[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 8, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1318-1521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31480]
[[Page 1317]]
Vol. 78
Tuesday,
No. 5
January 8, 2013
Part II
Regulatory Information Service Center
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction to the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions
Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / The
Regulatory Plan
[[Page 1318]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Office of Management and Budget
memoranda implementing section 4 of that Order establish minimum
standards 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.
Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 were printed in
their entirety in the Federal Register. 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 2012 Unified Agenda, which contains the regulatory agendas for
60 Federal agencies, is available to the public at http://reginfo.gov.
The 2012 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 (MVC), General
Services Administration, One Constitution Square, 1275 First Street
NE., 630, Washington, DC 20417.
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 (MVC), General Services Administration, One
Constitution Square, 1275 First Street NE., 630, Washington, DC 20417,
(202) 482-7340. You may also send comments to us by email at:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 2012 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 Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866, 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 Justice *
Department of State
Department of Veterans Affairs *
Agency for International Development
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 *
Export-Import Bank of the United States
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
Institute of Museum and Library Services
National Archives and Records Administration *
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 *
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
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction
Surface Transportation Board
The Regulatory Information Service Center compiles the Unified
Agenda for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA),
part of the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA is responsible for
overseeing the Federal Government's regulatory, paperwork, and
information resource management activities, including implementation of
Executive Order 12866. 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
[[Page 1319]]
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 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
[[Page 1320]]
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 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.
[[Page 1321]]
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
2011.
Agency Contact--the name and phone number of at least one person in
the agency who is knowledgeable about the rulemaking action. The agency
may also provide the title, address, fax number, email address, and TDD
for each agency contact.
Some agencies have provided the following optional information:
RIN Information URL--the Internet address of a site that provides
more information about the entry.
Public Comment URL--the Internet address of a site that will accept
public comments on the entry. Alternatively, timely public comments may
be submitted at the Governmentwide e-rulemaking site, http://www.regulations.gov.
Additional Information--any information an agency wishes to include
that does not have a specific corresponding data element.
Compliance Cost to the Public--the estimated gross compliance cost
of the action.
Affected Sectors--the industrial sectors that the action may most
affect, either directly or indirectly. Affected sectors are identified
by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes.
Energy Effects--an indication of whether the agency has prepared or
plans to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for the action, as
required by Executive Order 13211 ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' signed May
18, 2001 (66 FR 28355).
Related RINs--one or more past or current RIN(s) associated with
activity related to this action, such as merged RINs, split RINs, new
activity for previously completed RINs, or duplicate RINs.
Some agencies that participated in the 2012 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.
[[Page 1322]]
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.
Pulic Law (or Pub. L.)--A public law is a law passed by Congress
and signed by the President or enacted over his veto. It has general
applicability, unlike a private law that applies only to those persons
or entities specifically designated. Public laws are numbered in
sequence throughout the 2-year life of each Congress; for example, Pub.
L. 112-4 is the fourth public law of the 112th Congress.
RFA--A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is a description and
analysis of the impact of a rule on small entities, including small
businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and certain small not-
for-profit organizations. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.) requires each agency to prepare an initial RFA for public
comment when it is required to publish an NPRM and to make available a
final RFA when the final rule is published, unless the agency head
certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
RIN--The Regulation Identifier Number is assigned by the Regulatory
Information Service Center to identify each regulatory action listed in
the 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 documents are available at http://www.fdsys.gov.
Dated: December 21, 2012.
John C. Thomas,
Executive Director.
Introduction to the 2012 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, we are providing
the Unified Regulatory Agenda and the Regulatory 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 may include rules that are not issued in the following
year and some that might never be issued. Indeed, at this point,
executive agencies have finalized only 43 out of the 132 economically
significant active rulemakings listed in the Fall 2011 agenda.
Continuing last year's practice, OMB took several steps to clarify the
purposes and uses of the Agenda and Plan, including focusing the list
of ``active rulemakings'' on rules that have at least some possibility
of issuance over the next year. OMB also worked with agencies to make
it easier to understand which rules are truly active rulemakings rather
than long-term actions or completed actions.
We emphasize that rules listed on the agenda, designed among other
things ``to involve the public and its State, local, and tribal
officials in regulatory planning,'' must still undergo significant
internal and external scrutiny before they are issued. No regulatory
action can be made 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 not because they impose significant costs, but 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
[[Page 1323]]
transfer payments as required or authorized by law. As an 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.
The number of economically significant actions from Executive
agencies listed as ''active rulemakings''--128--is lower than the
corresponding figure for the last two editions of the Agenda, which
contained 132 and 145 such rules, respectively. It is notable that the
number of such rules has not grown even taking account of rules
implementing the Affordable Care Act (Public Laws 111-148 and 111-152)
and the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111-
203). Moreover, it is worth noting that a number of the rulemakings
stay on the agenda from year to year; compared to the last Agenda, for
example, this agenda adds only 12 new active economically significant
non-recurring rules from Executive Agencies.\1\ Also, the estimated net
benefits of regulation have been remarkably high in this
Administration; in total, net benefits over the first three fiscal
years of this Administration were $91 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Out of the last Agenda's 132 economically significant active
rulemakings from Executive Agencies, agencies finalized 24 non-
recurring rules as well as 19 rules that recur annually (and so
appear in both the last Agenda and the current Agenda). Eight
economically significant rules listed as long-term rulemakings in
the last Agenda became active rulemakings in this Agenda, and 12 new
active non-recurring rules were added to this Agenda--for a total of
128 economically significant active rulemakings from Executive
Agencies in this Agenda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With these notes and qualifications, the Regulatory 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 Unified 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.
OMB hopes that the public examination of the Regulatory Plan and
the Unified Agenda will help ensure, in the words of Executive Order
13563, a regulatory system that protects ``public health, welfare,
safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth,
innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.''
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 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 regulatory decision making:
Public participation. Agencies are directed to promote
public participation, in part by making supporting documents available
on Regulations.gov in order 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 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 both the ``flow'' of new
regulations that are under development and the ``stock'' of existing
regulations that are already in place. With respect to agencies' review
of existing regulations, the Executive Order calls for careful
reassessment, based on empirical analysis. It is understood that the
prospective analysis required by Executive Order 13563 may depend on a
degree of speculation 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. It is also understood that circumstances
may change in a way that requires reconsideration of regulatory
requirements. After retrospective analysis has been 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.
In August 2011, over two dozen agencies released final plans to
remove what the President called unjustified rules and ``absurd and
unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money.'' Over
the next five years, billions of dollars in savings are anticipated
from just a few initiatives
[[Page 1324]]
from the Department of Transportation, the Department of Labor, the
Department of Health and Human Services, and the Environmental
Protection Agency. And all in all, the plans' initiatives will save
tens of millions of hours in annual paperwork burdens on individuals,
businesses, and state and local governments.
The plans offer more than 500 proposals. Many of the proposals
focus on small business. Some of the proposed initiatives represent a
fundamental rethinking of how things have long been done--as, for
example, with numerous efforts to move from paper to electronic
reporting. For both private and public sectors, those efforts can save
money.
Many of the reforms will have a significant impact. Recent plan
updates include the following examples:
The Treasury Department, along with the Department of
Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection, issued a final rule
in August 2012 eliminating the mailing of paper ``courtesy'' notices of
liquidation, which provide informal, advanced notice of the liquidation
date to the importers of record whose entry summaries are
electronically filed. This effort to proceed only electronically
streamlines the notification process and reduces printing and mailing
costs.
The Department of Transportation would allow combined drug
and alcohol testing for operators conducting commercial air tours. This
rulemaking would allow certificate holders to implement one drug and
alcohol testing program for what had been considered to this point two
separate employing entities. The intent is to decrease operating costs
by eliminating duplicate programs while ensuring no loss in safety.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) will be amended
to implement policy guidance provided by Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in Memorandum M-12-16, dated July 11, 2012, Providing
Prompt Payment to Small Business Subcontractors, to address the
acceleration of payments to small business subcontractors.
The regulatory look back is not a one-time exercise. Regular
reporting about recent progress and coming initiatives is required. 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 addition to looking back at existing regulations, we are also
focused on reducing unjustified reporting and paperwork burdens. In a
June 22, 2012 Memorandum, ``Reducing Reporting and Paperwork Burdens,''
OIRA asked executive departments and agencies to implement Executive
Order 13610, Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens, by taking
continuing steps to reassess regulatory requirements and, where
appropriate, to streamline, improve, or eliminate those requirements.
Agencies were asked to prioritize ``initiatives that will produce
significant quantifiable monetary savings or significant quantifiable
reductions in paperwork burdens'' (emphasis added). Agencies were also
asked to ``give special consideration to initiatives that would reduce
unjustified regulatory burdens or simplify or harmonize regulatory
requirements imposed on small businesses.'' In addition, Executive
Order 13610 requires agencies to focus on ``cumulative burdens'' and to
``give priority to reforms that would make significant progress in
reducing those burdens.'' Fundamentally, looking retrospectively to
reduce existing burdens, while looking forward to ensure that future
regulations are well-justified, will promote the nation's economic
growth while continuing to protect the health and safety of the
American people.
Agencies prioritized these reviews, including opportunities for
measurable reductions in paperwork burdens, and are pursuing plans that
include the following:
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is working to
consolidate the application and renewal process for health benefits by
eliminating the collection of financial information that is already
collected by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Social Security
Administration (SSA). In addition to the re-use of data, the VA expects
to improve the application by making it more adaptive to data provided
by respondents and the information needed to make a determination for
benefits. VA expects veterans to save thousands of hours and the
Federal government to save millions of dollars from this improved
process.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is
progressing toward the implementation of an integrated agency-wide e-
Grants online application that will be available to the public online.
The system will simplify submission of grant program applications
across FEMA by creating online forms. Fully integrating and automating
these systems will improve efficiency and the effectiveness of FEMA
operations to better serve the needs of internal and external
stakeholders. Grantees are expected to save over 500,000 hours in
paperwork burden per year.
OMB would also like to highlight Executive Order 13609, ``Promoting
International Regulatory Cooperation,'' which was issued by President
Obama in May 2012. The Executive Order 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 lookback
initiative, Executive Order 13609 requires agencies to ``consider
reforms to existing significant regulations that address unnecessary
differences in regulatory requirements between the United States and
its major trading partners * * * when stakeholders provide adequate
information to the agency establishing that the differences are
unnecessary.''
OMB believes 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.
[[Page 1325]]
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............................. National Organic Program, 0581-AD09 Proposed Rule Stage.
Streamlining Enforcement
Related Actions.
3............................. Plant Pest Regulations; 0579-AC98 Proposed Rule Stage.
Update of General
Provisions.
4............................. Importation of Live Dogs. 0579-AD23 Final Rule Stage.
5............................. Animal Disease 0579-AD24 Final Rule Stage.
Traceability.
6............................. Animal Welfare; Retail 0579-AD57 Final Rule Stage.
Pet Stores.
7............................. Child Nutrition Program 0584-AE08 Proposed Rule Stage.
Integrity.
8............................. National School Lunch and 0584-AE09 Proposed Rule Stage.
School Breakfast
Programs: Nutrition
Standards for All Foods
Sold in School, as
Required by the Healthy,
Hunger-Free Kids Act of
2010.
9............................. Child Nutrition Programs: 0584-AE19 Proposed Rule Stage.
Professional Standards
for School Food Service
and State Child
Nutrition Program
Directors as Required by
the Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act of 2010.
10............................ SNAP: Immediate Payment 0584-AE22 Proposed Rule Stage.
Suspension for
Fraudulent Retailer
Activity.
11............................ Special Supplemental 0584-AD77 Final Rule Stage.
Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC):
Revisions in the WIC
Food Packages.
12............................ Eligibility, 0584-AD87 Final Rule Stage.
Certification, and
Employment and Training
Provisions of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy
Act of 2008.
13............................ Supplemental Nutrition 0584-AE07 Final Rule Stage.
Assistance Program:
Nutrition Education and
Obesity Prevention Grant.
14............................ Egg Products Inspection 0583-AC58 Proposed Rule Stage.
Regulations.
15............................ Product Labeling: Use of 0583-AD30 Proposed Rule Stage.
the Voluntary Claim
``Natural'' on the
Labeling of Meat and
Poultry Products.
16............................ Descriptive Designation 0583-AD45 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Needle or Blade
Tenderized (Mechanically
Tenderized) Beef
Products.
17............................ Proposed Rule: Records to 0583-AD46 Proposed Rule Stage.
be Kept by Official
Establishments and
Retail Stores That Grind
or Chop Raw Beef
Products.
18............................ Prior Labeling Approval 0583-AC59 Final Rule Stage.
System: Generic Label
Approval.
19............................ Modernization of Poultry 0583-AD32 Final Rule Stage.
Slaughter Inspection.
20............................ 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21............................ Service Academies........ 0790-AI19 Final Rule Stage.
22............................ Sexual Assault Prevention 0790-AI36 Final Rule Stage.
and Response Program
Procedures.
23............................ Operational Contract 0790-AI48 Final Rule Stage.
Support.
24............................ Voluntary Education 0790-AI50 Final Rule Stage.
Programs.
25............................ Defense Industrial Base 0790-AI60 Final Rule Stage.
(DIB) Cyber Security/
Information Assurance
(CS/IA) Activities.
26............................ Mission Compatibility 0790-AI69 Final Rule Stage.
Evaluation Process.
27............................ TRICARE; Reimbursement of 0720-AB41 Final Rule Stage.
Sole Community Hospitals.
28............................ Civilian Health and 0720-AB48 Final Rule Stage.
Medical Program of the
Uniformed Services
(CHAMPUS); TRICARE Young
Adult.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Education
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29............................ Transitioning from the 1840-AD12 Proposed Rule Stage.
FFEL Program to the
Direct Loan Program and
Loan Rehabilitation
under the FFEL, Direct
Loan, and Perkins Loan
Programs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30............................ Energy Conservation 1904-AB86 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for Walk-In
Coolers and Walk-In
Freezers.
31............................ Energy Efficiency 1904-AB57 Final Rule Stage.
Standards for Battery
Chargers and External
Power Supplies.
32............................ Energy Efficiency 1904-AC04 Final Rule Stage.
Standards for
Distribution
Transformers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1326]]
Department of Health and Human Services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33............................ Current Good 0910-AG10 Proposed Rule Stage.
Manufacturing Practice,
Hazard Analysis, and
Risk-Based Preventive
Controls for Food for
Animals.
34............................ Produce Safety Regulation 0910-AG35 Proposed Rule Stage.
35............................ Hazard Analysis and Risk- 0910-AG36 Proposed Rule Stage.
Based Preventive
Controls.
36............................ Foreign Supplier 0910-AG64 Proposed Rule Stage.
Verification Program.
37............................ Accreditation of Third 0910-AG66 Proposed Rule Stage.
Parties To Conduct Food
Safety Audits and for
Other Related Purposes.
38............................ Revision of Postmarketing 0910-AG88 Proposed Rule Stage.
Reporting Requirements
Discontinuance or
Interruption in Supply
of Certain Products
(Drug Shortages).
39............................ Unique Device 0910-AG31 Final Rule Stage.
Identification.
40............................ Food Labeling: Nutrition 0910-AG56 Final Rule Stage.
Labeling for Food Sold
in Vending Machines.
41............................ Food Labeling: Nutrition 0910-AG57 Final Rule Stage.
Labeling of Standard
Menu Items in
Restaurants and Similar
Retail Food
Establishments.
42............................ Patient Protection and 0938-AR03 Proposed Rule Stage.
Affordable Care Act;
Standards Related to
Essential Health
Benefits, Actuarial
Value, and Accreditation
(CMS-9980-F).
43............................ Part II--Regulatory 0938-AR49 Proposed Rule Stage.
Provisions To Promote
Program Efficiency,
Transparency, and Burden
Reduction (CMS-3267-P).
44............................ Notice of Benefit and 0938-AR51 Proposed Rule Stage.
Payment Parameters (CMS-
9964-P).
45............................ Changes to the Hospital 0938-AR53 Proposed Rule Stage.
Inpatient and Long-Term
Care Prospective Payment
System for FY 2014 (CMS-
1599-P).
46............................ Changes to the Hospital 0938-AR54 Proposed Rule Stage.
Outpatient Prospective
Payment System and
Ambulatory Surgical
Center Payment System
for CY 2014 (CMS-1601-P).
47............................ Revisions to Payment 0938-AR56 Proposed Rule Stage.
Policies Under the
Physician Fee Schedule
and Medicare Part B for
CY 2014 (CMS-1600-P).
48............................ Prospective Payment 0938-AR62 Proposed Rule Stage.
System for Federally
Qualified Health Centers
(FQHCs) (CMS-1443-P).
49............................ Child Care and 0970-AC53 Proposed Rule Stage.
Development Fund Reforms
to Support Child
Development and Working
Families.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Homeland Security
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50............................ Asylum and Withholding 1615-AA41 Proposed Rule Stage.
Definitions.
51............................ Exception to the 1615-AB89 Proposed Rule Stage.
Persecution Bar for
Asylum, Refugee, and
Temporary Protected
Status, and Withholding
of Removal.
52............................ Employment Authorization 1615-AB92 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Certain H-4
Dependent Spouses.
53............................ Enhancing Opportunities 1615-AC00 Proposed Rule Stage.
for High-Skilled H-1B1
and E-3 Nonimmigrants
and EB-1 Immigrants.
54............................ New Classification for 1615-AA59 Final Rule Stage.
Victims of Severe Forms
of Trafficking in
Persons; Eligibility for
T Nonimmigrant Status.
55............................ Adjustment of Status to 1615-AA60 Final Rule Stage.
Lawful Permanent
Resident for Aliens in T
and U Nonimmigrant
Status.
56............................ New Classification for 1615-AA67 Final Rule Stage.
Victims of Criminal
Activity; Eligibility
for the U Nonimmigrant
Status.
57............................ Provisional Unlawful 1615-AB99 Final Rule Stage.
Presence Waivers of
Inadmissibility for
Certain Immediate
Relatives.
58............................ Transportation Worker 1625-AB21 Proposed Rule Stage.
Identification
Credential (TWIC); Card
Reader Requirements.
59............................ 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.
60............................ Vessel Requirements for 1625-AA99 Final Rule Stage.
Notices of Arrival and
Departure, and Automatic
Identification System.
61............................ Offshore Supply Vessels 1625-AB62 Final Rule Stage.
of at Least 6000 GT ITC.
62............................ Changes to the Visa 1651-AA72 Final Rule Stage.
Waiver Program To
Implement the Electronic
System for Travel
Authorization (ESTA)
Program.
63............................ Security Training for 1652-AA55 Proposed Rule Stage.
Surface Mode Employees.
64............................ Standardized Vetting, 1652-AA61 Proposed Rule Stage.
Adjudication, and
Redress Services.
65............................ Passenger Screening Using 1652-AA67 Proposed Rule Stage.
Advanced Imaging
Technology.
66............................ Aircraft Repair Station 1652-AA38 Final Rule Stage.
Security.
67............................ Adjustments to 1653-AA63 Proposed Rule Stage.
Limitations on
Designated School
Official Assignment and
Study by F-2 and M-2
Nonimmigrants.
68............................ Standards To Prevent, 1653-AA65 Proposed Rule Stage.
Detect and Respond to
Sexual Abuse and Assault
in Confinement
Facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1327]]
Department of Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
69............................ Implementation of the ADA 1190-AA59 Proposed Rule Stage.
Amendments Act of 2008
(Title II and Title III
of the ADA).
70............................ Implementation of the ADA 1190-AA60 Proposed Rule Stage.
Amendments Act of 2008
(Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of
1973).
71............................ Nondiscrimination on the 1190-AA63 Proposed Rule Stage.
Basis of Disability;
Movie Captioning and
Video Description.
72............................ Nondiscrimination on the 1190-AA65 Proposed Rule Stage.
Basis of Disability:
Accessibility of Web
Information and Services
of State and Local
Governments.
73............................ Nondiscrimination on the 1190-AA61 Long-Term Actions.
Basis of Disability;
Accessibility of Web
Information and Services
of Public Accommodations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74............................ Americans With 3014-AA11 Proposed Rule Stage.
Disabilities Act (ADA)
Accessibility Guidelines
for Passenger Vessels.
75............................ Telecommunications Act 3014-AA37 Proposed Rule Stage.
Accessibility
Guidelines; Electronic
and Information
Technology Accessibility
Standards.
76............................ Accessibility Standards 3014-AA40 Final Rule Stage.
for Medical Diagnostic
Equipment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Protection Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
77............................ Hydraulic Fracturing 2070-AJ93 Prerule Stage.
Chemicals; Chemical
Information Reporting
Under TSCA Section 8(a)
and Health and Safety
Data Reporting Under
TSCA Section 8(d).
78............................ Review of the National 2060-AP38 Proposed Rule Stage.
Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone.
79............................ Petroleum Refinery Sector 2060-AQ75 Proposed Rule Stage.
Risk and Technology
Review and NSPS.
80............................ Control of Air Pollution 2060-AQ86 Proposed Rule Stage.
From Motor Vehicles:
Tier 3 Motor Vehicle
Emission and Fuel
Standards.
81............................ Implementation of the 2060-AR34 Proposed Rule Stage.
2008 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards
for Ozone: State
Implementation Plan
Requirements.
82............................ Petroleum Refinery Sector 2060-AR69 Proposed Rule Stage.
Amendment for Flares.
83............................ NPDES Electronic 2020-AA47 Proposed Rule Stage.
Reporting Rule.
84............................ Formaldehyde; Third-Party 2070-AJ44 Proposed Rule Stage.
Certification Framework
for the Formaldehyde
Standards for Composite
Wood Products.
85............................ Formaldehyde Emissions 2070-AJ92 Proposed Rule Stage.
Standards for Composite
Wood Products.
86............................ Revisions to the National 2050-AE87 Proposed Rule Stage.
Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan;
Subpart J Product
Schedule Listing
Requirements.
87............................ Effluent Limitations 2040-AF14 Proposed Rule Stage.
Guidelines and Standards
for the Steam Electric
Power Generating Point
Source Category.
88............................ National Primary Drinking 2040-AF15 Proposed Rule Stage.
Water Regulations for
Lead and Copper:
Regulatory Revisions.
89............................ Clean Water Protection 2040-AF30 Proposed Rule Stage.
Rule.
90............................ Greenhouse Gas New Source 2060-AQ91 Final Rule Stage.
Performance Standard for
Electric Generating
Units for New Sources.
91............................ Hazardous Waste 2050-AG60 Final Rule Stage.
Management Systems:
Identification and
Listing of Hazardous
Waste: Carbon Dioxide
(CO2) Streams in
Geological Sequestration
Activities.
92............................ Rulemaking on the 2050-AG62 Final Rule Stage.
Definition of Solid
Waste.
93............................ Criteria and Standards 2040-AE95 Final Rule Stage.
for Cooling Water Intake
Structures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
94............................ 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.
95............................ 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.
96............................ Revisions to Procedures 3046-AA93 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Complaints of
Employment
Discrimination Filed
Against Recipients of
Federal Financial
Assistance.
[[Page 1328]]
97............................ Revisions to the Federal 3046-AA94 Proposed Rule Stage.
Sector's Affirmative
Employment Obligations
of 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98............................ 504 and 7(a) Regulatory 3245-AG04 Proposed Rule Stage.
Enhancements.
99............................ Small Business Jobs Act: 3245-AG24 Proposed Rule Stage.
Small Business Mentor-
Prot[eacute]g[eacute]
Programs.
100........................... Small Business Technology 3245-AF45 Final Rule Stage.
Transfer (STTR) Policy
Directive.
101........................... Small Business Innovation 3245-AF84 Final Rule Stage.
Research (SBIR) Program
Policy Directive.
102........................... Acquisition Process: Task 3245-AG20 Final Rule Stage.
and Delivery Order
Contracts, Bundling,
Consolidation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Security Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AF35 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Evaluating
Neurological Impairments
(806P).
104........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AF58 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Evaluating
Respiratory System
Disorders (859P).
105........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AF88 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Evaluating
Hematological Disorders
(974P).
106........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AH03 Proposed Rule Stage.
for Evaluating
Genitourinary Disorders
(3565P).
107........................... Hearings by Video 0960-AH37 Proposed Rule Stage.
Teleconferencing (VTC)
(3728P).
108........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AF69 Final Rule Stage.
for Evaluating Mental
Disorders (886F).
109........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AH04 Final Rule Stage.
for Evaluating
Congenital Disorders
That Affect Multiple
Body Systems (3566F).
110........................... Amendments to Regulations 0960-AH07 Final Rule Stage.
Regarding Withdrawals of
Applications and
Voluntary Suspension of
Benefits (3573F).
111........................... Revised Medical Criteria 0960-AH28 Final Rule Stage.
for Evaluating Visual
Disorders (3696F).
112........................... Amendments to the Rules 0960-AH40 Final Rule Stage.
on Determining Hearing
Appearances and to the
Rules on Objecting to
the Time and Place of
the Hearing (3401F).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence No. Title Identifier No. Rulemaking Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
113........................... Medical Use of Byproduct 3150-AI26 Proposed Rule Stage.
Material--Amendments/
Medical Event Definition
[NRC-2008-0071].
114........................... Fitness-for-Duty (HHS 3150-AI67 Proposed Rule Stage.
Requirements) [NRC-2009-
0225].
115........................... Disposal of Unique Waste 3150-AI92 Proposed Rule Stage.
Streams [NRC-2011-0012].
116........................... Station Blackout 3150-AJ08 Proposed Rule Stage.
Mitigation [NRC-2011-
0299].
117........................... Revision of Fee 3150-AJ19 Proposed Rule Stage.
Schedules: Fee Recovery
for FY 2013 [NRC-2012-
0211].
118........................... Physical Protection of 3150-AI12 Final Rule Stage.
Byproduct Material [NRC-
2008-0120].
119........................... Environmental Effect of 3150-AI42 Final Rule Stage.
Renewing the Operating
License of a Nuclear
Power Plant [NRC-2008-
0608].
120........................... Domestic Licensing of 3150-AI50 Final Rule Stage.
Source Material--
Amendments/Integrated
Safety Analysis [NRC-
2009-0079].
121........................... List of Approved Spent 3150-AJ10 Final Rule Stage.
Fuel Storage Casks--
Transnuclear, Inc.,
Standardized NUHOMS[squ]
System, Revision 11 [NRC-
2012-0020].
122........................... List of Approved Spent 3150-AJ12 Final Rule Stage.
Fuel Storage Casks--
Holtec International, HI-
STORM 100, Revision 9
[NRC-2012-0052].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6820-27-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
In FY 2013, USDA's focus will continue to be on programs that
create/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. The 2008 Farm Bill covering major
farm, trade, conservation, rural development, nutrition assistance and
other programs expired at the end of fiscal year 2012 and is expected
to be reauthorized in 2013. It is anticipated that a number of high
priority regulations will be developed during 2013 to implement this
legislation should it be enacted. USDA's regulatory efforts in the
coming year will achieve the Department's goals identified in the
Department's Strategic Plan for 2010-2015.
[[Page 1329]]
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 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.
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.
Important regulatory activities supporting the accomplishment of
these goals in 2013 will include the following:
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 2013, the Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS) plans to publish the proposed rule regarding the nutrition
standards for foods sold in schools outside of the reimbursable meal
programs; finalize a rule updating the WIC food packages, and establish
permanent rules for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. FNS will
continue to work to implement rules that minimize participant and
vendor fraud in its nutrition assistance programs.
Strengthening Food Safety Inspection. USDA will continue
to develop science-based regulations that improve the safety of meat,
poultry, and processed 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 2013, the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) plans to finalize regulations to establish
new systems for poultry slaughter inspection, which would save money
for establishments and taxpayers while improving food safety. Among
other actions, USDA will provide export certificates through the use of
technology, and define conditions under which the ``natural'' claim may
be used on meat and poultry labeling. 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.
Forestry and Conservation. USDA plans to finalize
regulations that would streamline the Natural Resources Conservation
Service's (NRCS) financial assistance programs, which would make
program participation easier for producers. USDA will update its EQIP
participation requirements to allow limited resource producers with
incomplete irrigation histories to participate in the program.
Additionally, USDA will allow NRCS' State Conservationists to remove
undue burdens on producers that have acted in good faith on incorrect
program information provided by NRCS. USDA will also publish proposed
Agency guidance for implementation of the Forest Service's 2012
Planning Rule. This guidance will provide the detailed monitoring,
assessing, and documenting requirements that National Forests 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 Effective.
USDA will continue to protect the health and value of U.S. agricultural
and natural resources. USDA plans to continue work on implementing a
national animal disease traceability system and anticipates revising
the permitting of plant pests and biological control organisms. A
national, effective animal disease traceability system will enhance our
ability to respond to animal disease detections. Revising the plant
pests and biological control organisms' regulations on permitting would
facilitate the movement of regulated organisms and articles in a manner
that also protects U.S. agriculture, and address gaps in the current
regulations. For the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), USDA plans to finalize
specific standards for the humane care of dogs imported for resale and
the definition of a retail pet store. USDA will support the organic
sector by updating the National List of Allowed and Prohibited
Substances as advised by the National Organic Standards Board,
streamlining organic regulatory enforcement actions, developing organic
pet food standards, and 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 continue to designate groups of
biobased products to receive procurement preference from Federal
agencies and contractors. BioPreferred[supreg] has made serious efforts
to minimize burdens on small business by providing a standard mechanism
for product testing, an online application process, and individual
assistance for small manufacturers when needed. The Federal preferred
procurement and the certified label parts of the program are voluntary;
both are designed to assist
[[Page 1330]]
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
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.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=USDA_OPEN.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significantly Reduce
RIN Title Burdens on Small
Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0583-AC59.................. Prior Labeling Yes.
Approval
System:
Generic Label
Approval.
0583-AD41.................. Electronic Yes.
Export
Application
and
Certification
Fee.
0583-AD39.................. Electronic Yes.
Import
Inspection and
Certification
of Imported
Products and
Foreign
Establishments.
0583-AD32.................. Modernization Yes.
of Poultry
Slaughter
Inspection.
0570-AA76.................. Rural Energy Yes.
America
Program.
0575-AC91.................. Community Yes.
Facilities
Loan and
Grants.
0596-AD01.................. National Yes.
Environmental
Policy Act
Efficiencies.
0570-AA85.................. Business and Yes.
Industry Loan
Guaranteed
Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 costs 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 will make regulatory changes in 2013, including
the following:
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 taxpayer savings of $2.9 million over 10
years.
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.
Simplify FSA NEPA Compliance. FSA will revise its
regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
to update, improve, and clarify requirements. It will also 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.
Streamline Forest Service NEPA Compliance. The Forest
Service (FS), in cooperation with the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), is promulgating 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 FS projects without reducing
environmental protection.
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 process for grants, lessening the
burden to the customer. It will also make the guaranteed loan portion
of the rule consistent with other programs RD manages. The rulemaking
is expected to reduce the information collection burden.
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
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 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 2013. When specific changes are
identified, FSA and RMA will make any required conforming changes in
their respective regulations.
Increased Use of Electronic Forms. Increasingly, USDA is
providing electronic alternatives to its traditionally paper-based
customer transactions. As a result, customers increasingly have the
option to electronically file forms and other documentation online,
allowing them to choose when and where to conduct business with USDA.
For example, Rural Development continues to review its regulations to
determine which application procedures for Business
[[Page 1331]]
Programs, Community Facilities Programs, Energy Programs, and Water and
Environmental Programs, can be streamlined and its requirements
synchronized. RD is approaching the exercise from the perspective of
the people it serves, by communicating with stakeholders on two common
areas of regulation that can provide the basis of reform. The first
area provides support for entrepreneurship and business innovation.
This initiative would provide for the streamlining and reformulating of
the Business & Industry Loan Guarantee Program and the Intermediary
Relending Program; the first such overhauls in over 20 years. The
second area would provide for streamlining programs being made
available to municipalities, Indian tribes, and non-profit
organizations, specifically Water and Waste Disposal; Community
Facilities; and Rural Business Enterprise Grants plus programs such as
Electric and Telecommunications loans that provide basic community
needs. This regulatory reform initiative has the potential to
significantly reduce the burden to respondents (lenders and borrowers).
To the extent practicable, each reform initiative will consist of a
common application and uniform documentation requirements making it
easier for constituent groups to apply for multiple programs. In
addition, there will be associated regulations for each program that
will contain program specific information.
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. For
example, FSIS is working with Canada's Treasury Board and Canadian Food
Inspection Agency to facilitate the movement of meat, poultry, and egg
products between the U.S. and Canada while still ensuring food safety.
The effort may lead to a future proposed rule to revise FSIS's
regulations regarding the importation of these products.
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
2013 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 two 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. This rule also responds to the
principles outlined in EO 13563 and responds to EO 13610 by eliminating
the requirement for face-to-face interviews in the SNAP certification
process, eliminating substantial burdens for SNAP clients and providing
additional flexibility to State agencies that administer the program.
Improve Program Integrity. FNS also plans to publish a
number of rules to increase the efficiency and reduce the burden of
program operations. Program integrity provisions will continue to be
strengthened in the SNAP and Child Nutrition programs to ensure Federal
taxpayer dollars are spent effectively.
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 a proposed rule implementing Healthy,
Hunger-Free Kids Act provisions setting nutrition standards for all
foods sold in school, establishing professional standards for school
food service and State child nutrition program directors, and
establishing requirements for the SNAP Nutrition Education and Obesity
Prevention Grant Program; and finalizing a rule updating food packages
in WIC. FNS' 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.
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:
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 allow for more effective inspection of
carcasses and allocation of agency resources, as well as encourage
industry to more readily use new technology. It would
[[Page 1332]]
save money for businesses and taxpayers while improving food safety.
``Natural'' Claim. FSIS will propose to amend the meat and
poultry products regulations to define the conditions under which the
voluntary claim ``natural'' may be used on meat and poultry product
labeling. Requests for a ``natural'' label approval would need to
include documentation to demonstrate that the products meet the
criteria to bear the claim. A codified ``natural'' claim definition
will reduce uncertainty about which products qualify for the label and
will increase consumer confidence in the claim.
Public Health Information System. To support its food
safety inspection activities, FSIS is continuing to implement the
Public Health Information System (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.
Retrospective Review of Regulations. FSIS will continue to review
its regulations to determine how to improve information collection
procedures and the quality and sufficiency of data available to support
regulatory decision making, and how to decrease the recordkeeping
burden on the industry.
In addition to the planned amendments to provide for electronic
import and export application and certification, mentioned above, and
in response to comments received on the request for information
preparatory to the Department's regulatory review plan, FSIS is
developing a final rule that will reduce regulatory burden by expanding
the circumstances in which the labels of meat and poultry products will
be deemed to be generically approved by FSIS.
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: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is
a multi-faceted Agency with a broad mission area that includes
protecting and promoting U.S. agricultural health, regulating
genetically engineered organisms, administering the AWA and carrying
out wildlife damage management activities.
Priorities: With regard to plant and animal health, APHIS is
committed to developing and issuing science-based regulations intended
to protect the health and value of American agricultural and natural
resources. APHIS conducts 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 AWA. APHIS priority issues are as follows:
Animal Disease Traceability. APHIS is continuing work to
implement a robust national animal disease traceability system. This
rulemaking would amend the regulations to establish minimum national
official identification and documentation requirements for the
traceability of livestock moving interstate. Continuing this work is
expected to improve our ability to trace livestock in the event that
disease is found.
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). APHIS is
continuing work to revise its regulations concerning BSE to provide a
more comprehensive and universally applicable framework for the
importation of certain animals and products. APHIS believes that this
work will continue to guard against the introduction of BSE into the
United States.
Update of Plant Pest Regulations. APHIS proposes to
regulate the movement of not only plant pests, but also biological
control organisms and associated articles. APHIS proposes risk-based
criteria regarding the movement of biological control organisms, and
proposes to establish regulations to allow the movement in interstate
commerce of certain types of plant pests when appropriate. APHIS also
proposes to revise regulations regarding the movement of soil and to
establish regulations governing the biocontainment facilities in which
plant pests, biological control organisms, and associated articles are
held. This proposal would also clarify the factors that would be
considered when assessing the risks associated with the movement of
certain organisms. Finally, this proposal is expected to facilitate the
movement of regulated organisms and articles in a manner that protects
U.S. agriculture and address gaps in the current regulations.
Retail Pet Stores. APHIS is continuing work to revise the
definition of retail pet store and related regulations to bring more
pet animals sold at retail under the protection of the AWA.
