citation: 28 CFR 36.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Justice is considering proposed
revisions to the regulation implementing title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) in order to address the obligations of
public accommodations to make goods, services, facilities, privileges,
accommodations, or advantages they offer via the Internet, specifically
at sites on the World Wide Web (Web), accessible to individuals with
[[Page 1016]]
disabilities. The ADA requires that public accommodations provide
individuals with disabilities with full and equal enjoyment of their
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and
accommodations. 42. U.S.C. 12182. The Internet as it is known today did
not exist when Congress enacted the ADA. Today the Internet, most
notably the sites on the Web, plays a critical role in the daily
personal, professional, and business life of most Americans.
Increasingly, private entities of all types are providing goods and
services to the public through Web sites that operate as places of
public accommodation under title III of the ADA. Many Web sites of
public accommodations, however, render use by individuals with
disabilities difficult or impossible due to barriers posed by Web sites
designed without accessible features.
Being unable to access Web sites puts individuals with disabilities
at a great disadvantage in today's society, which is driven by a global
marketplace and unprecedented access to information. On the economic
front, electronic commerce, or ``e-commerce,'' often offers consumers a
wider selection and lower prices than traditional ``brick-and-mortar''
storefronts, with the added convenience of not having to leave one's
home to obtain goods and services. Beyond goods and services,
information available on the Internet has become a gateway to
education. Schools at all levels are increasingly offering programs and
classroom instruction through Web sites. Many colleges and universities
offer degree programs online; some universities exist exclusively on
the Internet. The Internet also is changing the way individuals
socialize and seek entertainment. Social networks and other online
meeting places provide a unique way for individuals to meet and
fraternize. These networks allow individuals to meet others with
similar interests and connect with friends, business colleagues,
elected officials, and businesses. They also provide an effective
networking opportunity for entrepreneurs, artists, and others seeking
to put their skills and talents to use. Web sites also bring a myriad
of entertainment and information options for internet users--from games
and music to news and videos.
The ADA's promise to provide an equal opportunity for individuals
with disabilities to participate in and benefit from all aspects of
American civic and economic life will be achieved in today's
technologically advanced society only if it is clear to businesses,
educators, and other public accommodations, that their Web sites must
be accessible. Consequently, the Department is proposing to amend its
title III regulation to expressly address the obligations of public
accommodations to make the Web sites they use to provide their goods
and services to the public accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities under the legal framework established by the ADA. The
proposed regulation will propose the scope of the obligation to provide
accessibility when persons with disabilities attempt to access Web
sites of public accommodations, as well as propose the technical
standards necessary to comply with the ADA.
Statement of Need: Many people with disabilities use ``assistive
technology'' to enable them to use computers and access the Internet.
Individuals who are blind or have low vision who cannot see computer
monitors may use screen readers--devices that speak the text that would
normally appear on a monitor. People who have difficulty using a
computer mouse can use voice recognition software to control their
computers with verbal commands. People with other types of disabilities
may use still other kinds of assistive technology. New and innovative
assistive technologies are being introduced every day.
Web sites that do not accommodate assistive technology, for
example, can create unnecessary barriers for people with disabilities,
just as buildings not designed to accommodate individuals with
disabilities can prevent some individuals from entering and accessing
services. Web designers may not realize how simple features built into
a Web site will assist someone who, for instance, cannot see a computer
monitor or use a mouse. In addition, in many cases, these Web sites do
not provide captioning for videos or live events streamed over the Web,
leaving persons who are deaf or hard of hearing unable to access the
information that is being provided.
Although the Department has been clear that the ADA applies to Web
sites of private entities that meet the definition of ``public
accommodations,'' inconsistent court decisions, differing standards for
determining Web accessibility, and repeated calls for Department action
indicate remaining uncertainty regarding the applicability of the ADA
to Web sites of entities covered by title III. For these reasons, the
Department plans to propose amendments to its regulation so as to make
clear to entities covered by the ADA their obligations to make their
Web sites accessible. Despite the need for action, the Department
appreciates the need to move forward deliberatively. Any regulations
the Department adopts must provide specific guidance to help ensure Web
access to individuals with disabilities without hampering innovation
and technological advancement on the Web.
Summary of Legal Basis: The ADA requires that public accommodations
provide individuals with disabilities with full and equal enjoyment of
their goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and
accommodations. 42 U.S.C. 12182. Increasingly, private entities of all
types are providing goods and services to the public through Web sites
that operate as places of public accommodation under title III of the
ADA.
Alternatives: The Department intends to consider various
alternatives for ensuring full access to Web sites of public
accommodations, including alternative implementation schedules and
technical requirements applicable to certain Web features or based on a
covered entity's size. The Department will solicit public comment
addressing its proposed alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department anticipates that this
rule will be ``economically significant.'' The Department believes that
revising its title III rule to clarify the obligations of public
accommodations to provide accessible Web sites will significantly
increase the opportunities of individuals with disabilities to access
the variety of goods and services public accommodations offer on the
Web, while increasing the number of customers that access the Web sites
to procure the goods and services offered by these public
accommodations. In drafting this NPRM, the Department will attempt to
minimize the compliance costs to public accommodations, while ensuring
the benefits of compliance to persons with disabilities. At this stage
in the process, the Department is not yet able to provide a preliminary
estimate of costs and benefits .
Risks: If the Department does not revise its ADA title III
regulations to address Web site accessibility, persons with
disabilities will continue to be unable to access the many goods and
services of public accommodations available on the Web to individuals
without disabilities.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 07/26/10 75 FR 43460
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 01/24/11
NPRM................................ 04/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1017]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: See also RIN 1190-AA65 which was split from
this RIN of 1190-AA61.
Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, Chief, Department of Justice,
Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514-0301.
RIN: 1190-AA61
DOJ--CRT
99. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Movie Captioning and
Audio Description
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.
CFR Citation: 28 CFR 36.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Following its advance notice of proposed rulemaking
published on July 26, 2010, the Department plans to publish a proposed
rule addressing the requirements for captioning and video description
of movies exhibited in movie theatres under title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Title III prohibits discrimination
on the basis of disability in the activities of places of public
accommodation (private entities whose operations affect commerce and
that fall into one of twelve categories listed in the ADA). 42 U.S.C.
12181-12189. Title III makes it unlawful for places of public
accommodation, such as movie theaters, to discriminate against
individuals with disabilities in the full and equal enjoyment of the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations
of a place of public accommodation (42 U.S.C. 12182[a]). Moreover,
title III prohibits places of public accommodation from affording an
unequal or lesser service to individuals or classes of individuals with
disabilities than is offered to other individuals (42 U.S.C.
12182(b)(1)(A)(ii)). Title III requires places of public accommodation
to take ``such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual
with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise
treated differently because of the absence of auxiliary aids and
services, such as captioning and video description, unless the entity
can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the
nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or
accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden'' (42
U.S.C. 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii)).
Statement of Need: A significant- and increasing-proportion of
Americans have hearing or vision disabilities that prevent them from
fully and effectively understanding movies without captioning or audio
description. For persons with hearing and vision disabilities, the
unavailability of captioned or audio-described movies inhibits their
ability to socialize and fully take part in family outings and deprives
them of the opportunity to meaningfully participate in an important
aspect of American culture. Many individuals with hearing or vision
disabilities who commented on the Department's 2010 ANPRM remarked that
they have not been able to enjoy a commercial movie unless they watched
it on TV, or that when they took their children to the movies they
could not understand what they were seeing or discuss what was
happening with their children.
Today, more and more movies are produced with captions and audio
description. However, despite the underlying ADA obligation, the
advancement of digital technology and the availability of captioned and
audio-described films, many movie theaters are still not exhibiting
captioned or audio-described movies, and when they do exhibit them,
they are only for a few showings of a movie, and usually at off-times.
Recently, a number of theater companies have committed to provide
greater availability of captioning and audio description. In some
cases, these have been nationwide commitments; in other cases it has
only been in a particular state or locality. A uniform Federal ADA
requirement for captioning and audio description is necessary to ensure
that access to movies for persons with hearing and vision disabilities
is not dictated by the individual's residence or the presence of
litigation in their locality.
In addition, the movie theater industry is in the process of
converting its movie screens to use digital technology, and the
Department believes that it will be extremely helpful to provide timely
guidance on the ADA requirements for captioning and audio description
so that the industry may factor this into its conversion efforts and
minimize costs.
Summary of Legal Basis: The summary of the legal basis of authority
for this regulation is set forth above in the abstract.
Alternatives: The Department will consider any public comments that
propose achievable alternatives that will still accomplish the goal of
providing access to movies for persons with hearing and vision
disabilities. However, the Department believes that the baseline
alternative of not providing such access would be inconsistent with the
provisions of title III of the ADA.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department's preliminary
analysis indicates that the proposed rule would not be ``economically
significant,'' that is, that the rule will not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million, or adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy, the environment, public health or
safety or State, local or tribal governments or communities. In the
NPRM, the Department will be soliciting public comment in response to
its preliminary analysis regarding the costs imposed by the rule.
Risks: Without the proposed changes to the Department's title III
regulation, persons with hearing and vision disabilities will continue
to be denied access to movies shown in movie theaters and movie theater
owners and operators will not understand what they are required to do
in order to provide auxiliary aids and services to patrons with hearing
and vision disabilities.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 07/26/10 75 FR 43467
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 01/24/11
NPRM................................ 12/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, Chief, Department of Justice,
Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514-0301.
RIN: 1190-AA63
DOJ--CRT
100. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability: Accessibility of Web
Information and Services of State and Local Governments
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801
is undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
CFR Citation: 28 CFR 35.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department published an ANPRM on July 26, 2010, RIN
1190-
[[Page 1018]]
AA61, that addressed issues relating to proposed revisions of both the
title II and title III ADA regulations in order to provide guidance on
the obligations of covered entities to make programs, services and
activities offered over the Web accessible to individuals with
disabilities.
The Department has now divided the rulemakings in the next step of
the rulemaking process so as to proceed with separate notices of
proposed rulemakings for title II and title III. The title III
rulemaking on Web accessibility will continue under RIN 1190-AA61 and
the title II rulemaking will continue under the new RIN 1190-AA65. This
rulemaking will provide specific guidance to State and local
governments in order to make services, programs, or activities offered
to the public via the Web accessible to individuals with disabilities.
The ADA requires that State and local governments provide qualified
individuals with disabilities equal access to their programs, services,
or activities unless doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of
their programs, services, or activities or would impose an undue
burden. 42 U.S.C. 12132. The Internet as it is known today did not
exist when Congress enacted the ADA; yet today the Internet is
dramatically changing the way that governmental entities serve the
public. Taking advantage of new technology, citizens can now use State
and local government Web sites to correspond online with local
officials; obtain information about government services; renew library
books or driver's licenses; pay fines; register to vote; obtain tax
information and file tax returns; apply for jobs or benefits; and
complete numerous other civic tasks. These Government Web sites are
important because they allow programs and services to be offered in a
more dynamic, interactive way in order to increase citizen
participation; increase convenience and speed in obtaining information
or services; reduce costs in providing information about Government
services and administering programs; reduce the amount of paperwork;
and expand the possibilities of reaching new sectors of the community
or offering new programs or services.
Many States and localities have begun to improve the accessibility
of portions of their Web sites. However, full compliance with the ADA's
promise to provide an equal opportunity for individuals with
disabilities to participate in and benefit from all aspects of the
programs, services, and activities provided by State and local
Governments in today's technologically advanced society will only occur
if it is clear to public entities that their Web sites must be
accessible. Consequently, the Department intends to publish a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend its title II regulations to
expressly address the obligations of public entities to make the Web
sites they use to provide programs, activities, or services or
information to the public accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities under the legal framework established by the ADA. The
proposed regulation will propose the scope of the obligation to provide
accessibility when persons with disabilities access public Web sites,
as well as propose the technical standards necessary to comply with the
ADA.
Statement of Need: Many people with disabilities use ``assistive
technology'' to enable them to use computers and access the Internet.
Individuals who are blind or have low vision who cannot see computer
monitors may use screen readers--devices that speak the text that would
normally appear on a monitor. People who have difficulty using a
computer mouse can use voice recognition software to control their
computers with verbal commands. People with other types of disabilities
may use still other kinds of assistive technology. New and innovative
assistive technologies are being introduced every day.
Web sites that do not accommodate assistive technology, for
example, can create unnecessary barriers for people with disabilities,
just as buildings not designed to accommodate people with disabilities
prevent some individuals from entering and accessing services. Web
designers may not realize how simple features built into a Web site
will assist someone who, for instance, cannot see a computer monitor or
use a mouse. In addition, in many cases, these Web sites do not provide
captioning for videos or live events streamed over the web, leaving
persons who are deaf or hard of hearing unable to access the
information that is being provided. Although an increasing number of
State and local Governments are making efforts to provide accessible
Web sites, because there are no specific ADA standards for Web site
accessibility, these Web sites vary in actual usability.
Summary of Legal Basis: The ADA requires that State and local
Governments provide qualified individuals with disabilities equal
access to their programs, services, or activities unless doing so would
fundamentally alter the nature of their programs, services, or
activities or would impose an undue burden. 42. U.S.C. 12132.
Alternatives: The Department intends to consider various
alternatives for ensuring full access to Web sites of State and local
Governments and will solicit public comment addressing these
alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department anticipates that this
rule will be ``economically significant,'' that is, that the rule will
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million, or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, the
environment, public health or safety or State, local or tribal
Governments or communities. However, the Department believes that
revising its title II rule to clarify the obligations of State and
local Governments to provide accessible Web sites will significantly
increase the opportunities for citizens with disabilities to
participate in, and benefit from, State and local Government programs,
activities, and services. It will also ensure that individuals have
access to important information that is provided over the Internet,
including emergency information. The Department also believes that
providing accessible Web sites will benefit State and local Governments
as it will increase the numbers of citizens who can use these Web
sites, and thus improve the efficiency of delivery of services to the
public. In drafting this NPRM, the Department will attempt to minimize
the compliance costs to State and local Governments while ensuring the
benefits of compliance to persons with disabilities.
Risks: If the Department does not revise its ADA title II
regulations to address Web site accessibility, persons with
disabilities in many communities will continue to be unable to access
their State and local governmental services in the same manner
available to citizens without disabilities, and in some cases will not
be able to access those services at all.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 07/26/10 75 FR 43460
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 01/21/11
NPRM................................ 12/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Additional Information: Split from RIN 1190-AA61.
[[Page 1019]]
Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, Chief, Department of Justice,
Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514-0301.
RIN: 1190-AA65
DOJ--BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES (ATF)
Proposed Rule Stage
101. Machine Guns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms;
Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Corporation, Trust, or
Other Legal Entity With Respect To Making or Transferring a Firearm
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805
CFR Citation: 27 CFR 479
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Justice is planning to finalize a
proposed rule to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding the making or
transferring of a firearm under the National Firearms Act. As proposed,
the rule would (1) add a definition for the term ``responsible
person''; (2) require each responsible person of a corporation, trust
or legal entity to complete a specified form, and to submit photographs
and fingerprints; and (3) modify the requirements regarding the
certificate of the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO).
Statement of Need: The current firearms regulations permit a
corporation, partnership, trust or other legal entity to submit
applications to ATF to acquire firearms registered under the National
Firearms Act (NFA) without a responsible person of such an entity
having to meet requirements currently in place for individuals that
seek to ensure that prohibited persons do not gain access to NFA
firearms (i.e., undergo a background check, provide a certificate of a
CLEO).
Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking is in response to a
petition for rulemaking. No aspect of this rulemaking is required by
statute or court order.
Alternatives: The Agency is soliciting public comment on how the
application process can be made more efficient and effective.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total annual costs are estimated at
$14.9 million and encompass costs to legal entities associated with the
application, ATF processing costs, and costs to local and State
agencies in providing the CLEO certificate. There will be public safety
benefits as the provisions will enable ATF to ensure that responsible
persons within legal entities are not prohibited from possessing NFA
firearms under Federal, State, or local law.
Risks: This proposed rule may prevent a prohibited person, who is a
responsible person in a legal entity, from obtaining an NFA firearm and
using it to commit a violent crime.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/09/13 78 FR 55014
NPRM Comment Period End............. 12/09/13
Final Action........................ 06/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Brenda R. Friend, 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-AA43
BILLING CODE 4410-BP-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Fall 2013 Statement of Regulatory Priorities
For over 100 years, the Labor Department has been central to safe
guarding and expanding the American Dream for American working
families. The Department's Fall 2013 Regulatory Agenda supports that
mission--specifically, Secretary Perez's goal to develop and implement
policies that create opportunity for everyone who wants it. These
include policies that provide the opportunities for:
Workers to acquire the skills they need to succeed;
Employers to have the skilled workforce required to
compete in a global economy;
Employees to earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's work;
Veterans to thrive in the civilian economy;
Persons with disabilities to contribute productively to
the workforce;
Improved health benefits and a dignified retirement; and,
Safe and healthy work environments, fully protected by
anti-discrimination laws.
This narrative describes several of the Department's Plan/Prevent/
Protect, Openness and Transparency, Risk Reduction, and Regulatory
Review and Burden Reduction initiatives. The Fall 2013 Regulatory
Agenda utilizes this combination of approaches as one piece of the
strategy to advance the Department's mission and the Secretary's goal.
Plan/Prevent/Protect. The regulatory actions that comprise the
Department's Plan/Prevent/Protect approach are designed to ensure
employers and other regulated entities are in full compliance with the
law every day, not just when the Department of Labor engages an
employer. First announced with the Spring 2010 Regulatory Agenda, this
strategy shifts the burden of ensuring compliance from the Department--
which cannot and does not want to inspect every workplace--to the
regulated entity itself. Employers, unions, and others who follow the
Department's Plan/Prevent/Protect strategy will assure compliance with
employment laws before Labor Department enforcement personnel ever have
to arrive at their doorsteps. Most important, rules published under
this strategy will continue to assure that workers get the safe,
healthy, diverse, family-friendly, and fair workplaces they deserve. In
the Fall 2013 Regulatory Agenda, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) will propose regulatory actions furthering the Department's
implementation of the Plan/Prevent/Protect strategy.
Openness and Transparency. Greater openness and transparency also
continue to be central to the Department's compliance and regulatory
strategies. The Fall 2013 Regulatory Plan demonstrates the Department's
continued commitment to these two goals, not only as stakeholder
engagement strategies, but also an important means to achieve
compliance in the regulated community. The Department believes that
when employers, workers, advocates, and members of the public have
greater access to information concerning workplace conditions and
expectations, achieving compliance is not only possible but often also
becomes a cooperative exercise. Openness and transparency encourage
greater levels of compliance by the regulated community, enhance
awareness among workers of their rights and benefits, and provide
employers with clear expectations, actionable data, and a level playing
field on which to build their businesses.
Risk Reduction. When the Department identifies specific hazards and
risks to
[[Page 1020]]
worker health, safety, security, or fairness, the Department will
utilize its regulatory powers to limit the risk to workers. The Fall
2013 Regulatory Agenda includes risk reduction initiatives to address
such specific concerns, many of which are discussed in this document.
Regulatory Review and Burden Reduction. On January 18, 2011, the
President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 entitled ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review.'' The E.O. aims to strike the right
balance between protecting the health, welfare, safety, and the
environment for all Americans--a goal at the core of the Labor
Department's mission--while fostering economic growth, job creation,
and competitiveness. The Department's Fall 2013 Regulatory Agenda also
aims to achieve more efficient and less burdensome regulations through
a retrospective review of the Labor Department regulations.
In August 2011, as part of a Government wide response to E.O.
13563, the Department published its ``Plan for Retrospective Analysis
of Existing Rules.'' The plan identified several burden-reducing
regulatory projects. Projects such as OSHA's Standard Improvement
Project--Phase IV (SIP IV) and OSHA's Revising to Record Requirements
in the Mechanical Power Presses Standard are both expected to produce
savings for the covered community.
The Department is also taking action to eliminate regulations that
are no longer effective or enforceable. This effort has included the
removal of obsolete ETA's Job Training Partnership Act program
regulations. The effort will continue with the removal of attestation
requirements for facilities using nonimmigrant aliens as registered
nurses in the H-1A program (authorized by the Immigration Nursing
Relief Act of 1999); removal of attestation requirements for employers
using F-1 students in off-campus work (authorized by the Immigration
Act of 1990); and removal of remove obsolete regulations regarding
labor certification process requirements for logging employment and
non-H-2A agricultural employment. This agenda includes 13 retrospective
review projects.