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 priority items for next year include rulemaking
that affects the organic industry. These are:
National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances
(National List). The agency will continue to follow the requirements of
the Organic Food Production Act of 1990 by publishing rules to amend
the National List based upon recommendations of the National Organic
Standards Board (NOSB) and publish a rule to address substances due to
sunset from the National List in 2013.
Streamline Enforcement Actions for NOP. AMS would propose
a regulation streamlining enforcement actions, by shortening the
process by which AMS may initiate formal administrative proceedings for
proposed suspensions or revocations of accreditation or certification.
[[Page 1333]]
Organic Pet Food Standards. AMS would propose standards
for organic pet food following recommendations of the NOSB.
Organic Dairy Animals. AMS would propose a rule on the
replacement of dairy animals which is intended to level the playing
field by instituting the same requirements across all organic dairy
producers, regardless of how they transitioned to organic production.
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 up to 32 million 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 and further strengthening Farm
Loan Programs. Changes in the loan programs will better assist small
farmers and socially disadvantaged farmers and will make loan servicing
more efficient. FSA is also strengthening its ability to help the
Nation respond to national defense emergencies. FSA's priority
initiatives are as follows:
Microloan Programs. FSA will implement a Microloan
Program, which will help small and family operations progress through
their start-up years with needed resources, while building capacity,
increasing equity, and eventually graduating to commercial credit. The
Microloan Program will improve the FSA Operating Loan Program to better
meet the needs of small farmers. In addition, FSA will develop and
issue regulations to amend programs for farm operating loans, down
payment loans, and emergency loans to include socially disadvantaged
farmers, increase loan limits, loan size, funding targets, interest
rates, and graduating borrowers to commercial credit. In addition, FSA
will further streamline normal loan servicing activities and reduce
burden on borrowers while still protecting the loan security.
Environmental Compliance (National Environmental Policy
Act). FSA will revise its regulations that implement the National
Environmental Policy Act. 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.
Agriculture Priorities and Allocations Systems (APAS).
USDA was directed to develop 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: FS is committed to developing and issuing science-based
regulations intended to ensure public participation in the management
of our Nation's National Forest, while also moving forward the FS'
ability to plan and conduct restoration projects on National Forest
System lands. FS 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:
Land Management Planning Rule Policy. The Forest Service
promulgated a new Land Management Planning rule in April 2012. This
rule streamlined the Forest Service's paperwork requirements but
expanded the public participation requirements for revising National
Forest's Land Management Plans. Having promulgated the 2012 Planning
Rule, the Agency is planning to publish for comment the follow-up
internal guidance on how to implement the new planning rule. These
directives, once finalized, will enable National Forests to begin
revising their management plans under the new rule.
Ecological Restoration Policy. 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
(NFS) 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
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
[[Page 1334]]
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.
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.
Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). REAP will 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.
Broadband Loans. RD will finalize the interim rule that
implemented provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill that made credit more
accessible for broadband providers serving rural areas. The key
provisions of the regulation include modifications to rural areas,
financial coverage ratios, defining broadband speed and the publication
of an annual notice.
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
USDA Procurement Reform: Department Management would
incorporate in all moderate to large USDA contracts a new clause
requiring the contractor to certify compliance with three specific
labor laws, and to notify the contracting officer if it becomes aware
of a violation of one of these laws. This would mitigate the risk of
potentially awarding contracts to non-responsible entities and ensure
that compliance with labor laws is factored into contracting decisions.
BioPreferred[supreg] Program: 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 2013, USDA's
focus will be to implement the changes to programs in such a way as to
provide benefits while minimizing program complexity and regulatory
burden for program participants.
USDA--AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (AMS)
1. National Organic Program, Origin of Livestock, NOP-11-0009
Proposed Rule Stage
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501
CFR Citation: 7 CFR part 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
[[Page 1335]]
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. The costs associated with
compliance have not been quantified, however, the comments to the
proposed rule will provide a basis for those estimates. 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................................ 06/00/13 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Melissa R Bailey, Director, Standards Division,
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, 14th &
Independence Avenue SW., Rm. 2646-South Building, Washington, DC 20250,
Phone: 202 720-3252, Fax: 202 205-7808, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0581-AD08
USDA--AMS
2. National Organic Program, Streamlining Enforcement Related Actions
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501
CFR Citation: 7 CFR part 205.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking would amend sections of the NOP
regulations which pertain to the adverse action appeals process. It
would require the Agency to initiate formal administrative proceedings
for proposed suspensions or revocations of accreditation or
certification issued by the NOP. Under the current NOP regulations, a
formal administrative proceeding is initiated following the decision of
the Administrator to deny an appeal. This rulemaking would omit the
step of appealing to the Administrator when NOP has initiated the
adverse action. This action also would amend the NOP regulations to
require appellants who want to further contest a decision of the
Administrator to deny an appeal to request a hearing. Under the current
regulations, the formal administrative proceeding is initiated by
default upon issuance of the Administrator's denial.
Also, this rulemaking would add clarifying language concerning
mediation and stipulations entered into by the NOP, as well as correct
the address to which appeals are submitted.
Statement of Need: The March 2010 Office of Inspector General (OIG)
audit of the NOP, raised issues related to the program's progress for
imposing enforcement actions. One concern was that organic producers
and handlers facing revocation or suspension of their certification are
able to market their products as organic during what can be a lengthy
appeals process. As a result, AMS expects to publish a proposed rule in
FY2013 to revise language in section 205.681 of the NOP regulations,
which pertains to adverse action appeals. It is expected that this rule
will streamline the NOP appeals process such that appeals are reviewed
and responded to in a more timely manner.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990
(OFPA), 7 U.S.C. section 6501 et seq., requires that the Secretary
establish an expedited administrative appeals procedure for appealing
an action of the Secretary or certifying agent (section 6520). The NOP
regulations describe how appeals of proposed adverse action concerning
certification and accreditation are initiated and further contested
(sections 205.680, 205.681).
Alternatives: The program considered maintaining the status quo and
hiring additional support for the NOP Appeals Team. This rulemaking was
determined to be preferable because it will reduce redundancy in the
appeals process, where an appellant can more quickly appeal the
Administrator's decision to an Administrative Law Judge.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This action will affect certified
operations and accredited certifying agents. The primary impact is
expected to be expedited enforcement action, which may benefit the
organic community through deterrence and increase consumer confidence
in the organic label. It is not expected to have a significant cost
burden upon affected entities beyond any monetary penalty or suspension
or revocation of certification or accreditation, to which these
entities are already subject to under current regulations.
RISKS: None have been identified.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Melissa R Bailey, Director, Standards Division,
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, 14th &
Independence Avenue SW., Rm. 2646-South Building, Washington, DC 20250,
Phone: 202 720-3252, Fax: 202 205-7808, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0581-AD09
USDA--ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS)
Proposed Rule Stage
3. Plant Pest Regulations; Update of General Provisions
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450; 7 U.S.C. 2260; 7 U.S.C. 7701 to
7772; 7 U.S.C. 7781 to 7786; 7 U.S.C. 8301 to 8817; 19 U.S.C. 136; 21
U.S.C. 111; 21 U.S.C. 114a; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 4331 and 4332
CFR Citation: 7 CFR parts 318 and 319; 7 CFR part 330; 7 CFR part
352.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: We are proposing to revise our regulations regarding the
movement of plant pests. We are proposing to regulate the movement of
not only plant pests, but also biological control organisms and
associated articles. We are proposing risk-based criteria regarding the
movement of biological control organisms, and are proposing to
establish regulations to allow the movement in interstate commerce of
certain types of plant pests without restriction by granting exceptions
from permitting requirements for those pests. We are also proposing to
revise our regulations regarding the movement of soil and to establish
regulations governing the biocontainment facilities in which plant
pests, biological control organisms, and associated articles are held.
This proposed rule replaces a previously published proposed rule,
[[Page 1336]]
which we are withdrawing as part of this document. This proposal would
clarify the factors that would be considered when assessing the risks
associated with the movement of certain organisms, facilitate the
movement of regulated organisms and articles in a manner that also
protects U.S. agriculture, and address gaps in the current regulations.
Statement of Need: APHIS is preparing a proposed rule to revise its
regulations regarding the movement of plant pests. The revised
regulations would address the importation and interstate movement of
plant pests, biological control organisms, and associated articles, and
the release into the environment of biological control organisms. The
revision would also address the movement of soil and establish
regulations governing the biocontainment facilities in which plant
pests, biological control organisms, and associated articles are held.
This proposal would clarify the factors that would be considered when
assessing the risks associated with the movement of certain organisms,
facilitate the movement of regulated organisms and articles in a manner
that also protects U.S. agriculture, and address gaps in the current
regulations.
Summary of Legal Basis: Under section 411(a) of the Plant
Protection Act (PPA), no person shall import, enter, export, or move in
interstate commerce any plant pest, unless the importation, entry,
exportation, or movement is authorized under a general or specific
permit and in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary of
Agriculture may issue to prevent the introduction of plant pests into
the United States or the dissemination of plant pests within the United
States.
Under section 412 of the PPA, the Secretary may restrict the
importation or movement in interstate commerce of biological control
organisms by requiring the organisms to be accompanied by a permit
authorizing such movement and by subjecting the organisms to quarantine
conditions or other remedial measures deemed necessary to prevent the
spread of plant pests or noxious weeds. That same section of the PPA
also gives the Secretary explicit authority to regulate the movement of
associated articles.
Alternatives: The alternatives we considered were taking no action
at this time or implementing a comprehensive risk reduction plan. This
latter alternative would be characterized as a broad risk mitigation
strategy that could involve various options such as increased
inspection, regulations specific to a certain organism or group of
related organisms, or extensive biocontainment requirements.
We decided against the first alternative because leaving the
regulations unchanged would not address the needs identified
immediately above. We decided against the latter alternative, because
available scientific information, personnel, and resources suggest that
it would be impracticable at this time.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be determined.
Risks: Unless we issue such a proposal, the regulations will not
provide a clear protocol for obtaining permits that authorize the
movement and environmental release of biological control organisms.
This, in turn, could impede research to explore biological control
options for various plant pests and noxious weeds known to exist within
the United States, and could indirectly lead to the further
dissemination of such pests and weeds.
Moreover, unless we revise the soil regulations, certain provisions
in the regulations will not adequately address the risk to plants,
plant parts, and plant products within the United States that such soil
might present.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intent To Prepare an 10/20/09 74 FR 53673
Environmental Impact Statement.
Notice Comment Period End........... 11/19/09
NPRM................................ 04/00/13
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact: Shirley Wager-Page, Chief, Pest Permitting Branch,
Plant Health Programs, PPQ, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 131, Riverdale, MD
20737-1236, Phone: 301 851-2323.
RIN: 0579-AC98
USDA--APHIS
Final Rule Stage
4. Importation of Live Dogs
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2148.
CFR Citation: 9 CFR parts 1 and 2.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: We are amending the regulations to implement an amendment
to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act
of 2008 added a new section to the AWA to restrict the importation of
certain live dogs. Consistent with this amendment, this rule prohibits
the importation of dogs, with limited exceptions, from any part of the
world into the continental United States or Hawaii for purposes of
resale, research, or veterinary treatment, unless the dogs are in good
health, have received all necessary vaccinations, and are at least 6
months of age. This action is necessary to implement the amendment to
the AWA and will help to ensure the welfare of imported dogs.
Statement of Need: The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
mandates that the Secretary of Agriculture promulgate regulations to
implement and enforce new provisions of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA)
regarding the importation of dogs for resale. In line with the changes
to the AWA, APHIS intends to amend the regulations in 9 CFR parts 1 and
2 to regulate the importation of dogs for resale.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (Pub. L. 110-246, signed into law on June 18, 2008) added a new
section to the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2147) to restrict the
importation of live dogs for resale. As amended, the AWA now prohibits
the importation of dogs into the United States for resale unless the
Secretary of Agriculture determines that the dogs are in good health,
have received all necessary vaccinations, and are at least 6 months of
age. Exceptions are provided for dogs imported for research purposes or
veterinary treatment. An exception to the 6-month age requirement is
also provided for dogs that are lawfully imported into Hawaii for
resale purposes from the British Isles, Australia, Guam, or New Zealand
in compliance with the applicable regulations of Hawaii, provided the
dogs are vaccinated, are in good health, and are not transported out of
Hawaii for resale purposes at less than 6 months of age.
Alternatives: To be identified.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be determined.
Risks: Not applicable.
[[Page 1337]]
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/01/11 76 FR 54392
NPRM Comment Period End............. 10/31/11
Final Rule.......................... 04/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact: Gerald Rushin, Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal
Care, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, Phone: 301
851-3735.
RIN: 0579-AD23
USDA--APHIS
5. Animal Disease Traceability
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8305
CFR Citation: 9 CFR part 86.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking will amend the regulations to establish
minimum national official identification and documentation requirements
for the traceability of livestock moving interstate. The purpose of
this rulemaking is to improve our ability to trace livestock in the
event that disease is found.
Statement of Need: Preventing and controlling animal disease is the
cornerstone of protecting American animal agriculture. While ranchers
and farmers work hard to protect their animals and their livelihoods,
there is never a guarantee that their animals will be spared from
disease. To support their efforts, USDA has enacted regulations to
prevent, control, and eradicate disease, and to increase foreign and
domestic confidence in the safety of animals and animal products.
Traceability helps give that reassurance. Traceability does not prevent
disease, but knowing where diseased and at-risk animals are, where they
have been, and when, is indispensable in emergency response and in
ongoing disease programs. The primary objective of these proposed
regulations is to improve our ability to trace livestock in the event
that disease is found in a manner that continues to ensure the smooth
flow of livestock in interstate commerce.
Summary of Legal Basis: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7
U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or
restrict the interstate movement of any animal to prevent the
introduction or dissemination of any pest or disease of livestock, and
may carry out operations and measures to detect, control, or eradicate
any pest or disease of livestock. The Secretary may promulgate such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the Act.
Alternatives: As part of its ongoing efforts to safeguard animal
health, APHIS initiated implementation of the National Animal
Identification System (NAIS) in 2004. More recently, the Agency
launched an effort to assess the level of acceptance of NAIS through
meetings with the Secretary, listening sessions in 14 cities, and
public comments. Although there was some support for NAIS, the vast
majority of participants were highly critical of the program and of
USDA's implementation efforts. The feedback revealed that NAIS has
become a barrier to achieving meaningful animal disease traceability in
the United States in partnership with America's producers.
The option we are proposing pertains strictly to interstate
movement and gives States and tribes the flexibility to identify and
implement the traceability approaches that work best for them.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: A workable and effective animal
traceability system would enhance animal health programs, leading to
more secure market access and other societal gains. Traceability can
reduce the cost of disease outbreaks, minimizing losses to producers
and industries by enabling current and previous locations of
potentially exposed animals to be readily identified. Trade benefits
can include increased competitiveness in global markets generally, and
when outbreaks do occur, the mitigation of export market losses through
regionalization. Markets benefit through more efficient and timely
epidemiological investigation of animal health issues.
Other societal benefits include improved animal welfare during
natural disasters.
The main economic effect of the rule is expected to be on the beef
and cattle industry. For other species such as horses and other equine
species, poultry, sheep and goats, swine, and captive cervids, APHIS
would largely maintain and build on the identification requirements of
existing disease program regulations.
Costs of an animal traceability system would include those for tags
and interstate certificates of veterinary inspection (ICVIs) or other
movement documentation, for animals moved interstate. Incremental costs
incurred are expected to vary depending upon a number of factors,
including whether an enterprise does or does not already use eartags to
identify individual cattle. For many operators, costs of official
animal identification and ICVIs would be similar, respectively, to
costs associated with current animal identification practices and the
in-shipment documentation currently required by individual States. To
the extent that official animal identification and ICVIs would simply
replace current requirements, the incremental costs of the rule for
private enterprises would be minimal.
Risks: This rulemaking is being undertaken to address the animal
health risks posed by gaps in the existing regulations concerning
identification of livestock being moved interstate. The current lack of
a comprehensive animal traceability program is impairing our ability to
trace animals that may be infected with disease.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/11/11 76 FR 50082
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/09/11
Final Rule.......................... 12/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: State, Tribal.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in EO 13132.
Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact: Neil Hammerschmidt, Program Manager, Animal Disease
Traceability, VS, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 46, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231,
Phone: 301 851-3539.
RIN: 0579-AD24
USDA--APHIS
6. Animal Welfare; Retail Pet Stores
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131 to 2159
CFR Citation: 9 CFR parts 1 and 2.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking will revise the definition of retail pet
store and related regulations to bring more pet
[[Page 1338]]
animals sold at retail under the protection of the Animal Welfare Act
(AWA). Retail pet stores are not required to be licensed and inspected
under the AWA. This rulemaking is necessary to ensure that animals sold
at retail are monitored for their health and humane treatment.
Statement of Need: ``Retail pet stores'' are not required to obtain
a license under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) or comply with the AWA
regulations and standards. Currently, anyone selling, at retail, the
following animals for use as pets are considered retail pet stores:
Dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice,
gophers, chinchilla, domestic ferrets, domestic farm animals, birds,
and cold-blooded species. This rulemaking would rescind the ``retail
pet store'' status of anyone selling, at retail for use as pets, those
types of animals to buyers who do not physically enter his or her place
of business or residence in order to personally observe the animals
available for sale prior to purchase and/or to take custody of the
animals after purchase. Unless otherwise exempt under the regulations,
these entities would be required to obtain a license from APHIS and
would become subject to the AWA regulations and standards.
Summary of Legal Basis: Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA or the
Act, 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized
to promulgate standards and other requirements governing the humane
handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by
dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, operators of auction sales,
and carriers and intermediate handlers. The Secretary has delegated
responsibility for administering the AWA to the Administrator of APHIS.
Alternatives: We recognize that retailers who sell some animals to
walk-in customers and some animals remotely may be subject to a certain
degree of oversight by the customers who enter their place of business
or residence. As a result, we considered establishing a regulatory
threshold based on the percentage of such a retailer's remote sales. A
second alternative we considered in preparing the proposed rule was to
add an exception from licensing for retailers that are subject to
oversight by State or local agencies or by breed and registry
organizations that enforce standards of welfare comparable to those
standards established under the AWA. A third alternative we considered
during the development of the proposed rule was to amend the definition
of retail pet store so that only high-volume breeders would be subject
to the AWA regulations and standards. We determined, however, that the
proposed action would be preferable to these alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Although we have attempted to
estimate the impact of the proposed rule, we did not initially have
enough information to fully assess it, particularly information on the
number of entities that may be affected or breadth of operational
changes that may result. In the proposed rule, we encouraged public
comment on the number of entities that may be affected and the degree
to which operations would be altered to comply with the rule. We
believe that the benefits of the rule--primarily enhanced animal
welfare--would justify the costs. The rule would help ensure that
animals sold at retail, but lacking public oversight receive humane
handling, care and treatment in keeping with the requirements of the
AWA. It would also address the competitive disadvantage of retail
breeders who adhere to the AWA regulations, when compared to those
retailers who do not operate their facilities according to AWA
standards and may therefore bear lower costs. These benefits are not
quantified.
Risks: Not applicable.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 05/16/12 77 FR 28799
NPRM Comment Period End............. 07/16/12
NPRM Comment Period Extended........ 07/16/12 77 FR 41716
NPRM Comment Period End............. 08/15/12
Final Rule.......................... 02/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact: Gerald Rushin, Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal
Care, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, Phone: 301
851-3735.
RIN: 0579-AD57
USDA--FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE (FNS)
Proposed Rule Stage
7. Child Nutrition Program Integrity
Priority: Other Significant.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-296
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
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.
[[Page 1339]]
Risks: None identified.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/13
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: James F Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 10th Floor, 3101
Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0584-AE08
USDA--FNS
8. National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs: Nutrition
Standards for All Foods Sold in School, as Required by the Healthy,
Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
Priority: Economically Significant.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-296
CFR Citation: 7 CFR part 210; 7 CFR part 220.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would codify the two provisions of the
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (Pub. L. 111-296; the Act) under 7 CFR
parts 210 and 220.
Section 203 requires schools participating in the National School
Lunch Program to make available to children free of charge, as
nutritionally appropriate, potable water for consumption in the place
where meals are served during meal service.
Section 208 requires the Secretary to promulgate proposed
regulations to establish science-based nutrition standards for all
foods sold in schools not later than December 13, 2011. The nutrition
standards would apply to all food sold outside the school meal
programs, on the school campus, and at any time during the school day.
Statement of Need: This proposed rule would codify the following
provisions of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (Pub. L. 111-296; the
Act) as appropriate, under 7 CFR parts 210 and 220.
Section 203 requires schools participating in the National School
Lunch Program to make available to children free of charge, as
nutritionally appropriate, potable water for consumption in the place
where meals are served during meal service.
Section 208 requires the Secretary to promulgate proposed
regulations to establish science-based nutrition standards for all
foods sold in schools not later than December 13, 2011. The nutrition
standards would apply to all food sold outside the school meal
programs, on the school campus, and at any time during the school day.
Summary of Legal Basis: There is no existing regulatory requirement
to make water available where meals are served. Regulations at 7 CFR
parts 210.11 direct State agencies and school food authorities to
establish regulations necessary to control the sale of foods in
competition with lunches served under the NSLP, and prohibit the sale
of foods of minimal nutritional value in the food service areas during
the lunch periods. The sale of other competitive foods may, at the
discretion of the State agency and school food authority, be allowed in
the food service area during the lunch period only if all income from
the sale of such foods accrues to the benefit of the nonprofit school
food service or the school or student organizations approved by the
school. State agencies and school food authorities may impose
additional restrictions on the sale of and income from all foods sold
at any time throughout schools participating in the Program.
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Expected Costs Analysis and
Budgetary Effects Statement: The Congressional Budget Office determined
these provisions would incur no Federal costs.
Expected Benefits of the Proposed Action
The provisions in this proposed rulemaking would result in better
nutrition for all school children.
Risks: None known.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/13
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 10th Floor, 3101
Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0584-AE09
USDA--FNS
9. Child Nutrition Programs: Professional Standards for School Food
Service and State Child Nutrition Program Directors as Required by the
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
Priority: Other Significant.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-296
CFR Citation: 7 CFR part 210; 7 CFR part 220.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would codify section 306 of the
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (Pub. L. 111-296; the Act) under 7 CFR
parts 210 and 220 which requires the Secretary to establish a program
of required education, training, and certification for all school food
service directors responsible for the management of a school food
authority; and criteria and standards for States to use in the
selection of State agency directors with responsibility for the school
lunch program and the school breakfast program.
Statement of Need: The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
requires USDA to establish a program of required education, training,
and certification for all school food service directors responsible for
the management of a school food authority, as well as criteria and
standards for States to use in the selection of State agency directors
with responsibility for the school lunch program and the school
breakfast program. The Act also requires each State to provide at least
annual training in administrative practices to local education agency
and school food service personnel.
Summary of Legal Basis: This proposed rule would codify section 306
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 establish
consistent required education and professional standards for school
food service and state agency directors; and education, training and
certification of food service personnel. Consistent standards should
help strengthen program integrity and quality. The Act provides a small
amount ($5 million in the first year, $1 million annually thereafter)
to establish and manage the training and certification programs. USDA
[[Page 1340]]
anticipates that the rule will have no significant cost and no major
increase in regulatory burden to States.
Risks: None identified.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/13
NPRM Comment Period End............. 05/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Agency Contact: James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 10th Floor, 3101
Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0584-AE19
USDA--FNS
10. SNAP: Immediate Payment Suspension for Fraudulent Retailer Activity
Priority: Other Significant.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-246
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule proposes to implement part of section 4132 of
the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246) by
authorizing the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to suspend the payment
of redeemed program benefits to a suspected retail food store or
wholesale food concern pending administrative action to disqualify the
firm.
Statement of Need: Under current rules, some firms authorized to
redeem SNAP benefits conduct substantial trafficking or other
fraudulent SNAP activity in a short period of time, flee with the
fraudulently-obtained funds, and ultimately appreciate large profits
from this before USDA is able to complete a formal investigation. The
ability to withhold some revenues from such violators would depreciate
their profits and may discourage this illegal activity.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule codifies part of section 4132 of
the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246).
Alternatives: Because this proposed rule is under development,
alternatives are not yet articulated.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule will improve SNAP
integrity by allowing USDA to take appropriate action against retailers
who commit fraud. The Department does not anticipate that this
provision will have a significant cost impact.
Risks: Suspension of funds for firms suspected of flagrant program
violations runs a small risk that firms that are ultimately found not
to have trafficked will temporarily lose the use of these funds. USDA
anticipates that this provision will only affect a small subset of
firms charged with trafficking, and that the small risk of
inappropriate suspensions far outweighs the much larger risk of
permitting a firm to profit from trafficking in SNAP benefits while a
decision is made on its case.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/12
NPRM Comment Period End............. 02/00/13
Final Action........................ 07/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 10th Floor, 3101
Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0584-AE22
USDA--FNS
Final Rule Stage
11. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC): Revisions in the WIC Food Packages
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1786
CFR Citation: 7 CFR part 246.
Legal Deadline: None.
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 and WIC Reauthorization
Act of 2004, enacted on June 30, 2004, requires the Department to issue
a final rule within 18 months of receiving the Institute of Medicine's
report on revisions to the WIC food packages. This report was published
and released to the public on April 27, 2005.
Alternatives: FNS developed a regulatory impact analysis that
addressed a variety of alternatives that 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. This analysis estimated that the provisions of the rule would
have a minimal impact on the costs of overall operations of the WIC
Program over 5 years. 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. As a
result, vendors will be indirectly affected and the food industry will
realize increased sales of some foods and decreases in other foods,
with an overall neutral effect on sales nationally. The rule may have
an indirect economic affect on certain small businesses because they
may have to carry a larger variety of certain foods to be eligible for
authorization as a WIC vendor. With the high degree of State
flexibility allowable under this final rule, small vendors will be
impacted differently in each State depending upon how that State
chooses to meet the new requirements. It is, therefore, not feasible to
accurately estimate the rule's impact on small vendors. Since neither
FNS nor the State agencies regulate food producers under the WIC
Program, it is not known how many small entities within that industry
may be indirectly affected by the rule. FNS has, however, modified the
new food provision in an effort to mitigate the impact on small
entities. This rule adds new food items, such as fruits and vegetables
and whole grain breads, which may require some WIC vendors,
particularly smaller stores, to expand the types and quantities of food
items stocked in order
[[Page 1341]]
to maintain their WIC authorization. In addition, vendors also have to
make available more than one food type from each WIC food category,
except for the categories of peanut butter and eggs, which may be a
change for some vendors. To mitigate the impact of the fruit and
vegetable requirement, the rule allows canned, frozen, and dried fruits
and vegetables to be substituted for fresh produce. 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 Action........................ 04/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 10th Floor, 3101
Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0584-AD77
USDA--FNS
12. 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 part 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. However,
FNS did consider alternatives in implementing section 4103 of the FCEA,
Elimination of Dependent Care Deduction Caps. FNS considered whether to
limit deductible expenses to costs paid directly to the care provider
or whether to permit households to deduct other expenses associated
with dependent care in addition to the direct costs. FNS chose to allow
households to deduct the cost of transportation to and from the
dependent care provider and the cost of separately identified activity
fees that are associated with dependent care. Section 4103 signaled an
important shift in congressional recognition that dependent care costs
constitute major expenses for working households. In addition, it was
noted during the floor discussion in both houses of Congress prior to
passage of the FCEA that some States already counted transportation
costs as part of dependent care expenditures.
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. Some
provisions may make some households newly eligible for SNAP benefits.
Other provisions may increase SNAP benefits for certain households.
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 Rule.......................... 06/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Agency Contact: James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 10th Floor, 3101
Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0584-AD87
USDA--FNS
13. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Nutrition Education and
Obesity Prevention Grant
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-296
CFR Citation: 7 CFR part 272.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 2012, Public Law 111-
296.
A legal deadline of 01/01/2012 was placed on this action by Public
Law 111-296.
Abstract: Section 241 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to authorize grants to States
for a nutrition education and obesity prevention program that promotes
healthy food choices consistent with the most recent Dietary Guidelines
for Americans.
Statement of Need: The Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention
Grant Program rule amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to replace
the current nutrition education program under the Act with a program
providing grants to States for the implementation of a nutrition
education and obesity prevention program that promotes healthy food
choices consistent with the most recent Dietary Guidelines for
Americans. This rule will implement all requirements of the law. It
makes
[[Page 1342]]
eligible for program participation: (1) Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) participants; (2) participants in the school
lunch or breakfast programs; and (3) individuals who reside in low-
income communities or are low-income individuals. The rule continues
commitment to serving low-income populations while focusing on the
issue of obesity, a priority of this Administration. It ensures that
interventions implemented as part of State nutrition education plans
recognize the constrained resources of the eligible population.
The rule requires activities be science-based and outcome-driven
and provides for accountability and transparency through State plans.
It will require coordination and collaboration among Federal agencies
and stakeholders, including the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the public health community, the academic and research
communities, nutrition education practitioners, representatives of
State and local governments, and community organizations that serve the
low-income populations. The rule allows for 100 percent Federal
funding, and States will not have to provide matching funds. The grant
funding will be based on 2009 expenditures. For 3 years after
enactment, States will receive grant funds based on their level of
funds expended for the 2009 base year with funds indexed for inflation
thereafter. The new funding structure is phased in over a 7-year
period. From fiscal year 2014 forward, funds will be allocated based on
a formula that considers participation.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 241, Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act
of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296).
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Expected Costs Analysis and
Budgetary Effects Statement: The action allows for 100 percent Federal
funding which gives States more flexibility to target services where
they can be most effective without the constraints of a State match.
For 3 years after enactment, States will receive grant funds based on
their level of funds expended for the 2009 base year with funds indexed
for inflation thereafter. The new funding structure is phased in over a
7-year period. From fiscal year 2014 forward, funds will be allocated
based on a formula that considers participation.
Expected Benefits of the Proposed Action: This regulatory action
seeks to improve the effectiveness of the program and make it easier
for the States to administer, while still allowing funding to grow. It
allows for 100 percent Federal funding, which gives States more
flexibility to target services where they can be most effective without
the constraints of a State match. It allows grantees to adopt
individual and group-based nutrition education, as well as community
and public health approaches. It allows coordinated services to be
provided to participants in all the Federal food assistance programs
and to other low-income persons.
Risks: None known.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 01/00/13
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 03/00/13
End.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: State.
Agency Contact: James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 10th Floor, 3101
Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0584-AE07
USDA--FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE (FSIS)
Proposed Rule Stage
14. Egg Products Inspection Regulations
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 1031 to 1056
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 590.570; 9 CFR 590.575; 9 CFR 590.146; 9 CFR
590.10; 9 CFR 590.411; 9 CFR 590.502; 9 CFR 590.504; 9 CFR 590.580; 9
CFR part 591; * * *
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is
proposing to require egg products plants and establishments that
pasteurize shell eggs to develop and implement Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Points (HACCP) systems and sanitation SOPs. FSIS is
also proposing pathogen reduction performance standards that would be
applicable to egg products and pasteurized shell eggs. FSIS is
proposing to amend the Federal egg products inspection regulations by
removing current requirements for prior approval by FSIS of egg
products plant drawings, specifications, and equipment prior to their
use in official plants.
Statement of Need: The actions being proposed are part of FSIS'
regulatory reform effort to improve FSIS' shell egg products food
safety regulations, better define the roles of Government and the
regulated industry, encourage innovations that will improve food
safety, remove unnecessary regulatory burdens on inspected egg products
plants, and make the egg products regulations as consistent as possible
with the Agency's meat and poultry products regulations. FSIS also is
taking these actions in light of changing inspection priorities and
recent findings of Salmonella in pasteurized egg products.
This proposal is directly related to FSIS' PR/HACCP initiative.
Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 1031 to 1056.
Alternatives: A team of FSIS economists and food technologists is
conducting a cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the potential economic
impacts of several alternatives on the public, egg products industry,
and FSIS. These alternatives include: (1) Taking no regulatory action;
(2) Requiring all inspected egg products plants to develop, adopt, and
implement written sanitation SOPs and HACCP plans; and (3) Converting
to a lethality-based pathogen reduction performance standard many of
the current highly prescriptive egg products processing requirements.
The team will consider the effects of the uniform; across-the-board
standard for all egg products; a performance standard based on the
relative risk of different classes of egg products; and a performance
standard based on the relative risks to public health of different
production processes.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FSIS is analyzing the potential
costs of this proposed rulemaking to industry, FSIS, and other Federal
agencies, State and local governments, small entities, and foreign
countries. The expected costs to industry will depend on a number of
factors. These costs include the required lethality, or level of
pathogen reduction, and the cost of HACCP plan and sanitation SOP
development, implementation, and associated employee training. The
pathogen reduction costs will depend on the amount of reduction sought
and on the classes of product, product formulations, or processes.
Relative enforcement costs to FSIS and Food and Drug Administration
may change because the two Agencies share responsibility for inspection
and oversight of the egg industry and a farm-to-table approach for
shell egg and egg products food safety. Other Federal
[[Page 1343]]
agencies and local governments are not likely to be affected.
Egg product inspection systems of foreign countries wishing to
export egg products to the U.S. must be equivalent to the U.S. system.
FSIS will consult with these countries, as needed, if and when this
proposal becomes effective.
This proposal is not likely to have a significant impact on small
entities. The entities that would be directly affected by this proposal
would be the approximately 80 federally inspected egg products plants,
most of which are small businesses, according to the Small Business
Administration criteria. If necessary, FSIS will develop compliance
guides to assist these small firms in implementing the proposed
requirements.
Potential benefits associated with this rulemaking include:
Improvements in human health due to pathogen reduction; improved
utilization of FSIS inspection program resources; and cost savings
resulting from the flexibility of egg products plants in achieving a
lethality-based pathogen reduction performance standard. Once specific
alternatives are identified, economic analysis will identify the
quantitative and qualitative benefits associated with each alternative.
Human health benefits from this rulemaking are likely to be small
because of the low level of (chiefly post-processing) contamination of
pasteurized egg products.
The preliminary anticipated annualized costs of the proposed action
are approximately $7 million. The preliminary anticipated benefits of
the proposed action are approximately $90 million per year.
Risks: FSIS believes that this regulatory action may result in a
further reduction in the risks associated with egg products. The
development of a lethality-based pathogen reduction performance
standard for egg products, replacing command-and-control regulations,
will remove unnecessary regulatory obstacles to, and provide incentives
for, innovation to improve the safety of egg products.
To assess the potential risk-reduction impacts of this rulemaking
on the public, an intra-Agency group of scientific and technical
experts is conducting a risk management analysis. The group has been
charged with identifying the lethality requirement sufficient to ensure
the safety of egg products and the alternative methods for implementing
the requirement. FSIS has developed new risk assessments for Salmonella
Enteritidis in eggs and for Salmonella app. In liquid egg products to
evaluate the risk associated with the regulatory alternatives.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 09/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Victoria Levine, Program Analyst, Policy Issuances
Division, Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection
Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202
720-5627, Fax: 202 690-0486, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0583-AC58
USDA--FSIS
15. Product Labeling: Use of the Voluntary Claim ``Natural'' on the
Labeling of Meat and Poultry Products
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.
CFR Citation: 9 CFR part 317; 9 CFR part 381.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is
proposing to amend the Federal meat and poultry products inspection
regulations to define the conditions under which it will permit the
voluntary claim ``natural'' to be used in the labeling of meat and
poultry products. FSIS is also proposing that label approval requests
for labels that contain ``natural'' claims include documentation to
demonstrate that the products meet the criteria to bear a ``natural''
claim. FSIS is proposing to require that meat or poultry products meet
these conditions to qualify for a ``natural'' claim to make the claim
more meaningful to consumers.
Statement of Need: A codified ``natural'' claim definition will
reduce uncertainty about which products qualify to be labeled as
``natural'' and will increase consumer confidence in the claim. A
codified ``natural'' definition that clearly articulates the criteria
that meat and poultry products must meet to qualify to be labeled as
``natural'' will make the Agency's approval of ``natural'' claims more
transparent and will allow the Agency to review labels that contain
``natural'' claims in a more efficient and consistent manner. A
codified ``natural'' definition will also make the claim more
meaningful to consumers.
Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. 451 et
seq.
Alternatives: The Agency has considered not proceeding with
rulemaking and maintaining the existing policy guidance on ``natural''
claims and using that policy guidance to evaluate ``natural'' claims on
a case-by-case basis. The Agency has also considered alternative
definitions of ``natural'' and establishing separate codified
definitions of ``natural,'' ``natural * * * minimally processed,'' and
``natural * * * minimally processed/all natural ingredients.''