Pursuant to section 6 of E.O. 13563, the following Regulatory
Identifier Numbers (RINs) are associated with the Department's Plan for
Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules. More information about
completed rulemakings, which are no longer included in the plan, can be
found on Reginfo.gov. The original August 2011 DOL Plan for
Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules and each subsequent update can
be found at http://www.dol.gov/regulations/.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it is expected to
Title of significantly reduce
Regulatory Identifier No. rulemaking burdens on small
businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1218-AC34.................. Bloodborne No.
Pathogens.
1218-AC67.................. Standard Yes.
Improvement
Project--Phase
IV (SIP IV).
1218-AC74.................. Review/Lookback To Be Determined.
of OSHA
Chemical
Standards.
1218-AC80.................. Revising Record No.
Requirements
in the
Mechanical
Power Presses
Standard.
1218-AC81.................. Cranes and No.
Derricks in
Construction:
Amendments.
1219-AB72.................. Criteria and To Be Determined.
Procedures for
Proposed
Assessment of
Civil
Penalties
(Part 100).
1250-AA05.................. Sex To Be Determined.
Discrimination
Guidelines.
1210-AB47.................. Amendment of Yes.
Abandoned Plan
Program.
1205-AB59.................. Equal To Be Determined.
Employment
Opportunity in
Apprenticeship
and Training,
Amendment of
Regulations.
1205-AB62.................. Implementation No.
of Total
Unemployment
Rate Extended
Benefits
Trigger and
Rounding Rule.
1205-AB65.................. Labor No, action will not
Certification increase burden to small
Process for businesses as regulatory
Logging provisions are no longer
Employment and operative.
Non-H-2A
Agricultural
Employment.
1205-AB66.................. Attestations by No, action will not
Employers increase burden to small
Using F-1 businesses as regulatory
Students in provisions are no longer
Off-Campus operative.
Work.
1205-AB67.................. Attestations by No, action will not
Facilities increase burden to small
Using businesses as regulatory
Nonimmigrant provisions are no longer
Aliens as operative.
Registered
Nurses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's Plan/Prevent/Protect, Openness and Transparency,
and Risk Reduction initiatives work in concert with its implementation
of E.O. 13563. These regulations strengthen protections for workers
while maintaining flexibility for businesses to comply. By requiring
employers and other regulated entities to take full ownership of their
compliance with clearly defined Department regulations; by promoting
greater openness and transparency for employers and workers alike; and
by encouraging regulated entities to adopt a strategy that includes
planning and prevention, the Labor Department believes it can increase
compliance with its regulations across all regulated entities. The
increased effectiveness of this compliance strategy will enable the
Department to create opportunity--both for businesses to comply in the
way that is most efficient, least burdensome, and in line with their
existing business practices, and for workers to labor in safe and
healthy environments. A discussion of several of these initiatives
follows.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
OSHA's regulatory program is designed to help workers and employers
[[Page 1021]]
identify hazards in the workplace, prevent the occurrence of injuries
and adverse health effects, and communicate with the regulated
community regarding hazards and how to effectively control them. Long-
recognized health hazards and emerging hazards that place American
workers at risk of serious injury, illness, and death are the focus of
several initiatives on OSHA's regulatory agenda. In addition to
targeting specific hazards, OSHA is focusing on proposing changes to
systematic processes that would modernize the culture of safety in
America's workplaces. OSHA continues work on its retrospective review
projects that when completed will both update outdated regulations and
reduce burdens on regulated employers. OSHA's retrospective review
projects include consideration of the Bloodborne Pathogens standard,
updating consensus standard references in OSHA standards, phase IV of
OSHA's standard improvement project (SIP IV), and reviewing Permissible
Exposure Limits of various hazardous chemicals.
OSHA Plan/Prevent/Protect Initiatives
Infectious Diseases. OSHA is considering the need for
regulatory action to address the risk to workers exposed to infectious
diseases in healthcare and other related high-risk environments.
Healthcare workplaces can range from small private practices of
physicians to hospitals that employ thousands of workers. In addition,
healthcare is increasingly being provided in other settings such as
nursing homes, free-standing surgical and outpatient centers, emergency
care clinics, patients' homes, and pre-hospitalization emergency care
settings. OSHA is concerned with the movement of healthcare delivery
from the traditional hospital setting, with its greater infrastructure
and resources to effectively implement infection control measures, into
more diverse and smaller workplace settings with less infrastructure
and fewer resources, but with an expanding worker population.
OSHA is interested in all routes of infectious disease transmission
in healthcare settings not already covered by its bloodborne pathogens
standard (e.g. contact, droplet, and airborne routes of transmission.)
The agency is particularly concerned by studies that indicate that
transmission of infectious diseases to both patients and healthcare
workers may be occurring as a result of incomplete adherence to
recognized, but voluntary, infection control measures and is
considering an approach that would combine elements of the Department's
Plan/Prevent/Protect strategy with established infection control
practices. The agency received strong stakeholder participation in
response to its May 2010 request for information and July 2011
stakeholder meetings on this topic.
Injury and Illness Prevention Program. OSHA's Injury and
Illness Prevention Program is the prototype for the Department's Plan/
Prevent/Protect strategy. OSHA's first step in this important
rulemaking was to hold four well attended stakeholder meetings across
the country. The proposed rule will explore requiring employers to
provide their employees with opportunities to participate in the
development and implementation of an injury and illness prevention
program, including a systematic process to proactively and continuously
address workplace safety and health hazards. This rule will involve
planning, implementing, evaluating, and improving processes and
activities that promote worker safety and health hazards. OSHA has
substantial evidence showing that employers who have implemented
similar injury and illness prevention programs have reduced
significantly injuries and illnesses in their workplaces. The new rule
would build on OSHA's existing Safety and Health Program Management
Guidelines and lessons learned from successful approaches and best
practices that have been applied by companies participating in OSHA's
Voluntary Protection Program and Safety and Health Achievement
Recognition Program, and similar industry and international
initiatives.
OSHA Openness and Transparency Initiatives
Modernizing Recordkeeping. OSHA held informal meetings to
gather information from experts and stakeholders regarding the
modification of its current injury and illness data collection system
that will help the agency, employers, employees, researchers, and the
public prevent workplace injuries and illnesses. Under the proposed
rule, OSHA will explore requiring employers to submit electronically to
the Agency data required by its part 1904 regulations governing the
Recording and Reporting of Occupational Injuries. OSHA learned from
stakeholders that most large employers already maintain their part 1904
data electronically. As a result, electronic submission will constitute
only a minimal additional burden on these employers, while providing a
wealth of data to help OSHA, employers, employees, researchers, and the
public prevent workplace injuries and illnesses. The proposed rule
would not add to or change the recording criteria or definitions in
part 1904. The proposed rule would only modify employers' obligations
to transmit information from these records to OSHA.
Whistleblower Protection Regulations. The ability of
workers to speak out and exercise their legal rights without fear of
retaliation is essential to many of the legal protections and
safeguards that all Americans value. Whether the goal is the safety of
our food, drugs, or workplaces, the integrity of our financial system,
or the security of our transportation systems, whistleblowers have been
essential to ensuring that our laws are fully and fairly executed. In
the Fall 2013 Regulatory Agenda, OSHA proposes to issue procedural
rules that will establish consistent and transparent procedures for the
filing of whistleblower complaints under seven statutes. These
procedural rules will strengthen OSHA's enforcement of its
whistleblower program by providing specific timeframes and guidance for
filing a complaint with OSHA, issuing a finding, avenues of appeal, and
allowable remedies.
OSHA Risk Reduction Initiatives
Silica. OSHA has announced a proposed rule aimed at
curbing lung cancer, silicosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
and kidney disease in America's workers. The proposal seeks to lower
worker exposure to crystalline silica, which kills hundreds of workers
and sickens thousands more each year. Once the full effects of the rule
are realized, OSHA estimates that the proposed rule would result in
saving nearly 700 lives per year and prevent 1,600 new cases of
silicosis annually. Reducing these hazardous exposures through
promulgation and enforcement of a comprehensive health standard will
contribute to OSHA's goal of reducing occupational fatalities and
illnesses. As a part of the Secretary's strategy for securing safe and
healthy work environments, MSHA will also utilize information provided
by OSHA to undertake regulatory action related to silica exposure in
mines.
Preventing Backover Injuries and Fatalities. According to
the Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics, backing accidents caused
at least 75 occupational deaths in 2011. Emerging technologies that
address the risks of backing operations include cameras, radar, and
sonar--to help view or detect the presence of workers on foot in blind
areas--and new monitoring technology, such as tag-based warning systems
that
[[Page 1022]]
use radio frequency (RFID) and magnetic field generators on equipment
to detect electronic tags worn by workers. OSHA is collecting
information on this hazard and researching emerging technologies that
may help reduce this risk. OSHA published an RFI on March 27, 2012
seeking information from the public; the comment period ended on July
27, 2012. The Agency has held stakeholder meetings in Washington, DC
and Arlington, TX, and is also conducting site visits to employers.
Reinforced Concrete in Construction. Currently, workers
performing steel reinforcing suffer injuries caused by unsafe material
handling, structural collapse, and impalement by protruding reinforcing
steel dowels, among others. OSHA IMIS data indicates that 31 workers
died while performing work on or near post-tensioning operations or
reinforcing steel between 2000 and 2009. Current rules regarding
reinforcing steel and post-tensioning activities may not adequately
address hazards facing workers engaged in these activities. OSHA has
published an RFI seeking information about the hazards associated with
reinforcing operations in construction.
OSHA Regulatory Review and Burden Reduction Initiatives
Bloodborne Pathogens. OSHA will undertake a review of the
Bloodborne Pathogen Standard in accordance with the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, section 5 of Executive Order 12866, and
E.O. 13563. The review will consider the continued need for the rule;
whether the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal,
State or local regulations; and the degree to which technology,
economic conditions, or other factors may have changed since the rule
was implemented.
Standard Improvement Project-- Phase IV (SIP IV). 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, thus reducing costs or paperwork burden on
affected employers without diminishing employee protections. OSHA has
published an RFI in the Federal Register asking the public for
candidate ideas for improvements in its construction safety standards
(77 FR 72781: December 6, 2012). Candidate ideas were presented to the
Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health at its May and
August 2013 meetings.