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FSIS anticipates that a clear and
simple definition of ``natural'' will minimize cognitive costs to
consumers. FSIS also anticipates benefits from a consistent USDA policy
on ``natural'' claims. FSIS anticipates costs to establishments to
change their labels or change their production practices.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM............................... 09/14/09 74 FR 46951
ANPRM Comment Period End............ 11/13/09
NPRM................................ 09/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Rosalyn Murphy-Jenkins, Director, Labeling and
Program Delivery Division, Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and
Inspection Service, Patriots Plaza 3, 8th Floor, Room 8-148, Stop 5273,
1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-5273, Phone: 301
504-0878, Fax: 301 504-0872, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0583-AD30
USDA--FSIS
16. Descriptive Designation for Needle or Blade Tenderized
(Mechanically Tenderized) Beef Products
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 453 and 21 U.S.C. 601
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 317.8; 9 CFR 381.129.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: FSIS is proposing 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
[[Page 1344]]
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. FSIS is proposing that the product name for such
beef products include the descriptive designation ``mechanically
tenderized'' and accurate description of the beef component. FSIS is
also proposing 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, FSIS is
proposing to 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 that inform consumers 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 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.
Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 601 to 695; 21 U.S.C. 451 to 470.
Alternatives: As an alternative to the proposed requirements, FSIS
considered not proposing new requirements for needle or blade
tenderized beef products. A second alternative was for the Agency to
propose to amend the labeling regulations to include a new requirement
for labeling all mechanically tenderized meat and poultry products.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Benefits:
Benefits are both qualitative and quantifiable. The proposed new
labeling requirements will improve public awareness of product
identities, meaning that it will provide truthful and accurate labeling
of beef products to clearly differentiate the non-intact, mechanically
tenderized beef products from intact products. Since needle or blade
tenderized beef products are not readily distinguishable from non-
tenderized beef products, the descriptive designation of ``mechanically
tenderized'' on the labels of these products will inform the consumers
of the true nature of the product when deciding whether to purchase the
products. Additionally, the knowledge of knowing that these products
are mechanically tenderized will help consumers, official
establishments, and retail establishments become aware that they need
to cook these products differently from intact products before they can
be safely consumed.
Costs: FSIS estimated that 32,130 labels are for beef product.
Assuming 10.5 percent of the 32,130 labels are for products that are
mechanically tenderized, then 3,374 labels will be required to add
``mechanically tenderized'' to their labels in accordance with this
proposed rule. If we include the labels that are for beef product that
are mechanically tenderized and contain added solutions, then we would
assume that an additional, 5,077 labels will be required to add
``mechanically tenderized'' to their labels. From the 2011 Model to
Estimate Costs of Using Labeling as a Risk Reduction Strategy for
Consumer Products Regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, a
minor labeling change was defined as one in which only one color is
affected and the label does not need to be redesigned. FSIS concluded
that the change that is required by this propose rule is minor. The
mid-point label design modification costs for a minor coordinated label
change are an estimated $310 per label. In the case of a coordinated
label change, only administrative and recordkeeping costs are
attributed to the regulation, and all other costs are not. FSIS
estimates the cost to be $1.05 million (3,374 labels x $310) for
mechanically tenderized only. For all products that are mechanically
tenderized and contain added solutions, the cost is estimated to be
$2.6 million. Establishments would also incur minimal costs to validate
the required cooking instructions for raw and partially cooked needle
or blade tenderized beef products. These costs would be incurred to
ensure that the cooking instructions are adequate to destroy any
potential pathogens that may remain in the beef product after being
tenderized.
Risks: In 2011, FSIS conducted a Comparative Risk Assessment for
Intact and Non-intact Beef. The comparative risk assessment was
conducted to determine the difference in risk between different types
of steak products and to examine the effect of different cooking
practices on reducing human illness. This comparative risk assessment
informed this rule. The risk assessment looked at the comparative
effects of cooking at 140, 150, 160, and 165 degrees Fahrenheit. In its
risk assessment, FSIS estimated the annual E. coli O157:H7 illnesses
prevented from achieving various internal temperatures. From the risk
assessment it was estimated that between 191 and 239 illnesses would be
prevented annually, if mechanically tenderized meat were cooked to 160
degrees. Using the FSIS average cost per case for E. coli O157:H7 of
$3,281, the propose rule would save approximately $627,000 to $784,000.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Rosalyn Murphy-Jenkins, Director, Labeling and
Program Delivery Division, Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and
Inspection Service, Patriots Plaza 3, 8th Floor, Room 8-148, Stop 5273,
1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-5273, Phone: 301
504-0878, Fax: 301 504-0872, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0583-AD45
USDA--FSIS
17. Proposed Rule: Records To Be Kept by Official Establishments and
Retail Stores That Grind or Chop Raw Beef Products
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
CFR Citation: 9 CFR part 320.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is
proposing to amend its recordkeeping regulations to specify that all
official establishments and retail stores that grind or chop raw beef
products for sale in commerce must
[[Page 1345]]
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 is aware of the other activities that occur at retail that
may, ultimately, prove also to be of concern due to inadequate
recordkeeping (e.g., fabrication of steaks and roasts from non-intact
beef in which the non-intact beef is later associated with an outbreak;
grinding and chopping pork or even poultry; or slicing ready-to-eat
meat and poultry). While these issues have been considered during the
development of this proposal, the Agency has decided to ask for comment
on whether and how such additional issues should be addressed, but will
not include them in the current rulemaking.
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 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 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 trace back and trace forward 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 conduce trace back and trace forward
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 willfully 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 of 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 willfully 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, among other things.
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 76,390
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
labor costs of developing, recording, and maintaining records, and
storage costs, would be approximately $20.5 million. Agency costs of
approximately $15,000 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:
(1) Savings from more efficient recalls of $3.6 million.
(2) Estimated averted E. coli O157:H7 illnesses of $23.4 million.
Total benefits from this rule are estimated to be $27.0 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 a lot quicker 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 E.
coli O157:H7 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 believes that a projected 30% of foodborne E. coli
O157:H7 illnesses could possibly be averted if this rule was in place,
dropping from a high of 23,732 to 16,612 (a decline of 7,120).
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 02/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Victoria Levine, Program Analyst, Policy Issuances
Division, Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection
Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202
720-5627, Fax: 202 690-0486, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0583-AD46
USDA--FSIS
Final Rule Stage
18. Prior Labeling Approval System: Generic Label Approval
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 451 to 470; 21 U.S.C. 601 to 695
CFR Citation: 9 CFR part 317; 9 CFR part 327; 9 CFR part 381; 9 CFR
part 412.
[[Page 1346]]
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rulemaking will continue an effort initiated several
years ago by amending FSIS' regulations to expand the types of labeling
that are generically approved. FSIS plans to propose that the
submission of labeling for approval prior to use be limited to certain
types of labeling, as specified in the regulations. In addition, FSIS
plans to reorganize and amend the regulations by consolidating the
nutrition labeling rules that currently are stated separately for meat
and poultry products (in part 317, subpart B, and part 381, subpart Y,
respectively) and by amending their provisions to set out clearly
various circumstances under which these products are misbranded.
Statement of Need: Expanding the types of labeling that are
generically approved would permit Agency personnel to focus their
resources on evaluating only those claims or special statements that
have health and safety or economic implications. This would essentially
eliminate the time needed for FSIS personnel to evaluate labeling
features and allocate more time for staff to work on other duties and
responsibilities. A major advantage of this proposal is that it is
consistent with FSIS' current regulatory approach, which separates
industry and Agency responsibilities.
Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 457 and 607.
Alternatives: FSIS considered several options. The first was to
expand the types of labeling that would be generically approved and
consolidate into one part all of the labeling regulations applicable to
products regulated under the FMIA and PPIA and the policies currently
contained in FSIS Directive 7220.1, Revision 3. The second option FSIS
considered was to consolidate only the meat and poultry regulations
that are similar and to expand the types of generically approved
labeling that can be applied by Federal and certified foreign
establishments. The third option, and the one favored by FSIS, was to
amend the prior labeling approval system in an incremental three-phase
approach.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The final rule would permit the
Agency to realize an estimated discounted cost savings of $2.9 million
over 10 years. The final rule would be beneficial because it would
streamline the generic labeling process, while imposing no additional
cost burden on establishments. Consumers would benefit because industry
would have the ability to introduce products into the marketplace more
quickly.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/05/11 76 FR 75809
NPRM Comment Period End............. 03/05/12
Final Action........................ 03/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Jeff Canavan, Labeling and Program Delivery
Division, Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection
Service, Patriots Plaza 3, 8th Floor, 8-146, Stop 5273, 1400
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-5273, Phone: 301 504-0878,
Fax: 301 504-0872, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0583-AC59
USDA--FSIS
19. 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.
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 Rule.......................... 04/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1347]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Rachel Edelstein, Acting Assistant Administrator,
Office of Policy and Program Development, Department of Agriculture,
Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., 351-E
JWB, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 205-0495, Fax: 202 720-2025,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0583-AD32
USDA--FSIS
20. 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: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending
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 will 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 the 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........................ 04/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Dr. Ron Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of
International Affairs, Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and
Inspection Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250,
Phone: 202 720-3473.
RIN: 0583-AD41
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
[[Page 1348]]
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 2012. During the next year,
NOAA plans to publish four 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
Service (NMFS), the National Ocean Service (NOS), and the National
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS),
exercise regulatory authority.
NMFS oversees the management and conservation of the Nation's
marine fisheries, protects threatened and endangered marine and
anadromous species and marine mammals, and promotes economic
development of the U.S. fishing industry. NOS assists the coastal
States in their management of land and ocean resources in their coastal
zones, including estuarine research reserves; manages the national
marine sanctuaries; monitors marine pollution; and directs the national
program for deep-seabed minerals and ocean thermal energy. NESDIS
administers the civilian weather satellite program and licenses private
organizations to operate commercial land-remote sensing satellite
systems.
Commerce, through NOAA, has a unique role in promoting stewardship
of the global environment through effective management of the Nation's
marine and coastal resources and in monitoring and predicting changes
in the Earth's environment, thus linking trade, development, and
technology with environmental issues. NOAA has the primary Federal
responsibility for providing sound scientific observations,
assessments, and forecasts of environmental phenomena on which resource
management, adaptation, and other societal decisions can be made.
In the environmental stewardship area, NOAA's goals include:
rebuilding and maintaining strong U.S. fisheries by using market-based
tools and ecosystem approaches to management; increasing the
populations of depleted, threatened, or endangered species and marine
mammals by implementing recovery plans that provide for their recovery
while still allowing for economic and recreational opportunities;
promoting healthy coastal ecosystems by ensuring that economic
development is managed in ways that maintain biodiversity and long-term
productivity for sustained use; and modernizing navigation and
positioning services. In the environmental assessment and prediction
area, goals include: understanding climate change science and impacts,
and communicating that understanding to government and private sector
stakeholders enabling them to adapt; continually improving the National
Weather Service; implementing reliable seasonal and interannual climate
forecasts to guide economic planning; providing science-based policy
advice on options to deal with very long-term (decadal to centennial)
changes in the environment; and advancing and improving short-term
warning and forecast services for the entire environment.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) rulemakings concern the conservation and management of
fishery resources in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (generally 3-200
nautical miles). Among the several hundred rulemakings that NOAA plans
to issue in FY 2012, 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
[[Page 1349]]
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 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. Amend the Definition of Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated
Fishing under the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act
to Include International Provisions of the Shark Conservation Act
(0648-BA89): As required under the international provisions of the
Shark Conservation Act, the rule would amend the identification and
certification procedures under the High Seas Driftnet Fishing
Moratorium Protection to include the identification of a foreign nation
whose fishing vessels engaged during the preceding calendar year in
fishing activities in areas beyond any national jurisdiction that
target or incidentally catch sharks if that nation has not adopted a
regulatory program to provide for the conservation of sharks that is
comparable to that of the United States, taking into account different
conditions. NMFS also intends to amend the regulatory definition of
``illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing'' for purposes of
the identification and certification procedures under the Moratorium
Protection Act.
2. 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.
3. 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.
[[Page 1350]]
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 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:
Are ``tiered'' to 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.
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.
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
[[Page 1351]]
both military and civil uses. Other multilateral export control regimes
include the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers
Group, and the Australia Group, which lists items controlled for
chemical and biological weapon nonproliferation purposes. In addition,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration works with other
countries' regulatory bodies through regional fishery management
organizations to develop fair and internationally-agreed-to fishery
standards for the High Seas.
BIS is also engaged, in partnership with the Departments of State
and Defense, in revising the regulatory framework for export control,
through the President's Export Control Reform Initiative (ECRI).
Through this effort, the United States government is moving certain
items currently controlled by the United States Military List (USML) to
the Commerce Control List (CCL) in BIS' Export Administration
Regulations. The objective of ECRI is to improve interoperability of
U.S. military forces with those of allied countries, strengthen the
U.S. industrial base by, among other things, reducing incentives for
foreign manufacturers to design out and avoid U.S.-origin content and
services, and allow export control officials to focus government
resources on transactions that pose greater concern. 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 Reduce
RIN Title Burdens on Small
Businesses?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0648-BC03................. Regulatory Amendment Yes.
12 to the Fishery
Management Plan for
the Snapper-Grouper
Fishery of the South
Atlantic Region.
0648-BB44................. Regulatory Amendment
11 to the Fishery
Management Plan for
the Snapper-Grouper
Fishery of the South
Atlantic Region.
0648-BB56................. Amendment 18A to the Yes.
Fishery Management
Plan for the Snapper-
Grouper Fishery of
the South Atlantic
Region.
0648-XC088................ Temporarily Extending
the Recreational Red
Snapper Fishing
Season in Federal
Waters of the Gulf
of Mexico.
0648-BB72................. Amendment 34 to the
Fishery Management
Plan for the Reef
Fish Resources of
the Gulf of Mexico.
0648-BB45................. Western Pacific
Pelagic Fisheries;
Modification of
American Samoa Large
Vessel Prohibited
Area.
0648-BB49................. Amend the Regulations
that Implement the
National Saltwater
Angler Registry and
State Exemption
Program.
0694-AF03................. Export Control Reform
Initiative:
Strategic Trade
Authorization
License Exception.
0694-AF17................. Revision to the
Export
Administration
Regulations: Control
of Items the
President Determines
No Longer Warrant
Control Under the
United States
Munitions List.
0694-AF36................. 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 1352]]
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 That 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.
0651-AC54................. Setting and Adjusting
Patent Fees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 3510-12-P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Background
The Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest Federal department
consisting of 3 Military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force), 9
Unified Combatant Commands, 13 Defense Agencies, and 10 DoD Field
Activities. It has 1,409,877 military personnel and 766,425 civilians
assigned as of March 31, 2012, 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 occasionally issues regulations that have an effect on the
public and can be significant as defined in E.O. 12866. In addition,
some of DoD's regulations may affect other agencies. DoD, as an
integral part of its program, not only receives coordinating actions
from other agencies, but coordinates with the agencies that are
affected by its regulations as well.
Overall Priorities
The Department needs to function at a reasonable cost, while
ensuring that it does not impose ineffective and unnecessarily
burdensome regulations on the public. The rulemaking process should be
responsive, efficient, cost-effective, and both fair and perceived as
fair. This is being done in DoD while reacting to the contradictory
pressures of providing more services with fewer resources. The
Department of Defense, as a matter of overall priority for its
regulatory program, fully incorporates the provisions of the
President's priorities and objectives under Executive Order (E.O.)
12866.
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 1353]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Title (*expected to significantly
RIN reduce burdens on small businesses)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-AI84..................... National Defense Science and Engineering
Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowships.
0790-AI54..................... Defense Support of Civilian Law
Enforcement Agencies.
0790-AI88..................... Shelter for the Homeless.
0710-AA66..................... Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation
Adjustment Rule.
0710-AA60..................... Nationwide Permit Program Regulations*.
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.
0703-AA88..................... Professional Conduct of Attorneys
Practicing Under the Cognizance and
Supervision of the Judge Advocate
General.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Executive Order 13563, DoD also plans to 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.
Administration Priorities
1. Rulemakings That Are Expected To Have High Net Benefits Well in
Excess of Costs
The Department plans to--
Revise the DFARS to implement section 806 of the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, which
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.
Revise the DFARS to use Commercial and Government Entity
(CAGE) codes and NCAGE (if foreign) for awards greater than the
micropurchase threshold to identify the immediate corporate parent.
This rule will provide standardization across the Federal government to
facilitate data collection and support anti-counterfeiting efforts by
uniquely identifying vendors.
Revise the DFARS to use Activity Address Codes as the
unique identifier for contracting offices and other offices, as well as
the use of standard procurement instrument identification numbers. This
will provide for standardization across the Federal government to
facilitate data tracking and collection.
2. Rulemakings That Promote Open Government and Use Disclosure as a
Regulatory Tool
The Department plans to--
Finalize the DFARS rule, which revises reporting
requirements for Government-furnished property to include items
uniquely and non-uniquely identified, which will permit enterprise-wide
visibility thereby enhancing DoD's ability to reutilize items. The data
will be available to users in the logistics, financial, and property
accountability arenas.
3. Rulemakings That Streamline Regulations, Reduce Unjustified Burdens,
and Minimize Burdens on Small Businesses
The Department plans to--
Finalize the rule for DFARS coverage of patents, data, and
copyrights, which significantly reduces the amount of regulatory text
and the number of required clauses.
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 Case 2012-D022--Provides guidance relating to rights
in technical data under contracts for production and sustainment of
systems or subsystems.
DFARS Case 2012-D008--Proposes 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.
DFARS Case 2011-D056--Provides a new approach to
identifying required provisions and clauses for the acquisition of
commercial items, by replacing the omnibus contract clause at DFARS
252.212-7001 with an amplified list in part 212 of required provisions
and clauses. This supports simplified clause prescriptions and
facilitates commercial item clause selections using automated contract
writing systems.
DFARS Case 2010-D001--Finalizes the rule for DFARS
coverage of patents, data, and copyrights, which significantly reduces
the amount of regulatory text and the number of required clauses.
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 implement a DoD Better Buying Power
initiative by providing a proposal-adequacy checklist in a provision to
ensure offerors take responsibility for providing thorough, accurate,
and complete proposals.
Revise the DFARS to implement a DoD Better Buying Power
initiative by providing a forward-pricing-rate-agreement checklist in a
provision to ensure offerors take responsibility for providing
thorough, accurate, and complete proposals.
Revise the DFARS to address standards and structures for
the safeguarding of unclassified DoD information.
Revise the DFARS to include contractor reporting and
documentation requirements regarding contractor compliance with the
DFARS business systems' criteria.
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
[[Page 1354]]
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) with an
effective date of December 29, 2011. The comment period ended February
27, 2012. DoD is preparing a final rule, which includes the responses
to the public comments. The final rule is expected to be published the
second quarter of FY 2013.
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: 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 second quarter of FY 2013.
4. Military Community and Family Policy, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense plans to finalize a rule to implement
policy, assign responsibilities, and prescribe procedures for the
operation of voluntary education programs within DoD:
Final Rule: In this final rule, the Department of Defense
(DoD) plans to implement policy, assigns responsibilities, and
prescribes procedures for the operation of voluntary education programs
within DoD. Several of the subject areas in this final rule include:
Procedures for Service members participating in education programs;
guidelines for establishing, maintaining, and operating voluntary
education programs including, but not limited to, instructor-led
courses offered on-installation and off-installation, as well as via
distance learning; procedures for obtaining on-base voluntary education
programs and services; minimum criteria for selecting institutions to
deliver higher education programs and services on military
installations; the establishment of a DoD Voluntary Education
Partnership Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DoD and
educational institutions receiving tuition assistance payments; and
procedures for other education programs for Service members and their
adult family members.
The new DoD MOU policy was scheduled to commence in early 2012;
however, due to concerns received by DoD from several institutions of
higher learning (IHLs) involving the language in the DoD Voluntary
Education Partnership Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), commencement
was put on-hold. DoD extended the deadline to work with the
stakeholders (American Council on Education, IHLs, and key veteran and
military service organizations) to address these concerns by clarifying
the terminology contained in the DoD MOU. One change was informally
coordinated with all key stakeholders (Congress, the White House,
American Council on Education and select IHL) and now captures the
agreed upon MOU policy. The new deadline to implement the policy
requiring participating IHLs to sign the MOU is sixty days following
the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. A proposed
rule was published on August 6, 2010 (75 FR 47504). DoD anticipates
publishing a final rule in the second quarter of FY2013.
Earlier this year, the White House worked with an interagency
group, including the Departments of Education, Veterans Affairs,
Justice, and Defense, on the development of an Executive Order
establishing the Principles of Excellence for educational institutions
servicing Service members, Veterans, spouses, and other family members.
The President signed Executive Order 13607 on April 27, 2012.
Implementation of the protections stated in E.O. 13607 will require
developing and coordinating an amendment to the rule, Voluntary
Education Programs. The White House guidance states DoD will implement
these new student protections by the start of academic year 2013-2014.
DoD anticipates publishing a final rule the third quarter of FY 2013.
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:
Final rule on TRICARE: Reimbursement of Sole Community
Hospitals and Adjustment to Reimbursement of Critical Access Hospitals.
The 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 rule implements a
reimbursement methodology similar to that furnished to Medicare
beneficiaries for services provided by sole community hospitals. It is
projected that implementation of this rule will result in health care
savings of $36.5 million per year with proposed phase-in period and an
estimated initial startup cost of $200,000. Any ongoing administrative
costs would be minimal and there do not appear to be any applicable
risks to the public. The proposed rule was published July 5, 2011 (76
FR 39043). The comment period ended on September 6, 2011. DoD
anticipates publishing a final rule in the second quarter of FY 2013.
Final rule on TRICARE: TRICARE Young Adult. The purpose of
this interim final rule is to establish the TRICARE Young Adult program
implementing section 702 of the Ike Skelton NDAA for FY 2011 (Pub. L.
111-383) to provide medical coverage to unmarried children under the
age of 26 who no longer meet the age requirements for TRICARE
eligibility (age 21, or 23 if enrolled in a full-time course of study
at an institution of higher learning approved by the Secretary of
Defense) and who are not
[[Page 1355]]
eligible for medical coverage from an eligible employer-sponsored plan
(as defined in section 5000A(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986). If qualified, they can purchase TRICARE Standard/Extra or
TRICARE Prime benefits coverage. The particular TRICARE plan available
depends on the military sponsor's eligibility and the availability of
the TRICARE plan in the dependent's geographic location. It is
projected that implementation of this rule will result in an estimated
initial start-up cost of $3,000,000. Premiums are designed to cover the
anticipated health care costs, as well as ongoing administrative costs.
The interim final rule was published April 27, 2011 (76 FR 23479), with
an immediate effective date. The comment period ended June 27, 2011.
DoD anticipates publishing a final rule in the second quarter of FY
2013.
6. Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense plans to publish an interim final rule
regarding Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program
Procedures:
Interim 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 well being of all persons covered by the regulation. DoD
anticipates publishing the interim final rule in the first or second
quarter of FY 2013.
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.
Administrative costs are negligible and benefits are clear, concise
rules that enable the Secretary of Defense to insure that the Service
Academies are efficiently operated and meet the needs of the armed
forces. 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. It will also incorporate
changes resulting from interagency coordination. DoD anticipates
publishing the final rule in the first or second quarter of FY 2013.
8. Chief Information Officer, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense plans to publish a final rule to
establish the voluntary cyber security information sharing program
between DoD and eligible cleared defense contractors:
Final Rule: Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Voluntary Cyber
Security/Information Assurance (CS/IA) Activities. The DIB CS/IA
program enhances and supplements DIB participant's capabilities to
safeguard DoD information that resides on, or transits, DIB
unclassified information systems. At the core of this voluntary program
is a bilateral cyber security information sharing activity, in which
DoD provides cyber threat information and information assurance best
practices to DIB companies, and in return, DIB companies report certain
types of cyber intrusion incidents to the DoD-DIB Collaborative
Information Sharing Environment (DCISE), located at the DoD Cyber Crime
Center. The information sharing arrangements between DoD and each
participating DIB company are memoralized in a standardized bilateral
Framework Agreement. The interim final rule was published on May 11,
2012 (77 FR 27615). The comment period on the interim final rule ended
on July 11, 2012. Once adjudication of the comments is complete, DoD
anticipates publishing a final rule in the second quarter of FY 2013.
DOD--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OS)
Final Rule Stage
21. Service Academies
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 301
CFR Citation: 32 CFR part 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. Administrative costs are
negligible and benefits are clear, concise rules that enable the
Secretary of Defense to insure that the Service Academies are
efficiently operated and meet the needs of the armed forces. 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........................ 03/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: DoD Instruction 1322.22.
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
22. Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program Procedures
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. ch 47 sec 113
CFR Citation: 32 CFR part 105.
Legal Deadline: None.
[[Page 1356]]
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
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
(U.S.C.); 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 Service members
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, healthcare
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 healthcare 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
healthcare 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 Service members, 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.................. 12/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
DOD--OS
23. Operational Contract Support
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-181
CFR Citation: 32 CFR part 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
[[Page 1357]]
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 five 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........................ 01/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
24. 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
CFR Citation: 32 CFR part 68.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule will implement policy, assign responsibilities,
and prescribe procedures for the operation of voluntary education
programs within DoD. Included are: procedures for Service members
participating in education programs; guidelines for establishing,
maintaining, and operating voluntary education programs, including but
not limited to, instructor-led courses offered on-installation and off-
installation, as well as via distance learning; procedures for
obtaining on-base voluntary education programs and services; minimum
criteria for selecting institutions to deliver higher education
programs and services on military installations; the establishment of a
DoD Voluntary Education Partnership Memorandum of Understanding between
DoD and educational institutions receiving tuition assistance payments;
and procedures for other education programs for Service members and
their adult family members.
Statement of Need: A March 2011 Government Accountability Office
report on the DoD TA program recommended the Department take steps to
enhance its oversight of schools receiving TA funds. As a result, a DoD
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) requirement was included in this
rule, which is designated not only to improve Departmental oversight
but also to account for our Service members' unique lifestyle
requirements. The purpose of the DoD MOU is to establish a partnership
between the Department and institutions to improve educational
opportunities while protecting the integrity of each institution's core
educational values. This partnership serves to ensure a quality, viable
program exists that provides for our Service members to realize their
educational goals, while allowing for judicious oversight of taxpayer
dollars.
Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 2005 and 2007 of title 10, United
States Code.
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 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 2009 was $800 million, which included tuition
assistance and operational costs. This funding provided more than
650,000 individuals (Service members and their adult family members)
with the opportunity to participate in Voluntary Education Programs
around the world.
Risks: None.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 08/06/10 75 FR 47504
NPRM Comment Period End............. 10/05/10
Final Action........................ 12/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: DoD Instruction 1322.25.
Agency Contact: Kerrie Tucker Department of Defense, Office of the
Secretary, Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301, Phone: 703 602-4949.
RIN: 0790-AI50
DOD--OS
25. Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Security/Information Assurance
(CS/IA) Activities
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: EO 12829
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
[[Page 1358]]
Abstract: In accordance with Executive Order 12829, this rule will
establish policy, assign responsibilities, and delegate authority for
directing the conduct of Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Security/
Information Assurance (CS/IA) activities to protect unclassified DoD
information that transits or resides on unclassified DIB information
systems and networks.
Statement of Need: Adversaries target Defense Industrial Base (DIB)
unclassified networks daily. Unauthorized access and compromise of DoD
unclassified information poses an unacceptable risk and imminent threat
to U.S. national and economic security. DoD's voluntary DIB Cyber
Security and Information Assurance (CS/IA) program enhances and
supplements DIB participants' capabilities to safeguard DoD information
on DIB unclassified information systems.
Summary of Legal Basis: Government and private sector information
assurance, which includes cyber threat information sharing, is an
urgent U.S. national and economic security priority. The following
authorities and policy guidance identify government-industry
partnerships as necessary to contend with advanced cyber threats and
support the collection of cyber incident information from the DIB.
DoD Information Assurance (IA): DoD is required by statute to
establish programs and activities to protect DoD information and DoD
information systems, including information and information systems
operated and maintained by contractors or others in support of DoD
activities. Section 2224 of title 10, U.S. Code (U.S.C.), requires DoD
to establish a Defense IA Program to protect and defend DoD
information, information systems, and information networks that are
critical to the Department during day to day operations and operations
in times of crisis. (10 U.S.C. section 2224(a)). The program must
provide continuously for the availability, integrity, authentication,
confidentiality, non-repudiation, and rapid restitution of information
and information systems that are essential elements of the Defense
information infrastructure. (10 U.S.C. section 2224(b)). The program
strategy also must include vulnerability and threat assessments for
defense and supporting non-defense information infrastructures, joint
activities with elements of the national information infrastructure,
and coordination with representatives of those national critical
infrastructure systems that are essential to DoD operations. (10 U.S.C.
section 2224(c)). The program must provide for coordination, as
appropriate, with the heads of any relevant federal agency and with
representatives of those national critical information infrastructure
systems that are essential to the operations of the Department
regarding information assurance measures necessary to the protection of
these systems. (10 U.S.C. section 2224(d)).
Federal Information Security: The Defense IA Program also must
ensure compliance with Federal information security requirements of the
Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), 44 U.S.C. section
3541 et seq. FISMA requires all federal agencies to provide information
security protections for information collected or maintained by, or on
behalf of, the agency. Information systems used or operated by an
agency or by a contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf
of an agency must be in accordance with 44 U.S.C. section
3544(a)(1)(A). Agencies are expressly required to develop, document,
and implement programs to provide information security for information
and information systems that support the operations and assets of the
agency, including those provided by another agency, contractor, or
other source in accordance with 44 U.S.C. section 3544(b).
Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP): Under Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7), ``Critical Infrastructure
Identification, Prioritization, and Protection,'' the Department of
Defense is the Sector Specific Agency (SSA) for the Defense Industrial
Base (DIB) sector (HSPD-7), (18)(g)), and thus engages with the DIB on
a wide range of CIP matters, including but not limited to cyber
security. HSPD-7 charges the SSAs to: collaborate with all relevant
Federal departments and agencies, State and local governments, and the
private sector, including with key persons and entities in their
infrastructure sector; conduct or facilitate vulnerability assessments
of the sector; and encourage risk management strategies to protect
against and mitigate the effects of attacks against critical
infrastructure and key resources. (HSPD-7), (19)). The Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) leads the national effort to protect public and
private critical infrastructure. (HSPD-7), (7)). This includes
coordinating implementation activities between federal agencies, state
and local authorities, and the private sector. Regarding cyber
security, these efforts are to include analysis, warning, information
sharing, vulnerability reduction, mitigation, and aiding national
recovery efforts for critical infrastructure information systems.
(HSPD-7), (12)) More specifically, regarding coordination with the
private sector, HSPD-7 provides that DHS and the SSAs ``will
collaborate with appropriate private sector entities and continue to
encourage the development of information sharing and analysis
mechanisms [to] identify, prioritize, and coordinate the protection of
critical infrastructure and key resources; and to facilitate sharing of
information about physical and cyber threats, vulnerabilities,
incidents, potential protective measures, and best practices.'' (HSPD-
7), (25)).
Alternatives: Private sector DIB company participation in the DIB
CS/IA program is completely voluntary, allowing DIB companies to elect
whether to participate in the program, or to choose from any other
available alternatives, based on their individual approaches to cyber
security and information security. The DIB CS/IA bilateral information
sharing activities are a core element of the DoD's multi-pronged
approach to fulfill its information assurance responsibilities and
cyber security. The program enhances and supplements DIB participants'
capabilities to safeguard DoD information that resides on, or transits,
DIB unclassified information systems.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Participation in the DIB CS/IA
program is voluntary and does not obligate the DIB participant to use
government furnished information (GFI) in, or otherwise to implement
any changes to, its information systems. Any action taken by the DIB
participant based on GFI or other participation in this program is
taken on the DIB participant's own volition and at the participant's
own risk and expense. As a voluntary program in which the DIB
participants and the Government each bear independent responsibility
for their own activities, the costs to both the private sector and to
the government are minimized. This voluntary participation will not
create an inconsistency or otherwise interfere with any action taken or
planned by another Agency. We do not believe that it raises novel legal
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or principles set forth in Executive Orders.
All DIB participants must have or obtain DoD-approved, medium
assurance certificates to enable encrypted unclassified information
sharing between DoD and DIB participants. Cost of the DoD approved
medium assurance certificates is approximately $175 for each individual
identified by the DIB participant. See http://iase.disa.mil/pki/eca/
for more
[[Page 1359]]
information about DoD-approved certificates.
For classified information sharing, each DIB participant will have
start up costs of approximately $3,000 per DIBNet-Secret terminal
installed in their cleared facility(ies). An estimate of $1,000 per
year is projected as sustainment costs for each classified DIBNet-
Secret terminal, including associated personnel costs for maintaining
software updates for each stand-alone terminal.
There is an estimated annual burden for DIB participants projected
at $1,367 for incident reporting. This is based on a DIB participant
reporting average of 5 cyber incidents a year affecting DoD
information, with 7 hours of labor per incident, at a cost of $39.06
per man hour. These man hour costs are according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2010, and depending
upon the number of cyber incidents experienced and their severity, the
annual burden could increase.
These costs provide beneficial capabilities to enhance and
supplement DIB participants' capabilities to safeguard DoD information
that resides on, or transits, DIB unclassified information systems.
Risks: Cyber threats to DIB unclassified information systems
represent an unacceptable risk of compromise of DoD information and
pose an imminent threat to U.S. national security and economic security
interests. DoD's voluntary DIB CS/IA program enhances and supplements
DIB participant's capabilities to safeguard DIB information that
resides on, or transits, DIB unclassified information systems.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 05/11/12 77 FR 27615
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 06/10/12
End.
Final Action........................ 02/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: DoD Instruction 5205.ff.
Agency Contact: Brian Fredericks, Department of Defense, Office of
the Secretary, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301, Phone: 703
604-5522, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0790-AI60
DOD--OS
26. Mission Compatibility Evaluation Process
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-383, sec 358
CFR Citation: 32 CFR part 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 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.
[[Page 1360]]
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........................ 02/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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--OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS (DODOASHA)
Final Rule Stage
27. TRICARE; Reimbursement of Sole Community Hospitals
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 part 199.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule would implement the statutory
provision at 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2) that TRICARE payment methods for
institutional care 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 inpatient services provided by
Sole Community Hospitals (SCHs). It will be phased in over a several-
year period.
Statement of Need: This rule is being published to implement the
statutory provision in 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2), that TRICARE payment
methods for institutional care be determined, to the extent
practicable, in accordance with the same reimbursement rules as apply
to payments to providers of services of the same type under Medicare.
This proposed rule implements a reimbursement methodology similar to
that furnished to Medicare beneficiaries for inpatient services
provided by Sole Community Hospitals.
Summary of Legal Basis: There is a statutory basis for this
proposed rule: 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2).
Alternatives: Alternatives were considered for phasing in the
needed reform and an alternative was selected for a gradual, smooth
transition.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We estimate the total reduction
(from the proposed changes in this rule) in hospital revenues under the
SCH reform for its first year of implementation (assumed for purposes
of this RIA to be FY 2011), compared to expenditures in that same
period without the proposed SCH changes, to be approximately $190
million. The estimated impact for FYs 2012 through 2015 (in $ millions)
is $208, $229, $252, and $278 respectively.
Risks: Failure to publish this proposed rule would result in
noncompliance with a statutory provision.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/05/11 76 FR 39043
NPRM Comment Period End............. 09/06/11
Final Action........................ 12/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Marty Maxey, Department of Defense, Office of
Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, 1200 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301, Phone: 303 676-3627.
RIN: 0720-AB41
DOD--DODOASHA
28. Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services
(CHAMPUS); TRICARE Young Adult
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. ch 55; 5 U.S.C. 301
CFR Citation: 32 CFR part 199.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 2011, Public Law 111-
383, section 702.
The amendments by this section took effect on January 1, 2011. The
statute provided that the Secretary of Defense would prescribe an
interim final rule with respect to such amendments, effective not later
than January 1, 2011.
Abstract: This interim final rule implements section 702 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (NDAA
for FY11). It establishes the TRICARE Young Adult (TYA) program to
provide an extended medical coverage opportunity to most unmarried
children under the age of 26 of uniformed services sponsors. The
TRICARE Young Adult program is a premium-based program.