Review-Lookback of OSHA Chemical Standards. The majority
of OSHA's Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) were adopted in 1971 under
section 6(a) of the OSH Act, and only a few have been successfully
updated since that time. There is widespread agreement among industry,
labor, and professional occupational safety and health organizations
that OSHA's PELs are outdated and need revising to reflect newer
scientific data that indicate that significant occupational health
risks exist at levels below OSHA's current PELs. As part of the
Department's Regulatory Review and Lookback Efforts, OSHA is developing
a Request for Information (RFI), seeking input from the public to help
the Agency identify effective ways to address occupational exposure to
chemicals.
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
The Department believes that every worker has a right to a safe and
healthy workplace. Workers should never have to sacrifice their lives
for their livelihood. All workers deserve to come home to their
families at the end of their shift safe and whole. MSHA's approach to
reducing workplace fatalities and injuries includes promulgating and
enforcing mandatory health and safety standards. MSHA's retrospective
review project under E.O.13563 addresses revising the process for
proposing civil penalties.
MSHA Plan/Prevent/Protect Initiatives
Proximity Detection Systems for Continuous Mining Machines
in Underground Coal Mines. From 1984 to 2012, there have been 33
fatalities resulting from pinning, crushing or striking accidents
involving continuous mining machines. Proximity detection technology
can prevent these types of accidents. Proximity detection systems can
be installed on mining machinery to detect the presence of personnel or
equipment within a certain distance of the machine. MSHA published a
proposed rule to address the danger that miners face when working near
continuous mining machines in underground coal mines. The rule would
strengthen the protection for underground miners by reducing the
potential for pinning, crushing, or striking hazards associated with
working close to continuous mining machines.
Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in
Underground Mines. MSHA plans to publish a proposed rule to require
underground mine operators to equip certain mobile machines, with
proximity detection systems. Miners working near mobile machines face
pinning, crushing, and striking hazards that have resulted, and
continue to result, in accidents involving life threatening injuries
and death. Proximity detection technology can prevent these types of
accidents by detecting the presence of personnel or equipment within a
certain distance of the machine. The proposal would strengthen
protections for miners by reducing the potential for pinning, crushing,
or striking accidents in underground mines.
MSHA Risk Reduction Initiatives
Lowering Miners' Exposure to Coal Mine Dust, Including
Continuous Personal Dust Monitors. MSHA will continue its regulatory
action related to preventing Black Lung disease. Data from the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) indicate increased
prevalence of coal workers pneumoconiosis (CWP) ``clusters'' in several
geographical areas, particularly in the Southern Appalachian Region.
MSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to address continued
risk to coal miners from exposure to respirable coal mine dust. This
regulatory action is part of MSHA's Comprehensive Black Lung Reduction
Strategy for reducing miners' exposure to respirable dust. This
strategy includes enhanced enforcement, education and training, and
health outreach and collaboration.
Regulatory Actions in Response to Recommendations
Resulting From the Investigation of the Upper Big Branch Explosion. On
April 5, 2010, a massive coal dust explosion occurred at the Upper Big
Branch Mine. Following the explosion, MSHA conducted its investigation
under the authority of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977,
for the purpose of obtaining, using, and disseminating information
relating to the causes of accidents. The accident report included
recommendations for regulatory actions to prevent a recurrence of this
type of accident. MSHA also conducted an internal review (IR) into the
Agency's actions leading to the explosion. The IR report also included
recommendations for regulatory actions. In response to the
recommendations, MSHA expects to address issues associated with rock
dusting, ventilation, the operator's responsibility for certain mine
examinations and certified persons.
Respirable Crystalline Silica Standard. The Agency's
regulatory actions demonstrate its commitment to protecting the most
vulnerable
[[Page 1023]]
populations while assuring broad-based compliance. Health hazards are
pervasive in both coal and metal/nonmetal mines, including surface and
underground mines and large and small mines. Overexposure to
crystalline silica can result in some miners developing silicosis, an
irreversible but preventable lung disease, which ultimately may be
fatal. In its proposed rule, MSHA plans to follow the recommendations
of the Secretary of Labor's Advisory Committee on the Elimination of
Pneumoconiosis Among Coal Mine Workers, the NIOSH, and other groups to
address the exposure limit for respirable crystalline silica. As an
example of intra-departmental collaboration, MSHA intends to consider
OSHA's work on the health effects of occupational exposure to silica
and OSHA's risk assessment in developing the appropriate standard for
the mining industry.
MSHA Regulatory Review and Burden Reduction Initiative
Criteria and Procedures for Proposed Assessment of Civil
Penalties (Part 100). MSHA plans to publish a proposed rule to revise
the process for proposing civil penalties. The assessment of civil
penalties is a key component in MSHA's strategy to enforce safety and
health standards. The Congress intended that the imposition of civil
penalties would induce mine operators to be proactive in their approach
to mine safety and health, and take necessary action to prevent safety
and health hazards before they occur. MSHA believes that the procedures
for assessing civil penalties can be revised to improve the efficiency
of the Agency's efforts and to facilitate the resolution of enforcement
issues.
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)
Through the work of OFCCP, DOL ensures that contractors and
subcontractors doing business with the Federal Government provide equal
employment opportunity and take affirmative action to create fair and
diverse workplaces. OFCCP also combats discrimination based on race,
color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or status as a
protected veteran by ensuring that federal contractors recruit, hire,
train, promote, terminate, and compensate workers in a
nondiscriminatory manner. DOL, through OFCCP, protects workers,
promotes diversity and enforces civil rights laws.
OFCCP Plan/Prevent/Protect Initiative
Construction Contractor Affirmative Action Requirements.
OFCCP plans to publish a proposed rule that would enhance the
effectiveness of the affirmative action programs of Federal and
federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors. The
existing regulations provide that the Director is to issue goals and
timetables for the utilization of minorities and women based on
appropriate workforce, demographic or other relevant data. The existing
minority goals for construction were issued in 1980 based on 1970
Census data, the most current data available at the time. The goals for
the utilization of women in construction occupations were issued in
1978, and extended indefinitely in 1980, were also developed using 1970
Census data. The proposed rule would remove these outdated goals and
provide contractors increased flexibility to assess their workforce and
determine whether disparities in the utilization of women or the
utilization of a particular racial or ethnic group in an on-site
construction job group exist. The proposed rule would also provide
contractors and subcontractors the tools to assess their progress and
appropriately tailor their affirmative action plans. The proposed rule
would strengthen affirmative action programs particularly in the areas
of recruitment, training, and apprenticeships. The proposed rule would
also allow contractors and subcontractors to focus on their affirmative
action obligations earlier in the contracting process.
OFCCP Regulatory Review and Burden Reduction Initiative
Sex Discrimination Guidelines. OFCCP proposes updating
regulations setting forth contractors' obligations not to discriminate
on the basis of sex under Executive Order 11246, as amended. The Sex
Discrimination Guidelines, found at 41 CFR Part 60-20, have not been
updated in more than 30 years. Since that time, the nature and extent
of women's participation in the labor force and employer policies and
practices have changed significantly. In addition, extensive changes in
the law regarding sex-based employment discrimination have taken place.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which generally governs the
law of sex-based employment discrimination, has been amended twice.
OFCCP will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to create sex
discrimination regulations that reflect the current state of the law in
this area.
Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) is responsible
for administering and enforcing the fiduciary, reporting and
disclosure, and health coverage provisions of title I of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). This includes recent
amendments and additions to ERISA enacted in the Pension Protection Act
of 2006, as well as new health coverage provisions under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (the Affordable Care Act).
EBSA's regulatory plan initiatives are intended to improve health
benefits and retirement security for workers in every type of job at
every income level. EBSA is charged with protecting approximately 141
million individuals covered by an estimated 701,000 private retirement
plans, 2.3 million health plans, and similar numbers of other welfare
benefit plans, which together hold $7.3 trillion in assets.
EBSA will continue to issue guidance implementing the health reform
provisions of the Affordable Care Act to help provide better quality
health care for America's workers and their families. EBSA's
regulations reduce discrimination in health coverage, promote better
access to quality coverage, and protect the ability of individuals and
businesses to keep their current health coverage. Many regulations are
joint rulemakings with the Departments of Health and Human Services and
the Treasury.
Using regulatory changes to produce greater openness and
transparency is an integral part of EBSA's contribution to a
department-wide compliance strategy. These efforts will not only
enhance EBSA's enforcement toolbox but will also encourage greater
levels of compliance by the regulated community and improve awareness
among workers of their rights and benefits. EBSA's Fall 2013 agenda
expands disclosure requirements, substantially enhancing the
availability of information to employee benefit plan participants and
beneficiaries and employers, and strengthening the retirement security
of America's workers. EBSA's retrospective review project under E.O.
13563 is the Abandoned Plan Program amendments.
EBSA Risk Reduction Initiative
Health Reform Implementation. Since the passage of health
care reform, EBSA has helped put the employment-based health provisions
into action. Working with HHS and Treasury, EBSA
[[Page 1024]]
has issued regulations covering issues such as the elimination of
preexisting condition exclusions for children under age 19, internal
and external appeals of benefit denials, the extension of coverage for
children up to age 26, and a ban on rescissions (which are retroactive
terminations of health care coverage). These regulations will
eventually impact up to 129 million individuals in employer-sponsored
plans. EBSA will continue its work to ensure a smooth implementation of
the legislation's market reforms, minimize disruption to existing plans
and practices, and strengthen America's health care system.
Enhancing Participant Protections by Reducing Conflicts of
Interest. EBSA plans to re-propose amendments to its regulations to
reduce harmful conflicts of interest by clarifying the circumstances
under which a person will be considered a ``fiduciary'' when providing
investment advice to retirement plans and other employee benefit plans,
to participants and beneficiaries of such plans, and to owners of
individual retirement accounts (IRAs). The amendments would consider
current practices of investment advisers and the expectations of plan
officials and participants who receive investment advice, as well as
changes that have occurred in the investment marketplace and in the
ways advisers are compensated since the current regulation's issuance.
These compensation arrangements frequently subject advisers to harmful
conflicts of interest that can compromise the quality of advice given
to plan participants and IRA owners. This initiative is intended to
assure retirement security for workers in all jobs regardless of income
level by ensuring that financial advisers and similar persons are
required to meet ERISA's standards of care and not to act on conflicts
of interest when providing the investment advice relied upon by
millions of plan sponsors and workers.