Statement of Need: This rule executes section 1110b of title 10,
United States Code, ``TRICARE Young Adult,'' as mandated by section 702
of the Ike Skelton National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 2011. Section
702 authorizes the Department of Defense to provide an unmarried child
under the age of 26 who is not otherwise eligible for TRICARE medical
coverage at age 21 (23 if enrolled in a full-time course of study at an
institution of higher learning approved by the Secretary of Defense)
unless the dependent is enrolled in or eligible for medical coverage
with an employer-sponsored plan as defined by section 5000A(f)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. If qualified, the dependent can
purchase TRICARE
[[Page 1361]]
Standard/Extra or TRICARE Prime benefits depending on the military
sponsor's eligibility and the availability of the TRICARE plan in the
dependent's geographic location.
Summary of Legal Basis: Title 10, U.S.C., section 1110b and section
702 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2011.
Alternatives: None.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no anticipated budgetary
health care or administrative cost increases.
Risks: Failure to publish this rule would result in certain former
Military Health System beneficiaries being denied the opportunity to
purchase extended dependent medical coverage (similar to one of the
significant benefit provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act) when they are not longer eligible for care at age 21 (age 23
if enrolled in a full-time course of study at an institution of higher
learning approved by the Secretary of Defense) and are under the age of
26.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 04/27/11 76 FR 23479
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 04/27/11
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 06/27/11
End.
Final Action........................ 02/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Mark Ellis, Department of Defense, Office of
Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, 5111 Leesburg Pike, Suite 810A,
Falls Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703 681-0039.
RIN: 0720-AB48
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 students attending postsecondary
institutions are prepared for a profession or career.
We also vigorously monitor and enforce the implementation of
Federal civil rights laws in educational programs and activities that
receive Federal financial assistance, and support innovative programs,
research and evaluation activities, technical assistance, and the
dissemination of research and evaluation findings to improve the
quality of education.
Overall, the laws, regulations, and programs we administer will
affect nearly every American during his or her life. Indeed, in the
2012-2013 school year about 55 million students will attend an
estimated 132,000 elementary and secondary schools in approximately
13,800 districts, and about 21 million students will enroll in degree-
granting postsecondary schools. All of these students may benefit from
some degree of financial assistance or support from the Department.
In developing and implementing regulations, guidance, technical
assistance, and monitoring related to our programs, we are committed to
working closely with affected persons and groups. Specifically, we work
with a broad range of interested parties and the general public,
including families, students, and educators; State, local, and tribal
governments; 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.
We also continue to seek greater and more useful public
participation in our rulemaking activities through the use of
transparent and interactive rulemaking procedures and new technologies.
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.
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. Race to the Top Fund
The Race to the Top Fund program is designed to provide incentives
to States to implement system-changing reforms that result in improved
student achievement, narrowed achievement gaps, and increased high
school graduation and college enrollment rates. On May 22, 2012, the
Secretary announced the Race to the Top--District competition, which is
designed to build on the momentum of other Race to the Top competitions
by encouraging bold, innovative reform at the local level. This
district-level FY 2012 competition is authorized under sections 14005
and 14006 of the ARRA, as amended by section 1832(b) of the Department
of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 and the
Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012 (Title III of Division
F of Pub. L. 112-74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012). The
Department expects to fund about 15-25 grants in the range of $5 to $40
million. The amount of an award for which an applicant is eligible to
apply depends on the number of students who would be served under the
grant.
The Race to the Top--District competition is aimed squarely at
classrooms and the all-important relationship between educators and
students and invites applicants to demonstrate how they can personalize
education for all students in their schools. In that regard, the Race
to the Top--District competition will encourage and reward those local
educational agencies (LEAs) or consortia of LEAs that have the
leadership and vision to implement the strategies, structures, and
systems needed for personalized, student-focused approaches to learning
and teaching that
[[Page 1362]]
will produce excellence and ensure equity for all students.
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.
We look forward to congressional reauthorization of the ESEA that
will build on many of the reforms States and LEAs are implementing
under the ARRA grant programs.
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. Changes to the FFEL and Direct Loan Programs
On March 30, 2010, the President signed into law the Health Care
and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152, title II
of which is the SAFRA Act. The SAFRA Act made a number of changes to
the Federal student financial aid programs under title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). One of the most significant
changes made by the SAFRA Act is that it ended new loans under the
Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) pprogram authorized by title IV,
part B of the HEA as of July 1, 2010.
On May 5, 2011, ED announced through a notice in the Federal
Register that it was beginning a negotiated rulemaking process to
streamline the loan program regulations by repealing unnecessary FFEL
program regulations and incorporating and modifying necessary
requirements within the Direct Loan program regulations, as
appropriate. ED held four public hearings in May 2011 to obtain public
feedback on proposed amendments, as well as on possible amendments to
other ED regulations. Based on the feedback received from these
hearings, ED formed a negotiated rulemaking committee to consider
proposed amendments and conducted these negotiations in January,
February, and March of 2012.
At the final meeting in March 2012, the Loans Committee reached
consensus on the full agenda of loans issues, resulting in two notices
of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs). We published the first of the two NPRMs
on July 17, 2012, and published one of the two final regulations on
November 1, 2012. These final regulations implement the new Income-
Contingent Repayment (ICR) plan in the Direct Loan program based on the
President's ``Pay As You Earn'' repayment initiative, incorporate
recent statutory changes to the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) plan in
the Direct Loan and FFEL programs, and streamline and add clarity to
the total and permanent disability (TPD) discharge process for
borrowers in loan programs under title IV of the HEA.
We intend to publish the second of the two NPRMs in 2013 to amend
the Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan
(Perkins Loan) Program, Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program,
and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program
regulations. The NPRM would reflect that, as of July 1, 2010, under the
SAFRA Act, no new FFEL Program loans will be made and allow a borrower
to get out of default on his or her loans if the borrower makes 9
reasonable and affordable payments over a 10-month period. The NPRM
would also make other improvements to the Direct Loan, FFEL, and
Perkins Loan programs. The NPRM would provide for greater consistency
in the regulations governing the title IV, HEA student loan programs
and ensure that these programs operate as efficiently as possible.
E. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
In September of 2011, the Department issued an NPRM to revise the
regulations implementing the Assistance to States for the Education of
Children with Disabilities program authorized under Part B of the IDEA,
and intends to issue final regulations this year.
Specifically, last year we reviewed one particular provision of the
Part B regulations related to the use of public benefits or insurance
to pay for services provided to children under Part B. IDEA and the
Part B regulations allow public agencies to use public benefits or
insurance (e.g., Medicaid) to provide or pay for services required
under Part B with the consent of the parent of a child who is enrolled
in a public benefits or insurance program. Public insurance is an
important source of financial support for services required under Part
B. With respect to the use of public insurance, our current regulations
specifically provide that a public agency must obtain parental consent
each time access to public benefits or insurance is sought.
We have proposed to amend the regulations to provide that, instead
of having to obtain parental consent each
[[Page 1363]]
time access to public benefits or insurance is sought, the public
agency responsible for providing special education and related services
to a child would be required, before accessing a child's or parent's
public benefits or insurance, to provide written notification to the
child's parents. The notification would inform parents of their rights
under the Part B regulations regarding the use of public benefits or
insurance to pay for Part B services, including information about the
limitations on a public agency's billing of public benefits or
insurance programs, as well as parents' rights under the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act and IDEA to consent prior to the
disclosure of personally identifiable information.
We proposed these amendments to reduce unnecessary burden on a
public agency's ability to access public benefits or insurance in
appropriate circumstances but still maintain critical parent
protections, and we did this for several reasons. Specifically, we are
mindful of the importance of ensuring that parents have sufficient
information to make decisions about a public agency's use of their
public benefits or insurance and the disclosure of their child's
educational records for that purpose. At the same time, these proposed
amendments are designed to address the concern expressed to the
Department by many State personnel and other interested parties that,
since the publication of the Part B regulations in 2006, the inability
to obtain parental consent has contributed to public agencies' failure
to claim all of the Federal financial assistance available for Part B
services covered under Medicaid. In addition, public agencies have
expressed concern over using limited resources and the significant
administrative burden of obtaining parental consent for the use of
Medicaid and other public benefits or insurance each time that access
to public benefits or insurance is sought. Consequently, many of these
parties have requested that the Department remove the parental consent
requirement.
The Secretary also intends to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking
to amend regulations under Part B of IDEA regarding local maintenance
of effort (MOE) to ensure that all parties involved in implementing,
monitoring, and auditing LEA compliance with MOE requirements
understand the rules. Specifically, we will be 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 a local educational agency (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.
F. Other Potential Regulatory Activities
Congress may reauthorize the Adult Education and Family Literacy
Act (AEFLA) (title II of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998) and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Title IV of the Workforce Investment Act of
1998). The Administration is working with Congress to ensure that any
changes to these laws (1) improve the State grant and other programs
providing assistance for adult education under the AEFLA and for
vocational rehabilitation and independent living services for persons
with disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and (2) provide
greater accountability in the administration of programs under both
statutes. Changes to our regulations may be necessary as a result of
the reauthorization of these two statutes.
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 to
RIN Title of significantly reduce
Rulemaking burden on small
businesses?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1820-AB64.................. Assistance to No.
States for the
Education of
Children with
Disabilities--
Public
Benefits or
Insurance.
1840-AD05.................. Title IV of the No.
Higher
Education Act
of 1965, as
Amended--Incom
e-Based
Repayment,
Income-
Contingent
Repayment, and
Total and
Permanent
Disability.
1840-AD08.................. Titles III and No.
V of the
Higher
Education Act,
as Amended.
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.
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.
[[Page 1364]]
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
29. Transitioning From the FFEL Program to the Direct Loan Program and
Loan Rehabilitation Under the FFEL, Direct Loan, and Perkins Loan
Programs
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a; 20 U.S.C. 1071 to 1087-4; 20
U.S.C. 1087a to 1087j; 20 U.S.C. 1098e; Pub. L. 111-152
CFR Citation: 34 CFR ch VI.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Secretary proposes amendments to the title IV, HEA
student assistance regulations to (a) reflect that, as of July 1, 2010,
under the SAFRA Act, no new FFEL Program loans will be made, (b) allow
a borrower to get out of default on his or her loans if the borrower
makes 9 reasonable and affordable payments over a 10-month period, and
(c) make other improvements to the DL, FFEL, and Perkins Loan programs.
Statement of Need: The proposed regulations are needed amend the
FFEL and Direct Loan program regulations to reflect changes made to the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), by the SAFRA Act
included in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010;
incorporate other recent statutory changes in the Direct Loan Program
regulations; update, strengthen, and clarify various areas of the
Student Assistance General Provisions, Perkins Loan, FFEL, and Direct
Loan program regulations; and provide for greater consistency in the
regulations governing the title IV, HEA student loan programs.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We will provide a comprehensive
discussion of the anticipated costs and benefits in the NPRM.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O.
13563.
URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: David Bergeron, Department of Education, Office of
Postsecondary Education, Room 8022, 1990 K Street NW., Washington, DC
20006, Phone: 202 502-7815, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1840-AD12
BILLING CODE 4001-01-P
Fall 2012
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 improving 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-AB90.............. Standards for ......................
Residential Clothes
Washers.
1904-AC04.............. Standards for ......................
Distribution
Transformers.
1904-AC46.............. Alternative Efficiency This rule is expected
Determination Methods to reduce burden on
and Alternate Rating small manufacturers
Methods. of covered products
and equipment.
1904-AC60.............. Federal Building ......................
Standards Rule-Update-
90.1-2010.
1904-AC64.............. Standards for ......................
Residential
Dishwashers.
1904-AC70.............. Waiver and Interim This rule is expected
Waiver for Consumer to reduce burden on
Products and small manufacturers
Commercial and of covered products
Industrial Equipment. and equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1365]]
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 Residential Clothes Washer, Fluorescent
Lamp Ballast, and Residential Dishwasher standards, which were already
published in 2012, have an estimated net benefit to the nation of up to
$13.1 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 almost two 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.
The August 2012 report identifies all products for which DOE has
missed the deadlines established in EPCA (42 U.S.C. section 6291 et
seq.). It also describes the reasons for such delays and the
Department's plan for prescribing new or amended standards. Information
and timetables concerning these actions can also be found in the
Department's Regulatory Agenda, which is posted online at:
www.reginfo.gov.
Estimate of Combined Aggregate Costs and Benefits
The regulatory actions included in this Regulatory Plan for
distribution transformers, battery chargers and external power
supplies, and walk-in coolers and freezers may provide significant
benefits to the Nation. DOE believes that the benefits to the Nation of
the proposed energy standards for distribution transformers and battery
chargers and external power supplies (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 3.74 quads over thirty years. The net benefit
to the Nation was estimated to be between $9.59 billion (seven-percent
discount rate) and $24.58 billion (three-percent discount rate). DOE
believes that the proposed energy standards for walk-in coolers and
freezers 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
rulemaking for walk-in coolers and freezers.
DOE--ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY (EE)
Proposed Rule Stage
30. Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In
Freezers
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR part 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 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: 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 01/06/09 74 FR 411
Document Availability.
Notice: Public Meeting, Data 04/05/10 75 FR 17080
Availability.
Comment Period End.................. 05/20/10
NPRM................................ 04/00/13
Final Action........................ 12/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Additional Information: Comments pertaining to this rule may be
submitted electronically to [email protected].
URL For More Information: www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/wicf.html.
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
[[Page 1366]]
DOE--EE
Final Rule Stage
31. Energy Efficiency Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power
Supplies
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(u)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR part 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. 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 must include any amended or new standards as part of
that final rule. DOE completed this determination in 2012. 75 FR 7170
(May 14, 2010)
DOE is bundling these separate rulemaking requirements into a
single rulemaking action.
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:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 .......................
Final Action........................ 02/00/13 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in EO 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.
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
DOE--EE
32. Energy Efficiency Standards for Distribution Transformers
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6317(a); 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)
CFR Citation: 10 CFR part 431.
Legal Deadline: Other, Judicial, October 1, 2011, Determination or
NOPR. Final, Judicial, October 1, 2012.
Abstract: The current distribution transformer efficiency standards
for medium-voltage-transformers apply to transformers manufactured or
imported on or after January 1, 2010, and to low-voltage, dry type
transformers manufactured or imported on or after January 1, 2007. As a
result of a settlement agreement, DOE agreed to conduct a review of the
standards for liquid-immersed and medium-voltage dry-type distribution
transformers to determine if, pursuant to EPCA. The standards for these
products need to be amended. As a result of the review, DOE published
in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking which included
new proposed standards for these products as well as low-voltage, dry-
type transformers. Under the settlement agreement, DOE is obligated to
publish in the Federal Register, no later than October 1, 2012, a final
rule including any amendments to the standards for liquid-immersed and
medium-voltage dry-type distribution transformers.
Statement of Need: EPAC requires minimum energy efficiency
standards for appliances, which has the effect of eliminating
inefficient appliances and equipment from the market.
Summary of Legal Basis: EPCA of 1975 established an energy
conservation program for major household appliances. The National
Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978 amended EPCA to add part C of
title III,
[[Page 1367]]
which established an energy conservation program for certain industrial
equipment. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 amended EPCA to add certain
commercial equipment, including distribution transformers.
DOE published a final rule in October 2007 that established energy
conservation standards for liquid-immersed and medium-voltage dry-type
distribution transformers. 72 FR 58190 (October 12, 2007); see 10 CFR
431.196(b)-(c). During the course of that rulemaking, EPACT 2005,
Public Law 109-58, amended EPCA to set standards for low-voltage dry-
type distribution transformers. (EPACT 2005, section 135(c); codified
at 42 U.S.C. 6295(y)) Consequently, DOE removed these transformers from
the scope of that rulemaking. 72 FR 58191. Prior to publishing the
energy conservation standard, DOE published a final rule test procedure
for distribution transformers on April 27, 2006. 71 FR 24972; see
appendix A to subpart K of 10 CFR 431.
DOE is currently conducting a rulemaking to review and amend the
energy conservation standards in effect for distribution transformers.
This new rulemaking includes liquid-immersed, medium-voltage dry-type,
and low-voltage dry-type distribution transformers.
On July 29, 2011, DOE gave notice that it intends to establish a
negotiated rulemaking subcommittee under the Energy Efficiency and
Renewables Advisory Committee (ERAC) in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA)
to negotiate proposed Federal standards for the energy efficiency of
liquid-immersed and medium-voltage dry-type distribution transformers.
77 FR 4547. On August 12, 2011, DOE gave notice that it intends to
establish a negotiated rulemaking subcommittee under the ERAC in
accordance with the FACA and the NRA to negotiate proposed Federal
standards for the energy efficiency of low-voltage dry-type
distribution transformers. 76 FR 50148.
ERAC subcommittees met several times from September to December
2011. Subcommittee members included manufacturers, utilities, and
energy efficiency advocates. The medium-voltage subcommittee reached
consensus on standards for medium-voltage, dry-type distribution
transformers, but consensus was not reached for the two other
transformer types.
DOE's February publication of the proposed rule for energy
conservation standards for liquid-immersed, medium-voltage dry-type,
and low-voltage dry-type distribution transformers fulfills DOE's
obligation under a court order. 77 FR 7282 (February 10, 2011).
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 distribution
transformers (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 1.58
quads over 30 years and the benefit to the Nation will be between $2.9
billion and $12.1 billion.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: Public Meeting; Preliminary 03/02/11 76 FR 11396
Technical Support Document
Availability.
Comment Period End.................. 04/18/11
Notice of Intent to Negotiate NPRM 07/29/11 76 FR 45471
for MVDT.
MVDT NOI Comment Period End......... 08/15/11
Notice of Intent to Negotiate NOPR 08/12/11 76 FR 50148
for LVDT.
LVDT NOI Comment Period End......... 08/20/11
Notice of Public Meeting of Working 09/09/11 76 FR 55834
Group.
NPRM................................ 02/10/12 77 FR 7282
NPRM Correction..................... 02/24/12 77 FR 10997
NPRM Comment Period End............. 04/10/12
Comment Period End.................. 06/29/12
Final Action........................ 12/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Additional Information: RIN 1904-AC62 was merged into this
rulemaking.
URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution_transformers.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: Merged with 1904-AC62.
RIN: 1904-AC04
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Statement of Regulatory Priorities for Fiscal Year 2013
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the Federal
Government's principal agency charged with protecting the health of all
Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those
least able to help themselves. The Department operates more than 300
programs covering a wide spectrum of activities, manages almost a
quarter of all Federal expenditures, and administers more grant dollars
than all other Federal agencies combined. In fiscal year 2013, HHS
agencies will continue to implement programs that strengthen the health
care system; advance scientific knowledge and innovation; advance 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 and
workforce.
To carry out its mission, the Department develops an ambitious
regulatory agenda each year. HHS actively encourages public
participation in the regulatory process and is currently engaging in a
Department-wide effort to identify ways to make the rulemaking process
more accessible to the general public. Incorporating this feedback,
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has worked with HHS agencies to identify
opportunities to streamline regulations and reduce the regulatory
burden on industry and states; secure and maintain health care coverage
for all Americans; take advantage of technology to promote health care
innovation and rapidly respond to
[[Page 1368]]
adverse events; implement a 21st century food safety system; promote
children's health and well-being; and arm consumers with information to
help them make healthy choices.
This overview outlines the Department's regulatory priorities for
FY 2013 and some of the regulations on the agenda that best exemplify
these priorities.
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 eliminating outdated
procedures, streamlining rules, and providing flexibility to use
technology.
[ssquf] The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has an
ambitious effort underway to reduce burdens on hospitals and other
health care providers and save providers money and time so that they
can focus their resources on caring for patients. In May 2012, CMS
finalized two rules--addressing the Medicare conditions of
participation for hospitals and critical access hospitals (CAH) (0938-
AQ89) and regulatory requirements for a broader range of health care
providers and suppliers regulated under Medicare and Medicaid (0938-
AQ96)--that will save approximately $1.1 billion across the health care
system in just the first year while reducing unnecessary burdens on
hospitals and other health care providers. For the second phase of this
effort, CMS will issue regulations that will eliminate or streamline
Medicare rules and requirements that are unnecessary, obsolete, or
excessively burdensome to health care professionals and patients.\1\
This effort will allow health care professionals to devote more time
and effort to improving patient care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Part II--Regulatory Provisions to Promote Program
Efficiency, Transparency, and Burden Reduction (RIN: 0938-AR49)
(assumes the proposed rule will publish before the Reg Agenda is
posted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will finalize
amendments to its medical device reporting regulations to require
manufacturers and importers to submit electronic reports of individual
medical device adverse events to the agency.\2\ This will help move the
medical device industry from paper to electronic reporting, which will
reduce paperwork burden on industry and increase the speed at which FDA
processes critical information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Medical Device Reporting; Electronic Submission Requirements
(RIN: 0910-AF86).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] In a major undertaking, the Department and White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy are reviewing and considering
making revisions to the ethical rules governing research on human
subjects, often referred to as the Common Rule.\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections
for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for
Investigators (RIN: 0937-AA02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) will
propose reforms to its child support regulations that will simplify
program operations, clarify technical provisions in the existing rules,
and allow States and tribes to take advantage of advances in technology
and move toward electronic communication with ACF and with other States
and tribes.\4\ These reforms will create more efficient child support
systems that better serve families in need of this crucial financial
support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization of Child Support
Enforcement Programs (RIN: 0970-AC50).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strengthening Medicare and Expanding Coverage in the Private Health
Care Market
The Department continues to implement Affordable Care Act
provisions that expand health insurance coverage and ensure that the
American people can rely on their existing coverage when they need it
most. Millions of Americans--including women, families, seniors, and
small business owner--are already benefitting from the Affordable Care
Act. In June, HHS announced that 12.8 million Americans will benefit
from $1.1 billion in rebates from insurance companies, as a result of
HHS regulations that require insurers to spend the majority of health
insurance premiums on medical care and health care quality improvement,
instead of administration and overhead.\5\ As well, the Affordable Care
Act has provided $4.8 billion in reinsurance payments to employers and
other sponsors of early retiree health coverage to help them continue
to provide health benefits to retired workers who are not yet eligible
for Medicare and to the families of these retired workers. At least 19
million retirees and their family members have already benefitted or
will benefit from this program. Because of another Affordable Care Act
provision, approximately 54 million Americans with private health
insurance and 32.5 million seniors with Medicare received at least one
free preventive service from their health care provider in 2011.\6\ And
as of August 1, 2012, about 47 million women will be able to receive
preventive care such as mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, and
annual preventive care visits without paying co-pays or deductibles.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ From 6/21/12 Press Release: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/06/20120621a.html.
\6\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/16/last-year-54-million-americans-received-free-preventive-services-thanks-health-care-
\7\ http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/08/womensprevention08012011a.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building on those efforts, HHS will provide guidance this year to
States, providers, and insurers that are preparing for the reforms to
the health care marketplace that become effective in 2014.
[ssquf] The Department will finalize a rule that outlines standards
for the state-run and federally-facilitated Affordable Insurance
Exchanges, which will provide competitive marketplaces for individuals
and small employers to directly compare available private health
insurance options on the basis of price and quality. These standards
will ensure, for example, that individual and small group plans provide
certain levels of coverage. This means that consumers can rest assured
that plans inside and outside of the Exchanges will cover certain
essential health benefits.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Exchanges Part II--Standards Related to Essential Health
Benefits; Health Insurance Issuer and Exchange Responsibilities with
Respect to Actuarial Value, Cost-Sharing Reductions, and Advance
Payments of the Premium Tax Credit (RIN: 0938-AR03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] The Department will also implement provisions of the
Affordable Care Act that set the rules for risk adjustment,
reinsurance, risk corridors, advanced premium tax credits, and cost-
sharing reductions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters (CMS-9964-P).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] Another final rule would outline many of the consumer
protections at the heart of the Affordable Care Act.\10\ These new
health insurance market standards will promote access to, and the
affordability of, health insurance coverage by extending new guaranteed
availability rights to individuals and employers, continuing current
guaranteed renewability protections,
[[Page 1369]]
specifying a limited, transparent set of factors that can be used to
set premiums, and requiring broader pooling of insurance risk. This
rule, in tandem with rules implementing Affordable Care Act provisions
that establish Exchanges; provide tax credits to certain individuals
and employers for purchasing health insurance coverage; and create the
risk adjustment, reinsurance, and risk corridor programs; lays the
foundation for a more affordable, better-functioning insurance market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Insurance Market Rules (RIN: 0938-AR40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] Another rule would implement provisions of the Affordable
Care Act that expand access to health insurance through Medicaid, the
establishment of the Affordable Insurance Exchanges, and coordination
between Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and
the Exchanges. This proposed rule would continue CMS's efforts to
assist States in implementing changes to the eligibility, appeals, and
enrollment under Medicaid and other State health subsidy programs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Medicaid Eligibility Expansion under the Affordable Care
Act of 2010 Part 2--NPRM (0938-AR04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] In addition, CMS will update several Medicare provider
payment rules in ways that strengthen Medicare, better reflect the
state of practice, and are responsive to feedback from providers.\12\
These rules, which are published annually, provide predictability for
health care providers so they can manage their finances appropriately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ No RINS yet. Internally identified as CMS-1599-P, CMS-1600-
P, and CMS-1601-P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] Finally, CMS will implement the Affordable Care Act
provision that establishes a new prospective payment system for
Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), which are facilities that
provide primary care services to underserved urban and rural
communities.\13\ This rule will bring the FQHC payment system in line
with the payment procedure for the majority of Medicare providers and
will allow FQHCs to anticipate future reimbursements for providing
services to Medicare beneficiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Prospective Payment System for Federally Qualified Health
Centers (No RIN yet; internally identified as CMS-1443-P).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advancing Innovation To Improve Consumer Health and Safety
Through administrative reforms, innovations, and providing
additional information to support consumer decision-making, HHS is
supporting high-value, safe, and effective care across health care
settings and in the community. For example, FDA will issue a Unique
Device Identifier final rule to establish a unique identification
system for medical devices to track a device from pre-market
application through distribution and use. This system will allow FDA
and other public health professionals to track individual devices so
that when an adverse event occurs, epidemiologists can quickly track
down and identify other users of the device to provide guidance and
recommendations on what steps to take to prevent additional medical
errors.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Unique Device Identifier (RIN: 0910-AG31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed previously, FDA is also amending its post-marketing
medical device reporting regulations to require manufacturers and
importers to submit electronic reports of individual medical device
adverse events to the Agency. These electronic submissions will help
FDA receive information about malfunctioning devices quickly and will
enhance the Agency's ability to collect and analyze data from these
adverse events. In addition to providing the Agency with this
information soon after an adverse event occurs, this final rule is
expected to result in significant burden reductions in reporting and
recordkeeping for device manufacturers and suppliers.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Medical Device Reporting; Electronic Submission
Requirements (RIN: 0910-AF86).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementing a 21st Century Food Safety System
FDA will continue its work to implement the Food Safety
Modernization Act, working with public and private partners to build a
new system of food safety oversight. In implementing that Act, the
Department is focusing on applying the best available science and
lessons from previous outbreaks to shift the Agency's emphasis from
recalling unsafe products from the market place to preventing unsafe
food from entering commerce in the first place. FDA will propose
several new rules to establish a robust, enhanced food safety program.
[ssquf] FDA will propose regulations establishing preventive
controls in the manufacture and distribution of human foods \16\ and of
animal feeds.\17\ These regulations 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls (RIN:
0910-AG36).
\17\ Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis and
Risk-Benefit Preventive Controls for Food for Animals (RIN: 0910-
AG10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] FDA will continue its work on a rule to ensure that produce
sold in the United States meets rigorous safety standards.\18\ The
regulation will set enforceable, science-based standards for the safe
production and harvesting of fresh produce at the farm and the packing
house to minimize the risk of serious adverse health consequences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Produce Safety Regulation (RIN: 0910-AG35).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] In another proposed rule, FDA will require food importers
to establish a verification program to improve the safety of food that
is imported into the United States.\19\ Specifically, the FDA will
outline proposed standards that foreign food suppliers must meet to
ensure that imported food is produced in a manner that is as safe as
food produced in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Foreign Supplier Verification Program (RIN: 0910-AG64).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] FDA will also establish a program to accredit third-party
auditors to conduct audits of foreign food suppliers.\20\ This program
will allow importers to contract with an accredited auditor to meet the
audit requirements instead of having to establish such programs
themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Accreditation of Third Parties to Conduct Food Safety
Audits and for Other Related Purposes (RIN: 0910-AG66).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promoting Children's Health and Well-Being
ACF's regulatory portfolio includes several rules that promote
children's health and well-being. For example, one proposed rule would
provide the first comprehensive update of Child Care and Development
Fund (CCDF) regulations since 1998.\21\ 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. The proposed 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 proposed 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
[[Page 1370]]
work for low-income parents and promotes children's learning and
healthy development. The rule is responsive to the need for State
flexibility in administering the CCDF program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Child Care and Development Fund Reforms to Support Child
Development and Working Families (RIN: 0970-AC53).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Empowering Americans To Make Healthy Choices in the Marketplace
As of 2010, more than one-third of U.S. adults \22\ and 17% of all
children and adolescents \23\ 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.\24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html.
\23\ http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/index.html.
\24\ http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building on the momentum of the First Lady Obama'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.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 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.\26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Food Labeling: Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in
Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments (RIN: 0910-AG57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dec222] 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.\27\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Food Labeling: Nutrition Labeling for Food Sold in Vending
Machines (RIN: 0910-AG56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dec222] 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 on the label to help consumers
maintain healthy dietary practices.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Food Labeling; Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement
Facts Labels (RIN: 0910-AF22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 health dietary practices.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably
Be Consumed In One Eating Occasion; Duel Column Labeling; and
Modifying the Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed (RIN: 0910-
AF23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation With Our Global Partners
The Department is working to implement Executive Order 13609,
``Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,'' which charges the
Federal Government to identify efforts to align U.S. regulations with
those of our global partners to address shared regulatory challenges.
FDA has already established such relationships through its
participation in key international regulatory cooperation fora,
including Codex Alimentarius, the U.S.-Mexico High Level Regulatory
Cooperation Council, the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Councils.
In addition, FDA is developing several rulemakings that have a specific
international focus.
[dec222] In one proposed rule, FDA will use international standards
and promotes harmonization by allowing medical devices companies to use
certain kinds of international symbols in device labeling.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Use of Symbols in Labeling (RIN: 0910-AG74).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dec222] As a result of collaboration under the U.S.-Canada
Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC), FDA will propose a rule to add
the common cold indication to certain over-the-counter (OTC)
antihistamine active ingredients.\31\ The objectives of the RCC
monograph alignment working group are to conduct a pilot program to
develop aligned monograph elements for a selected over-the-counter
(OTC) drug category (e.g. aligned directions, warnings, indications and
conditions of use) and subsequently, develop recommendations to
determine the feasibility of an ongoing mechanism for alignment in
review and adoption of these OTC drug monograph elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Over-the-Counter (OTC) Drug Review--Cough/Cold
(Antihistamine) Products (RIN: 0910-AF31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
reginfo.gov.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduce Small Business
RIN Title Burden?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0970-AC43.................. Performance No.
Standards for
Runaway and
Homeless Youth
Grantees.
0970-AC50.................. Flexibility, No.
Efficiency,
and
Modernization
of Child
Support
Enforcement
Programs.
0920-AA23.................. Control of No.
Communicable
Disease:
Foreign;
Requirements
for Importers
of Nonhuman
Primates.
0938-AO53.................. Home and Yes.
Community-
Based State
Plan Services
Program and
Provider
Payment
Reassignments
(CMS-2249-F).
0938-AP61.................. Home and Yes.
Community
Based Services
Waivers (CMS-
2296-F).
0938-AQ38.................. CLIA Program No.
and HIPAA
Privacy Rule;
Patients'
Access to Test
Reports (CMS-
2319-F).
0938-AR49.................. Part II-- Yes.
Regulatory
Provisions to
Promote
Program
Efficiency,
Transparency,
and Burden
Reduction (CMS-
3267-P).
[[Page 1371]]
0910-AF22.................. Food Labeling; No.
Revision of
the Nutrition
and Supplement
Facts Labels.
0910-AF81.................. Current Good No.
Manufacturing
Practice for
Combination
Products.
0910-AF82.................. Postmarket Yes.
Safety
Reporting for
Combination
Products.
0910-AF86.................. Medical Device No.
Reporting;
Electronic
Submission
Requirements.
0910-AF87.................. Laser Products; No.
Amendment to
Performance
Standard.
0910-AG14.................. Prescription Yes.
Drug Marketing
Act of 1987;
Prescription
Drug
Amendments of
1992;
Policies,
Requirements,
and
Administrative
Procedures.
0910-AG18.................. Electronic No.
Distribution
of Prescribing
Information
for Human
Drugs
Including
Biological
Products.
0910-AG36.................. Hazard Analysis No.
and Risk-Based
Preventive
Controls.
0910-AG54.................. General No.
Hospital and
Personal Use
Devices:
Issuance of
Draft Special
Controls
Guidance for
Infusion Pumps.
0910-AG70.................. Amendments to No.
the Current
Good
Manufacturing
Practice
Regulations
for Finished
Pharmaceutical
s--Components.
0910-AG74.................. Use of Symbols Yes.
in Labeling.
0906-AA87.................. Elimination of No.
Duplication
Between the
Healthcare
Integrity and
Protection
Data Bank
(HIPDB) into
the National
Practitioner
Data Bank
(NPDB).
0925-AA43.................. National No.
Institutes of
Health Loan
Repayment
Program.
0937-AA02.................. Human Subjects No.
Research
Protections:
Enhancing
Protections
for Research
Subjects and
Reducing
Burden, Delay,
and Ambiguity
for
Investigators.
0945-AA03.................. Modifications Yes.
to the HIPAA
Privacy,
Security,
Enforcement,
and Breach
Notification
Rules.
0945-AA00.................. HIPAA Privacy No.
Rule
Accounting of
Disclosures
under the
Health
Information
Technology for
Economic and
Clinical
Health Act.
0930-AA14.................. Opioid Drugs in No.
Maintenance or
Detoxification
Treatment of
Opiate
Addiction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HHS--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)
Proposed Rule Stage
33. 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.
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. 331; 21 U.S.C. 342; 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 part 507.
Legal Deadline: 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), 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.
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.
[[Page 1372]]
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................................ 01/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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
34. Produce Safety Regulation
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 342; 21 U.S.C. 350h; 21 U.S.C. 371; 42
U.S.C. 264; Pub. L. 111-353 (signed on Jan. 4, 2011)
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, January 4, 2012, Proposed rule not
later than 12 months after the date of enactment of the Food Safety
Modernization Act.
Abstract: FDA is proposing to establish science-based minimum
standards for the safe production and harvesting of those types of
fruits and vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities for which
the Secretary has determined that such standards minimize the risk of
serious adverse health consequences or death. The purpose of the
proposed rule is to reduce the risk of illness associated with fresh
produce.
Statement of Need: FDA is taking this action to meet the
requirements of the FSMA and to address the food safety challenges
associated with fresh produce and thereby protect the public health.
Data indicate that between 1973 and 1997, outbreaks of foodborne
illness in the U.S. associated with fresh produce increased in absolute
numbers and as a proportion of all reported foodborne illness
outbreaks. The Agency issued general good agricultural practice
guidelines for fresh fruits and vegetables over a decade ago.
Incorporating prevention-oriented public health principles and
incorporating what we have learned in the past decade into a regulation
is a critical step in establishing standards for the production and
harvesting of produce and reducing the foodborne illness attributed to
fresh produce.
Summary of Legal Basis: FDA is relying on the amendments to the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), provided by
section 105 of the Food Safety Modernization Act (codified primarily in
section 419 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350h)). FDA's legal basis also
derives in part from sections 402(a)(3), 402(a)(4), and 701(a) of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(3), 342(a)(4), and 371(a)). FDA also intends
to rely on section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42
U.S.C. 264), which gives FDA authority to promulgate regulations to
control the spread of communicable disease.
Alternatives: Section 105 of the Food Safety Modernization Act
requires FDA to conduct this rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FDA estimates that the costs to more
than 300,000 domestic and foreign producers and packers of fresh
produce from the proposal would include one-time costs (e.g., new tools
and equipment) and recurring costs (e.g., monitoring, training,
recordkeeping). FDA anticipates that the benefits would be a reduction
in foodborne illness and deaths associated with fresh produce.
Monetized estimates of costs and benefits are not available at this
time.