EBSA Openness and Transparency Initiative
In addition to its health care reform and participant protection
initiatives discussed above, EBSA is pursuing a regulatory program
that, as reflected in the Unified Agenda, is designed to encourage,
foster, and promote openness, transparency, and communication with
respect to the management and operations of pension plans, as well as
participant rights and benefits under such plans. Among other things,
EBSA will be issuing a final rule addressing the requirement that
administrators of defined benefit pension plans annually disclose the
funding status of their plan to the plan's participants and
beneficiaries (RIN 1210-AB18). In addition, EBSA will be finalizing
amendments to the disclosure requirements applicable to plan investment
options, including Qualified Default Investment Alternatives, to better
ensure that participants understand the operations and risks associated
with investments in target date funds (RIN 1210-AB38).
Lifetime Income Options. In 2010 EBSA published a request
for information concerning steps it can take by regulation, or
otherwise, to encourage the offering of lifetime annuities or similar
lifetime benefit distribution options for participants and
beneficiaries of defined contribution plans. EBSA also held a hearing
with the Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service to
further explore these possibilities. This initiative is intended to
assure retirement security for workers in all jobs regardless of income
level by helping to ensure that participants and beneficiaries have the
benefit of their plan savings throughout retirement. EBSA now has
established a public record that supports further consideration or
action in a number of areas including pension benefit statements,
participant education, and fiduciary guidance. With regard to pension
benefit statements specifically, EBSA published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking under ERISA section 105 relating to the
presentation of a participant's accrued benefits; i.e., the
participant's account balance, as a lifetime income stream of payments,
in addition to presenting the benefits as an account balance (RIN 1210-
AB20). In further support of this initiative, EBSA also is developing
proposed amendments to a safe harbor regulation (29 CFR section
2550.404a-4) that will provide plan fiduciaries with more certainty
that they have discharged their obligations under section 404(a)(1)(B)
of ERISA in selecting an annuity plan provider and contract for benefit
distributions from an individual account retirement plan (RIN: 1210-
AB58).
EBSA Regulatory Review and Burden Reduction Initiative
Abandoned Plan Program Amendment. In 2006, the Department
published regulations that facilitate the termination and winding up of
401(k)-type retirement plans that have been abandoned by their plan
sponsors. The regulation establishes a streamlined program under which
plans are terminated with very limited involvement of EBSA regional
offices. EBSA has six years of experience with this program and
believes certain changes would improve the efficiency of the program
and increase its usage. EBSA expects that the cost burden reduction
that will result from this initiative will be approximately $500,000
because the prompt, efficient termination of abandoned plans will
eliminate future administrative expenses charged to the plans that
otherwise would diminish plan assets. Moreover, by following the
specific standards and procedures set forth in the rule, the Department
expects that overall plan termination costs will be reduced because of
increased efficiency.
EBSA intends to revise the regulations to expand the program to
include plans of businesses in liquidation proceedings to reflect
recent changes in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Department believes
that this expansion has the potential to substantially reduce burdens
on these plans and bankruptcy trustees. Plans of businesses in
liquidation currently do not have the option of using the streamlined
termination and winding-up procedures under the program. This is true
even though bankruptcy trustees, pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code, can
have a legal duty to administer the plan. Expanding the program to
cover these plans will allow eligible bankruptcy trustees to use the
streamlined termination process to better discharge their obligations
under the law. The use of streamlined procedures will reduce the amount
of time and overall cost it would take to terminate and wind up such
plans. This will result in larger benefit distributions to participants
and beneficiaries in such plans. The expansion also will eliminate
government filings ordinarily required of terminating plans.
Participation in the program will reduce the overall cost of
terminating and winding-up such plans, which will result in larger
benefit distributions to participants and beneficiaries in such plans.
EBSA estimates that approximately 165 additional plans will benefit
from the Amended Abandoned Plan Program allowing bankruptcy trustees to
participate in the program. The amendment expanding the program will
provide substantial benefits to plans of sponsors in Chapter 7
bankruptcy liquidation and bankruptcy trustees through the orderly
termination of plans, less service provider fees, and preservation of
assets for participants and beneficiaries, while imposing minimal
costs.
[[Page 1025]]
Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS)
The Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) administers and
enforces most provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA). The LMRDA promotes labor-management
transparency by requiring unions, employers, labor-relations
consultants, and others to file reports, which are publicly available.
The LMRDA includes provisions protecting union member rights to
participate in their union's governance, to run for office and fully
exercise their union citizenship, as well as procedural safeguards to
ensure free and fair union elections. Besides enforcing these
provisions, OLMS also ensures the financial accountability of unions,
their officers and employees, through enforcement and voluntary
compliance efforts. Because of these activities, OLMS better ensures
that workers have a more effective voice in the governance of their
unions, which in turn affords them a more effective voice in their
workplaces. OLMS also administers Executive Order 13496, which requires
Federal contractors to notify their employees concerning their rights
to organize and bargain collectively under Federal labor laws. OLMS
also implements a federal transportation law by ensuring that workplace
rights of mass transit employees will be protected whenever federal
funds are used to acquire, improve, or operate a transit system.
OLMS Openness and Transparency
Persuader Agreements--Employer and Labor Relations
Consultant Reporting under the LMRDA. OLMS published a proposed
regulatory initiative in June 2011, which is a transparency regulation
intended to provide workers with information critical to their
effective participation in the workplace. The proposed regulations
would better implement the public disclosure objectives of the LMRDA in
situations where an employer engages a consultant in order to persuade
employees concerning their rights to organize and bargain collectively.
Under LMRDA section 203, an employer must report any agreement or
arrangement with a consultant to persuade employees concerning their
rights to organize and collectively bargain, or to obtain certain
information concerning activities of employees or a labor organization
in connection with a labor dispute involving the employer. The
consultant is also required to report such an agreement or arrangement
with an employer. Statutory exceptions to these reporting requirements
are set forth in LMRDA section 203(c), which provides, in part, that
employers and consultants are not required to file a report by reason
of the consultant's giving or agreeing to give ``advice'' to the
employer. The Department in its proposal reconsidered the current
policy concerning the scope of the ``advice'' exception. When workers
have the necessary information about arrangements that have been made
by their employer to persuade them whether or not to form, join, or
assist a union, they are better able to make a more informed choice
about representation.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) administers and
oversees programs that prepare workers for good jobs at good wages by
providing high quality job training, employment, labor market
information, and income maintenance services through its national
network of American Job Centers. The programs within ETA promote
ladders of opportunity to economic independence for individuals and
families. Through several laws, ETA is charged with administering
numerous employment and training programs designed to assist the
American worker in developing the knowledge, skills, and abilities
sought in the 21st century's economy.
ETA Regulatory Review and Burden Reduction
Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship and
Training, Amendment of Regulations. The revision of the National
Apprenticeship Act's Equal Opportunity in Apprenticeship and Training
(EEO) regulations is a critical element in the Department's vision to
promote and expand registered apprenticeship opportunities, and to meet
the changing workforce, demographic and industry needs. The regulation
will help eliminate much of the uncertainty around the current
regulations; simplifying outdated procedures and requirements, while
establishing clearer expectations with regard to EEO on behalf of
apprenticeship sponsors. In October 2008, ETA issued a final rule
updating 29 CFR part 29, the regulatory framework for registration of
apprenticeship programs and apprentices, and administration of the
National Apprenticeship System. The companion EEO regulations, 29 CFR
part 30, have not been amended since 1978, and the proposed regulation
will provide consistency with Federal EEO laws developed over the last
35 years. ETA proposes to update part 30 EEO in the Apprenticeship and
Training regulations to ensure that they act in concert with the 2008
revised part 29 rule. The proposed EEO regulations also will further
Secretary Perez's vision to create more opportunities for everyone by
ensuring that apprenticeship program sponsors develop and fully
implement nondiscrimination and affirmative action efforts that provide
equal opportunity for all applicants to apprenticeship and apprentices,
regardless of race, gender, national origin, color, religion, or
disability.
Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program;
Implementing the Total Unemployment Rate As An Extended Benefits
Indicator and Amending For Technical Corrections. This rule will update
regulations to conform to existing law and State practice. It will
benefit State Unemployment Insurance systems by removing any potential
confusion between complying with guidance and current Federal law.
Elimination of several obsolete program regulations from
the Code of Federal Regulations. ETA plans to pursue four regulatory
projects that will eliminate regulations that are no longer effective
or enforceable because their underlying program authority was
superseded or no longer exists. These include the Labor Certification
Process for Logging Employment and Non-H-2A Agricultural Employment
(RIN 1205-AB65), Attestations by Employers Using F-1 Students in Off-
Campus Work (RIN 1205-AB66), and Attestations by Facilities Using
Nonimmigrant Aliens as Registered Nurses (RIN 1205-AB67).
BILLING CODE 4510-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)
Introduction: Department Overview and Summary of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Transportation (DOT) consists of 10 operating
administrations and the Office of the Secretary, each of which has
statutory responsibility for a wide range of regulations. DOT regulates
safety in the aviation, motor carrier, railroad, motor vehicle,
commercial space, public transportation, and pipeline transportation
areas. DOT also regulates aviation consumer and economic issues and
provides financial assistance for programs involving highways,
airports, public transportation, the maritime industry, railroads, and
motor vehicle safety. In addition, the Department
[[Page 1026]]
writes regulations to carry out a variety of statutes ranging from the
Americans With Disabilities Act to the Uniform Time Act. Finally, DOT
develops and implements a wide range of regulations that govern
internal DOT programs such as acquisitions and grants, access for the
disabled, environmental protection, energy conservation, information
technology, occupational safety and health, property asset management,
seismic safety, and the use of aircraft and vehicles.
The Department's Regulatory Priorities
The Department's regulatory priorities respond to the challenges
and opportunities we face. Our mission generally is as follows:
The national objectives of general welfare, economic growth and
stability, and the security of the United States require the
development of transportation policies and programs that contribute to
providing fast, safe, efficient, and convenient transportation at the
lowest cost consistent with those and other national objectives,
including the efficient use and conservation of the resources of the
United States.
To help us achieve our mission, we have five goals in the
Department's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012-2016:
Safety: Improve safety by ``reducing transportation-
related fatalities and injuries.''
State of Good Repair: Improve the condition of our
Nation's transportation infrastructure.
Economic Competitiveness: Foster ``smart strategic
investments that will serve the traveling public and facilitate freight
movements.''
Livable Communities: Foster livable communities through
``coordinated, place-based policies and investments that increase
transportation choices and access to transportation services.''
Environmental Sustainability: Advance environmental
sustainability ``through strategies such as fuel economy standards for
cars and trucks, more environmentally sound construction and
operational practices, and by expanding opportunities for shifting
freight from less fuel-efficient modes to more fuel-efficient modes.''
In identifying our regulatory priorities for the next year, the
Department considered its mission and goals and focused on a number of
factors, including the following:
The relative risk being addressed
Requirements imposed by statute or other law
Actions on the National Transportation Safety Board ``Most
Wanted List''
The costs and benefits of the regulations
The advantages of nonregulatory alternatives
Opportunities for deregulatory action
The enforceability of any rule, including the effect on
agency resources
This regulatory plan identifies the Department's regulatory
priorities--the 19 pending rulemakings chosen, from among the dozens of
significant rulemakings listed in the Department's broader regulatory
agenda, that the Department believes will merit special attention in
the upcoming year. The rules included in the regulatory plan embody the
Department's focus on our strategic goals.
The regulatory plan reflects the Department's primary focus on
safety--a focus that extends across several modes of transportation.
For example:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will continue
its efforts to implement safety management systems.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
continues its work to strengthen the requirements for Electronic On-
Board Recorders and revise motor carrier safety fitness procedures.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
will continue its rulemaking efforts to reduce death and injury
resulting from incidents involving motorcoaches.
Each of the rulemakings in the regulatory plan is described below
in detail. In order to place them in context, we first review the
Department's regulatory philosophy and our initiatives to educate and
inform the public about transportation safety issues. We then describe
the role of the Department's retrospective reviews and its regulatory
process and other important regulatory initiatives of OST and of each
of the Department's components. Since each transportation ``mode''
within the Department has its own area of focus, we summarize the
regulatory priorities of each mode and of OST, which supervises and
coordinates modal initiatives and has its own regulatory
responsibilities, such as consumer protection in the aviation industry.
The Department's Regulatory Philosophy and Initiatives
The Department has adopted a regulatory philosophy that applies to
all its rulemaking activities. This philosophy is articulated as
follows: DOT regulations must be clear, simple, timely, fair,
reasonable, and necessary. They will be issued only after an
appropriate opportunity for public comment, which must provide an equal
chance for all affected interests to participate, and after appropriate
consultation with other governmental entities. The Department will
fully consider the comments received. It will assess the risks
addressed by the rules and their costs and benefits, including the
cumulative effects. The Department will consider appropriate
alternatives, including nonregulatory approaches. It will also make
every effort to ensure that regulation does not impose unreasonable
mandates.
The Department stresses the importance of conducting high-quality
rulemakings in a timely manner and reducing the number of old
rulemakings. To implement this, the Department has required the
following actions: (1) Regular meetings of senior DOT officials to
ensure effective policy leadership and timely decisions, (2) effective
tracking and coordination of rulemakings, (3) regular reporting, (4)
early briefings of interested officials, (5) regular training of staff,
and (6) adequate allocations of resources. The Department has achieved
significant success because of this effort. It allows the Department to
use its resources more effectively and efficiently.
The Department's regulatory policies and procedures provide a
comprehensive internal management and review process for new and
existing regulations and ensure that the Secretary and other
appropriate appointed officials review and concur in all significant
DOT rules. DOT continually seeks to improve its regulatory process. A
few examples include: The Department's development of regulatory
process and related training courses for its employees; its use of an
electronic, Internet-accessible docket that can also be used to submit
comments electronically; a ``list serve'' that allows the public to
sign up for email notification when the Department issues a rulemaking
document; creation of an electronic rulemaking tracking and
coordination system; the use of direct final rulemaking; the use of
regulatory negotiation; a continually expanding and improved Internet
page that provides important regulatory information, including
``effects'' reports and status reports (http://www.dot.gov/regulations); and the continued exploration and use of Internet blogs
and other Web 2.0 technology to increase and enhance public
participation in its rulemaking process.
In addition, the Department continues to engage in a wide variety
of activities to help cement the partnerships between its agencies and
its customers
[[Page 1027]]
that will produce good results for transportation programs and safety.
The Department's agencies also have established a number of continuing
partnership mechanisms in the form of rulemaking advisory committees.
The Department's Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
In accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review), the Department actively engaged in a
special retrospective review of our existing rules to determine whether
they need to be revised or revoked. This review was in addition to
those reviews in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, E.O. 12866, and the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures. As part of this effort, we also reviewed our processes
for determining what rules to review and ensuring that the rules are
effectively reviewed. As a result of the review, we identified many
rules for expedited review and changes to our retrospective review
process. Pursuant to section 6 of E.O. 13563, the following Regulatory
Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated with
retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory
Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov
in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can
also be found on Regulations.gov. The final agency plan can be found at
http://www.dot.gov/regulations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significantly reduces
RIN Title costs on small
businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2120-AJ90................................. Effective Tether System (Tether Rule) ........................
(RRR).
2. 2120-AJ94................................. Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) ........................
(RRR).
3. 2120-AJ97................................. 14 CFR Part 16; Rules of Practice for Y
Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement
Proceedings (RRR).
4. 2120-AK01................................. Combined Drug and Alcohol Testing Y
Programs for Operators Conducting
Commercial Air Tours (RRR).
5. 2120-AK11................................. Minimum Altitudes for Use of Autopilots ........................
(RRR).
6. 2120-AK28................................. Part 61 and 91 Recommended Rule Changes ........................
(RRR).
7. 2120-AK32................................. Acceptance Criteria for Portable Oxygen ........................
Concentrators Used Onboard Aircraft
(RRR).
8. 2125-AF44................................. Administration of Engineering and ........................
Design Related Service Contracts (RRR).
9. 2126-AB46................................. Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance; Y
Driver-Vehicle Inspection Report (RRR).
10. 2126-AB47................................ Electronic Signatures (E-Signatures) Y
(RRR).
11. 2126-AB49................................ Elimination of Redundant Maintenance Y
Rule (RRR).
12. 2127-AK99................................ Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 108; Y
Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment--Color Boundaries
(RRR).
13. 2127-AL05................................ Amend FMVSS No. 210 to Incorporate the Y
Use of a New Force Application Device
(RRR).
14. 2127-AL24................................ Rapid Tire Deflation Test in FMVSS No. ........................
110 (RRR).
15. 2130-AC27................................ Positive Train Control Systems Y
Amendments (RRR).
16. 2130-AC32................................ Positive Train Control Systems: De Y
Minimis Exception, Yard Movements, En
Route Failures; Miscellaneous Grade
Crossing/Signal and Train Control
Amendments (RRR).
17. 2130-AC40................................ Qualification and Certification of ........................
Locomotive Engineers; Miscellaneous
Revisions (RRR).
18. 2130-AC41................................ Hours of Service Recordkeeping; ........................
Electronic Recordkeeping Amendments
(RRR).
19. 2130-AC43................................ Safety Glazing Standards; Miscellaneous ........................
Revisions (RRR).
20. 2130-AC44................................ Revisions to Signal System Reporting ........................
Requirements (RRR).
21. 2132-AB02................................ Major Capital Investment Projects (RRR) ........................
22. 2132-AB03................................ Environmental Impact and Related ........................
Procedures (RRR).
23. 2133-AB79................................ Administrative Claims, Part 327 (RRR).. ........................
24. 2137-AE38................................ Hazardous Materials: Compatibility With ........................
the Regulations of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (RRR).
25. 2137-AE62................................ Hazardous Materials: Approval and Y
Communication Requirements for the
Safe Transportation of Air Bag
Inflators, Air Bag Modules, and Seat-
Belt Pretensioners (RRR).
26. 2137-AE70................................ Hazardous Materials: Revision of Y
Requirements for Fireworks Approvals
(RRR).
27. 2137-AE72................................ Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Y
Transmission Pipelines(RRR).
28. 2137-AE78................................ Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous Y
Amendments (RRR).
29. 2137-AE79................................ Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous Y
Amendments; Petitions for Rulemaking
(RRR).
30. 2137-AE80................................ Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous Y
Pressure Vessel Requirements (DOT Spec
Cylinders) (RRR).
31. 2137-AE81................................ Hazardous Materials: Reverse Logistics Y
(RRR).
32. 2137-AE82................................ Hazardous Materials: Incorporation of Y
Certain Special Permits and Competent
Authorities into the HMR (RRR).
33. 2137-AE85................................ Pipeline Safety: Periodic Updates of ........................
Regulatory References to Technical
Standards and Miscellaneous Amendments
(RRR).
34. 2137-AE86................................ Hazardous Materials: Requirements for ........................
the Safe Transportation of Bulk
Explosives (RRR).
35. 2137-AE87................................ Hazardous Materials: Harmonization with ........................
International Standards (RRR).
36. 2137-AE91................................ Hazardous Materials: Rail Petitions and Y
Recommendations to Improve the Safety
of Railroad Tank Car Transportation
(RRR).
37. 2137-AE94................................ Pipeline Safety: Operator Y
Qualification, Cost Recovery and Other
Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes
Miscellaneous Amendments Related to
Reauthorization and Petitions for
Rulemaking (RRR*).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1028]]
International Regulatory Cooperation
E.O. 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation)
stresses that ``[i]n an increasingly global economy, international
regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives
and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting the goals
of'' E.O. 13563 to ``protect public health, welfare, safety, and our
environment while promoting economic growth, innovation,
competitiveness, and job creation.'' DOT has long recognized the value
of international regulatory cooperation and has engaged in a variety of
activities with both foreign governments and international bodies.
These activities have ranged from cooperation in the development of
particular standards to discussions of necessary steps for rulemakings
in general, such as risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses of
possible standards. Since the issuance of E.O. 13609, we have increased
our efforts in this area. For example, many of DOT's Operating
Administrations are active in groundbreaking government-wide Regulatory
Cooperation Councils (RCC) with Canada, Mexico, and the European Union.
These RCC working groups are setting a precedent in developing and
testing approaches to international coordination of rulemaking to
reduce barriers to international trade. We also have been exploring
innovative approaches to ease the development process.
Examples of the many cooperative efforts we are engaged in include
the following:
The FAA maintains ongoing efforts with foreign civil aviation
authorities, including in particular the European Aviation Safety
Agency and Transport Canada, to harmonize standards and practices where
doing so will improve the safety of aviation and aviation-related
activities. The FAA also plays an active role in the standard-setting
work of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),
particularly on the Air Navigation Commission and the Legal Committee.