Risks: This regulation would directly and materially advance the
Federal Government's substantial interest in reducing the risks for
illness and death associated with foodborne infections associated with
the consumption of fresh produce. Less restrictive and less
comprehensive approaches have not been sufficiently effective in
reducing the problems addressed by this regulation. FDA anticipates
that the regulation would lead to a significant decrease in foodborne
illness associated with fresh produce consumed in the U.S.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
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: Samir Assar, Supervisory Consumer Safety Officer,
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration,
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Food Safety,
5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-1636,
Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG35
HHS--FDA
35. Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under
Pub. L. 104-4.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 342; 21 U.S.C. 371; 42 U.S.C. 264; Pub.
L. 111-353 (signed on Jan. 4, 2011)
CFR Citation: 21 CFR part 110.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 4, 2012, Final rule must be
published no later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the
FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.
Abstract: This proposed rule would require a food facility to have
and implement preventive controls to significantly minimize or prevent
the occurrence of hazards that could affect food manufactured,
processed, packed, or held by the facility. This action is
[[Page 1373]]
intended to prevent or, at a minimum, quickly identify foodborne
pathogens before they get into the food supply.
Statement of Need: FDA is taking this action to meet the
requirements of the FSMA and to better address changes that have
occurred in the food industry and thereby protect public health.
FDA last updated its food CGMP regulations for the manufacturing,
packing, or holding of human food in 1986. Modernizing these food CGMP
regulations to address risk-based preventive controls and more
explicitly address issues such as environmental pathogens, food
allergens, mandatory employee training, and sanitation of food contact
surfaces, would be a critical step in raising the standards for food
production and distribution. By amending 21 CFR 110 to modernize good
manufacturing practices, the Agency could focus the attention of food
processors on measures that have been proven to significantly reduce
the risk of foodborne illness. An amended regulation also would allow
the Agency to better focus its regulatory efforts on ensuring industry
compliance with controls that have a significant food safety impact.
Summary of Legal Basis: FDA is relying on section 103 of the FSMA.
FDA is also relying on sections 402(a)(3), (a)(4) and 701(a) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C.
342(a)(3), (a)(4), and 371(a)). Under section 402(a)(3) of the FD&C
Act, a food is adulterated if it consists in whole or in part of any
filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is otherwise unfit
for food. Under section 402(a)(4), a food is adulterated if it has been
prepared, packed, or held under unsanitary conditions whereby it may
have become contaminated with filth or may have been rendered injurious
to health. Under section 701(a) of the FD&C Act, FDA is authorized to
issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act. FDA's
legal basis also derives from section 361 of the Public Health Service
Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 264), which gives FDA authority to promulgate
regulations to control the spread of communicable disease.
Alternatives: An alternative to this rulemaking is not to update
the CGMP regulations, and instead issue separate regulations to
implement the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FDA estimates that the costs from
the proposal to domestic and foreign producers and packers of processed
foods would include new one-time costs (e.g., adoption of written food
safety plans, setting up training programs, implementing allergen
controls, and purchasing new tools and equipment) and recurring costs
(e.g., auditing and monitoring suppliers of sensitive raw materials and
ingredients, training employees, and completing and maintaining records
used throughout the facility). FDA anticipates that the benefits would
be a reduced risk of foodborne illness and death from processed foods
and a reduction in the number of safety-related recalls.
Risks: This regulation will directly and materially advance the
Federal Government's substantial interest in reducing the risks for
illness and death associated with foodborne infections. Less
restrictive and less comprehensive approaches have not been effective
in reducing the problems addressed by this regulation. The regulation
will lead to a significant decrease in foodborne illness in the U.S.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Federalism: Undetermined.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O.
13563.
Agency Contact: Jenny Scott, Senior Advisor, Department of Health
and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch
Parkway, Office of Food Safety, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-
1488, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG36
HHS--FDA
36. Foreign Supplier Verification Program
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 384a; title III, sec 301 of FDA Food
Safety Modernization Act, Pub. L. 111-353, establishing sec 805 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 4, 2012.
Abstract: FDA is proposing regulations that describe what a food
importer must do to verify that its foreign suppliers produce food that
is as safe as food produced in the United States. FDA is taking this
action to improve the safety of food that is imported into the United
States.
Statement of Need: The proposed rule is needed to help improve the
safety of food that is imported into the United States. Imported food
products have increased dramatically over the last several decades.
Data indicate that about 15% of the U.S. food supply is imported. FSMA
provides the Agency with additional tools and authorities to help
ensure that imported foods are safe for U.S. consumers. Included among
these tools and authorities is a requirement that importers perform
risk-based foreign supplier verification activities to verify that the
food they import is produced in compliance with U.S. requirements, as
applicable, and is not adulterated or misbranded. This proposed rule on
the content of foreign supplier verification programs (FSVPs) sets
forth the proposed steps that food importers would be required to take
to fulfill their responsibility to ensure the safety of the food they
bring into this country.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 805(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
384a(c)) directs FDA, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment
of FSMA, to issue regulations on the content of FSVPs. Section
805(c)(4) states that verification activities under such programs may
include monitoring records for shipments, lot-by-lot certification of
compliance, annual onsite inspections, checking the hazard analysis and
risk-based preventive control plans of foreign suppliers, and
periodically testing and sampling shipments of imported products.
Section 301(b) of FSMA amends section 301 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
331) by adding section 301(zz), which designates as a prohibited act
the importation or offering for importation of a food if the importer
(as defined in section 805) does not have in place an FSVP in
compliance with section 805. In addition, section 301(c) of FSMA amends
section 801(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 381(a)) by stating that an
article of food being imported or offered for import into the United
States shall be refused admission if it appears from an examination of
a sample of such an article or otherwise that the importer is in
violation of section 805.
Alternatives: We are considering a range of alternative approaches
to the requirements for foreign supplier verification activities. These
might include: (1) Establishing a general requirement that importers
determine
[[Page 1374]]
and conduct whatever verification activity that would adequately
address the risks associated with the foods they import; (2) allowing
importers to choose from a list of possible verification mechanisms,
such as the activities listed in section 805(c)(4) of the FD&C Act; (3)
requiring importers to conduct particular verification activities for
certain types of foods or risks (e.g., for high-risk foods) but
allowing flexibility in verification activities for other types of
foods or risks; and (4) specifying use of a particular verification
activity for each particular kind of food or risk. To the extent
possible while still ensuring that verification activities are adequate
to ensure that foreign suppliers are producing food in accordance with
U.S. requirements, we will seek to give importers the flexibility to
choose verification procedures that are appropriate to adequately
address the risks associated with the importation of a particular food.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We are still estimating the cost and
benefits for this proposed rule. However, the available information
suggests that the costs will be significant. Our preliminary analysis
of FY10 OASIS data suggests that this rule will cover about 60,000
importers, 240,000 unique combinations of importers and foreign
suppliers, and 540,000 unique combinations of importers, products, and
foreign suppliers. These numbers imply that provisions that require
activity for each importer, each unique combination of importer and
foreign supplier, or each unique combination of importer, product, and
foreign supplier will generate significant costs. An example of a
provision linked to combinations of importers and foreign suppliers
would be a requirement to conduct a verification activity, such as an
onsite audit, under certain conditions. The cost of onsite audits will
depend in part on whether foreign suppliers can provide the same onsite
audit results to different importers or whether every importer will
need to take some action with respect to each of their foreign
suppliers. The benefits of this proposed rule will consist of the
reduction of adverse health events linked to imported food that could
result from increased compliance with applicable requirements.
Risks: As stated above, about 15 percent of the U.S. food supply is
imported, and many of these imported foods are high-risk commodities.
According to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, each year, about 48 million Americans get sick, 128,000 are
hospitalized, and 3,000 die from foodborne diseases. From July 1, 2007,
through June 30, 2008, FDA oversaw 40 recalls of imported foods that
were so contaminated that the Agency deemed them to be an imminent
threat. We expect that the adoption of FSVPs by food importers will
lead to a significant reduction to the threat to public health posed by
unsafe imported food.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Agency Contact: Brian L. Pendleton, Senior Policy Advisor,
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration,
Office of Policy, WO 32, Room 4245, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002, Phone: 301 796-4614, Fax: 301 847-8616, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG64
HHS--FDA
37. Accreditation of Third Parties To Conduct Food Safety Audits and
for Other Related Purposes
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 384d; Pub. L. 111-353, sec 307, FDA Food
Safety Modernization Act; Other sections of FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act, as appropriate
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 2012, Promulgate
implementing regulations. Per Pub. L. 111-353, section 307, promulgate,
within 18 months of enactment, certain implementing regulations for
accreditation of third-party auditors to conduct food safety audits.
Abstract: FDA is proposing regulations for accreditation of third-
party auditors to conduct food safety audits. FDA is taking this action
to improve the safety of food that is imported into the United States.
Statement of Need: The use of accredited third-party auditors to
certify food imports will assist in ensuring the safety of food from
foreign origin entering U.S. commerce. Accredited third-party auditors
auditing foreign facilities can increase FDA's information about
foreign facilities that FDA may not have adequate resources to inspect
in a particular year. FDA will establish identified standards creating
overall uniformity to complete the task. Audits that result in issuance
of facility certificates will provide FDA information about the
compliance status of the facility. Additionally, auditors will be
required to submit audit reports that may be reviewed by FDA for
purposes of compliance assessment and work planning.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 808 of the FD&C Act directs FDA to
establish, not later than 2 years after the date of enactment, a system
for the recognition of accreditation bodies that accredit third-party
auditors, who in turn certify that their eligible entities meet the
requirements. To directly accredit third-party auditors should none be
identified and recognized by the 2-year date of enactment, FDA is to
obtain a list of all accredited third-party auditors and their agents
from recognized accreditation bodies, and determine requirements for
regulatory audit reports while avoiding unnecessary duplication of
efforts and costs.
Alternatives: FSMA described in detail the framework for, and
requirements of, the accredited third-party auditor program.
Alternatives include certain oversight activities required of
recognized accreditation bodies that accredit third-party auditors, as
distinguished from third-party auditors directly accredited by FDA.
Another alternative relates to the nature of the required standards and
the degree to which those standards are prescriptive or flexible.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The benefits of the proposed rule
would result from fewer cases of unsafe or misbranded food entering
U.S. commerce. Additional benefits include the increased flow of
credible information to FDA regarding the compliance status of foreign
firms and their foods that are ultimately offered for import into the
United States, which information in turn would inform FDA's work
planning for inspection of foreign food facilities and might result in
a signal of possible problems with a particular firm or its products,
and with sufficient signals, might raise questions about the rigor of
the food safety regulatory system of the country of origin.
The compliance costs of the proposed rule would result from the
additional labor and capital required of accreditation bodies seeking
FDA recognition and of third-party auditors seeking accreditation to
the extent that
[[Page 1375]]
will involve the assembling of information for an application unique to
the FDA third-party program. The compliance costs associated with
certification will be accounted for separately under the costs
associated with participation in the voluntary qualified importer
program and the costs associated with mandatory certification for high-
risk food imports. The third-party program is funded through revenue
neutral-user fees, which will be developed by FDA through rulemaking.
User fee costs will be accounted for in that rulemaking.
Risks: FDA is proposing this rule to provide greater assurance the
food offered for import into the United States is safe and will not
cause injury or illness to animals or humans. The rule would implement
a program for accrediting third-party auditors to conduct food safety
audits of foreign food entities, including registered foreign food
facilities, and based on the findings of the regulatory audit, to issue
certifications to foreign food entities found to be in compliance with
FDA requirements. The certifications could be used by importers seeking
to participate in the Voluntary Qualified Importer Program for
expedited review and entry of product and would be a means to provide
assurance of compliance as required by FDA based on risk-related
considerations. The rule would apply to any foreign or domestic
accreditation body seeking FDA recognition, any foreign or domestic
third-party auditor seeking accreditation, any registered foreign food
facility or other foreign food entity subject to a food safety audit
(including a regulatory audit conducted for purposes of certification),
and any importer seeking to participate in the Voluntary Qualified
Importer Program. Fewer cases of unsafe or misbranded food entering
U.S. commerce would reduce the risk of serious illness and death to
humans and animals.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 01/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of
international interest.
Agency Contact: Charlotte A. Christin, Senior Policy Advisor,
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration,
Office of Policy, WO 32, Room 4234, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver
Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 301 796-4718, Fax: 301 847-3541, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG66
HHS--FDA
38. Revision of Postmarketing Reporting Requirements
Discontinuance or Interruption in Supply of Certain Products (Drug
Shortages)
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
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 to FDA discontinuances or interruptions
in the production 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. FDASIA requires FDA to define in
regulation the terms ``life-supporting,'' ``life-sustaining,'' and
``intended for use in the prevention or treatment of a debilitating
disease or condition,'' and to distribute, to the maximum extent
practical, information on the discontinuation or interruption in the
manufacture of these products to appropriate organizations. FDASIA also
amends the FD&C Act to include other provisions related to drug
shortages, and to require FDA to adopt a final regulation implementing
amended section 506C not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of FDASIA. When finalized, this rule will implement the drug
shortages provisions of FDASIA.
Statement of Need: The Food and Drug Administration Safety and
Innovation Act (FDASIA), Public Law No. 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:
[[Page 1376]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20903, Phone: 301 796-
0737.
RIN: 0910-AG88
HHS--FDA
Final Rule Stage
39. Unique Device Identification
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. 351; 21 U.S.C. 352; 21 U.S.C. 360; 21
U.S.C. 360h; 21 U.S.C. 360i; 21 U.S.C. 360j; 21 U.S.C. 360l; 21 U.S.C.
371
CFR Citation: 21 CFR part 16; 21 CFR part 801; 21 CFR part 803; 21
CFR part 806; 21 CFR part 810; 21 CFR part 814; 21 CFR part 820; 21 CFR
part 821; 21 CFR part 822.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, May 7, 2013, Must be finalized no
later than 6 months after end of comment period (November 7, 2012).
Deadlines added by section 614 of FDASIA, Pub. L. 112-144.
Abstract: FDA is issuing a final rule establishing a unique device
identification system for medical devices. A unique device
identification system would allow health care professionals and others
to rapidly and precisely identify a device and obtain important
information concerning the device and would reduce medical errors.
Statement of Need: A unique device identification system will help
reduce medical errors; will allow FDA, the healthcare community, and
industry to more rapidly review and organize adverse event reports;
identify problems relating to a particular device (even down to a
particular lot or batch, range of serial numbers, or range of
manufacturing or expiration dates); and thereby allow for more rapid,
effective, corrective actions that focus sharply on the specific
devices that are of concern.
Summary of Legal Basis: Section 519(f) of the FD&C Act (added by
sec. 226 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007)
directs the Secretary to promulgate regulations establishing a unique
device identification (UDI) system for medical devices, requiring the
label of devices to bear a unique identifier that will adequately
identify the device through its distribution and use.
Alternatives: FDA considered several alternatives that would allow
certain requirements of the proposed rule to vary, such as the required
elements of a UDI and the scope of affected devices.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FDA estimates that the affected
industry would incur one-time and recurring costs, including
administrative costs, to change and print labels that include the
required elements of a UDI, costs to purchase equipment to print and
verify the UDI, and costs to purchase software and integrate and
validate the UDI into existing IT systems. FDA anticipates that
implementation of a UDI system would help improve the efficiency and
accuracy of medical device recalls and medical device adverse event
reporting. The proposed rule would also standardize how medical devices
are identified and contribute to future potential public health
benefits of initiatives aimed at optimizing the use of automated
systems in healthcare. Most of these benefits, however, require
complementary developments and innovations in the private and public
sectors.
Risks: This rule is intended to substantially eliminate existing
obstacles to the consistent identification of medical devices used in
the United States. UDI will allow FDA to more rapidly and effectively
identify and aggregate adverse event reports and is central to
improvement in FDA's medical device postmarket surveillance plan. By
providing the means to rapidly and accurately identify a device and key
attributes that affect its safe and effective use, the rule would
reduce medical errors that result from misidentification of a device or
confusion concerning its appropriate use.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/10/12 77 FR 40735
NPRM Comment Period End............. 11/07/12
Final Action........................ 05/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL for More Information: www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/uniquedeviceidentification/default.htm.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: John J. Crowley, Senior Advisor for Patient Safety,
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration,
Center for Devices and Radiological Health, WO 66, Room 2315, 10903 New
Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 301 980-1936, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG31
HHS--FDA
40. Food Labeling: Nutrition Labeling for 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: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register of April 6, 2011 (72 FR 19238) 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 took this action to carry out section
4205 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care
Act or ACA), which was signed into law on March 23, 2010.
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
[[Page 1377]]
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 estimates that the total cost of complying with section 4205 of the
Affordable Care Act and this rulemaking will 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 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 will 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........................ 04/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 E.O. 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
41. 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: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register of April 6, 2011 (72 FR 19192),
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 took this action to carry out section 4205 of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act or
ACA), which was signed into law on March 23, 2010.
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
estimates that the total cost of section 4205 and this rulemaking will
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
include 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
[[Page 1378]]
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........................ 04/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 E.O. 13132.
Agency Contact: Geraldine A. June, Supervisor, Product Evaluation
and Labeling Team, 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:
240 402-1802, Fax: 301 436-2636, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0910-AG57.
HHS--CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS)
Proposed Rule Stage
42. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Standards Related to
Essential Health Benefits, Actuarial Value, and Accreditation (CMS-
9980-F)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-148, title I
CFR Citation: 45 CFR part 156; 45 CFR part 155; 45 CFR part 147.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 2014.
Abstract: This final rule details standards for health insurance
consistent with title I of the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, this
rule outlines Exchange and issuer standards related to coverage of
essential health benefits (EHB) and actuarial value (AV). This rule
also proposes a timeline for qualified health plans to be accredited in
Federally-facilitated Exchanges and an amendment that provides an
application process for the recognition of additional accrediting
entities for purposes of certification of qualified health plans.
Statement of Need: This rule sets forth standards related to EHB
and AV consistent with the Affordable Care Act. HHS believes that the
provisions that are included in this rule are necessary to fulfill the
Secretary's obligations under sections 1302 and 1311 of the Affordable
Care Act. Establishing specific approaches for defining EHB and
calculating AV will bring needed clarity for States, issuers, and other
stakeholders. Absent the provisions outlined in this rule, States,
issuers, and consumers would face significant uncertainty about how
coverage of EHB should be defined and evaluated. Similarly, failing to
specify a method for calculating AV could result in significant
inconsistency across States and issuers. Finally, establishing a clear
timeline for potential qualified health plans to become accredited is
essential to successful issuer participation in Federally-facilitated
Exchanges.
Summary of Legal Basis: The provisions that are included in this
rule are necessary to implement the requirements of title I of the
Affordable Care Act.
Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: HHS anticipates that the provisions
of this rule will assure consumers that they will have health insurance
coverage for essential health benefits, and significantly increase
consumers' ability to compare health plans, make an informed selection
by promoting consistency across covered benefits and levels of
coverage, and more efficiently purchase coverage. This rule ensures
that consumers can shop on the basis of issues that are important to
them such as price, network physicians, and quality, and be confident
that the plan they choose does not include unexpected coverage gaps,
like hidden benefit exclusions. It also allows for some flexibility for
plans to promote innovation in benefit design. HHS anticipates that the
provisions of this proposed regulation will likely result in increased
costs related to increased utilization of health care services by
people receiving coverage for previously uncovered benefits.
Risks: If this regulation is not published, the Exchanges will not
become operational by January 1, 2014, thereby violating the statute.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice.............................. 09/14/11 76 FR 56767
Comment Period End.................. 10/31/11
NPRM................................ 11/26/12 77 FR 70644
NPRM Comment Period End............. 12/26/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,
Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined
in EO 13132.
Agency Contact: Leigha Basini, Health Insurance Specialist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone:
301 492-4307, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AR03
HHS--CMS
43. PART II--Regulatory Provisions To Promote Program Efficiency,
Transparency, and Burden Reduction (CMS-3267-P)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801
is undetermined.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395hh; 42 U.S.C. 1395rr
CFR Citation: 42 CFR part 482; 42 CFR part 485; 42 CFR part 491; 42
CFR part 483; 42 CFR part 416; 42 CFR part 486; 42 CFR part 488; 42 CFR
part 493.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed rule identifies and proposes reforms in
Medicare regulations that CMS has identified as unnecessary, obsolete,
or excessively burdensome on health care providers and beneficiaries.
This proposed rule would increase the ability of health care
professionals to devote resources to improving patient care, by
[[Page 1379]]
eliminating or reducing requirements that impede quality patient care
or that divert resources away from providing high quality patient care.
This is one of several rules that CMS is proposing to achieve
regulatory reforms under Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review and the Department's Plan for Retrospective
Review of Existing Rules.
Statement of Need: In Executive Order 13563, the President
recognized the importance of a streamlined, effective, efficient
regulatory framework designed to promote economic growth, innovation,
job creation, and competitiveness. To achieve a more robust and
effective regulatory framework, the President has directed each
executive agency to establish a plan for ongoing retrospective review
of existing significant regulations to identify those rules that can be
eliminated as obsolete, unnecessary, burdensome, or counterproductive
or that can be modified to be more effective, efficient, flexible, and
streamlined. This rule continues our direct response to the President's
instructions in Executive Order 13563 by reducing outmoded or
unnecessarily burdensome rules, and thereby increasing the ability of
health care entities to devote resources to providing high quality
patient care.
Summary of Legal Basis: The provisions that are included in this
rule are necessary to implement the requirements of Executive Order
13563, ``Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review.''
Alternatives: To date, nearly 90 specific reforms have been
identified and scheduled for action. These reforms impact hospitals,
physicians, home health agencies, ambulance providers, clinical labs,
skilled nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities, managed care
plans, Medicare Advantage organizations, and States. Many of these
reforms will be included in rules that relate to particular categories
of regulations or types of providers. Other reforms are being
implemented without the need for regulations. This rule includes
reforms that do not fit directly in other rules scheduled for
publication.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule makes several changes that
create measurable monetary savings for providers and suppliers, while
others create less tangible savings of time and administrative burden.
We anticipate that the provider industry and health professionals will
welcome the changes and reductions in burden. We also expect that
health professionals will experience increased efficiencies and
resources to appropriately devote to improving patient care, increasing
accessibility to care, and reducing associated health care costs.
Risks: If this regulation is not published, outdated and obsolete
regulations would remain in place, thereby violating the Executive
Order. Proposals to remove excessively burdensome requirements and
increased efficiencies in patient care would not be achieved.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O.
13563 with small business burden reduction.
Agency Contact: Lauren Oviatt, Health Insurance Specialist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Office of Clinical Standards and Quality, Mailstop
S3-23-27, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850, Phone: 410
786-4683, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AR49
HHS--CMS
44. Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters (CMS-9964-P)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-148, secs 1341 to 1343
CFR Citation: 45 CFR part 153; 45 CFR part 155.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 2014.
Abstract: Under the Affordable Care Act, this proposed rule would
establish parameters of the risk adjustment, reinsurance, risk
corridors, advanced premium tax credit, and cost-sharing reduction
programs.
Statement of Need: This rule would provide additional guidance for
several programs including risk adjustment, reinsurance, and risk
corridors. The purpose of these programs is to protect health insurance
issuers from the negative effects of adverse selection and to protect
consumers from increases in premiums due to uncertainty for issuers.
The rule would also provide new information on the cost-sharing
reductions (CSRs) and advanced premium tax credits (APTCs) programs.
These programs provide financial support for purchasing insurance and
increase access to care for individuals through the Affordable
Insurance Exchanges. They also provide assistance on user fees and
administrative fees used to implement the Federally-facilitated
Exchange and the risk adjustment and reinsurance programs.
Summary of Legal Basis: The provisions that are included in this
rule are necessary to implement the requirements of sections 1341,
1342, 1343, 1401, 1402, 1411, and 1412 of the Affordable Care Act.
Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Payments through reinsurance, risk
adjustment, and risk corridors would reduce the increased risk of
financial loss that health insurance issuers might otherwise expect to
incur in 2014 due to market reforms such as guaranteed issue and the
elimination of medical underwriting. These payments would reduce the
risk to the issuer and the issuer could pass on a reduced risk premium
to enrollees. Administrative costs would vary across States and health
insurance issuers depending on the sophistication of technical
infrastructure and prior experience with data collection and risk
adjustment. States and issuers that already have systems in place for
data collection and reporting would have reduced administrative costs.
Federal financial assistance for enrollees through the CSR and APTC
programs would enable many low- and moderate-income individuals to
purchase health insurance. The user fees and administrative fees would
be charged on a per capita basis to issuers of certain plans. Those
fees would be used to administer the Federally-facilitated Exchange and
the HHS-operated risk adjustment and reinsurance programs.
Risks: If this regulation is not published, the Exchanges may be at
risk for not becoming fully operational by January 1, 2014, thereby
delaying the benefits of health insurance coverage to millions of
Americans.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/07/12 77 FR 73118
NPRM Comment Period End............. 12/31/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
Agency Contact: Sharon Arnold, Acting Director, Payment Policy and
Financial Management Group,
[[Page 1380]]
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone:
301 492-4415, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AR51
HHS--CMS
45. Changes to the Hospital Inpatient and Long-Term Care
Prospective Payment System for FY 2014 (CMS-1599-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, 2013. Final, Statutory,
August 1, 2013.
Abstract: This annual major 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 2014 IPPS and LTCHs at least 60 days before October 1, 2013.
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, 2013.
Alternatives: None. This implements a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted
for FY 2014.
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, inpatient
hospital and LTCH services will not be paid appropriately beginning
October 1, 2013.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Brian Slater, 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: 410 786-5229, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0938-AR53
HHS--CMS
46. Changes to the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment
System and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System for CY 2014 (CMS-
1601-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, 2013.
Abstract: This proposed rule would revise the Medicare hospital
outpatient prospective payment system to implement applicable statutory
requirements and changes arising from our continuing experience with
this system. The proposed rule also 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.
The rule solicits comments on the proposed OPPS payment rates and new
policies. 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 2014 OPPS and ASC payment system at least 60 days
before January 1, 2014.
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, 2014.
Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted
for CY 2014.
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, outpatient
hospital and ASC services will not be paid appropriately beginning
January 1, 2014.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 7500 Security
Boulevard, C4-03-06, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-
[[Page 1381]]
4617, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AR54
HHS--CMS
47. Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee
Schedule and Medicare Part B for CY 2014 (CMS-1600-P)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: Social Security Act, secs 1102, 1871, 1848
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2013.
Abstract: This 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 be applicable to
services furnished on or after January 1 annually.
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, 2013, and an implementation date of January 1, 2014.
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 2014.
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, physician
services will not be paid appropriately, beginning January 1, 2014.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Christina Ritter, Director, Division of
Practitioner Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Mail Stop C4-03-06, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-4636, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 0938-AR56
HHS--CMS
48. Prospective Payment System for Federally Qualified Health
Centers (FQHCS) (CMS-1443-P) (Section 610 Review)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-148, sec 10501
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, October 1, 2014.
Abstract: The Affordable Care Act amends the current Medicare FQHC
payment policy by requiring the establishment of a new payment system,
effective with cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1,
2014. This rule proposes the establishment of the new prospective
payment system.
Statement of Need: FQHCs include providers such as community health
centers, public housing centers, outpatient health programs funded by
the Indian Health Service, and programs serving migrants and the
homeless. The main purpose of the FQHC program is to enhance the
provision of primary care services in underserved urban and rural
communities. CMS is required by statute to develop a prospective
payment system for FQHCs effective October 1, 2014.
Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 5502 and 10501 of the Affordable
Care Act.
Alternatives: None. This implements a statutory requirement.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted
for fiscal year 2015.
Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, FQHC services
will not be paid appropriately beginning October 1, 2014.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 06/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Sarah Harding, Health Insurance Specialist,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop C4-01-26, Windsor
Mill, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-4001, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 0938-AR62
HHS--ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)
Proposed Rule Stage
49. 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 part 98.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This proposed 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.
The changes would update the regulation to 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.
Statement of Need: The CCDF program has far-reaching implications
for America's poorest children. It provides child care assistance to
1.7 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
[[Page 1382]]
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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule
directly benefit children and parents who use CCDF assistance to pay
for child care. The 1.7 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 proposed rule
will vary depending on a State's specific situation. ACF does not
believe the costs of this proposed regulatory action would be
economically significant and that the tremendous benefits to low-income
children justify costs associated with this proposed rule.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/12
NPRM Comment Period End............. 02/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2012 Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) was created
in 2003 pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-
296. DHS has a vital mission: To secure the Nation from the many
threats we face. This requires the dedication of more than 225,000
employees in jobs that range from aviation and border security to
emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility
inspector. Our duties are wide-ranging, but our goal is clear--keeping
America safe.
Our mission gives us six main areas of responsibility:
1. Prevent Terrorism and Enhance Security,
2. Secure and Manage Our Borders,
3. Enforce and Administer our Immigration Laws,
4. Safeguard and Secure Cyberspace,
5. Ensure Resilience to Disasters, and
6. Mature and Strengthen DHS.
In achieving these goals, we are continually strengthening our
partnerships with communities, first responders, law enforcement, and
government agencies--at the State, local, tribal, Federal, and
international levels. We are accelerating the deployment of science,
technology, and innovation in order to make America more secure, and we
are becoming leaner, smarter, and more efficient, ensuring that every
security resource is used as effectively as possible. For a further
discussion of our main areas of responsibility, see the DHS Web site at
http://www.dhs.gov/our-mission.
The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's fall
2012 regulatory plan and in the agenda support the Department's
responsibility areas listed above. These regulations
[[Page 1383]]
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); the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006
(PKEMRA), Public Law 109-295 (Oct. 4, 2006); the Consolidated Natural
Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), Public Law 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); and the Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, Public
Law 110-329 (Sep. 30, 2008).
DHS strives for organizational excellence and uses a centralized
and unified approach in managing its regulatory resources. The Office
of the General Counsel manages the Department's regulatory program,
including the agenda and regulatory plan. In addition, DHS senior
leadership reviews each significant regulatory project to ensure that
the project fosters and supports the Department's mission.
The Department is committed to ensuring that all of its regulatory
initiatives are aligned with its guiding principles to protect civil
rights and civil liberties, integrate our actions, build coalitions and
partnerships, develop human resources, innovate, and be accountable to
the American public.
DHS is also committed to the principles described in Executive
Orders 13563 and 12866 (as amended). Both Executive orders direct
agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts,
and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility.
Finally, the Department values public involvement in the
development of its regulatory plan, agenda, and regulations, and takes
particular concern with the impact its rules have on small businesses.
DHS and each of its components continue to emphasize the use of plain
language in our notices and rulemaking documents to promote a better
understanding of regulations and increased public participation in the
Department's rulemakings.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Pursuant to Executive Order 13563 ``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), DHS identified the following
regulatory actions as associated with retrospective review and
analysis. Some of the regulatory actions on the below list may be
completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. You can
find more information about these completed rulemakings in past
publications of the Unified Agenda (search the Completed Actions
sections) on www.reginfo.gov. Some of the entries on this list,
however, are active rulemakings. You can find entries for these
rulemakings on www.regulations.gov.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIN Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1615-AB71............................. Electronic Communications;
Registration Requirement for
Petitioners Seeking to File H-
1B Petitions.
1615-AB99............................. Provisional Unlawful Presence
Waivers of Inadmissibility for
Certain Immediate Relatives.
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 Amendments
to the International Convention
on Standards of Training,
Certification, and Watchkeeping
for Seafarers (STCW) and
Changes to Domestic
Endorsements.
1625-AB38............................. Update to Maritime Security
Regulations.
1625-AB80............................. Elimination of Transportation
Worker Identification
Credential (TWIC) for Certain
Mariner Populations.
(Implementation of Section 809
of the 2010 Coast Guard
Authorization Act).
1651-AA96............................. Definition of Form I-94 to
Include Electronic Format.
1651-AA93............................. Closing of the Port of
Whitetail, Montana.
1651-AA94............................. Internet Publication of
Administrative Seizure/
Forfeiture Notices.
1652-AA43............................. Modification of the Aviation
Security Infrastructure Fee
(ASIF).
1652-AA61............................. Revisions to the Alien Flight
Student Program (AFSP)
Regulations.
1653-AA44............................. Amendment to Accommodate Process
Changes with the Student and
Exchange Visitor Information
System (SEVIS) II.
1660-AA75............................. Increased Federal Cost Share and
Reimbursement for Force Account
Labor for Public for Public
Assistance Debris Removal.
1660-XXXX............................. State Standard and Enhanced
Mitigation Plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1384]]
DHS participates in some international regulatory cooperation
activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant
regulations. For example, the 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 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 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-
US 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-US 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, USCG 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 2012 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 2012 regulatory plan for DHS regulatory components, as well as
for DHS 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
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
Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for
Certain Immediate Relatives. USCIS will amend its regulations to allow
certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, who are physically
present in the United States and must seek immigrant visas through
consular processing abroad, to apply for provisional unlawful presence
waivers under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1952; 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) while in the United
States. This regulatory change would significantly reduce the length of
time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives who
must use the consular process abroad. It also creates greater
efficiencies for both the U.S. Government and applicants.
Regulations Related to Transformation. USCIS is currently engaged
in a multi-year transformation effort to create a more efficient,
effective, and customer-focused organization by improving our business
processes and technology. In the coming years, USCIS will publish
regulations to facilitate that effort, including regulations that would
accomplish the following changes: Remove references to form numbers,
form titles, expired regulatory provisions, and descriptions of
internal procedure; mandate electronic filing in certain circumstances;
and comprehensively reorganize 8 CFR part 214.
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. In 2009, USCIS issued three regulations (two interim final
rules and one notice of proposed rulemaking) to implement the extension
of U.S. immigration law to the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
(CNMI), as required under title VII of the Consolidated Natural
Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA). During fiscal year 2011, USCIS issued two
final rules finalizing the interim final rules from 2009 related to the
extension of the U.S. immigration
[[Page 1385]]
law to the CNMI. In fiscal year 2013, USCIS plans to issue with the
Department of Justice (DOJ) a joint final rule titled ``Application of
Immigration Regulations to the CNMI.'' This regulation would implement
the applicable CNRA provisions to extend U.S. immigration law to the
CNMI.
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 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), U
nonimmigrants (victims of criminal activity), and adjustment of status
for T and U nonimmigrants to lawful permanent resident status. 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. The agencies 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 2012
Regulatory Plan below, contribute to the fulfillment of those
responsibilities and reflect our regulatory policies.
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC); Card Reader
Requirements. The Coast Guard is proposing to establish electronic card
reader requirements for maritime facilities and vessels to be used in
combination with the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA)
TWIC. Congress enacted several statutory requirements within the
Security and Accountability For Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006
pertaining to TWIC readers, including a requirement to evaluate TSA's
final pilot program report as part of the TWIC reader rulemaking.
During the rulemaking process, the Coast Guard is taking into account
the final pilot data and the various conditions in which TWIC readers
may be employed. For example, the Coast Guard is considering the types
of vessels and facilities that will use TWIC readers, locations of
secure and restricted areas, operational constraints, and need for
accessibility. This rulemaking will also address 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.
Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping
(STCW) for Seafarers, 1978. The Coast Guard proposed to amend its
regulations to implement changes to an 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
STCW in the requirements for the credentialing of U.S. merchant
mariners. 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. This proposal published as a
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) on
[[Page 1386]]
August 1, 2011. The Coast Guard has reviewed and analyzed comments
received on that SNPRM, and intends to publish a final rule complying
with the requirements of the newly amended STCW Convention. DHS
included this rulemaking in the DHS Final Plan for the Retrospective
Review of Existing Regulations, which DHS released on August 22, 2011.
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
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 regulations the Coast Guard is taking into
account the characteristics of offshore supply vessels, 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. These rules foster the DHS' Strategic Goals of awareness and
prevention. 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 also 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. CBP intends to issue a final rule on ESTA and the ESTA fee
during the next fiscal year.
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. See Pub. L. No. 109-347, Section 203 (October 13, 2006).
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. Id. 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. Id.
[[Page 1387]]
On November 25, 2008, CBP published an interim final rule
``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 concluded on June 1,
2009. CBP is analyzing comments and conducting a structured review of
certain flexibility provided in the interim final rule. 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 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
Guan 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 program. CBP
intends to issue 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 United States 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 2013,
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 does not have any
significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2013.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have
any significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2013.
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 2013, 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; improving the detention of aliens who
are subject to final orders of removal; 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 Department 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
proposed standards will reflect existing ICE and other DHS detention
policies and are in response to the President's Memorandum
``Implementing the Prison Rape Elimination Act,'' issued on May 17,
2012, the same day 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
rules or procedures necessary to satisfy the requirements of PREA
within 120 days of the Memorandum. The DHS notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) will be issued during fiscal year 2012, with a final
rule to follow addressing comments received through the notice-and-
comment process.