In doing so, the FAA works with other Nations to shape the standards
and recommended practices adopted by ICAO. The FAA's rulemaking actions
related to safety management systems are examples of the FAA's
harmonization efforts.
As a signatory of the 1998 Agreement on the Harmonization of
Vehicle Regulations, NHTSA is an active participant in the World Forum
for Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) at the UN. Under that umbrella, NHTSA
is working on the development of harmonized regulations for the safety
of electric vehicles; hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles; advanced head
restraints; pole side impact test procedures; pedestrian protection;
the safety risks associated with quieter vehicles, such as electric and
hybrid electric vehicles; and advancements in tires.
Further, NHTSA is working bilaterally with Transport Canada to
facilitate our Joint Action Plans under the Motor Vehicles Working
Group of the U.S.--Canada RCC. Under these plans, NHTSA is working very
closely with its counterparts within Transport Canada on the
development of international standards on quieter vehicles, electric
vehicle safety, and hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles.
PHMSA's hazardous material group works with ICAO, the UN
Subcommittee of Experts on Dangerous Goods, and the International
Maritime Organization. Through participation in these international
bodies, PHMSA is able to advocate on behalf of U.S. safety and
commercial interests to guide the development of international
standards with which U.S. businesses have to comply when shipping in
international commerce. PHMSA additionally participates in the RCC with
Canada and has a Memorandum of Cooperation in place to ensure that
cross-border shipments are not hampered by conflicting regulations. The
pipeline group at PHMSA incorporates many standards by reference into
the Pipeline Safety Regulations, and the development of these standards
benefit from the participation of experts from around the world.
In the areas of airline consumer protection and civil rights
regulation, OST is particularly conscientious in seeking international
regulatory cooperation. For example, the Department participates in the
standard-setting activities of ICAO and meets and works with other
governments and international airline associations on the
implementation of U.S. and foreign aviation rules.
For a number of years the Department has also provided information
on which of its rulemaking actions have international effects. This
information, updated monthly, is available at the Department's
regulatory information Web site, http://www.dot.gov/regulations, under
the heading ``Effects Reports.'' (The reports can be found under
headings for ``EU,'' ``NAFTA'' (Canada and Mexico) and ``Foreign.'') A
list of our significant rulemakings that are expected to have
international effects follows; the identifying RIN provided below can
be used to find summary and other information about the rulemakings in
the Department's Regulatory Agenda published along with this Plan:
DOT Significant Rulemakings With International Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIN Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2105-AD90..................... Stowage and Assistive Devices
2105-AD91..................... Accessibility of Airports
2105-AE06..................... E-Cigarette
2120-AJ34..................... Super cooled Large Droplet Icing
Conditions
2120-AK09..................... Drug & Alcohol Testing for Repair
Stations
2126-AA34..................... Application by Certain Mexico-Domiciled
Motor Carriers to Operate Beyond U.S.
Municipalities and Commercial Zones on
the U.S.-Mexico Border
2126-AA35..................... Safety Monitoring System and Compliance
Initiative for Mexico-Domiciled Motor
Carriers Operating in the United States
2126-AA70..................... Limitations on the Issuance of
Commercial Driver Licenses with a
Hazardous Materials Endorsement
2127-AK43..................... Rearview Visibility
2127-AK56..................... Seat Belts on Motor coaches
2127-AK75..................... Alternative Fuel Usage Labeling &
Badging
2127-AK76..................... Tire Fuel Efficiency Part 2
2127-AK93..................... Quieter Vehicles Sound Alert
2127-AK95..................... Side Impact Test Procedure for CRS
2127-AL01..................... Novelty Helmets Enforcement
2133-AB74..................... Cargo Preference (RRR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1029]]
As we identify rulemakings arising out of our ongoing regulatory
cooperation activities that we reasonably anticipate will lead to
significant regulations, we will add them to our Web site report and
subsequent Agendas and Plans.
The Department's Regulatory Process
The Department will also continue its efforts to use advances in
technology to improve its rulemaking management process. For example,
the Department created an effective tracking system for significant
rulemakings to ensure that either rules are completed in a timely
manner or delays are identified and fixed. Through this tracking
system, a monthly status report is generated. To make its efforts more
transparent, the Department has made this report Internet accessible at
http://www.dot.gov/regulations, as well as through a list-serve. By
doing this, the Department is providing valuable information concerning
our rulemaking activity and is providing information necessary for the
public to evaluate the Department's progress in meeting its commitment
to completing quality rulemakings in a timely manner.
The Department continues to place great emphasis on the need to
complete high-quality rulemakings by involving senior departmental
officials in regular meetings to resolve issues expeditiously.
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST)
The Office of the Secretary (OST) oversees the regulatory process
for the Department. OST implements the Department's regulatory policies
and procedures and is responsible for ensuring the involvement of top
management in regulatory decisionmaking. Through the General Counsel's
office, OST is also responsible for ensuring that the Department
complies with the Administrative Procedure Act, Executive Order 12866
(Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563, DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures, and other legal and policy
requirements affecting rulemaking. Although OST's principal role
concerns the review of the Department's significant rulemakings, this
office has the lead role in the substance of such projects as those
concerning aviation economic rules and rules that affect multiple
elements of the Department.
OST provides guidance and training regarding compliance with
regulatory requirements and process for personnel throughout the
Department. OST also plays an instrumental role in the Department's
efforts to improve our economic analyses; risk assessments; regulatory
flexibility analyses; other related analyses; retrospective reviews of
rules; and data quality, including peer reviews.
OST also leads and coordinates the Department's response to the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) intergovernmental review of
other agencies' significant rulemaking documents and to Administration
and congressional proposals that concern the regulatory process. The
General Counsel's office works closely with representatives of other
agencies, OMB, the White House, and congressional staff to provide
information on how various proposals would affect the ability of the
Department to perform its safety, infrastructure, and other missions.
During fiscal year 2014, OST will continue to focus its efforts on
enhancing airline passenger protections by requiring carriers to adopt
various consumer service practices under the following rulemaking
initiatives:
Accessibility of Carrier Web sites and Ticket Kiosks
Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections III
Carrier-Supplied Medical Oxygen, Accessible In-Flight
Entertainment Systems, Service Animals, and Accessible Lavatories on
Single-Aisle Aircraft.
OST will also continue its efforts to help coordinate the
activities of several operating administrations that advance various
departmental efforts that support the Administration's initiatives on
promoting safety, stimulating the economy and creating jobs, sustaining
and building America's transportation infrastructure, and improving
livability for the people and communities who use transportation
systems subject to the Department's policies. It will also oversee the
Department's rulemaking actions to implement the ``Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
The Federal Aviation Administration is charged with safely and
efficiently operating and maintaining the most complex aviation system
in the world. It is guided by Destination 2025--a transformation of the
Nation's aviation system in which air traffic will move safely,
swiftly, efficiently, and seamlessly around the globe. Our vision is to
develop new systems and to enhance a culture that increases the safety,
reliability, efficiency, capacity, and environmental performance of our
aviation system. To meet our vision will require enhanced skills, clear
communication, strong leadership, effective management, innovative
technology, new equipment, advanced system oversight, and global
integration.
FAA activities that may lead to rulemaking in fiscal year 2014
include continuing to:
Promote and expand safety information-sharing efforts,
such as FAA-industry partnerships and data-driven safety programs that
prioritize and address risks before they lead to accidents.
Specifically, FAA will continue implementing Commercial Aviation Safety
Team projects related to controlled flight into terrain, loss of
control of an aircraft, uncontained engine failures, runway incursions,
weather, pilot decisionmaking, and cabin safety. Some of these projects
may result in rulemaking and guidance materials.
Respond to recommendations from Part 23 Reorganization
Aviation Rulemaking Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) for improving
safety and reducing certification costs for general aviation. The ARC
recommendations include a broad range of policy and regulatory changes
that it believes could significantly improve the safety of general
aviation aircraft while simultaneously reducing certification and
modification costs for these aircraft. Among the ARC's recommendations
is a suggestion that compliance with part 23 requirements be
performance-based, focusing on the complexity and performance of an
aircraft instead of the current regulations based on weight and type of
propulsion. In announcing the ARC's recommendations, the Transportation
Secretary said ``Streamlining the design and certification process
could provide a cost-efficient way to build simple airplanes that still
incorporate the latest in safety initiatives. These changes have the
potential to save money and maintain our safety standing--a win-win
situation for manufacturers, pilots and the general aviation community
as a whole.''
Work cooperatively to harmonize the U.S. aviation
regulations with those of other countries, without compromising
rigorous safety standards, or our requirements to develop cost benefit
analysis. The differences worldwide in certification standards,
practice and procedures, and operating rules must be identified and
minimized to reduce the regulatory burden on the international aviation
system. The differences between the FAA regulations and the
requirements of other nations impose a heavy burden on U.S. aircraft
manufacturers and operators, some of which are small
[[Page 1030]]
businesses. Standardization should help the U.S. aerospace industry
remain internationally competitive. The FAA continues to publish
regulations based on internal analysis, public comment, and
recommendations of Aviation Rulemaking Committees that are the result
of cooperative rulemaking between the U.S. and other countries.
Develop and implement Safety Management Systems (SMS)
where these systems will improve safety of aviation and aviation-
related activities. An SMS proactively identifies potential hazards in
the operating environment, analyzes the risks of those hazards, and
encourages mitigation prior to an accident or incident. In its most
general form, an SMS is a set of decisionmaking tools that can be used
to plan, organize, direct, and control activities in a manner that
enhances safety.
FAA top regulatory priorities for 2013 through 2014 include:
Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft
Dispatchers (2120-AJ00) (Pub. L. 111-216, sec 209 (Aug. 1, 2010)
Helicopter Air Ambulance and Commercial Helicopter Safety
Initiatives and Miscellaneous Amendments (2120-AJ53) (Pub. L. 112-95,
sec 306 (Feb. 14, 2012))
Congestion Management for LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy
International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport (2120-
AJ89)
Safety Management System for Certificate Holders Operating
Under 14 CFR part 121 (2120-AJ86) (Pub. L. 111-216, sec 215 (Aug. 1,
2010)
The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training rulemaking would:
Reduce human error and improve performance;
Enhance traditional training programs through the use of
flight simulation training devices for flight crewmembers; and
Include additional training in areas critical to safety.
The Air Ambulance and Commercial Helicopter rulemaking would:
Codify current agency guidance
Address National Transportation Safety Board
recommendations;
Provide certificate holders and pilots with tools and
procedures that will aid in reducing accidents, including potential
equipage requirements; and
Amend all part 135 commercial helicopter operations
regulations to include pilot training and alternate airport weather
minimums.
The Congestion Management rulemaking for LaGuardia Airport, John F.
Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport
would:
Replace the orders limiting scheduled operations at John F.
Kennedy International Airport (JFK), limiting scheduled operations at
Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), and limiting scheduled and
unscheduled operations at LaGuardia Airport (LGA); and
Provide a longer-term and comprehensive approach to slot
management at JFK, EWR, and LGA
The Safety Management System for Certificate Holders Operating
under 14 CFR Part 121 rulemaking would:
Require certain certificate holders to develop and
implement an SMS;
Propose a general framework from which a certificate
holder can build its SMS; and
Conform to International Civil Aviation Organization
Annexes and adopt several National Transportation Safety Board
recommendations.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) carries out the Federal
highway program in partnership with State and local agencies to meet
the Nation's transportation needs. The FHWA's mission is to improve
continually the quality and performance of our Nation's highway system
and its intermodal connectors.
Consistent with this mission, the FHWA will continue:
With ongoing regulatory initiatives in support of its
surface transportation programs;
To implement legislation in the least burdensome and
restrictive way possible; and
To pursue regulatory reform in areas where project
development can be streamlined or accelerated, duplicative requirements
can be consolidated, recordkeeping requirements can be reduced or
simplified, and the decisionmaking authority of our State and local
partners can be increased.
On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). MAP-21 authorizes the
Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety,
and transit for the two-year period from 2012-2014. The FHWA has
analyzed MAP-21 to identify congressionally directed rulemakings. These
rulemakings will be the FHWA's top regulatory priorities for the coming
year. Additionally, the FHWA is in the process of reviewing all FHWA
regulations to ensure that they are consistent with MAP-21 and will
update those regulations that are not consistent with the recently
enacted legislation.
During Fiscal Year 2014, FHWA will continue its focus on improving
the quality and performance of our Nation's highway systems by creating
national performance management measures and standards to be used by
the States to meet the national transportation goals identified in
section 1203 of MAP-21 under the following rulemaking initiatives:
National Goals and Performance Management Measures
(Safety) (RIN: 2125-AF49)
National Goals and Performance Management Measures
(Bridges and Pavement) (RIN: 2125-AF53)
National Goals and Performance Management Measures
(Congestion Reduction, CMAQ, Freight, and Performance of Interstate/
Non-Interstate NHS) (RIN: 2125-AF54).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
The mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA) is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving
commercial trucks and buses. A strong regulatory program is a
cornerstone of FMCSA's compliance and enforcement efforts to advance
this safety mission. FMCSA develops new and more effective safety
regulations based on three core priorities: Raising the bar for entry,
maintaining high standards, and removing high-risk behavior. In
addition to Agency-directed regulations, FMCSA develops regulations
mandated by Congress, through legislation such as the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) and the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU). FMCSA regulations establish standards for motor carriers,
commercial drivers, commercial motor vehicles, and State agencies
receiving certain motor carrier safety grants and issuing commercial
drivers' licenses.
FMCSA's regulatory plan for FY 2014 includes completion of a number
of rulemakings that are high priorities for the Agency because they
would have a positive impact on safety. Among the rulemakings included
in the plan are: (1) Electronic Logging Devices (RIN 2126-AB20), (2)
Carrier Safety Fitness Determination (RIN 2126-AB11), and (3)
Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (RIN 2126-
AB18).
Together, these priority rules could help to substantially improve
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety
[[Page 1031]]
on our Nation's highways by improving FMCSA's ability to provide safety
oversight of motor carriers and commercial drivers.
In FY 2014, FMCSA plans to issue a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking on Electronic Logging Devices (RIN 2126-AB20) to establish:
(1) minimum performance and design standards for hours-of-service (HOS)
electronic logging devices (ELDs); (2) requirements for the mandatory
use of these devices by drivers currently required to prepare HOS
records of duty status (RODS); (3) requirements concerning HOS
supporting documents; and (4) measures to address concerns about
harassment resulting from the mandatory use of ELDs.
In FY 2014, FMCSA will continue its work on the Compliance, Safety,
Accountability (CSA) program. The CSA program improves the way FMCSA
identifies and conducts carrier compliance and enforcement operations.
CSA's goal is to improve large truck and bus safety by assessing a
wider range of safety performance data from a larger segment of the
motor carrier industry through an array of progressive compliance
interventions. FMCSA anticipates that the impacts of CSA interventions
and an associated rulemaking to put into place a new safety fitness
determination standard will enable the Agency to prohibit ``unfit''
carriers from operating on the Nation's highways (the Carrier Safety
Fitness Determination (RIN 2126-AB11)) and will contribute further to
the Agency's overall goal of decreasing CMV-related fatalities and
injuries.
Also in FY 2014, FMCSA plans to issue a notice of proposed
rulemaking on the Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol
Clearinghouse (RIN 2126-AB18). The rule proposes the establishment of a
clearinghouse that would require employers and service agents to report
information about current and prospective employees' drug and alcohol
test results. It would also require employers and certain service
agents to search the Clearinghouse for current and prospective
employees' positive drug and alcohol test results as a condition of
permitting those employees to perform safety-sensitive functions. This
would provide FMCSA and employers the necessary tools to identify
drivers who are prohibited from operating a CMV based on DOT drug and
alcohol program violations and ensure that such drivers receive the
required evaluation and treatment before resuming safety-sensitive
functions.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
The statutory responsibilities of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) relating to motor vehicles include
reducing the number of, and mitigating the effects of, motor vehicle
crashes and related fatalities and injuries; providing safety
performance information to aid prospective purchasers of vehicles,
child restraints, and tires; and improving automotive fuel efficiency.
NHTSA pursues policies that encourage the development of nonregulatory
approaches when feasible in meeting its statutory mandates. It issues
new standards and regulations or amendments to existing standards and
regulations when appropriate. It ensures that regulatory alternatives
reflect a careful assessment of the problem and a comprehensive
analysis of the benefits, costs, and other impacts associated with the
proposed regulatory action. Finally, it considers alternatives
consistent with the Administration's regulatory principles.
NHTSA continues to focus on the high-priority safety issue of heavy
vehicles and their occupants in fiscal year 2014, including combination
truck tractors, large buses, and motorcoaches. The agency plans to
issue a notice that would propose promulgation of a new Federal motor
vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) for rollover structural integrity
requirements for newly manufactured motorcoaches in accordance with
NHTSA's 2007 Motorcoach Safety Plan, DOT's 2009 departmental Motorcoach
Safety Action Plan, and requirements of the Moving Ahead for Progress
in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act. NHTSA will also issue a notice that
would propose promulgation of a new FMVSS for electronic stability
control systems for motor coaches and truck tractors, and expects to
promulgate a final rule that will require the installation of lap/
shoulder belts on motorcoaches. Together, these rulemaking actions will
address thirteen recommendations issued by the National Transportation
Safety Board related to motorcoach safety.
In fiscal year 2014, NHTSA will continue working toward a final
rule on rear visibility to expand the required field of view to enable
the driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas behind the motor vehicle
to reduce death and injury resulting from backing incidents,
particularly incidents involving small children and disabled persons.
This final rule is mandated by the Cameron Gulbransen Kids
Transportation Safety Act of 2007. Also in 2014, NHTSA plans to
continue work toward a final rule that would establish a new FMVSS to
provide a means of alerting blind and other pedestrians of motor
vehicle operation. This rulemaking is mandated by the Pedestrian Safety
Enhancement Act of 2010 to further enhance the safety of passenger
vehicles and pedestrians.
In addition to numerous programs that focus on the safe performance
of motor vehicles, the Agency is engaged in a variety of programs to
improve driver and occupant behavior. These programs emphasize the
human aspects of motor vehicle safety and recognize the important role
of the States in this common pursuit. NHTSA has identified two high-
priority areas: Safety belt use and impaired driving. To address these
issue areas, the Agency is focusing especially on three strategies--
conducting highly visible, well-publicized enforcement; supporting
prosecutors who handle impaired driving cases and expanding the use of
DWI/Drug Courts, which hold offenders accountable for receiving and
completing treatment for alcohol abuse and dependency; and adopting
alcohol screening and brief intervention by medical and health care
professionals. Other behavioral efforts encourage child safety-seat
use; combat excessive speed and aggressive driving; improve motorcycle,
bicycle, and pedestrian safety; and provide consumer information to the
public.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
FRA's current regulatory program reflects a number of pending
proceedings to satisfy mandates resulting from the Rail Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA08), the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), and the Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), as well as actions under its general
safety rulemaking authority and actions supporting the Department's
High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan. RSIA08 alone has required 21 rulemaking
actions, 12 of which have been completed. However, FRA continues to
prioritize its rulemakings according to the greatest effect on safety
while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job
creation, as well as expressed congressional interest, and will work to
complete as many rulemakings as possible prior to their statutory
deadlines.
Through the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), FRA is
working to complete many of the RSIA08 actions, including developing
requirements for rail integrity, critical incident stress plans, and
employee training. FRA is
[[Page 1032]]
also developing requirements related to the creation and implementation
of railroad risk reduction and system safety programs, both of which
are required by RSIA08, and an RSAC working group is developing
recommendations for the fatigue management provisions related to both
proceedings. FRA is also in the process of finalizing amendments to its
unmandated November 2011 final rule on adjacent-track on-track safety
for roadway workers and developing other RSAC-supported actions that
advance high-speed passenger rail such as proposed rules on standards
for alternative compliance with FRA's Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards. Finally, FRA is drafting a final rule in a rulemaking
proceeding to address various miscellaneous issues related to the
implementation of positive train control systems. FRA expects this
regulatory action to provide substantial benefits to the industry while
ensuring the safe and effective implementation of the technology.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
FTA helps communities support public transportation by making
grants of Federal funding for transit vehicles, construction of transit
facilities, and planning and operation of transit and other transit-
related purposes. FTA regulatory activity implements the laws that
apply to recipients' uses of Federal funding and the terms and
conditions of FTA grant awards. FTA policy regarding regulations is to:
Ensure the safety of public transportation systems.
Provide maximum benefit to the mobility of the Nation's
citizens and the connectivity of transportation infrastructure;
Provide maximum local discretion;
Ensure the most productive use of limited Federal
resources;