Improving Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of
Removal. ICE will improve the post order custody review process in a
final rule related to the continued detention of aliens subject to
final orders of removal in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions
in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) and Clark v. Martinez, 543
U.S. 371 (2005), as well as changes pursuant to the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002. During fiscal year 2013, ICE will also
issue a companion NPRM that will allow the public an opportunity to
comment on new sections of the custody determination process not
previously published for comment.
Updating and enhancing limitations on designated school official
assignment and study by F-2 and M-2 nonimmigrants. ICE will revise 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, as well
as modify the 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, 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
[[Page 1388]]
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 goal of the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD)
is to advance the Department's risk-reduction mission. Reducing risk
requires an integrated approach that encompasses both physical and
virtual threats and their associated human elements.
Ammonium Nitrate Security Program. Section 563 of the Fiscal Year
2008 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, Public Law
110-161, amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide DHS with
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 a new Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate subtitle of the
Homeland Security Act (Subtitle J, 6 U.S.C. 488-488i).
The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate provisions of the Homeland
Security Act direct DHS to promulgate regulations requiring potential
buyers and sellers of ammonium nitrate to register with DHS. As part of
the registration process, the statute directs DHS to screen
registration applicants against the Federal Government's Terrorist
Screening Database. The statute also requires sellers of ammonium
nitrate to verify the identities of those seeking to purchase it; to
record certain information about each sale or transfer of ammonium
nitrate; and to report thefts and losses of ammonium nitrate with DHS.
The Ammonium Nitrate Security Program Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
proposes requirements that would implement the Secure Handling of
Ammonium Nitrate provisions of the Homeland Security Act. The rule
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 aims to 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 will be more difficult for terrorists to obtain
ammonium nitrate materials for use in terrorist acts.
On October 29, 2008, DHS published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) for the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program,
and received a number of public comments on that ANPRM. DHS reviewed
those comments and published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for
the Ammonium Nitrate Security Program on August 3, 2011. NPPD accepted
public comments until December 1, 2011, and is now reviewing the public
comments and developing a Final Rule related to the Ammonium Nitrate
Security Program.
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 2013, 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
will propose to amend its civil aviation regulations to clarify that
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). This NPRM will be issued 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), Public Law 110-53 (Aug. 3, 2007). In compliance
with the definitions of frontline employees in the pertinent provisions
of the 9/11 Act, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) would 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.
TSA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on November 18, 2009.
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 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
[[Page 1389]]
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 2013.
DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2013
A more detailed description of the priority regulations that
comprise DHS's fall 2012 regulatory plan follows.
DHS--U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS)
Proposed Rule Stage
50. 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 part 2; 8 CFR part 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.'' Prior to publishing a new
proposed rule, the Department will be considering 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 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................................ 05/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1390]]
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 3200, Washington, DC 20259, Phone: 202 272-1614, Fax:
202 272-1994, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1615-AA41
DHS--USCIS
51. 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 part 1; 8 CFR part 208; 8 CFR part 244; 8 CFR
part 1244.
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. The purpose of this rule is to
resolve 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.
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 certain persecutors.
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................................ 03/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Molly Groom, Chief, Refugee and Asylum Law
Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20259, Phone: 202 272-1400, Fax: 202 272-1408, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1615-AB89
DHS--USCIS
52. Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses
Priority: Other Significant.
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 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 U.S. 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 the innovation and growth
of U.S. companies.
Statement of Need: Congress intended that the AC21 provisions
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.
[[Page 1391]]
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. In enacting AC21,
Congress was especially concerned 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 and who have been granted an
extension of H status under the provisions of AC21.
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................................ 03/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
53. Enhancing Opportunities for High-Skilled H-1B1 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 part 204; 8 CFR part 214; 8 CFR part 248; 8 CFR
part 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 or researchers. DHS proposes changes that would
harmonize the regulations for E-3 and H-1B1 nonimmigrant
classifications with existing regulations for other, similarly situated
nonimmigrant classifications. DHS is proposing these changes to the
regulations to encourage and facilitate the employment and retention of
these high-skilled workers.
Statement of Need: DHS proposes to amend its regulations to improve
the programs serving the E-3 and H-1B1 nonimmigrant classifications and
the EB-1 immigrant classification for outstanding professors and
researchers. The regulatory changes to these categories would
significantly improve procedures to more effectively encourage and
facilitate the retention of these high-skilled workers in the United
States.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The portion of the proposed rule
addressing E-3 and H-1B1 visas would extend the period of employment
authorized while requests for an extension of these employment-based
nonimmigrant visa classifications are being reviewed. We do not
anticipate that this rule would impose any additional costs. The
benefits of this portion of the proposed rule include easing the
regulatory burden on employers of E-3 and H-1B1 nonimmigrants and
avoiding potential gaps in employment for these nonimmigrant workers.
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)-(F) to
establish that the EB-1 professor or researcher is recognized
internationally as outstanding in his or her academic field. We do not
anticipate that this part of the proposed rule would impose additional
costs.
The non-quantified benefits would include the harmonization of the
evidentiary requirements for EB-1 outstanding professors and
researchers with other comparable employment-based immigrant
classifications and easing petitioners' recruitment of these highly
skilled individuals by expanding the range of evidence that may be
adduced to support their petitions.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/13 .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Kevin J. Cummings, Chief, Business and Foreign
Workers
[[Page 1392]]
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
54. New 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
CFR Citation: 8 CFR part 103; 8 CFR part 212; 8 CFR part 214; 8 CFR
part 274a; 8 CFR part 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 establishes 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. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008,
Public Law 110-457, made amendments to the T nonimmigrant status
provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
Statement of Need: T nonimmigrant status is available to eligible
victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons who have complied
with any reasonable request for assistance in the investigation or
prosecution of acts of trafficking in persons, and who can demonstrate
that they 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, 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 create a safe haven 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 develop a comprehensive Federal approach to
identifying victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons, to
provide them with benefits and services, and to enhance the Department
of Justice's ability to prosecute traffickers and prevent trafficking
in persons in the first place, a series of meetings with stakeholders
were conducted with representatives from key Federal agencies;
national, State, and local law enforcement associations; non-profit,
community-based victim rights organizations; and other groups. DHS is
considering and using suggestions from these stakeholders in developing
this regulation.
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 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;
3. Enhanced ability to develop and work cases in trafficking in
persons cross-organizationally and multi-jurisdictionally, which may
begin to influence changes in trafficking patterns.
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.................. 09/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Additional Information: CIS No. 2132-01; AG Order No. 2554-2002.
There is a related rulemaking, CIS No. 2170-01, the new U nonimmigrant
status (RIN 1615-AA67). Transferred from RIN 1115-AG19.
Agency Contact: Laura M. Dawkins, Chief, Regulatory Coordination
Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Suite 1200, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272-1470, Fax: 202 272-1480, Email:
[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1615-AA67.
RIN: 1615-AA59
DHS--USCIS
55. Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Aliens in T
and U Nonimmigrant Status
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101 to
1104; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 U.S.C. 1201; 8
U.S.C. 1224 to 1227; 8 U.S.C. 1252 to 1252a; 8 U.S.C. 1255; 22 U.S.C.
7101; 22 U.S.C. 7105
CFR Citation: 8 CFR part 204; 8 CFR part 214; 8 CFR part 245.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule sets forth measures by which certain victims of
severe forms of trafficking who have been granted T nonimmigrant status
and victims of certain criminal activity who have been granted U
nonimmigrant status may apply for adjustment to permanent resident
status in accordance with Public Law 106-386, Victims of Trafficking
and Violence Protection Act of 2000; and Public Law 109-162, Violence
Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Public
Law 110-457, made amendments
[[Page 1393]]
to the T nonimmigrant status provisions of the Immigration and
Naturalization Act. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will
issue another interim final rule to make the changes required by recent
legislation.
Statement of Need: This regulation is necessary to permit aliens in
lawful T or U nonimmigrant status to apply for adjustment of status to
that of lawful permanent residents. T nonimmigrant status is available
to aliens who are victims of a severe form of trafficking in persons
and who are assisting law enforcement in the investigation or
prosecution of the acts of trafficking. U nonimmigrant status is
available to aliens who are victims of certain crimes and are being
helpful to the investigation or prosecution of those crimes.
Summary of Legal Basis: This rule implements the Victims of
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA), Public Law
106-386, 114 Stat. 1464 (Oct. 28, 2000), as amended, to permit aliens
in lawful T or U nonimmigrant status to apply for adjustment of status
to that of lawful permanent residents.
Alternatives: DHS did not consider alternatives to managing T and U
applications for adjustment of status. Ease of administration dictates
that adjustment of status applications from T and U nonimmigrants would
be best handled on a first in, first out basis, because that is the way
applications for T and U status are currently handled.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS uses fees to fund the cost of
processing applications and associated support benefits. In the 2008
interim final rule, DHS estimated the fee collection resulting from
this rule at approximately $3 million in the first year, $1.9 million
in the second year, and an average about $32 million in the third and
subsequent years. To estimate the new fee collections to be generated
by this rule, DHS estimated the fees to be collected for new
applications for adjustment of status from T and U nonimmigrants and
their eligible family members. After that, DHS estimated fees from
associated applications that are required such as biometrics, and
others that are likely to occur in direct connection with applications
for adjustment, such as employment authorization or travel
authorization. DHS is in the process of updating these cost estimates.
The anticipated benefits of these expenditures include: Continued
assistance to trafficked victims and their families, increased
investigation and prosecution of traffickers in persons, and the
elimination of abuses caused by trafficking activities.
Benefits that 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 of trafficking-in-persons issues by the law
enforcement community; and
3. Enhanced ability to develop and work cases in trafficking in
persons cross-organizationally and multi-jurisdictionally, which may
begin to influence changes in trafficking patterns.
Risks: Congress created the U nonimmigrant status (``U visa'') to
provide immigration protection to crime victims who assist in the
investigation and prosecution of those crimes. Although there are no
specific data on alien crime victims, statistics maintained by the
Department of Justice have shown that aliens, especially those aliens
without legal status, are often reluctant to help in the investigation
or prosecution of crimes. U visas are intended to help overcome this
reluctance and aid law enforcement accordingly.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 12/12/08 73 FR 75540
Interim Final Rule Effective........ 01/12/09
Interim Final Rule Comment Period 02/10/09
End.
Interim Final Rule.................. 09/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Additional Information: CIS No. 2134-01. Transferred from RIN 1115-
AG21.
Agency Contact: Laura M. Dawkins, Chief, Regulatory Coordination
Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Suite 1200, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272-1470, Fax: 202 272-1480, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1615-AA60
DHS--USCIS
56. 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
CFR Citation: 8 CFR part 103; 8 CFR part 204; 8 CFR part 212; 8 CFR
part 214; 8 CFR part 299.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: This rule sets forth application requirements for a new
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 year.
This rule establishes the procedures to be followed in order 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
make an application, and evidentiary guidance to assist in the
petitioning process. Eligible victims will be allowed to remain in the
United States. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act
of 2008, Public Law 110-457, made amendments to the U nonimmigrant
status provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The
Department of Homeland Security will issue another interim final rule
to make the changes required by the legislation.
Statement of Need: This rule provides requirements and procedures
for aliens seeking U nonimmigrant status. U nonimmigrant classification
is available to alien victims of certain criminal activity who assist
government officials in the investigation or prosecution of that
criminal activity. The purpose of the U nonimmigrant classification is
to strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate
and prosecute such crimes as domestic violence, sexual assault, and
trafficking in persons, while offering protection to alien crime
victims in keeping with the humanitarian interests of the United
States.
Summary of Legal Basis: Congress created the U nonimmigrant
classification in the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000
(BIWPA). Congress intended to strengthen the ability of law enforcement
agencies to investigate and prosecute cases of domestic violence,
sexual assault, trafficking of aliens, and other crimes, while offering
protection to victims of such crimes. Congress also sought to encourage
law enforcement officials to better serve immigrant crime victims.
[[Page 1394]]
Alternatives: DHS has identified four alternatives, the first being
chosen for the rule:
1. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on a first in, first out basis.
Petitions received after the limit has been reached would be reviewed
to determine whether or not they are approvable, but for the numerical
cap. Approvable petitions that are reviewed after the numerical cap has
been reached would be placed on a waiting list and written notice sent
to the petitioner. Priority on the waiting list would be based upon the
date on which the petition is filed. USCIS would provide petitioners on
the waiting list with interim relief until the start of the next fiscal
year in the form of deferred action, parole, or a stay of removal.
2. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on a first in, first out basis,
establishing a waiting list for petitions that are pending or received
after the numerical cap has been reached. Priority on the waiting list
would be based upon the date on which the petition was filed. USCIS
would not provide interim relief to petitioners whose petitions are
placed on the waiting list.
3. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on a first in, first out basis.
However, new filings would be reviewed to identify particularly
compelling cases for adjudication. New filings would be rejected once
the numerical cap is reached. No official waiting list would be
established; however, interim relief until the start of the next fiscal
year would be provided for some compelling cases. If a case was not
particularly compelling, the filing would be denied or rejected.
4. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on a first in, first out basis.
However, new filings would be rejected once the numerical cap is
reached. No waiting list would be established nor would interim relief
be granted.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS estimated the total annual cost
of this interim rule to petitioners to be $6.2 million in the IFR
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 for a visit to a USCIS Application
Support Center, and the cost of traveling to an Application Support
Center. DHS is currently in the process of updating our cost estimates
since U nonimmigrant visa applicants are no longer required to pay the
biometric service fee.
This rule will strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies
to investigate and prosecute such crimes as domestic violence, sexual
assault, and trafficking in persons, while offering protection to alien
crime victims in keeping with the humanitarian interests of the United
States.
Risks: In the case of witness tampering, obstruction of justice, or
perjury, the interpretive challenge for USCIS was to determine whom the
BIWPA was meant to protect, given that these criminal activities are
not targeted against a person. Accordingly it was determined that a
victim of witness tampering, obstruction of justice, or perjury is an
alien who has been directly and proximately harmed by the perpetrator
of one of these three crimes, where there are reasonable grounds to
conclude that the perpetrator principally committed the offense as a
means: (1) To avoid or frustrate efforts to investigate, arrest,
prosecute, or otherwise bring him or her to justice for other criminal
activity; or (2) to further his or her abuse or exploitation of, or
undue control over, the alien through manipulation of the legal system.
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.................. 09/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
Additional Information: Transferred from RIN 1115-AG39.
Agency Contact: Laura M. Dawkins, Chief, Regulatory Coordination
Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Suite 1200, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272-1470, Fax: 202 272-1480, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1615-AA67
DHS--USCIS
57. Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for
Certain Immediate Relatives
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 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; 8 U.S.C. 1182 and note; 8
U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 U.S.C. 1223; 8 U.S.C. 1225; 8 U.S.C.
1226; 8 U.S.C. 1227; 8 U.S.C. 1255; 8 U.S.C. 1304; 8 U.S.C. 1356; 8
U.S.C. 1185 and note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458); 31 U.S.C. 9701;
Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); EO 12356, 47 FR
14874, 47 FR 15557; 3 CFR 1982 Comp p 166; 8 CFR 2; sec 212.1(q) also
issued under sec 702, Pub. L. 110-229, 122 Stat 754, 854
CFR Citation: 8 CFR part 103; 8 CFR part 212.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: On April 2, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) published a proposed rule at 77 FR 19902 to amend its regulations
to allow certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are
physically present in the United States to request provisional unlawful
presence waivers under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1952 (INA); 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) in
anticipation of immigrant visa processing abroad. The final rule
implements the provisional unlawful presence waiver process, and
finalizes clarifying amendments to other provisions in part 212 of
title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Based on the final rule,
individuals who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are
physically present in the United States and are seeking immigrant visas
through consular processing abroad will be able to apply for
provisional unlawful presence waivers while in the United States. These
changes will significantly reduce the length of time U.S. citizens are
separated from their immediate relatives who are consular processing
abroad and reduce the degree of interchange between DOS and USCIS,
creating greater efficiencies for both the U.S. Government and most
applicants.
Statement of Need: Currently, certain spouses, children, and
parents of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives) who are in the United
States are not eligible to apply for lawful permanent resident (LPR)
status while in the United States. These immediate relatives must
travel abroad to obtain an immigrant visa from the Department of State
(DOS) and, in many cases, also must request from DHS a waiver of the
inadmissibility as a result of their unlawful presence in the United
States. These immediate relatives cannot apply for the waiver until
after their immigrant visa interviews and must remain outside of the
United States, separated from their U.S. citizen spouses, parents, or
children while their waiver applications are adjudicated by USCIS. In
some cases, waiver application processing can take well over 1 year,
prolonging the separation of these immediate relatives from their U.S.
citizen spouses, parents, and children. In addition, the action
[[Page 1395]]
required for these immediate relatives to obtain LPR status in the
United States--departure from the United States to apply for an
immigrant visa at a DOS consulate abroad--is the very action that
triggers the unlawful presence inadmissibility grounds under section
212(a)(9)(B)(i) of the INA; 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i). As a result,
many immediate relatives who may qualify for an immigrant visa are
reluctant to proceed abroad to seek an immigrant visa.
In addition, the action required for these immediate relatives to
obtain LPR status in the United States (i.e., departure from the United
States to apply for an immigrant visa at a DOS consulate abroad) is the
very action that triggers the unlawful presence inadmissibility grounds
under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) of the INA; 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i).
Summary of Legal Basis: The Secretary of Homeland Security
(Secretary)'s authority to promulgate this final rule is found in the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, section 102, 116
Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 112, and section 103 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103,
which give the Secretary the authority to administer and enforce the
immigration and nationality laws. The Secretary's discretionary
authority to waive the ground of inadmissibility for unlawful presence
can be found in INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v).
The regulation governing certain inadmissibility waivers is 8 CFR
212.7. The fee schedule for provisional unlawful presence waiver
applications is found at 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(AA).
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This final rule is expected to
result in a reduction in the time that U.S. citizens are separated from
their alien immediate relatives, thus reducing the financial and
emotional hardship for these families. In addition, the Federal
Government should achieve increased efficiencies in processing
immigrant visas for individuals subject to the unlawful presence
inadmissibility bars under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the INA; 8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(9)(B).
Estimates of the preliminary costs of the rule were developed
assuming that current demand is constrained because of concerns that
families may endure lengthy separations under the current system. Due
to uncertainties as to the degree of the current constraint of demand,
DHS used a range of constraint levels with corresponding increases in
demand to estimate the costs. In the proposed rule, 77 FR 19913, DHS
estimated that the discounted total ten-year cost of this rule would
range from approximately $100.6 million to approximately $303.8 million
at a seven percent discount rate. Compared with the current waiver
process, this rule requires that provisional waiver applicants submit
biometric information. Included in the total cost estimate is the cost
of collecting biometrics, which we estimated in the proposed rule to
range from approximately $28 million to approximately $42.5 million
discounted at seven percent over ten years. In addition, as this rule
significantly streamlines the current process, DHS expects that
additional applicants will apply for the provisional waiver as compared
to the current waiver process. To the extent that this rule induces new
demand for immediate relative visas, additional immigration benefit
forms, such as the Petition for Alien Relative, Form I-130, will be
filed compared to the pre-rule baseline. These additional forms will
involve fees being paid by applicants to the Federal Government for
form processing and additional opportunity costs of time being incurred
by applicants to provide the information required by the forms. The
cost estimate in the proposed rule also includes the impact of this
induced demand, which we estimate will range from approximately $72.6
million to approximately $261.3 million discounted at seven percent
over ten years. DHS is currently drafting the final rule in response to
comments, and preparing final cost estimates.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 04/02/12 77 FR 19902
NPRM Comment Period End............. 06/01/12
Final Action........................ 12/00/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under EO
13563.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Mark Phillips, Chief, Residence and Naturalization
Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272-1470, Fax:
202 272-1480, Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1615-ZB10.
RIN: 1615-AB99
DHS--U.S. COAST GUARD (USCG)
Proposed Rule Stage
58. 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.
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 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
[[Page 1396]]
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. The ANPRM,
published in March of 2009, 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. The Coast Guard is currently considering
several regulatory alternatives regarding how to implement the TWIC
reader requirements. These alternatives will be further explored in the
NPRM.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The main cost drivers of this
proposal are the acquisition and installation of TWIC readers and the
maintenance of the affected entity's TWIC reader system. Costs, which
we would distribute over a phased-in implementation period, consist
predominantly of the costs to purchase, install, and integrate approved
TWIC readers to their current physical access control system. Recurring
annual costs will be driven by costs associated with canceled card list
updates, opportunity cost associated with delays and replacement of
TWICs that cannot be read, and maintenance of the affected entity's
TWIC reader system. At this time, we are still developing our estimates
for the impacts of this proposed rule.
The benefits of the rulemaking include the enhancement of the
security of vessel ports and other facilities by ensuring that only
individuals who hold valid TWICs are granted unescorted access to
secure areas at those locations. It will also implement the 2002 MTSA
transportation security card requirements, thereby ensuring compliance
with those statutes.
Risks: USCG used risk-based decision-making to develop this
proposed rule.
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................................ 02/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
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), 2100
Second Street SW., STOP 7581, Washington, DC 20593-7581, Phone: 202
372-1133, Email: loan.t.o'[email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1625-AB02.
RIN: 1625-AB21
DHS--USCG
Final Rule Stage
59. 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. chs. 71 and 73; DHS
Delegation No. 0170.1
CFR Citation: 46 CFR part 10; 46 CFR part 11; 46 CFR part 12; 46
CFR part 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 NPRM (SNPRM) on March 23, 2010.
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 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
[[Page 1397]]
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.......................... 04/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 E.O.
13563.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Mark Gould, Project Manager, CG-5221, Department of
Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street SW., STOP 7126,
Washington, DC 20593-7126, Phone: 202 372-1409.
RIN: 1625-AA16
DHS--USCG
60. 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 part 62; 33 CFR part 66; 33 CFR part 160; 33
CFR part 161; 33 CFR part 164; 33 CFR part 165.
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 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
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
[[Page 1398]]
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.......................... 04/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
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, 2100 Second
Street SW., STOP 7581, Washington, DC 20593-7581, Phone: 202 372-1234,
Email: [email protected].
Jorge Arroyo, Project Manager, Office of Navigation Systems (CG-
5531), Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second
Street SW., STOP 7683, Washington, DC 20593-7683, Phone: 202 372-1563,
Email: [email protected].
Related RIN: Related to 1625-AA93, Related to 1625-AB28.
RIN: 1625-AA99
DHS--USCG
61. 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.
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:
[[Page 1399]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule.................. 04/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thomas L. Neyhart, Program Manager (CG-ENG-1),
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street
SW., STOP 7126, Washington, DC 20593-7126, Phone: 202 372-1360, Email:
[email protected].
RIN: 1625-AB62
DHS--U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (USCBP)
Final Rule Stage
62. 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 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 to provide 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: Section 711 of the 9/11 Act requires the
Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, to develop and implement a fully automated electronic travel
authorization system to collect biographical and other information in
advance of travel to determine the eligibility of the alien to travel
to the United States, and to determine whether such travel poses a law
enforcement or security risk. CBP issued the ESTA interim final rule to
fulfill these statutory requirements.
Under the interim final rule, VWP travelers are now required to
provide certain information to CBP electronically before departing for
the United States. VWP travelers who receive travel authorization under
ESTA are not required to complete the paper Form I-94W when arriving on
a carrier that is capable of receiving and validating messages
pertaining to the traveler's ESTA status as part of the traveler's
boarding status. By automating the I-94W process and establishing a
system to provide VWP traveler data in advance of travel, CBP is able
to determine the eligibility of citizens and eligible nationals from
VWP countries to travel to the United States and to determine whether
such travel poses a law enforcement or security risk, before such
individuals begin travel to the United States. ESTA provides for
greater efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by
allowing CBP to identify subjects of potential interest before they
depart for the United States, thereby increasing security and 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 and section 217 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
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
[[Page 1400]]
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 I-94 for those passengers not traveling under the VWP
and 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........................ 08/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Additional Information: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id_visa/esta/.
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--TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA)
Proposed Rule Stage
63. 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 part 1520; 49 CFR part 1570; 49 CFR part 1580;
49 CFR part 1582 (New); 49 CFR part 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 improve 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. This rulemaking will propose general
requirements for the owner/operators of a freight railroad, public
transportation system, passenger railroad, and an over-the-road bus
operation determined by TSA to be high-risk to develop and implement a
security training program to prepare security-sensitive employees,
including frontline employees identified in sections 1402 and 1501 of
the Act, for potential security threats and conditions. The rulemaking
will also propose extending the 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. In addition, the rulemaking
will also propose requiring the affected over-the-road bus owner/
operators to identify security coordinators and report security
incidents, similar to the requirements for rail in current 49 CFR 1580.
The regulation will take into consideration any current security
training requirements or best practices.
Statement of Need: A security training program for freight
railroads, public transportation agencies and passenger railroads, and
over-the-road bus operations is proposed to prepare freight railroad
security-sensitive employees, public transportation, passenger railroad
security-sensitive employees, and over-the-road bus security-sensitive
employees for potential security threats and conditions.
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 will estimate the costs that the
freight railroad systems, public transportation agencies, passenger
railroads, and over-the-road bus (OTRB) entities covered by this
proposed rule would incur following its implementation. These costs
will include estimates for the following elements: (1) Creating or
modifying a security training program and submitting it to TSA; (2)
Training (initial and recurrent) all security-sensitive employees; (3)
Maintaining records of employee training; (4) Being available for
inspections; (5) As applicable, providing information on security
coordinators and alternates; and (6) As applicable, reporting security
concerns. TSA will also estimate the costs TSA itself would expect to
incur with the implementation of this rule.
[[Page 1401]]
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 freight railroad systems, public transportation
agencies, passenger railroads, and over-the-road bus entities to
terrorist activity through the training of security-sensitive
employees. TSA uses a break-even analysis to assess the trade-off
between the beneficial effects of the Security Training NPRM and the
costs of implementing the rulemaking. This break-even analysis uses
scenarios extracted from the TSA Transportation Sector Security Risk
Assessment (TSSRA) to determine the degree to which the Security
Training NPRM must reduce the overall risk of a terrorist attack in
order for the expected benefits of the NPRM to justify the estimated
costs. For its analyses, TSA uses scenarios with varying levels of
risk, but only details the consequence estimates. To maintain
consistency, TSA developed the analyses with a method similar to that
used for the break-even analyses conducted in earlier DHS rules.
After estimating the total consequence of each scenario by
monetizing lives lost, injuries incurred, and capital replacement and
clean-up, TSA will use this figure and the annualized cost of the NPRM
for freight rail, public transportation, passenger rail, and OTRB
owner/operators to calculate a breakeven annual likelihood of attack.
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................................ 07/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Local.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Scott Gorton, Manager, Freight Rail Security
Branch, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-
28, HQ, E10-423N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Phone: 571 227-1251, Fax: 571 227-2930, Email:
[email protected].
Steve Sprague, Highway Passenger, Infrastructure and Licensing
Branch Chief; Highway and Motor Carrier Programs, 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: 571 227-1468, Email:
[email protected].
Dominick S. Caridi Director, Regulatory and Economic Analysis,
Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-
28, HQ, E10-419N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Phone: 571 227-2952, Fax: 703 603-0404, 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, E12-310N, 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, E12-335N, 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
64. 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; Pub. L. 110-53, secs 1411, 1414,
1520, 1522, 1602; 6 U.S.C. 469
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) intends
to 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. In
accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), the scope of the rulemaking will include
transportation workers from all modes of transportation who are
required to undergo an STA in other regulatory programs, including
certain aviation workers and frontline employees for public
transportation agencies and railroads.
In addition, TSA will propose fees to cover the cost of the STAs
and credentials for some personnel. 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 increase transportation security by
enhancing identification and immigration verification standards,
providing for more thorough vetting, improving the reliability and
consistency of the vetting process, and increasing fairness to vetted
individuals by providing more robust redress and reducing redundant STA
requirements.
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 oversee the vetting of
certain aviation workers. See 49 U.S.C. 44936.
Under 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, TSA vets certain merchant mariners and individuals who
require unescorted
[[Page 1402]]
access to secure areas of vessels and maritime facilities.
Under 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) to
commercial driver's licenses (CDL) issued 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 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 and instituting centralized activation of biometric
credentials that allow applicants to receive their credentials through
the mail rather than returning to the enrollment center to pick up the
credential. These alternatives are discussed in detail in the 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 benefit of the NPRM would be that it will improve TSA's vetting
product, process, and structure by improving STAs, increasing equity,
decreasing reliance on appropriated funds, and improving reusability of
STAs and mitigating redundant STAs.
TSA has not quantified benefits. TSA uses a break-even analysis to
assess the trade-off between the beneficial effects of the NPRM and the
costs of implementing the rulemaking. This break-even analysis uses
scenarios from the TSA Transportation Sector Security Risk Assessment
(TSSRA) to determine the degree to which the NPRM must reduce the
overall risk of a terrorist attack in order for the expected benefits
of the NPRM to justify the estimated costs. For its analyses, TSA uses
scenarios with varying levels of risk, but only details the consequence
estimates. To maintain consistency, TSA developed the analyses with a
method similar to that used for the break-even analyses conducted in
earlier DHS rules. After estimating the total consequences of each
scenario by monetizing lives lost, injuries incurred, capital
replacement, and clean-up, TSA will use this figure and the annualized
cost of the NPRM to calculate the frequency of attacks averted in order
for the NPRM to break even.
TSA estimates that the total savings to the alien flight students,
over a 5-year period, will be $18,107 at a 7 percent discount rate.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 07/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O.
13563.
Agency Contact: George J. Petersen, Acting Division Director
Programs, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-
28, HQ, E3-416N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Phone: 571 227-2215, Fax: 571 227-1374, Email:
[email protected].
Dominick S. Caridi, Director, Regulatory and Economic Analysis,
Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-
28, HQ, E10-419N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Phone: 571 227-2952, Fax: 703 603-0404, 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-
309N, 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
65. 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: NPRM, Judicial, March 31, 2013, TSA issue an NPRM
by the end of March 2013. In the July 15, 2011, decision described
below, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Columbia Circuit
directed TSA promptly to proceed to conduct notice and comment
rulemaking.
Abstract: This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is being issued
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 (DHS) 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 advanced imaging technology (AIT)
in the primary screening of passengers. As a result, the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) proposes to amend its civil aviation
regulations to clarify that 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 AIT.
Statement of Need: TSA is proposing regulations 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
(DC 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: In the NPRM, TSA requests comment on several
alternatives to AIR screening.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA is currently evaluating the
costs and benefits of this proposed rule.
Risks: DHS aims to prevent terrorist attacks and to reduce the
vulnerability of the United States to terrorism. By screening
passengers with AIT, TSA will reduce the risk that a terrorist will
smuggle a non-metallic threat on board an aircraft.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
[[Page 1403]]
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Adam D. Freimanis, Portfolio Branch 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: 571 227-2952, Fax: 571 227-1931, Email:
[email protected].
Dominick S. Caridi, Director, Regulatory and Economic Analysis,
Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-
28, HQ, E10-419N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Phone: 571 227-2952, Fax: 703 603-0404, 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-
126S, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-
2675, Fax: 571 227-1381, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1652-AA67
DHS--TSA
Final Rule Stage
66. 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 part 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 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: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) proposed
to add a new regulation to improve the security of domestic and foreign
aircraft repair stations, as required by the section 611 of Vision
100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act and section 1616 of the 9/
11 Commission Act of 2007. The regulation proposed general requirements
for security programs to be adopted and implemented by certain repair
stations certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). A
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the Federal
Register on November 18, 2009, requesting public comments to be
submitted by January 19, 2010. The comment period was extended to
February 19, 2010, at the request of the stakeholders to allow the
aviation industry and other interested entities and individuals
additional time to complete their comments.
TSA has coordinated its efforts with the FAA throughout the
rulemaking process to ensure that the final rule 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)
is proposing 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 proposal
will 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 the TSA to 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
requiring security programs 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: TSA anticipates costs to aircraft
repair stations mainly related to the establishment of security
programs, which may include adding such measures as access controls, a
personnel identification system, security awareness training, the
designation of a security coordinator, employee background
verification, and contingency plan.
The NPRM estimated the total 10-year undiscounted cost of the
program at $403 million. The cost of the program, discounted at 7
percent, is $285 million. Security coordinator and training costs
represent the largest portions of the program.
TSA has not quantified benefits. However, a major line of defense
against an aviation-related terrorist act is the prevention of
explosives, weapons, and/or incendiary devices from getting on board a
plane. To date, efforts have been primarily related to inspection of
baggage, passengers, and cargo, and security measures at airports that
serve air carriers. With this rule, attention is given to aircraft that
are located at repair stations and to aircraft parts that are at repair
stations to reduce the likelihood of an attack against aviation and the
country. Since repair station personnel have direct access to all parts
of an aircraft, the potential exists for a terrorist to seek to
commandeer or compromise an aircraft when the aircraft is at one of
these facilities. Moreover, 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 uses a break-even analysis to assess the trade-off between the
beneficial effects of the final rule and the costs of implementing the
rulemaking. This break-even analysis uses three attack scenarios to
determine the degree to which the final rule must reduce the overall
risk of a terrorist attack in order for the expected benefits of the
final rule to justify the estimated costs. For its analyses, TSA uses
scenarios with varying levels of risk, but only details the consequence
estimates. To maintain consistency, TSA developed the analyses with a
method similar to that used for the break-even analyses conducted in
earlier DHS rules. After estimating the total consequences of each
scenario by monetizing lives lost, injuries incurred, and capital
replacement, TSA will use this figure and the annualized cost of the
final rule to calculate the frequency of attacks averted in order for
the final rule to break even.
[[Page 1404]]
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 requiring security
programs for certain aircraft repair stations, 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.......................... 03/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
Agency Contact: Celio Young, Program Manager, Repair Stations,
Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of Transportation Sector Network Management,
General Aviation Division, TSA-28, HQ, E5, 601 South 12th Street,
Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-3580, Fax: 571 227-1362,
Email: [email protected].
Dominick S. Caridi, Director, Regulatory and Economic Analysis,
Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-
28, HQ, E10-419N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Phone: 571 227-2952, Fax: 703 603-0404, 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-
126S, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-
2675, Fax: 571 227-1381, Email: [email protected].
RIN: 1652-AA38
DHS--U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (USICE)
Proposed Rule Stage
67. Adjustments to Limitations on Designated School Official Assignment
and Study by F-2 and M-2 Nonimmigrants
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is
undetermined.
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 part 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................................ 03/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Government Levels Affected: None.
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].
Related RIN: Previously reported as 1615-AA19.
RIN: 1653-AA63
DHS--USICE
68. 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 part 115.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to
issue regulations setting detention standards to prevent, detect, and
respond to sexual abuse and assault in DHS confinement facilities.
Statement of Need: The purpose of this rulemaking is to propose
regulations setting standards to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual
abuse in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confinement facilities.
The proposed standards build on current U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) Performance Based National Detention Standards
(PBNDS) and other DHS detention policies, and respond to the
President's May 17, 2012 Memorandum, ``Implementing the Prison Rape
Elimination Act,'' which directs all agencies with Federal confinement
facilities to work with the Attorney General to propose rules or
procedures setting standards to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual
abuse in confinement facilities.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The NPRM would impose standards to
prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse and assault in DHS
confinement
[[Page 1405]]
facilities. These facilities consist of immigration detention
facilities and holding facilities. The proposed standards would 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 NPRM would 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 NPRM and the costs of implementing the rulemaking. The
break-even analysis uses the monetized estimates of incidents avoided
to determine the degree to which the NPRM 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 NPRM will
include a Regulatory Impact Assessment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 12/00/12
NPRM Comment Period End............. 02/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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) 2013 highlights 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.
It is HUD's mission to promote non-discrimination and ensure fair
and equal housing opportunities for all. In its Annual Performance Plan
for Fiscal Years 2012-2013, HUD committed to creating places throughout
the nation that effectively connect people to jobs, transportation,
quality public schools, and other amenities--``geographies of
opportunity.'' In this regard, HUD's Regulatory Plan for FY2013 focuses
on strengthening, through regulation, a statutory requirement that will
help HUD achieve this goal--affirmatively furthering fair housing.
Priority: Providing Communities of Opportunity for All
America's fundamental ideal that hard work and determination will
open the doors to opportunity has been unevenly realized because access
to opportunity has been affected by factors that are not tied to the
choices or actions of an individual or family. Despite genuine progress
and a landscape of communities transformed in the more than 40 years
since the Fair Housing Act was enacted, the ZIP code children grow up
in too often remains a strong predictor of their life course. From its
inception, the Fair Housing Act (and subsequent laws reaffirming its
principles) not only outlawed discrimination but also set out steps
that needed to be taken proactively to overcome the legacy of
segregation. The ongoing promise of equal opportunity remains as
critical now as it ever has been, especially as diversity increasingly
becomes a part of the lives of all Americans. HUD is committed to
helping build a stronger and more secure economy that works for the
middle class and those aspiring to join the middle class, through
access, opportunity and fairness, and HUD can do this by strengthening
the statutory mandate to affirmatively further fair housing.
HUD proposes to bring the obligation to affirmatively further fair
housing into the 21st century by emphasizing access and opportunity in
addition to helping eliminate discrimination and segregation. Even
further, HUD's proposal embraces new tools that are now available and
lessons learned from extensive local experience to help guide
communities in fulfilling the original promise of the Fair Housing Act.
Regulatory Action: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing--A New
Approach
To better fulfill the statutory obligation to affirmatively further
fair housing, HUD proposes to replace the existing requirement to
undertake an analysis of impediments with a fair housing assessment and
planning process that will aid HUD program participants in improving
access to opportunity and advancing the ability for all families to
make true housing choices. To facilitate this new approach, HUD will
provide states, local governments, insular areas, and public housing
agencies (PHAs), as well as the communities they serve with data on
patterns of integration and segregation; racially and ethnically
concentrated areas of poverty; access to neighborhood opportunity
through categories such as education, employment, low-poverty,
transportation, and environmental health, among others;
disproportionate housing needs based on the classes protected under the
Fair Housing Act; data on individuals with disabilities and families
with children; and discrimination. From these data, program
participants will evaluate their present environment to assess fair
housing issues, identify the primary determinants that account for
those issues, and set forth fair housing priorities and goals. The
benefit of this approach is that these priorities and goals will then
better inform program participant's strategies and actions by improving
the integration of the assessment of fair housing through enhanced
coordination with current planning exercises. This proposed rule
further commits HUD to greater engagement and better guidance for
program participants in fulfilling their obligation to affirmatively
further fair housing.
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 2011. HUD expects that the neither the total
[[Page 1406]]
economic costs nor the total efficiency gains will exceed $100 million.
Priority Regulations in HUD's FY 2013 Regulatory Plan
HUD--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Proposed Rule Stage
Communities of Opportunity for All Through Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing
Priority: Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3600-3620; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d)
CFR Citation: 24 CFR part 5.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: Through this rule, HUD proposes to provide HUD program
participants with more effective means to affirmatively further the
purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act, which is Title VIII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The Fair Housing Act not only prohibits
discrimination but, in conjunction with other statutes, directs HUD's
program participants to take steps proactively to overcome historic
patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice, and foster
inclusive communities of opportunity for all. To promote more effective
fair housing planning and assist every program participant meet
requirements related to affirmatively furthering fair housing, HUD
proposes in this rule to address directly concerns about the current
fair housing planning process by making a number of key changes. These
include: (1) A new fair housing assessment and planning tool, referred
to as an assessment of fair housing, which will replace the current
analysis of impediments, (2) the provision of nationally uniform data
that will be the predicate for and help frame program participants'
assessment activities, (3) meaningful and focused direction regarding
the purpose of the assessment of fair housing and the standards by
which it will be evaluated, (4) a more direct link between the
assessment of fair housing and subsequent program participant planning
products--the consolidated plan and the Public Housing Agency (PHA)
Plan--that ties fair housing planning into the priority setting,
commitment of resources, and specification of activities to be
undertaken, and (5) a new HUD review procedure based on clear standards
that facilitates the provision of technical assistance and reinforces
the value and importance of fair housing planning activities.
Statement of Need: As recognized by HUD, program participants,
civil rights advocates, the U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO), and others, the fair housing elements of current housing and
community development planning are not as effective as they could be,
do not incorporate leading innovations in sound planning practice, and
do not sufficiently promote the effective use of limited public
resources to affirmatively further fair housing. The approach proposed
by the rule addresses these issues and strengthens affirmatively
furthering fair housing implementation. It does so by providing data to
program participants related to fair housing planning, clarifying the
goals of the affirmatively furthering fair housing process, and
instituting a more effective mechanism for HUD's review and oversight
of fair housing planning. The proposed rule does not mandate specific
outcomes for the planning process. Instead, recognizing the importance
of local decision-making, the rule proposes to establish basic
parameters and help guide public sector housing and community
development planning and investment decisions to fulfill their
obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619), enacted into law on
April 11, 1968, declares that it is ``the policy of the United States
to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing
throughout the United States.'' (See 42 U.S.C. 3601.) Accordingly, the
Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and
financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions
because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national
origin, or handicap. (See 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. Also note that
``handicap'' is the original term used in the statute.) Section
808(e)(5) of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3608(e)(5)) requires that
HUD programs and activities be administered in a manner affirmatively
to further the policies of the Fair Housing Act. The Act leaves it to
the Secretary to define the precise scope of the affirmatively
furthering fair housing obligation for HUD's program participants.
Alternatives: HUD has approached the obligation to affirmatively
further fair housing in various ways, and this proposed rule is
intended in particular to improve fair housing planning by more
directly linking it to the housing and community development planning
processes currently undertaken by program participants as a condition
of their receipt of HUD funds. At the jurisdictional planning level,
HUD requires program participants receiving Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Emergency Solutions
Grants (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA)
formula funding to undertake an analysis to identify impediments to
fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, take appropriate actions
to overcome the effects of any impediments, and keep records on such
efforts. Likewise, PHAs must commit, as part of their planning process
for PHA Plans and Capital Fund Plans, to examine their programs or
proposed programs, identify any impediments to fair housing choice
within those programs, address those impediments in a reasonable
fashion in view of the resources available, work with jurisdictions to
implement any of the jurisdiction's initiatives to affirmatively
further fair housing that require PHA involvement, maintain records
reflecting those analyses and actions, and operate programs in a manner
that is consistent with the applicable jurisdiction's consolidated
plan. Over the past several years, HUD has reviewed the efficacy of
these mechanisms to fulfill the affirmatively furthering fair housing
mandate and has concluded that the analysis of impediment process can
be a more meaningful a tool to integrate fair housing into the program
participants' existing planning efforts.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: HUD does not expect a large
aggregate change in compliance costs for program participants as a
result of the rule. As a result of increased emphasis on affirmatively
furthering fair housing within the planning process, there may be
increased compliance costs for some program participants, while for
others the improved process and goal-setting, combined with HUD's
provision of the foundational data, is likely to decrease compliance
costs. Program participants are currently required to engage in
outreach and collect data in order to meet the obligation to
affirmatively further fair housing. There are some elements of the
proposed rule that would increase compliance costs, but others would
decrease such costs. HUD estimates net annual compliance costs in the
range of $3 to $9 million.
Further, HUD believes the rule has the potential for substantial
benefit for program participants and the communities they serve. The
rule would improve the fair housing planning process by providing
greater clarity to the steps that program participants undertake to
meaningfully affirmatively further fair housing, and at the same time
provide better resources for
[[Page 1407]]
program participants to use in taking such steps. Through this rule,
HUD commits to provide states, local governments, PHAs, the communities
they serve, and the general public with local and regional data on
patterns of integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of
poverty, access to opportunity in select domains, and disproportionate
housing needs based on protected class. From these data, program
participants should be better able to evaluate their present
environment to assess fair housing issues, identify the primary
determinants that account for those issues, and set forth fair housing
priorities and goals and document these activities.
Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 4/00/2013
NPRM Comment Period End.............
Final Action........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: No.
Government Levels Affected: No.
Agency Contact: Patrick Pontius, Office of Policy Development and
Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Phone: 202-
402-3273.
RIN: 2501-AD33
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 397
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.
The Secretary issued his first Secretarial Order on March 11, 2009,
making renewable energy on public lands and the OCS top priorities at
the Department. These remain top priorities. In implementing these
priorities through its regulations, the
[[Page 1408]]
Department will continue to 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 the FWS establishes migratory bird hunting
seasons in partnership with flyway councils composed of State fish and
wildlife agencies. The FWS also holds a series of public meetings to
give other interested parties, including hunters and other groups,
opportunities to participate in establishing the upcoming season's
regulations. Similarly, the BLM uses Resource Advisory Councils to
provide advice on the management of public lands and resources. These
citizen based groups provide an opportunity for individuals from all
backgrounds and interests to have a voice in the management of public
lands.
In October 2010, NPS published an interim final rule with request
for comments revising the former 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. The NPS has analyzed the comments and
expects to publish a final rule in early 2013.
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 \1\ into
DOI's annual regulatory plan. When opportunities arise to improve our
regulations, we try to respond quickly. For example, some small
businesses recently raised a concern about inspection fees required for
imports and exports of wildlife by certain licensed businesses. Our
regulations set forth the fees that are required to be paid at the time
of inspection of imports and exports of wildlife. In 2009, we
implemented a new user fee system intended to recover the costs of the
compliance portion of the wildlife inspection program. In summer 2012,
the Service learned that we may have placed an undue economic burden on
businesses that exclusively trade in small volumes of low-value, non-
Federally protected wildlife parts and products. To address this issue,
we immediately issued an interim rule (October 26, 2012--77 FR 65321),
implementing a program that exempts certain businesses from the
designated port base inspection fees as an interim measure while the
Service reassesses its current user fee system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 current regulatory requirements, 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. For example, in September, DOI personnel
participated with staff from the Environmental Protection Agency, the
U.S. Coast Guard, and the Department of Transportation in a stakeholder
meeting sponsored by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration
specifically to receive input on the inclusion of performance based
standards as a regulatory approach. 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.
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, 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significantly reduce
Bureau RIN Title Description burdens on small
business?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Natural Resources 1012-AA13 Oil and Gas DOI is exploring a Yes.
Revenue (ONRR). Royalty Valuation. simplified market-
based 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.
[[Page 1409]]
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 1018-AX44 Critical Habitat FWS published a final Yes.
Boundary rule on May 1, 2012
Descriptions. (77 FR 25611), that
minimizes the
requirements for
written descriptions
of critical habitat
boundaries in favor
of map and Internet-
based descriptions.
This rule will make
the process of
designating critical
habitat more user-
friendly for affected
parties, the public
as a whole, and the
Services, as well as
more efficient and
cost effective.
FWS............................ 1018-AX85 ESA Section 7 Court decisions No.
Consultation rendered over the
Process; last decade regarding
Incidental Take the adequacy of
Statements. incidental take
statements have
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. The
proposed regulatory
changes will
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.
FWS............................ 1018-AX86 Regulations The proposed rule No.
Governing would amend existing
Designation of regulations governing
Critical Habitat the designation of
Under Section 4 critical habitat
of the ESA. under section 4 of
the Endangered
Species Act. A number
of factors, including
litigation and the
Services' 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.
FWS............................ 1018-AX87 Policy for This proposed policy No.
Designation of would articulate the
Critical Habitat purpose of critical
Under Section 4 habitat, provide a
of the Endangered clear interpretation
Species Act. of the statutory
definition of
``critical habitat,''
and describe a
comprehensive
approach for
designating critical
habitat under section
4 of the Endangered
Species Act. This
policy would help
provide 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.
FWS............................ 1018-AX88 ESA Section 7 The proposed rule No.
Consultation would amend the
Regulations; existing regulations
Definition of governing section 7
``Destruction or consultation under
Adverse the Endangered
Modification'' of Species Act to revise
Critical Habitat. the definition of
``destruction or
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. 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 (BIA). 1076-AE73 Leasing and Rights To encourage and speed Yes.
of Way. up economic
development in Indian
Country, the
Department through
the BIA, undertook a
sweeping reform of
antiquated, ``one-
size-fits-all''
Federal leasing
regulations for the
56 million surface
acres the Federal
government holds in
trust for Tribes and
individual Indians.
The final leasing
rule was published on
December 5, 2012, and
provides greater
transparency and firm
deadlines for BIA
review and approval
of lease documents;
gives greater
deference to Indian
tribes in leasing
approval and
enforcement
decisions; and
removes unnecessary
burdens, including
deleting the
requirement for BIA
review of permits,
which some view as
unjustified and
excessively
burdensome.
[[Page 1410]]
National Park Service (NPS), 1024-AD30 Commercial Filming This joint effort Yes.
FWS, Bureau of Land Mgt. on Public Lands. between the National
(BLM), and Bureau of Park Service (NPS),
Reclamation (BOR), and BIA. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), Bureau
of Land Management
(BLM), Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR),
and Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) will
create consistent
regulations and a
unified DOI fee
schedule for
commercial filming
and still photography
on public land. It
will provide the
commercial filming
industry with a
predictable fee for
using Federal lands,
while earning the
Government a fair
return for the use of
that land.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 provides an overview of some of the major regulatory
priorities that individual bureaus and offices within DOI will
undertake.
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. The BIA's mission is
to enhance the quality of life, to promote economic opportunity, and to
carry out the responsibility to 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 (AYP)
standards to determine whether a uniform standard would better meet the
needs of students at Bureau-funded schools. With regard to
undergraduate education, BIE 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. The 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.
Finalize regulations establishing uniform Buy Indian
acquisition procedures.
BIA currently exercises authority provided by the Buy Indian Act to
set-aside acquisitions for services and products for Indian economic
enterprises, under certain circumstances allowed under the Federal
Acquisition Regulations. This rule would standardize BIA procedures for
implementing the Buy Indian Act.
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. The Bureau recently completed a major overhaul of
regulations governing residential, business, and wind and solar
resource leasing on Indian land to reflect updated laws and increase
user-friendliness. In the coming year, the Bureau also plans to review
regulations regarding rights-of-way (25 CFR 169); Indian Reservation
Roads (25 CFR 170); and certain regulations specific to the Osage
Nation.
The Bureau of Land Management
The 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, the 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
[[Page 1411]]
resources. In undertaking its management responsibilities, the 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 twenty years ago and do not reflect modern technology.
In seeking to modernize its requirements and ensure the protection of
our Nation's public lands, the BLM has proposed a rule that would
provide disclosure to the public of 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.
Updating onshore oil and gas operating standards.
Onshore orders establish requirements and minimum standards and
provide standard operating procedures for oil and gas operations. The
orders are binding on operating rights owners and operators of Federal
and Indian (except the Osage Nation) oil and gas leases and on all
wells and facilities on State or private lands committed to Federal
agreements. The BLM is responsible for ensuring that oil or gas
produced and sold from Federal or Indian leases is accurately measured
for quantity and quality. The volume and quality of oil or gas sold
from leases is key to ensuring that the American public is receiving a
fair return from operators for the right to extract public resources.
BLM is focusing on revising existing Onshore Orders Number 3, 4, and 5
to adopt new industry standards to reflect current operating procedures
used by industry. These existing Onshore Orders would also be revised
to require that proper verification and accounting practices are
implemented consistently. A new Onshore Order Number 9 would cover the
prevention of waste and 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.
Competitive leasing process for solar and wind rights-of-
way.
The 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 the 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.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is the resource
manager for the conventional and renewable energy and mineral resources
on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Protecting the environment, while
ensuring the safe development of the nation's offshore energy and
marine mineral resources, is a critical part of BOEM's mission. The
Bureau, as with all Federal agencies, must consider the potential
environmental impacts from exploring and extracting these resources. It
fosters development of the OCS for both conventional and renewable
energy and mineral resources in an efficient and effective manner that
ensures fair market value for the rights conveyed. BOEM's near-term
regulatory agenda will cover a number of issues, including:
Clarifying its functional responsibilities in light of the recent
re-organization of offshore energy functions: A new proposed rule will
reorganize the BOEM regulations in a more logical manner and better
clarify the functional responsibilities of the agency with respect to
OCS lessee and operators and provides supporting changes to ensure
regulatory compliance.
Modernizing leasing regulations: BOEM is developing a final rule to
update and streamline the existing OCS leasing regulations to better
reflect policy priorities including incentivizing diligent development.
For example, the rule will implement a two term leasing process,
whereby leases are issued subject to a requirement that drilling
commences within a specific time period or else reverts back to the
government.
Updating BOEM's air quality program in light of expanded statutory
authority: DOI has jurisdiction over air emissions from OCS sources
operating on certain portions of the OCS. As part of the FY 2012
Appropriations bill, Congress increased DOI authority in this area by
transferring responsibility for monitoring OCS air quality off the
north coast of Alaska from the Environmental Protection Agency to the
Department of the Interior. In light of new authorities, BOEM is
undertaking a full review of its air quality program in order to ensure
that regulations are best suited to achieve the statutory mandate of
requiring offshore activities compliance with EPA's National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), to the extent that those activities
significantly affect the air quality of a State.
Enhancing regulatory efficiency for BOEM's offshore renewables
program: Two specific rulemakings would respond to recommendations
submitted to BOEM following independent technical reviews of existing
requirements: (1) A recommendation from a Transportation Research Board
report to develop specific wind turbine design standards; and (2) a
recommendation from a Technology Assessment and Research Program report
to clarify the role of Certified Verification Agents in the BOEM
permitting process. In addition, the proposed regulations would clarify
requirements associated with lessee notification to BOEM of a discovery
of potential archaeological resource(s) and revise renewables rules to
improve procedural and administrative efficiencies, reduce regulatory
burdens and streamline operations.
Promoting financial assurance and risk management: BOEM is
responsible for the Financial Assurance and Risk Management (FARM)
program, designed to ensure lessees and operators on the OCS do not
engage in activities that could generate an undue financial risk to the
Government. FARM and bonding regulations have not been updated in many
years and no longer accurately reflect current industry financial
monitoring and controls. In addition, reliable and comprehensive cost
data are neither accessible nor widely available in the offshore
industry, and so new data collection efforts are suggested to improve
future bonding formulas and to ensure that levels remain properly
calibrated. BOEM has established a series of task forces to review
these issues and will prepare a series of updates to the regulations,
once this effort is completed. This is likely a medium-to-longer-term
effort. Also related to risk and financial assurance, BOEM is
undertaking a rulemaking to adjust limits of liability for damages from
offshore facilities under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, to reflect
increases in the Consumer Price Index since the enactment of that
statute and to ensure the environment is protected in the event of an
offshore incident.
Formally addressing the use of OCS sand, gravel, and shell
resources: BOEM is developing regulations to formally
[[Page 1412]]
address the use of OCS sand, gravel, or shell resources for shore
protection, beach replenishment, wetlands restoration, or in
construction projects funded by the Federal government.
The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
BSEE was formally established in October 2011, as part of a major
reorganization of the Department of the Interior's offshore regulatory
structure. At its core, the Bureau's mission is to compel 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 newly developed BSEE FY
2012-2015 Strategic Plan, which includes two strategic goals to focus
the Bureau's priorities in fulfillment of its mission:
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.
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.
The BSEE has identified the following four areas of
regulatory priorities: (1) Compliance; (2) Oil Spill Response; (3)
Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS); 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 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.
Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS).
BSEE will propose additional revisions to the current SEMS rule.
BSEE will collaborate extensively with the U.S. Coast Guard on this
rule to further enhance the development of industry safety systems that
will reduce the risk of offshore oil and gas operations.
Managing and Mitigating Risk.
BSEE will develop a proposal to modernize requirements for blowout
prevention systems to address potential risks associated with existing
systems and enhance the safety of well operations.
BSEE will propose a rule to assess leading and lagging performance
indicators to identify risks and near-miss incidents on the OCS. The
current incident reporting regulations focus on reporting only
accidents associated with offshore operations. This proposed rule will
support the bureau's risk assessment activities and identify trends or
potential hazards involving causes for equipment failures, procedures,
people, or safety management systems.
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
The Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) collects, accounts
for, and disburses 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:
Simplify 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.
Finalize debt collection regulations.
ONRR is preparing regulations governing collection of delinquent
royalties, rentals, bonuses, and other amounts due under Federal and
Indian oil, gas, and other mineral leases. The regulations would
include provisions for administrative offset and would clarify and
codify the provisions of the Debt Collection Act of 1982, and the Debt
Collection Improvement Act of 1996.
Continue to meet Indian trust responsibilities.
ONRR has a trust responsibility to accurately collect and disburse
oil and gas royalties on Indian lands. ONRR will increase royalty
certainty by addressing oil valuation for Indian lands through a
negotiated rulemaking process involving key stakeholders.
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
[[Page 1413]]
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:
Regulations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA),
including rules to list, delist, and reclassify species and designate
critical habitat for certain listed species as set forth by the Multi-
District Litigation, and rules to transform the processes for listing
species and designating critical habitat:
[ssquf] In regard to the ESA lists, we will issue rules to amend
the format of the 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.
[ssquf] In regard to the designation of critical habitat for listed
species, we will issue rules to revise the timeframe for our issuance
of economic analyses pertaining to critical habitat designations, 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.
Regulations under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA),
including rules to manage migratory bird populations, such as the
annual migratory bird hunting regulations, and guidelines for
protecting migratory birds while supporting renewable energy
initiatives:
[ssquf] To ensure proper administration of the MBTA, we will revise
the list of migratory bird species based on new information. This list
is vital to our regulation of activities, such as transport, sale, and
import and export, of protected species. We will also propose to revise
our regulations that are designed to prevent the wanton waste of
migratory game birds to clarify that the hunting public must make
reasonable efforts to retrieve birds that have been killed or injured.
[ssquf] In an effort to promote renewable energy while carrying out
our responsibility to protect certain species of birds, we will issue
guidance that includes an iterative process for developers to use to
avoid and minimize negative effects on eagles and their habitats
resulting from the construction, operation, and maintenance of land-
based wind energy facilities in the United States. In addition, 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.
[ssquf] We will continue our efforts to empower State governments
by adding States that meet our requirements to the list of States that
are delegated authority to regulate falconry. We will also continue our
efforts to protect wildlife and promote business by revising our
regulations to approve additional formulations of nontoxic shot for use
in hunting waterfowl.
Regulations to carry out our responsibilities to
administer the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), such as the
development of Comprehensive Conservation Plans, acquisition planning,
and implementation of our ``Conserving the Future'' vision:
[ssquf] We will issue a policy to guide Service employees to
increase efficiency and effectiveness in achieving the mission of the
NWRS through partnerships with Friends (Refuge volunteer or advocate)
organizations. This policy will help us strengthen the Refuge system by
giving Refuge managers across the country consistent guidance on ways
to increase community involvement on Refuge lands.
[ssquf] To further this effort of ensuring consistent
administration of our 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.
[ssquf] To help us build strong and lasting partnerships with self-
governance Tribes and consortia, we propose a policy to respond to and
negotiate with Tribes on their requests for annual funding agreements
in implementing the provisions of title IV of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act.
Regulations to carry out the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora to update the
regulations and permit international trade:
[ssquf] To provide clear guidance to U.S. importers and exporters
of wildlife products, we will update our CITES regulations to
incorporate provisions resulting from the 14th and 15th Conferences of
the Parties to CITES. The revisions will help us more effectively
promote species conservation and help those affected by CITES to
understand how to conduct lawful international trade in wildlife and
wildlife products.
[ssquf] In regard to efforts to protect specific species, we will
issue regulations regarding generic tigers (those not identifiable as
members of the Bengal, Sumatran, Siberian, or Indochinese subspecies)
the same level of protection that ``pure'' tigers have. We will also
revise our regulations regarding the importation of ivory from African
elephants to allow the
[[Page 1414]]
importation of ivory specimens for scientific and law enforcement
purposes. This revision will ensure that our regulations do not
prohibit activities that support the purposes of the ESA.
[ssquf] We provide this summary in accordance with section 3(a) of
Executive Order 13609 (``Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation'').
National Park Service
The NPS preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and
values within almost 400 units of the National Park System encompassing
nearly 84 million acres of lands and waters for the enjoyment,
education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The NPS also
cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and resource
conservation and outdoor recreation throughout the United States and
the world.
To achieve this mission the 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.
Our regulatory priorities for the coming year include:
--Revising the existing regulation pertaining to Commercial Film and
Related Activities.
This joint effort between the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR), and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) will create
consistent regulations and a unified DOI fee schedule for commercial
filming and still photography on public land. It will provide the
commercial filming industry with a predictable fee for using Federal
lands, while earning the Government a fair return for the use of that
land.
--Establishing new rules related to:
Collection of Natural Products by Members of Federally
Recognized Tribes for Traditional and Cultural Purposes
The rule will clarify the Park Superintendent's authority to permit
American Indians and Alaska Natives to collect limited quantities of
plant and mineral resources in parks for traditional cultural uses,
practices, and activities.
Managing Winter Use at Yellowstone NP.
The rule will retain for the 2012-2013 winter season the
regulations and management framework that have been in place for the
last three winter seasons (2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012).
Managing Off Road Vehicle Use.
(1) A rule to 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 provides
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) A rule to define applicable terms, designates driving routes,
driving conditions, and establishes permit conditions for ORV use
within Fire Island National Seashore.
(3) A rule to (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.
Managing Bicycling.
NPS rules would designate bicycles routes and allow for management
of bicycle use on designated routes at Chattahoochee NRA, Sleeping Bear
Dunes National Lakeshore, and Lake Meredith NRA.
Implementation of 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.
(2) A rule would establish a process for disposition of Unclaimed
Human Remains and Funerary Objects discovered after November 16, 1990,
on Federal or Indian Lands.
BILLING CODE 4310-10-P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)
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 threats foreign and domestic, to provide
Federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime, to seek just
punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior, and to ensure 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 justice, and immigration. These
initiatives are summarized below. In addition, several other components
of the Department carry out important responsibilities through the
regulatory process. Although their regulatory efforts are not
separately discussed in this overview of the regulatory priorities,
those components have key roles in implementing the Department's anti-
terrorism and law enforcement priorities.
Civil Rights
Regulatory Plan Initiatives
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:
[[Page 1415]]
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 FY
2014. 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.
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 FY 2013, the Department plans to propose amendments to
both its title II and title III ADA regulations and its section 504
regulations to implement the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
Captioning and Video 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 video description in movie theaters.
Since 1991, there have been many technological advances in the area
of closed captioning and video 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 either would
replace or augment digital cinema or make any regulatory requirements
for captioning and video description more difficult or expensive to
implement. The Department received approximately 1,171 public comments
in response to its movie captioning and video description ANPRM. The
Department is in the process of completing its review of these comments
and expects to publish an NPRM addressing captioning and video
description in movie theaters in FY 2013.
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 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 FY 2013 with the publication of the title III
NPRM to follow in early FY 2014.
The final rulemaking initiatives from the 2010 ANPRMs are included
in the Department's long-term priorities projected for the middle to
latter part of FY 2014:
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
[[Page 1416]]
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 people with communication disabilities will 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 FY 2014.
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 FY 2014 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 FY 2014.
Federal Habeas Corpus Review Procedures in Capital Cases
Pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of
2005, on December 11, 2008, the Department promulgated a final rule to
implement certification procedures for States seeking to qualify for
the expedited Federal habeas corpus review procedures in capital cases
under chapter 154 of title 28 of the United States Code. On February 5,
2009, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice
soliciting further public comment on all aspects of the December 2008
final rule. As the Department reviewed the comments submitted in
response to the February 2009 notice, it considered further the
statutory requirements governing the regulatory implementation of the
chapter 154 certification procedures. The Attorney General determined
that chapter 154 reasonably could be construed to allow the Attorney
General greater discretion in making certification determinations than
the December 2008 regulations allowed. Accordingly, the Department
published a notice in the Federal Register on May 25, 2010, proposing
to remove the December 2008 regulations pending the completion of a new
rulemaking process. The Department finalized the removal of the
December 2008 regulations on November 23, 2010. The Department
published an NPRM in the Federal Register on March 3, 2011, proposing a
new rule and seeking public input on the certification procedure for
chapter 154 and the standards the Attorney General will apply in making
certification decisions. The comment period for the proposed new rule
closed on June 1, 2011. The Department thereafter published a
supplemental NPRM on February 13, 2012, which identified a number of
possible changes the Department was considering based on comments
received in response to the publication of the proposed rule. The
comment period for the supplemental NPRM closed on March 14, 2012,
Criminal Law Enforcement
For the most part, the Department's criminal law enforcement
components do not rely on the rulemaking process to carry out their
assigned missions. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), for
example, is responsible for protecting and defending the United States
against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, upholding and
enforcing the criminal laws of the United States, and providing
leadership and criminal justice services to Federal, State, municipal,
and international agencies and partners. Only in very limited contexts
does the FBI rely on rulemaking. For example, in FY 2013 the FBI
expects to propose updating its National Instant Criminal Background
Check System (NCIS) regulations to address the current prohibition on
criminal justice agencies accessing the NICS to conduct background
checks prior to the return of firearms.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
Initiatives. 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 to assist
State, local, and other Federal law enforcement agencies in reducing
crime and violence. ATF will continue, as a priority during fiscal year
2013, to seek modifications to its regulations governing commerce in
firearms and explosives. ATF plans to issue final regulations
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).
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.
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
[[Page 1417]]
applications for explosives licenses or permits and proposed revocation
of such licenses and permits.
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Initiatives. 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 2013, 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 propose and 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.
2013
Bureau of Prisons Initiatives. 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.
Immigration
On March 1, 2003, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(HSA), the responsibility for immigration enforcement and for providing
immigration-related services and benefits, such as naturalization and
work authorization, was transferred from the Justice Department's
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). However, the immigration judges and the Board
of Immigration Appeals (Board) in the Executive Office for Immigration
Review (EOIR) remain part of the Department of Justice. The immigration
judges adjudicate approximately 400,000 cases each year to determine
whether aliens should be 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
conduct 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. In
furtherance of these goals, the Department is drafting a regulation to
improve the recognition and accreditation process for organizations and
representatives that appear in immigration proceedings. With the
assistance of DHS, the Department is also drafting a regulation
pursuant to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2008 to implement procedures that take into
account the specialized needs of unaccompanied alien children in
removal proceedings. In addition, the Department is considering
regulatory action to address mental incompetency issues in removal
proceedings. Moreover, the Department is finalizing a regulation
requiring attorneys and accredited representatives to register
electronically with EOIR, as an initial step in a multi-year, multi-
phased initiative to make the transition to an electronic case access
and filing system. 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 1418]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIN Title Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1140-AA42.............. Importation of Arms, The regulations in 27
Ammunition and CFR 447 and 479
Implements of War and generally provide
Machine Guns, that firearms,
Destructive Devices, ammunition, and
and Certain Other defense articles may
Firearms; Extending not be imported into
the Term of Import the United States
Permits''. except pursuant to a
permit. Section
447.43 provides 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 Review future rulemaking
Under E.O. 13563 of 8 concerning appeals of
CFR Parts 1003, 1103, DHS decisions (8 CFR
1211, 1212, 1215, part 1103),
1216, 1235. documentary
requirements for
aliens (8 CFR parts
1211 and 1212),
control of aliens
departing from the
United States (8 CFR
part 1215),
procedures governing
conditional permanent
resident status (8
CFR part 1216), and
inspection of
individuals applying
for admission to the
United States (8 CFR
part 1235). A number
of attorneys, firms,
and organizations in
immigration practice
are small entities.
EOIR believes this
rule will improve the
efficiency and
fairness of
adjudications before
EOIR by, for example,
eliminating
duplication, ensuring
consistency with the
Department of
Homeland Security's
regulations in
chapter I of title 8
of the CFR, and
delineating more
clearly the authority
and jurisdiction of
each agency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
69. Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Title II and
Title III of the ADA)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-325; 42 U.S.C. 12134(a); 42 U.S.C.
12186(b)
CFR Citation: 28 CFR part 35; 28 CFR part 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: Because this NPRM implements statutory changes to the
ADA, there are no appropriate alternatives to issuing this NPRM.
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. In this
NPRM, the Department will be soliciting public comment in response to
its preliminary analysis.
Risks: The ADA authorizes the Attorney General to enforce the ADA
and to promulgate regulations implementing the law's requirements.
Failure to update the Department's regulations to conform to statutory
changes and to be consistent with the EEOC regulations under title I of
the ADA will interfere with the Department's enforcement efforts and
lead to confusion about the law's requirements among entities covered
by titles I, II and III of the ADA, as well as members of the public.
Timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Date FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................ 03/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State
[[Page 1419]]
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Gregory B. Friel, Acting Chief, Department of
Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20031, Phone: 800 514-0301, Fax:
202 307-1198.
RIN: 1190-AA59
DOJ--CRT
70. Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973)
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-325; 29 U.S.C. 794 (sec 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended); EO 12250 (45 FR 72955; 11/04/
1980)
CFR Citation: 28 CFR part 39; 28 CFR part 41; 28 CFR part 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 has determined that
this 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 this NPRM, the Department will be
soliciting public comment in response to its preliminary analysis.
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................................ 11/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Agency Contact: Gregory B. Friel, Acting Chief, Department of
Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20031, Phone: 800 514-0301, Fax:
202 307-1198.
RIN: 1190-AA60
DOJ--CRT
71. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Movie Captioning and
Video Description
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.
CFR Citation: 28 CFR part 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
[[Page 1420]]
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................................ 05/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
Agency Contact: Gregory B. Friel, Acting Chief, Department of
Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20031, Phone: 800 514-0301, Fax:
202 307-1198.
RIN: 1190-AA63
DOJ--CRT
72. 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 part 35.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department published an ANPRM on July 26, 2010, RIN
1190-AA61, that addressed issues relating to proposed revisions of both
the title II and title III ADA regulations in order to provide guidance
on the obligations of covered entities to make programs, services and
activities offered over the Web accessible to individuals with
disabilities.
The Department has now divided the rulemakings in the next step of
the rulemaking process so as to proceed with separate notices of
proposed rulemakings for title II and title III. The title III
rulemaking on Web accessibility will continue under RIN 1190-AA61 and
the title II rulemaking will continue under the new RIN 1190-AA65. This
rulemaking will provide specific guidance to State and local
governments in order to make services, programs, or activities offered
to the public via the Web accessible to individuals with disabilities.
The ADA requires that State and local governments provide qualified
individuals with disabilities equal access to their programs, services,
or activities unless doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of
their programs, services, or activities or would impose an undue
burden. 42. U.S.C. 12132. The Internet as it is known today did not
exist when Congress enacted the ADA; yet today the Internet is
dramatically changing the way that governmental entities serve the
public. Taking advantage of new technology, citizens can now use State
and local government Web sites to correspond online with local
officials; obtain information about government services; renew library
books or driver's licenses; pay fines; register to vote; obtain tax
information and file tax returns; apply for jobs or benefits; and
complete numerous other civic tasks. These government Web sites are
important because they allow programs and services to be offered in a
more dynamic, interactive way in order to increase citizen
participation; increase convenience and speed in obtaining information
or services; reduce costs in providing information about government
services and administering programs; reduce the amount of paperwork;
and expand the possibilities of reaching new sectors of the community
or offering new programs or services.
Many States and localities have begun to improve the accessibility
of portions of their Web sites. However, full compliance with the ADA's
promise to provide an equal opportunity for individuals with
disabilities to participate in and benefit from all aspects of the
programs, services, and activities provided by State and local
governments in today's technologically advanced society will only occur
if it is clear to public entities that their Web sites must be
accessible. Consequently, the Department intends to publish a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend its title II regulations to
expressly address the obligations of public entities to make the Web
sites they use to provide programs, activities, or services or
information to the public accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities under the legal framework established by the ADA. The
proposed regulation will propose the scope of the obligation to provide
accessibility when persons with disabilities access public Web sites,
as well as propose the technical standards necessary to comply with the
ADA.
Statement of Need: Many people with disabilities use ``assistive
technology'' to enable them to use computers and access the Internet.
Individuals who are blind or have low vision who cannot see
[[Page 1421]]
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................................ 07/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
Federalism: Undetermined.
Additional Information: Split from RIN 1190-AA61.
Agency Contact: Gregory B. Friel, Acting Chief, Department of
Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20031, Phone: 800 514-0301, Fax:
202 307-1198.
RIN: 1190-AA65
DOJ--CRT LONG-TERM ACTIONS
73. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web
Information and Services of Public Accommodations
Priority: Economically Significant.
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.
CFR Citation: 28 CFR part 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
disabilities. The ADA requires that public accommodations provide
individuals 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 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
[[Page 1422]]
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 to 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 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 and will solicit public comment addressing these
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 service 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.
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................................ 12/00/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Gregory B. Friel, Acting Chief, Department of
Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20031, Phone: 800 514-0301, Fax:
202 307-1198.
RIN: 1190-AA61
BILLING CODE 4410-BP-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Fall 2012 Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Labor's fall 2012 agenda continues Secretary
Solis' vision of Good Jobs for Everyone. It also renews the Labor
Department's commitment to efficient and effective regulation through
the review and modification of our existing regulations, consistent
with Executive Order 13563 (``E.O. 13563'').
The Labor Department's vision of a ``good job'' includes jobs that:
Increase workers' incomes and narrow wage and income
inequality;
Assure workers are paid their wages and overtime;
Are in safe and healthy workplaces, and fair and diverse
workplaces;
Provide workplace flexibility for family and personal
care-giving;
Improve health benefits and retirement security for all
workers; and,
Assure workers have a voice in the workplace.
The Department continues to use a variety of mechanisms to achieve
the goal of Good Jobs for Everyone, including increased enforcement
actions, increased education and outreach, and regulatory actions that
foster compliance. At the same time, the Department is enhancing the
efficiency and effectiveness of its efforts through targeted regulatory
actions designed to improve compliance and burden reduction
initiatives. The Department's Plan/Prevent/Protect and Openness and
Transparency compliance strategies and the implementation of E.O. 13563
create unifying themes that seek to foster a new calculus that
strengthens protections for workers. By requiring employers and other
regulated entities to take full ownership over their adherence to
Department regulations and promoting greater openness and transparency
for employers and workers alike, the Department seeks to significantly
increase compliance. The increased effectiveness of this compliance
strategy will enable the Department to achieve the Good Jobs for
Everyone goal in a regulatory
[[Page 1423]]
environment that is more efficient and less burdensome.
Plan/Prevent/Protect Compliance Strategy: The regulatory actions
that comprise the Department's Plan/Prevent/Protect strategy are
designed to ensure employers and other regulated entities are in full
compliance with the law every day, not just when Department inspectors
come calling. The Plan/Prevent/Protect strategy was first announced
with the Spring 2010 Regulatory Agenda. Employers, unions, and others
who follow the Department's Plan/Prevent/Protect strategy will assure
compliance with employment laws before Labor Department enforcement
personnel arrive at their doorsteps. Most important, they will assure
that workers get the safe, healthy, diverse, family-friendly, and fair
workplaces they deserve. In the Fall 2012 Regulatory Agenda, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Mine Safety and
Health Administration (MSHA), and the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP) will all propose regulatory actions
furthering the Department's implementation of the Plan/Prevent/Protect
strategy.
Openness and Transparency--Tools for Achieving Compliance: Greater
openness and transparency continues to be central to the Department's
compliance and regulatory strategies. The fall 2012- regulatory plan
demonstrates the Department's continued commitment to conducting the
people's business with openness and transparency, not only as good
Government and stakeholder engagement strategies, but as important
means to achieve compliance with the employment laws administered and
enforced by the Department. Openness and transparency will not only
enhance agencies' enforcement actions but will encourage greater levels
of compliance by the regulated community and enhance awareness among
workers of their rights and benefits. When employers, unions, workers,
advocates, and members of the public have greater access to information
concerning workplace conditions and expectations, then we all become
partners in the endeavor to create Good Jobs for Everyone.
Risk Reduction: The Department believes Plan/Prevent/Protect and
increased Openness and Transparency will result in improvements to
worker health and safety; fair pay, earned overtime compensation,
secure benefits; fair, diverse and family-friendly environments that
provide workplace flexibility for family and personal care-giving
However, when the Department identifies specific hazards and risks to
worker health, safety, security, or fairness, the Department will
utilize its regulatory powers to limit the risk to workers. The Fall
2012 Regulatory Agenda includes examples of such regulatory initiatives
to address such specific concerns, many of which are discussed in this
document.
Retrospective Review of Existing Rules: The Fall 2012 Regulatory
Agenda aims to achieve more efficient and less burdensome regulation
through retrospective review of Labor Department regulations. 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 what is needed to protect
health, welfare, safety, and the environment for all Americans, and
what is needed to foster economic growth, job creation, and
competitiveness.
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, which identifies several burden-reducing review
projects. On March 26, 2012 OSHA published the Hazard Communication/
Globally Harmonized System for Classification and Labeling of Chemicals
final rule. Cost savings for employers from productivity improvements
arising from the rule were estimated to be $507.2 million annually. The
estimated net benefits of the rule are $556 million annually. EBSA's
Abandoned Plan Program, results in an estimated $500,000 savings, and
expanding the program will provide substantial benefits to plans of
sponsors in bankruptcy liquidation and bankruptcy trustees while
imposing minimal costs ($64,000). These projects estimate monetized
savings that would eliminate between roughly $580 to $790 million in
annual regulatory burdens. Proposals such as OSHA's Standard
Improvement Project--Phase IV (SIP IV) and Revocation of Certification
Records are expected to produce additional savings. Several non-
regulatory actions are expected to have similar results.
The Department is also taking action to eliminate regulations that
are no longer effective or enforceable. This effort will include
removal of the Job Training Partnership Act program requirements;
attestation requirements by facilities using nonimmigrant aliens as
registered nurses as implemented through the Immigration Nursing Relief
Act of 1999; and, attestation requirements by employers using F-1
students in off-campus work as authorized by the supplementing sections
of Immigration Act of 1990. It will also include removal of regulatory
actions that are no longer enforceable, including labor certification
process requirements for logging employment and non-H-2A agricultural
employment. In total, this agenda includes 10 review projects--that is,
more than 13 percent of all the Department's planned regulatory
actions.
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 subsequent quarterly
updates can be found at: http://www.dol.gov/regulations/.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it is Expected to
Regulatory Identifier No. Title of Rulemaking Significantly Reduce Burdens on Small
Businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1218-AC34............................. Bloodborne Pathogens............ No.
1218-AC77............................. Updating OSHA Standards Based on No.
National Consensus Standards
(Signage).
1218-AC67............................. Standard Improvement Project-- Yes.
Phase IV (SIP IV).
1218-AC75............................. Cranes and Derricks in Yes.
Construction: Revision to
Digger Derricks' Requirements.
1218-AC74............................. Review/Lookback of OSHA Chemical To Be Determined.
Standards.
1218-AC80............................. Revocation of Certification To Be Determined.
Records.
1219-AB72............................. Criteria and Procedures for To Be Determined.
Proposed Assessment of Civil
Penalties (Part 100).
1250-AA05............................. Sex Discrimination Guidelines... To Be Determined.
1210-AB47............................. Amendment of Abandoned Plan Yes.
Program.
[[Page 1424]]
1205-AB59............................. Equal Employment Opportunity in To Be Determined.
Apprenticeship and Training,
Amendment of Regulations.
1205-AB62............................. Implementation of Total No.
Unemployment Rate Extended
Benefits Trigger and Rounding
Rule.
1205-AB68............................. Job Training Partnership Act; No, action will not increase burden to
Removal of JTPA. small businesses as regulatory
provisions are no longer operative.
1205-AB65............................. Labor Certification Process for No, action will not increase burden to
Logging Employment and Non-H-2A small businesses as regulatory
Agricultural Employment. provisions are no longer operative.
1205-AB66............................. Attestations by Employers Using No, action will not increase burden to
F-1 Students in Off-Campus Work. small businesses as regulatory
provisions are no longer operative.
1205-AB67............................. Attestations by Facilities Using No, action will not increase burden to
Nonimmigrant Aliens as small businesses as regulatory
Registered Nurses. provisions are no longer operative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
OSHA's regulatory program is designed to help workers and employers
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 place American workers
at risk of serious disease and death and are initiatives on OSHA's
regulatory agenda. In addition to targeting specific hazards, OSHA is
focusing on systematic processes that will modernize the culture of
safety in America's workplaces and retrospective review projects that
will update regulations and reduce burdens on regulated communities.
OSHA's retrospective review projects under E.O.13563 include
consideration of the Bloodborne Pathogens standard, updating consensus
standards, phase IV of OSHA's standard improvement project (SIP IV),
and reviewing various permissible exposure levels.
Plan/Prevent/Protect
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. 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) 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. The agency 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.
In 2007, the healthcare and social assistance sector as a whole had
16.5 million employees. 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.
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 stakeholder meetings. Stakeholder meetings were
held in East Brunswick, NJ; Dallas, Texas; Washington, DC; and
Sacramento, California, beginning in June 2010 and ending in August
2010. More than 200 stakeholders participated in these meetings, and in
addition, nearly 300 stakeholders attended as observers. 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 that have implemented similar injury and illness prevention
programs have significantly reduced 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
[[Page 1425]]
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.
Openness and Transparency
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, as well as support
President Obama's Open Government Initiative. Under the proposed rule,
OSHA will explore requiring employers to electronically submit to the
Agency data required by part 1904 (Recording and Reporting Occupational
Injuries). The proposed rule will enable OSHA to conduct data
collections ranging from the periodic collection of all part 1904 data
from a handful of employers to the annual collection of summary data
from many employers. OSHA learned from stakeholders that most large
employers already maintain their part 1904 data electronically; as a
result, electronic submission will constitute a minimal 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 also does not add to or change the
recording criteria or definitions in part 1904. The proposed rule only
modifies 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 regulatory agenda, OSHA proposes to issue procedural rules
that will establish consistent and transparent procedures for the
filing of whistleblower complaints under eight statutes as discussed in
the regulatory agenda. 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.
Risk Reduction
Silica: In order to target one of the most serious hazards
workers face, OSHA is proposing to address worker exposures to
crystalline silica through the promulgation and enforcement of a
comprehensive health standard. Exposure to silica causes silicosis, a
debilitating respiratory disease, and may cause cancer, other chronic
respiratory diseases, and renal and autoimmune disease as well. The
seriousness of the health hazards associated with silica exposure is
demonstrated by the large number of fatalities and disabling illnesses
that continue to occur. Over 2 million workers are exposed to
crystalline silica in general industry, construction, and maritime
industries. 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
workplaces, MSHA will also utilize information provided by OSHA to
undertake regulatory action related to silica exposure in mines.
Preventing Backover Injuries and Fatalities: Workers
across many industries face a serious hazard when vehicles perform
backing maneuvers, especially vehicles with an obstructed view to the
rear. OSHA is collecting information on this hazard and researching
emerging technologies that may help to reduce this risk. NIOSH reports,
for example, that one-half of the fatalities involving construction
equipment occur while the equipment is backing. Backing accidents cause
at least 60 occupational deaths per year. 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 use radio frequency (RFID) and magnetic field generators on
equipment to detect electronic tags worn by workers. Along with MSHA,
which is developing regulations concerning Proximity Detection Systems,
and based on information collected and the Agency's review and
research, the Agency may consider rulemaking as an appropriate measure
to address this source of employee risk. The Agency published an RFI on
March 27, 2012 seeking information from the public; the comment period
ended on July 27, 2012.
Reinforced Concrete in Construction: OSHA has published an
RFI seeking information about the hazards associated with reinforcing
operation in construction. Current rules regarding reinforcing steel
and post-tensioning activities may not adequately address worker
hazards in work related to post-tensioning and reinforcing steel. Both
are techniques for reinforcing concrete and are generally used in
commercial and industrial construction. OSHA currently has few rules
which address the steel reinforcing and post-tensioning fields
directly. The few rules that do exist are found in subpart Q--Concrete
and Masonry Construction of 29 CFR 1926. OSHA IMIS data indicates that
31 workers died while performing work on or near post-tensioning
operations or reinforcing steel between 2000 and 2009. The use of
reinforced steel and post-tensioned poured in place concrete in
commercial and industrial construction is expected to rise. Without
adequate standards, the rate of accidents will likely rise as well.
Currently, workers performing steel reinforcing suffer injuries caused
by unsafe material handling, structural collapse, and impalement by
protruding reinforcing steel dowels, among others. Employees involved
in post-tensioning activities are at risk for incidents caused by the
misuse of post-tensioning equipment and improper training.
Regulatory Review and Burden Reduction
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 evaluated.
Updating OSHA Standards Based on National Consensus
Standards--Signage: Under section 6(a) of the OSH Act, during the first
2 years of the Act, the Agency was directed to adopt national consensus
standards as OSHA standards. In the more than 40 years since these
standards were adopted by OSHA, the organizations responsible for these
consensus standards have issued updated versions of these standards.
However, in most cases, OSHA has not revised its regulations to reflect
later editions of the consensus standards. This project is part of a
multi-year project to update OSHA standards that
[[Page 1426]]
are based on consensus standards. On June 22nd, OSHA published a Direct
Final Rule (DFR) and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) addressing
OSHA's Head Protection standards. The Agency received no significant
adverse comment, and the standards went into effect September 20, 2012.
On (insert date prior to October) OSHA published another DFR/NPRM
Consensus Standard addressing signage.
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. The Agency believes that these standards have
reduced the compliance costs and eliminated or reduced the paperwork
burden for a number of its standards. The Agency only considers such
changes to its standards so long as they do not diminish employee
protections. The Agency initiated a fourth rulemaking effort to
identify unnecessary or duplicative provisions or paperwork
requirements that is focused primarily on revisions to its construction
standards in 29 CFR 1926.
Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Revision to Digger
Derricks' Requirements: OSHA published its final Cranes and Derricks in
Construction Standard in August 2010. Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
filed a petition for review challenging several aspects of the
standard, including the scope of the exemption for digger derricks. As
part of the settlement agreement with EEI, OSHA agreed to publish a
direct final rule expanding the scope of a partial exemption for work
by digger derricks. In the direct final rule, OSHA will revise the
scope provision on digger derricks as an exemption for all work done by
digger derricks covered by subpart V of 29 CFR 1926. The change in
scope will result in an estimated cost savings of $21.6 million
annually.
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 in order to take into
account newer scientific data that indicate that significant
occupational health risks exist at levels below OSHA's current PELs. In
1989, OSHA issued a final standard that lowered PELs for over 200
chemicals and added PELs for 164. However, the final rule was
challenged and ultimately vacated by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
in 1991 citing deficiencies in OSHA's analyses. Since that time, OSHA
has made attempts to examine its outdated PELs in light of the Court's
1991 decision. Most recently, OSHA sought input through a stakeholder
meeting and web forum to discuss various approaches that might be used
to address its outdated 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.
Confined Spaces in Construction: In 1993, OSHA issued a
rule to protect employees who enter confined spaces while engaged in
general industry work (29 CFR 1910.146). This standard did not address
confined space entry in construction. Pursuant to discussions with the
United Steel Workers of America that led to a settlement agreement
regarding the general industry standard, OSHA agreed to issue a
proposed rule to protect construction workers in confined spaces. The
proposed rule for confined spaces in construction was published in
2007, public hearings were held in 2008.
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
The Mine Safety and Health Administration is the worker protection
agency focused on the prevention of death, disease, and injury from
mining and the promotion of safe and healthful workplaces for the
Nation's miners. 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, and 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.
Plan/Prevent/Protect
Proximity Detection Systems for Continuous Mining Machines
in Underground Coal Mines: MSHA published a proposed rule to address
the danger that miners face when working near continuous mining
machines in underground coal mines. MSHA has concluded, from
investigations of accidents involving mobile equipment and other
reports, that action was necessary to protect miners. From 1984 to
2012, there have been 32 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. 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 coal mine operators to equip shuttle cars, coal hauling
machines, continuous haulage systems, and scoops with proximity
detection systems. Miners working near these machines face pinning,
crushing, and striking hazards that have resulted, and continue to
result, in accidents involving life threatening injuries and death. The
proposal would strengthen protections for miners by reducing the
potential for pinning, crushing, or striking accidents in underground
mines.
Openness and Transparency
Pattern of Violations: MSHA has determined that the
existing pattern criteria and procedures contained in 30 CFR part 104
do not reflect the statutory intent for section 104(e) of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act). The legislative history
of the Mine Act explains that Congress intended the pattern of
violations to be an enforcement tool for operators who have
demonstrated a disregard for the health and safety of miners. These
mine operators, who have a chronic history of persistent significant
and substantial (S&S) violations, needlessly expose miners to the same
hazards again and again. This indicates a serious safety and health
management problem at a mine. The goal of the pattern of violations
final rule is to compel operators to manage health and safety
conditions so that the root causes of S&S violations are found and
fixed before they become a hazard to miners. The final rule would
reflect statutory intent, simplify the pattern of violations
[[Page 1427]]
criteria, and improve consistency in applying the pattern of violations
criteria. MSHA developed an online service that enables mine operators,
miners, and others to monitor a mining operation to determine if the
mine could be approaching a potential pattern of violations. The web
tool contains the specific criteria that MSHA uses to review a mine for
a potential pattern of violations. The pattern of violations monitoring
tool promotes openness and transparency in government.
Notification of Legal Identity: The existing requirements
do not provide sufficient information for MSHA to identify all of the
mine ``operators'' responsible for operator safety and health
obligations under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as
amended. This proposed regulation would expand the information required
to be submitted to MSHA to create more transparent and open records
that would allow the Agency to better identify and focus on the most
egregious or persistent violators and more effectively deter future
violations by imposing penalties and other remedies on those violators.
Risk Reduction
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 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 a 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 up to the explosion. The IR report also
included recommendations for regulatory actions. In response to the
recommendations, MSHA will 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 also exemplify a commitment to protecting the most
vulnerable 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. As mentioned
previously, as part of the Secretary's strategy for securing safe and
healthy workplaces, both MSHA and OSHA will be undertaking regulatory
actions related to silica. 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 National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and other groups to address the
exposure limit for respirable crystalline silica. As another 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.
Regulatory Review and Burden Reduction
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.
Plan/Prevent/Protect
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 a 1980 based on 1970
Census data, the most current data available at the time. The goals for
the utilization of women in the construction occupations were issued in
1978, and extended indefinitely in 1980, are were also developed using
1970 Census data. The proposed rule would remove these outdated goals
and instead give 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 is
coordinating with the Employment and Training Administration (ETA),
which is developing a proposed regulation revising the equal
opportunity regulatory framework under the National Apprenticeship Act.
[[Page 1428]]
Regulatory Review and Burden Reduction
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 and warrants a regulatory lookback. 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. The
nondiscrimination requirement of the Sex Discrimination Guidelines also
applies to contractors and subcontractors performing under federally
assisted construction contracts. 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 140
million Americans covered by an estimated 707,000 private retirement
plans, 2.3 million health plans, and similar numbers of other welfare
benefit plans, which together hold $6.7 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 American 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 encourage greater levels of
compliance by the regulated community and enhance awareness among
workers of their rights and benefits. Several proposals from the EBSA
agenda expand 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 Abandoned Plan Program amendments.
Risk Reduction
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 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 138
million Americans in employer-sponsored plans. EBSA will continue its
work in this regard, to ensure a smooth implementation of the
legislation's market reforms, minimizing disruption to existing plans
and practices, and strengthening America's health care system.
Enhancing Participant Protections: EBSA plans to re-
propose amendments to its regulations to clarify the circumstances
under which a person will be considered a ``fiduciary'' when providing
investment advice to retirement plans and other employee benefit plans
and participants and beneficiaries of such plans. The amendments would
take into account current practices of investment advisers and the
expectations of plan officials and participants who receive investment
advice. 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 when providing the investment advice that is relied
upon by millions of plan sponsors and workers.
Promoting Openness and Transparency
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 l210-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: EBSA in 2010 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 which 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 is developing 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.
Regulatory Review and Burden Reduction
Abandoned Plan Program Amendment: In 2006, the Department
published regulations that facilitate the
[[Page 1429]]
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 now has six years of
experience with this program and believes certain changes would improve
the overall 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 due to 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. Thus, bankruptcy trustees,
who often are unfamiliar with applicable fiduciary requirements and
plan-termination procedures, presently have little in the way of a
blueprint or guide for efficiently terminating and winding-up such
plans. 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 effort it
would take ordinarily to terminate and wind up 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. As explained above, the current
Abandoned Plan Program results in an estimated $500,000 savings for
plans terminated pursuant to that program, and we believe 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 ($64,000).
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.
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 One-Stop centers. The programs within ETA promote pathways
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 that are sought in the 21st
century's economy.
Regulatory Review and Burden Reduction
Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship and
Training, Amendment of Regulations: The revision of the National
Apprenticeship Act Equal Opportunity in Apprenticeship and Training
(EEO) regulations is a critical element in the Department's vision to
promote and expand registered apprenticeship opportunities in the 21st
Century while safeguarding the welfare and safety of all apprentices.
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. ETA proposes to update part 30 EEO in the Apprenticeship
and
[[Page 1430]]
Training regulations to ensure that they act in concert with the 2008
revised part 29 rule. The proposed EEO regulations also will further
Secretary Solis' vision of good jobs 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.
Implementation of Total Unemployment Rate Extended
Benefits Trigger and Rounding Rule: This rule will update regulations
to conform to existing law and State practice. It will benefit State
Unemployment Insurance systems by remove any potential confusion
between complying with guidance and current 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 Job Training
Partnership Act Removal of JTPA (RIN 1205-AB68), 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 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 20 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.
The FMCSA will continue its work to 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 motor coaches.
Additionally, the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST)
remains focused on an aviation consumer rulemaking designed to further
safeguard the interests of consumers flying the Nation's skies.
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
[[Page 1431]]
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 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-AJ94................................. Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS)
(RRR).
2. 2120-AJ97................................. 14 CFR Part 16; Rules of Practice for Y
Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement
Proceedings (RRR).
3. 2120-AK01................................. Combined Drug and Alcohol Testing Y
Programs for Operators Conducting
Commercial Air Tours (RRR).
4. 2120-AK11................................. Minimum Altitudes for Use of Autopilots
(RRR).
5. 2125-AF44................................. Administration of Engineering and
Design Related Service Contracts (RRR).
6. 2126-AB43................................. Self-Reporting of Out-of-State Y
Convictions (RRR).
7. 2126-AB46................................. Single Pre-trip Inspection (RRR)....... Y
8. 2126-AB47................................. Electronic Signatures (E-Signatures) Y
(RRR).
9. 2126-AB49................................. Elimination of Redundant Maintenance Y
Rule (RRR).
10. 2127-AK99................................ Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 108; Y
Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment--Color Boundaries
(RRR).
11. 2127-AL05................................ Amend FMVSS No. 210 to Incorporate the Y
Use of a New Force Application Device
(RRR).
12. 2127-AL24................................ Rapid Tire Deflation Test in FMVSS No.
110 (RRR).
13. 2130-AC06................................ Training Standards for Railroad
Employees (RRR).
14. 2130-AC07................................ Development and Use of Rail Safety
Technology: Dark Territory (RRR).
15. 2130-AC09................................ Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety
Standards; High-Speed and High Cant
Deficiency Operations (RRR).
16. 2130-AC11................................ Risk Reduction Program (RRR)...........
17. 2130-AC14................................ Emergency Escape Breathing Apparatus
(RRR).
18. 2130-AC28................................ Track Safety Standards: Improving Rail
Integrity (RRR).
19. 2130-AC32................................ Positive Train Control Systems: De
Minimis Exception, Yard Movements, En
Route Failures; Miscellaneous Grade
Crossing/Signal and Train Control
Amendments (RRR).
20. 2132-AB02................................ Major Capital Investment Projects (RRR)
21. 2132-AB03................................ Environmental Impact and Related
Procedures (RRR).
22. 2133-AB79................................ Administrative Claims, Part 327 (RRR)..
[[Page 1432]]
23. 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).
24. 2137-AE70................................ Hazardous Materials: Revision of Y
Requirements for Fireworks Approvals
(RRR).
25. 2137-AE72................................ Pipeline Safety: Gas Transmission (RRR) Y
26. 2137-AE78................................ Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous Y
Amendments (RRR).
27. 2137-AE79................................ Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous Y
Amendments; Petitions for Rulemaking
(RRR).
28. 2137-AE80................................ Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous Y
Pressure Vessel Requirements (DOT Spec
Cylinders) (RRR).
29. 2137-AE81................................ Hazardous Materials: Reverse Logistics Y
(RRR).
30. 2137-AE82................................ Hazardous Materials: Incorporation of Y
Certain Special Permits and Competent
Authorities into the HMR (RRR).
31. 2137-AE85................................ Pipeline Safety: Periodic Updates of
Regulatory References to Technical
Standards and Miscellaneous Amendments
(RRR).
32. 2137-AE86................................ Hazardous Materials: Requirements for
the Safe Transportation of Bulk
Explosives (RRR).
33. 2137-AE87................................ Hazardous Materials: Harmonization with
International Standards (RRR).
34. 2137-AE91................................ Hazardous Materials: Rail Petitions and Y
Recommendations to Improve the Safety
of Railroad Tank Car Transportation
(RRR).
35. 2137-AE94................................ Pipeline Safety: Miscellaneous Y
Amendments Related to Reauthorization
and Petitions for Rulemaking (RRR*).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 1433]]
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).
2137-AE62......................................... Air Bags and
Pretensioners
(RRR).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we identify rulemakings arising out of our ongoing regulatory
cooperation activities that we reasonably anticipate will lead to
significant regulations, we will add them to our Web site report and
subsequent Agendas and Plans.
The Department's Regulatory Process
The Department will also continue its efforts to use advances in
technology to improve its rulemaking management process. For example,
the Department created an effective tracking system for significant
rulemakings to ensure that either rules are completed in a timely
manner or delays are identified and fixed. Through this tracking
system, a monthly status report is generated. To make its efforts more
transparent, the Department has made this report Internet accessible at
http://www.dot.gov/regulations, 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 2013, 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
(2105-AD96).
Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections III (2105-AE11).
Carrier-Supplied Medical Oxygen, Accessible In-Flight
Entertainment Systems, Service Animals, and Accessible Lavatories on
Single-Aisle Aircraft (2105-AE12).
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
[[Page 1434]]
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 2013
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.
Work cooperatively to harmonize the U.S. aviation
regulations with those of other countries, without compromising
rigorous safety standards, or our requirements to develop cost benefit
analysis. The differences worldwide in certification standards,
practice and procedures, and operating rules must be identified and
minimized to reduce the regulatory burden on the international aviation
system. The differences between the FAA regulations and the
requirements of other nations impose a heavy burden on U.S. aircraft
manufacturers and operators, some of which are small businesses.
Standardization should help the U.S. aerospace industry remain
internationally competitive. The FAA continues to publish regulations
based on internal analysis, public comment, and recommendations of
Aviation Rulemaking Committees that are the result of cooperative
rulemaking between the U.S. and other countries.
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 2012 through 2013 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
congestion 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 is
analyzing MAP-21 to identify congressionally directed rulemakings.
These rulemakings will be the FHWA's top regulatory priorities.
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.
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
[[Page 1435]]
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, drivers, vehicles, and State agencies receiving
certain motor carrier safety grants and issuing commercial drivers'
licenses.
FMCSA's regulatory plan for FY 2013 includes completion of a number
of rulemakings that are high priorities for the Agency because they
would have a positive impact on safety. Among the rulemakings included
in the plan are: (1) Carrier Safety Fitness Determination (RIN 2126-
AB11), (2) Electronic On-Board Recorders and Hours of Service
Supporting Documents (RIN 2126-AB20), and (3) Unified Registration
System (RIN 2126-AA22).
Together, these priority rules could help to substantially improve
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety on our Nation's highways by
improving FMCSA's ability to provide safety oversight of motor carriers
and drivers.
In FY 2013, FMCSA will continue its work on the Comprehensive
Safety Analysis (CSA). The CSA initiative will improve the way FMCSA
identifies and conducts carrier compliance and enforcement operations
over the coming years. 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 and its associated rulemaking to put into place a new
safety fitness 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.
In FY 2013, FMCSA plans to issue a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking on Electronic On-Board Recorders and Hours of Service
Supporting Documents (RIN 2126-AB20) to establish the required usage
and technical specifications, and to clarify the requirements for Hours
of Service Supporting Documents.
Also in FY 2013, FMCSA plans to issue a final rule on the Unified
Registration System (RIN 2126-AA22), which will replace three legacy
registration systems with a single system that will improve the
registration process for motor carriers, property brokers, freight
forwarders, and other entities that register with FMCSA.
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 vehicle safety issue
of motor coaches and their occupants in fiscal year 2013 and 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 motor coaches 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 continue work toward
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 motor coaches.
Together, these rulemaking actions will address nine recommendations
issued by the National Transportation Safety Board related to
motorcoach safety.
In fiscal year 2013, NHTSA plans to issue 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 2013, 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. NHTSA will
also issue a notice that would propose promulgation of a new FMVSS to
mandate the installation of Event Data Recorders (EDRs) in light
vehicles.
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), the Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act (MAP-21), as well as actions supporting the
Department's High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan. RSIA08 alone has required
21 rulemaking actions, 12 of which have been completed. In addition,
while FRA is currently developing its regulatory strategy for
implementing MAP-21, FRA expects to initiate a rulemaking to amend
references to the statutory minimum and maximum penalties for
violations of DOT's hazardous materials regulations to be consistent
with MAP-21. However, FRA continues to prioritize its rulemakings
according to the greatest effect on safety, as well as expressed
congressional interest, and will work to complete as many
[[Page 1436]]
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 that include developing
requirements for operations in dark territory, track safety, critical
incident stress plans, employee training and alcohol and drug testing
of maintenance-of-way personnel. FRA is also developing requirements
related to the creation and implementation of railroad risk reduction
and system safety programs, both of which are required by RSIA08. FRA
is also in the process of finalizing other RSAC-supported actions that
advance high-speed passenger rail such as final revisions to the Track
Safety Standards dealing with vehicle-track interaction. Finally, FRA
will be engaging 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;
Protect taxpayer investments in public transportation;
Incorporate principles of sound management into the grant
management process.
As the needs for public transportation have changed over the years,
the Federal transit programs have grown in number and complexity, often
requiring implementation through the rulemaking process. In fact, FTA
is currently developing its regulatory strategy for implementing public
transportation programs authorized under MAP-21. For example, MAP-21
recently provided FTA with authority to develop safety standards for
public transportation and to provide oversight and enforcement of
public transportation safety. FTA's regulatory priorities for the
coming year will reflect the mandates of the Agency's authorization
statute, including, most notably, developing a National Public
Transportation Safety Plan, amending the State Safety Oversight rule
(49 CFR part 659), and amending the Major Capital Investments (RIN
2132-AB02) ``New Starts'' program. The New Starts program is the main
source of discretionary Federal funding for construction of rapid rail,
light rail, commuter rail, and other forms of transit infrastructure.
FTA also anticipates amending its regulations governing recipients'
management of major capital projects and its Bus Testing rule for
purposes of establishing a new bus model pass/fail testing system.
Additionally, FTA plans to amend its regulations implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act (49 CFR part 771) in order to
streamline the FTA environmental review process by updating and
expanding the Categorical Exclusions for particular types of proposed
transit projects.
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) administers Federal laws and
programs to improve and strengthen the maritime transportation system
to meet the economic, environmental, and security needs of the Nation.
To that end, MARAD's efforts are focused upon ensuring a strong
American presence in the domestic and international trades and to
expanding maritime opportunities for American businesses and workers.
MARAD's regulatory objectives and priorities reflect the agency's
responsibility for ensuring the availability of a water transportation
services for American shippers and consumers and, in times of war or
national emergency, for the U.S. armed forces. Major program areas
include the following: Maritime Security, Voluntary Intermodal Sealift
Agreement, National Defense Reserve Fleet and the Ready Reserve Force,
Cargo Preference, Maritime Guaranteed Loan Financing, United States
Merchant Marine Academy, Mariner Education and Training Support,
Deepwater Port Licensing, and Port and Intermodal Development.
Additionally, MARAD administers the Small Shipyard Grants Program
through which equipment and technical skills training are provided to
America's maritime workforce, with the aim of helping businesses to
compete in the global marketplace while creating well-paying jobs at
home.
MARAD's primary regulatory activities in fiscal year 2013 will be
to continue the update of existing regulations as part of the
Department's Retrospective Regulatory Review effort, and to propose new
regulations where appropriate.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
has responsibility for rulemaking under two programs. Through the
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, PHMSA
administers regulatory programs under Federal hazardous materials
transportation law and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Through the Associate
Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA administers regulatory
programs under the Federal pipeline safety laws and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The
Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2012
toughened the Federal pipeline safety regulations by strengthening
PHMSA's ability to enforce the regulations. The Act includes technical
changes to civil penalties and the administrative enforcement processes
within Part 190 of the Code of Federal Regulations. PHMSA's authority
to enforce the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which had
been administered by the Department of Homeland Security, was also
returned by the Act.
On July 6, 2012 President Obama signed into law the ``Moving Ahead
for Progress in the 21st Century Act''. Prior to this Act being signed
into law, the current highway bill was on its ninth temporary extension
and was set to expire on June 30, 2012. The Act reauthorizes the
federal-aid highway and transit programs through September 30, 2014.
For the Office of Hazardous Materials (OHMS), the Act reauthorizes the
DOT hazardous materials safety program, and delays a DOT-proposed
wetlines regulation until the Government Accountability Office can
analyze its costs and benefits. In addition, the Act authorizes PHMSA
to conduct pilot projects on using paperless hazard communications
systems and report later on whether the agency recommends incorporating
such paperless hazcom systems into the Hazardous Materials Regulations
(HMR). The Act requires PHMSA to assess methods to collect, analyze and
report data on hazmat transportation accidents and incidents. Further
the Act directs PHMSA to establish uniform
[[Page 1437]]
standards for the training of inspectors and to train inspectors in all
modes on how to: (1) Collect, analyze, and publish findings from
inspections and investigations of accidents or incidents involving the
transportation of hazardous material; (2) how to identify noncompliance
with the HMRs; and (3) take appropriate enforcement action. The Act
includes language that amends the authority of DOT to open and inspect
hazmat packages en route when the inspector reasonably believes the
package presents an imminent hazard. In addition, the Act increases the
maximum civil penalties for violations of the HMRs from $50,000 to
$75,000, and from $100,000 to $175,000 where the violation results in
death, serious illness, or severe injury to any person or substantial
destruction of property, and adds a minimum civil penalty for training
violations of $450. The Act requires a rulemaking within two years to
set out procedures and criteria for evaluating applications for special
permits and approvals. The Act requires a review and another rulemaking
within three years to establish a means to incorporate special permits
that have been in continuous effect for a ten-year period into the
HMRs. Finally Act requires States to submit to DOT a list of the
State's currently effective hazardous material highway route
designations and to update that list every two years.
PHMSA will continue to work toward the reduction of deaths and
injuries associated with the transportation of hazardous materials by
all transportation modes, including pipeline. We will concentrate on
the prevention of high-risk incidents identified through the findings
of the National Transportation Safety Board and PHMSA's evaluation of
transportation incident data. PHMSA will use all available Agency tools
to assess data; evaluate alternative safety strategies, including
regulatory strategies as necessary and appropriate; target enforcement
efforts; and enhance outreach, public education, and training to
promote safety outcomes.
PHMSA will continue to focus on the streamlining of its regulatory
system and to reduce regulatory burdens. PHMSA will evaluate existing
rules to examine whether they remain justified; should be modified to
account for changing circumstances and technologies; or should be
streamlined or even repealed. PHMSA will continue to be responsive to
petitions for rulemaking. PHMSA will review regulations, letters of
interpretation, petitions for rulemaking, special permits, enforcement
actions, approvals, and international standards to identify
inconsistencies, outdated provisions, and barriers to regulatory
compliance.
PHMSA will be considering whether changes are needed to the
regulations covering hazardous liquid onshore pipelines. In particular,
PHMSA is considering whether it should extend regulation to certain
pipelines currently exempt from regulation; whether other areas along a
pipeline should either be identified for extra protection or be
included as additional high-consequence areas (HCAs) for integrity
management (IM) protection; whether to establish and/or adopt standards
and procedures for minimum lead detection requirements for all
pipelines; whether to require the installation of emergency flow
restricting devices (EFRDs) in certain areas; whether revised valve
spacing requirements are needed on new construction or existing
pipelines; whether repair timeframes should be specified for pipeline
segments in areas outside the HCAs that are assessed as part of the IM;
and whether to establish and/or adopt standards and procedures for
improving the methods of preventing, detecting, assessing, and
remediating stress corrosion cracking (SCC) in hazardous liquid
pipeline systems.
Additionally, PHMSA will consider whether or not to revise the
requirements in the pipeline safety regulations addressing integrity
management principles for gas transmission pipelines. Specifically,
PHMSA will be reviewing the definition of an HCA (including the concept
of a potential impact radius), the repair criteria for both HCA and
non-HCA areas, requiring the use of automatic and remote-controlled
shutoff valves, valve spacing, and whether applying the integrity
management program requirements to additional areas would mitigate the
need for class location requirements.
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)
The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) seeks
to identify and facilitate solutions to the challenges and
opportunities facing America's transportation system through: