[The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions]
[The Regulatory Plan ]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
The Regulatory Plan
____________________________________________________________________
[[Page 64137]]
INTRODUCTION TO THE FALL 2009 REGULATORY PLAN
It is . . . the policy of the United States that . . .
agencies shall prioritize actions based on a full
accounting of both economic and social benefits and
costs and shall drive continuous improvement by
annually evaluating performance, extending or expanding
projects that have net benefits, and reassessing or
discontinuing under-performing projects.
Executive Order 13514 on Environmental,
Energy, and Economic Performance
(Oct. 5, 2009)
Some of the nation's most important policies are
implemented through regulation. In domains as diverse
as energy efficiency, environmental protection, health
care, occupational safety, civil rights,
communications, homeland security, and many more, the
government attempts to protect its citizens through
regulations.
In a memorandum signed on January 30, 2009, President
Obama emphasized that as a result of many years of
experience, ``Far more is now known about regulation -
not only about when it is justified, but also about
what works and what does not.'' He explicitly directed
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
Peter Orszag, to evaluate the regulatory review process
and, among other things, to ``clarify the role of the
behavioral sciences in formulating regulatory policy''
and ``identify the best tools for achieving public
goals through the regulatory process.''
Director Orszag has written that behavioral economics
is ``one of the most important intellectual
developments of the past several years. . . . By taking
the insights of psychology and observed human behavior
into account, we now have a fuller picture of how
people actually behave - instead of just reducing them
to the hyper-rational utility-maximizers of Econ 101.''
A behavioral approach to regulation is straightforward.
It draws on evidence of people's actual behavior. It
favors approaches that are clear, simple, and easy to
understand. It attempts to ensure that regulations will
have good consequences.
These goals have many implications for regulatory
policy. In the domain of savings for retirement,
consider these words from the President's Fiscal Year
2010 Budget:
``Research has shown that the key to saving is to make
it automatic and simple. Under this proposal, employees
will be automatically enrolled in workplace pension
plans--and will be allowed to opt out if they choose. .
. . Experts estimate that this program will
dramatically increase the savings participation rate
for low and middle-income workers to around 80
percent.''
In September 2009, the President expanded on this theme
by offering a series of initiatives for increasing
automatic enrollment. He said, ``We know that automatic
enrollment has made a big difference in participation
rates
[[Page 64138]]
by making it simpler for workers to save - and that's
why we're going to expand it to more people.''
In many other domains, it is possible to promote
regulatory goals by selecting the appropriate default
rules. And where it is not possible or best to change
the default, we can have a similar effect merely by
easing and simplifying people's choices. Several of the
rules discussed in this Plan reflect this aspiration.
One such rule, involving hazard communication to
workers and proposed by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration in 2009, is expected to increase
simplicity, to reduce costs, and at the same time to
save dozens of lives each year.
In the same vein, the Administration is taking a series
of steps toward simplifying the Free Application for
Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), reducing the number of
questions and allowing electronic retrieval of
information. Use of a simpler and shorter form is
accompanied by measures designed to permit online users
to transfer data previously supplied electronically on
their tax forms directly onto their FAFSA application.
To achieve regulatory goals, it is important to
understand that people are often affected by the
behavior of their peers: If people learn that they are
using more energy than similarly situated others, their
energy use declines - saving money while also reducing
pollution. In the domain of seatbelt usage, real change
occurred as regulation worked hand-in-hand with
emerging social norms. The Administration is well aware
that if safety is to increase significantly on the
highways, it must be in part because of social norms
that discourage distracted driving (and other risky
behavior). In October 2009, the President issued an
Executive Order banning texting while driving by
Federal employees; the Department of Transportation is
embarking on a range of initiatives to reduce
distracted driving.
Scientific integrity is critically important, in the
sense that regulators cannot decide how to proceed
without having a sense of what is known and what
remains uncertain. Of course some risks are large and
others are small. Some regulations are burdensome and
some are not. Some regulations have unintended bad
consequences; others have unintended good consequences.
In his January 30, 2009, memorandum, President Obama
pointed to the importance of ``a dispassionate and
analytical `second opinion' on agency actions.'' He
also asked the Director of OMB to address the role of
three factors that are not always fully included in
cost-benefit analysis: the interests of future
generations; distributional considerations; and
fairness. If regulation is to be data-driven and
evidence-based, it must include, rather than neglect,
the concerns of future generations.
Many of the regulations in this Plan reflect these
concerns. In particular, environmental regulations,
designed to combat the risks associated with climate
change, are attentive to the interests of future
generations and those who are least well-off. The
Administration has recently developed interim figures
for the social cost of carbon-figures that have been
used for several different regulations in this Plan,
involving energy efficiency in vending machines and
greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The
figures are based in part on a recognition of the well-
established view that a high discount rate for long-
term damage could lead to action that might harm future
generations.
In addition, President Obama has placed a great deal of
emphasis on open government. In his first weeks in
office, he quoted the words of Supreme
[[Page 64139]]
Court Justice Louis Brandeis: ``Sunlight is said to be
the best of disinfectants.'' President Obama explained
that ``accountability is in the interest of the
Government and the citizenry alike.'' He emphasized
that ``[k]nowledge is widely dispersed in society, and
public officials benefit from having access to that
dispersed knowledge.'' President Obama has stressed
that transparency can ensure that data is available to
all - and with available data, we can greatly improve
our practices.
The Environmental Protection Agency has built on these
ideas with its Greenhouse Gas Reporting rule, requiring
disclosure by the most significant emitters. The data
will allow businesses to track their own emissions and
compare them to similar facilities; it will also
provide assistance in identifying cost-effective ways
to reduce emissions in the future.
All this is merely a start. For example, the Executive
Order on environmental, economic, and energy
performance will attempt to track progress in meeting
crucial goals - including greenhouse gas emissions
reductions - and disclose both costs and benefits to
the public.
Regulatory decisions often require complex tradeoffs,
especially in the current economic environment. We are
committed to ensuring that those tradeoffs reflect the
best available information, respect scientific
integrity, and benefit from public participation - and
are rooted in a clear and transparent understanding of
the human consequences.
Cass R. Sunstein
Administrator
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
[[Page 64141]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 National Organic Program: Access to Pasture 0581-AC57 Final Rule Stage
2 National Dairy Promotion and Research Program; Final Rule on Amendments to the Order 0581-AC87 Final Rule Stage
3 Animal Welfare; Regulations and Standards for Birds 0579-AC02 Proposed Rule
Stage
4 Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Importation of Bovines and Bovine Products 0579-AC68 Proposed Rule
Stage
5 Importation of Plants for Planting; Establishing a New Category of Plants for Planting Not 0579-AC03 Final Rule Stage
Authorized for Importation Pending Risk Assessment
6 Enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act 0580-AB07 Proposed Rule
Stage
7 Poultry Contracts; Initiation, Performance, and Termination 0580-AA98 Final Rule Stage
8 Eligibility, Certification, and Employment and Training Provisions of the Food, Conservation and 0584-AD87 Proposed Rule
Energy Act of 2008 Stage
9 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Farm Bill of 2008 Retailer Sanctions 0584-AD88 Proposed Rule
Stage
10 Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program 0584-AD96 Proposed Rule
Stage
11 Child and Adult Care Food Program: Improving Management and Program Integrity 0584-AC24 Final Rule Stage
12 SNAP: Eligibility and Certification Provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 0584-AD30 Final Rule Stage
2002
13 Quality Control Provisions 0584-AD31 Final Rule Stage
14 Direct Certification of Children in Food Stamp Households and Certification of Homeless, Migrant, 0584-AD60 Final Rule Stage
and Runaway Children for Free Meals in the NSLP, SBP, and SMP
15 Egg Products Inspection Regulations 0583-AC58 Proposed Rule
Stage
16 Prior Labeling Approval System: Generic Label Approval 0583-AC59 Proposed Rule
Stage
17 Changes to Regulatory Jurisdiction Over Certain Food Products Containing Meat and Poultry 0583-AD28 Proposed Rule
Stage
18 New Poultry Slaughter Inspection 0583-AD32 Proposed Rule
Stage
19 Notification, Documentation, and Recordkeeping Requirements for Inspected Establishments 0583-AD34 Proposed Rule
Stage
20 Mandatory Inspection of Catfish and Catfish Products 0583-AD36 Proposed Rule
Stage
21 Electronic Foreign Import Certificates and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) 0583-AD39 Proposed Rule
Requirements for Official Import Establishments Stage
22 Electronic Export Application and Certification as a Reimbursable Service and Flexibility in the 0583-AD41 Proposed Rule
Requirements for Official Export Inspection Marks, Devices, and Certificates Stage
23 Performance Standards for the Production of Processed Meat and Poultry Products; Control of 0583-AC46 Final Rule Stage
Listeria Monocytogenes in Ready-To-Eat Meat and Poultry Products
24 Federal-State Interstate Shipment Cooperative Inspection Program 0583-AD37 Final Rule Stage
25 Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency Initiative--Section 9009 0570-AA77 Prerule Stage
26 Grants for Expansion of Employment Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities in Rural Areas-- 0570-AA72 Proposed Rule
Section 6023 Stage
27 Biorefinery Assistance Program--Section 9003 0570-AA73 Proposed Rule
Stage
28 Rural Business Re-Powering Assistance--Section 9004 0570-AA74 Proposed Rule
Stage
29 Rural Business Contracts for Payments for the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels--Section 9005 0570-AA75 Proposed Rule
Stage
30 Rural Energy for America Program--Section 9007 0570-AA76 Proposed Rule
Stage
31 Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program--Section 6022 0570-AA71 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64142]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan 0648-AW72 Proposed Rule
Stage
33 Provide Guidance for the Limited Access Privilege Program 0648-AX13 Proposed Rule
Stage
34 Certification of Nations Whose Fishing Vessels Are Engaged in Illegal, Unreported or Unregulated 0648-AV51 Final Rule Stage
Fishing or Bycatch of Protected Living Marine Resources
35 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions and Interjurisdictional 0648-AW38 Final Rule Stage
Fisheries Act Disaster Assistance Programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36 Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP) 0790-AI58 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37 Teacher Incentive Fund--Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria 1810-AB08 Proposed Rule
Stage
38 School Improvement Grants--Notice of Proposed Requirements Under the American Recovery and 1810-AB06 Final Rule Stage
Reinvestment Act of 2009; Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
39 Investing in Innovation--Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria 1855-AA06 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 Energy Conservation Standards for Small Electric Motors 1904-AB70 Proposed Rule
Stage
41 Energy Efficiency Standards for Commercial Clothes Washers 1904-AB93 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42 Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information; Modifications to the HIPAA 0991-AB57 Proposed Rule
Privacy Rule Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act Stage
43 Health Information Technology: Initial Set of Standards, Implementation Specifications, and 0991-AB58 Final Rule Stage
Certification Criteria for Electronic Health Record Technology
44 Electronic Submission of Data From Studies Evaluating Human Drugs and Biologics 0910-AC52 Proposed Rule
Stage
45 Electronic Registration and Listing for Devices 0910-AF88 Proposed Rule
Stage
46 Produce Safety Regulation 0910-AG35 Proposed Rule
Stage
47 Modernization of the Current Food Good Manufacturing Practices Regulation 0910-AG36 Proposed Rule
Stage
[[Page 64143]]
48 Infant Formula: Current Good Manufacturing Practices; Quality Control Procedures; Notification 0910-AF27 Final Rule Stage
Requirements; Records and Reports; and Quality Factors
49 Medical Device Reporting; Electronic Submission Requirements 0910-AF86 Final Rule Stage
50 Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco to Protect 0910-AG33 Final Rule Stage
Children and Adolescents
51 Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program (CMS-0033-P) 0938-AP78 Proposed Rule
Stage
52 Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Part B for CY 2011 (CMS-1503-P) 0938-AP79 Proposed Rule
Stage
53 Proposed Changes to the Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and 0938-AP80 Proposed Rule
FY 2011 Rates and to the Long-Term Care Hospital PPS and RY 2011 Rates (CMS-1498-P) Stage
54 Changes to the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System and Ambulatory Surgical Center 0938-AP82 Proposed Rule
Payment System for CY 2011 (CMS-1504-P) Stage
55 HIPAA Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 Amendments (CMS-4140-IFC) 0938-AP65 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56 Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program 1601-AA52 Proposed Rule
Stage
57 Collection of Alien Biometric Data Upon Exit From the United States at Air and Sea Ports of 1601-AA34 Final Rule Stage
Departure; United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program (US-VISIT)
58 Asylum and Withholding Definitions 1615-AA41 Proposed Rule
Stage
59 Registration Requirements for Employment-Based Categories Subject to Numerical Limitations 1615-AB71 Proposed Rule
Stage
60 New Classification for Victims of Severe Forms of Trafficking in Persons Eligible for the T 1615-AA59 Final Rule Stage
Nonimmigrant Status
61 Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Aliens in T and U Nonimmigrant Status 1615-AA60 Final Rule Stage
62 New Classification for Victims of Certain Criminal Activity; Eligibility for the U Nonimmigrant 1615-AA67 Final Rule Stage
Status
63 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Transitional Nonimmigrant Investor Classification 1615-AB75 Final Rule Stage
64 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Transitional Workers Classification 1615-AB76 Final Rule Stage
65 Revisions to Federal Immigration Regulations for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; 1615-AB77 Final Rule Stage
Conforming Regulations
66 Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters (USCG-2001-10486) 1625-AA32 Proposed Rule
Stage
67 Inspection of Towing Vessels (USCG-2006-24412) 1625-AB06 Proposed Rule
Stage
68 Establishment of Global Entry Program 1651-AA73 Proposed Rule
Stage
69 Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements 1651-AA70 Final Rule Stage
70 Changes to the Visa Waiver Program To Implement the Electronic System for Travel Authorization 1651-AA72 Final Rule Stage
(ESTA) Program
71 Implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program 1651-AA77 Final Rule Stage
72 Aircraft Repair Station Security 1652-AA38 Proposed Rule
Stage
[[Page 64144]]
73 Large Aircraft Security Program, Other Aircraft Operator Security Program, and Airport Operator 1652-AA53 Proposed Rule
Security Program Stage
74 Public Transportation and Passenger Railroads--Security Training of Employees 1652-AA55 Proposed Rule
Stage
75 Freight Railroads--Security Training of Employees 1652-AA57 Proposed Rule
Stage
76 Over-the-Road Buses--Security Training of Employees 1652-AA59 Proposed Rule
Stage
77 Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Process and Fees 1652-AA61 Proposed Rule
Stage
78 Air Cargo Screening 1652-AA64 Final Rule Stage
79 Clarification of Criteria for Certification, Oversight, and Recertification of Schools by the 1653-AA44 Proposed Rule
Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) To Enroll F or M Nonimmigrant Students Stage
80 Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal 1653-AA13 Final Rule Stage
81 Electronic Signature and Storage of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification 1653-AA47 Final Rule Stage
82 Extending Period for Optional Practical Training by 17 Months for F-1 Nonimmigrant Students With 1653-AA56 Final Rule Stage
STEM Degrees and Expanding the CAP-GAP Relief for All F-1 Students With Pending H-1B Petitions
83 Disaster Assistance; Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households 1660-AA18 Proposed Rule
Stage
84 Update of FEMA's Public Assistance Regulations 1660-AA51 Proposed Rule
Stage
85 Special Community Disaster Loans Program 1660-AA44 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
86 HOME Investment Partnerships--Improving Performance and Accountability; Updating Property Standards 2501-AC94 Proposed Rule
and Instituting Energy Efficiency Standards (FR-5234) Stage
87 Housing Trust Fund Program--Allocation Formula and Program Requirements (FR-5246) 2506-AC23 Proposed Rule
Stage
88 Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Program; Consolidation of HUD 2506-AC26 Proposed Rule
Homeless Assistance Programs (FR-5333) Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
89 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities 1190-AA44 Final Rule Stage
90 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services 1190-AA46 Final Rule Stage
91 Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled Substances 1117-AA61 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
92 The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, as Amended 1215-AB76 Proposed Rule
Stage
[[Page 64145]]
93 Records To Be Kept by Employers Under the Fair Labor Standards Act 1215-AB78 Proposed Rule
Stage
94 Interpretation of the ``Advice'' Exemption of Section 203(c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and 1215-AB79 Proposed Rule
Disclosure Act Stage
95 Child Labor Regulations, Orders, and Statements of Interpretation 1215-AB57 Final Rule Stage
96 YouthBuild Program Regulation 1205-AB49 Proposed Rule
Stage
97 Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers Program; Regulations 1205-AB57 Proposed Rule
Stage
98 Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship and Training, Amendment of Regulations 1205-AB59 Proposed Rule
Stage
99 Temporary Agricultural Employment of H-2A Aliens in the United States 1205-AB55 Final Rule Stage
100 Lifetime Income Options for Participants and Beneficiaries in Retirement Plans 1210-AB33 Prerule Stage
101 Definition of ``Fiduciary'' -- Investment Advice 1210-AB32 Proposed Rule
Stage
102 Health Care Arrangements Established by State and Local Governments for Non-Governmental Employees 1210-AB34 Proposed Rule
Stage
103 Genetic Information Nondiscrimination 1210-AB27 Final Rule Stage
104 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act 1210-AB30 Final Rule Stage
105 Metal and Nonmetal Impoundments 1219-AB70 Prerule Stage
106 Respirable Crystalline Silica Standard 1219-AB36 Proposed Rule
Stage
107 Occupational Exposure to Coal Mine Dust (Lowering Exposure) 1219-AB64 Proposed Rule
Stage
108 Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica 1218-AB70 Prerule Stage
109 Hazard Communication 1218-AC20 Proposed Rule
Stage
110 Cranes and Derricks in Construction 1218-AC01 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
111 Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections -- Part 2 2105-AD92 Proposed Rule
Stage
112 Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections 2105-AD72 Final Rule Stage
113 Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers 2120-AJ00 Proposed Rule
Stage
114 Air Ambulance and Commercial Helicopter Operations; Safety Initiatives and Miscellaneous Amendments 2120-AJ53 Proposed Rule
Stage
115 Flight and Duty Time Limitations and Rest Requirements 2120-AJ58 Proposed Rule
Stage
116 Automatic Dependent Surveillance -- Broadcast (ADS-B) Equipage Mandate To Support Air Traffic 2120-AI92 Final Rule Stage
Control Service
117 Carrier Safety Fitness Determination 2126-AB11 Proposed Rule
Stage
118 Drivers of Commercial Motor Vehicles: Limiting the Use of Wireless Communication Devices 2126-AB22 Proposed Rule
Stage
119 National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners 2126-AA97 Final Rule Stage
120 Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards 2126-AB02 Final Rule Stage
121 Ejection Mitigation 2127-AK23 Proposed Rule
Stage
122 Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors 2127-AK43 Proposed Rule
Stage
[[Page 64146]]
123 Require Installation of Seat Belts on Motorcoaches, FMVSS No. 208 2127-AK56 Proposed Rule
Stage
124 Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information 2127-AK45 Final Rule Stage
125 Passenger Car and Light Truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards MYs 2012-2016 2127-AK50 Final Rule Stage
126 Positive Train Control 2130-AC03 Final Rule Stage
127 Pipeline Safety: Distribution Integrity Management 2137-AE15 Final Rule Stage
128 Regulations To Be Followed by All Departments, Agencies, and Shippers Having Responsibility To 2133-AB74 Proposed Rule
Provide a Preference for U.S.-Flag Vessels in the Shipment of Cargoes on Ocean Vessels Stage
129 Cargo Preference -- Compromise, Assessment, Mitigation, Settlement and Collection of Civil 2133-AB75 Proposed Rule
Penalties Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
130 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act; Conflicts of Interest 1505-AC05 Final Rule Stage
131 TARP Standards for Compensation and Corporate Governance 1505-AC09 Final Rule Stage
132 S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act 1557-AD23 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
133 Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program for Public and Commercial Buildings 2070-AJ56 Prerule Stage
134 CERCLA 108(b) Financial Responsibility 2050-AG56 Prerule Stage
135 Combined Rulemaking for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters at 2060-AM44 Proposed Rule
Major Sources of HAP and Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers at Area Sources Stage
136 Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter 2060-AO47 Proposed Rule
Stage
137 Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide 2060-AO48 Proposed Rule
Stage
138 Review of the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of 2060-AO72 Proposed Rule
Sulfur Stage
139 Clean Air Transport Rule 2060-AP50 Proposed Rule
Stage
140 Revision to Pb Ambient Air Monitoring Requirements 2060-AP77 Proposed Rule
Stage
141 Prevention of Significant Deterioration/Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule 2060-AP86 Proposed Rule
Stage
142 Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 2060-AP98 Proposed Rule
Stage
143 Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program 2070-AJ57 Proposed Rule
Stage
144 Standards for the Management of Coal Combustion Residuals Generated by Commercial Electric Power 2050-AE81 Proposed Rule
Producers Stage
145 Criteria and Standards for Cooling Water Intake Structures 2040-AE95 Proposed Rule
Stage
146 Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide 2060-AO19 Final Rule Stage
[[Page 64147]]
147 Control of Emissions From New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per 2060-AO38 Final Rule Stage
Cylinder
148 Renewable Fuels Standard Program 2060-AO81 Final Rule Stage
149 Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the 2060-AP55 Final Rule Stage
Clean Air Act
150 EPA/NHTSA Joint Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate 2060-AP58 Final Rule Stage
Average Fuel Economy Standards
151 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD): Reconsideration of Interpretation of Regulations 2060-AP87 Final Rule Stage
That Determine Pollutants Covered by the Federal PSD Permit Program
152 Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 2070-AJ55 Final Rule Stage
Program
153 Revisions to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule 2050-AG16 Final Rule Stage
154 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Point Source 2040-AE91 Final Rule Stage
Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
155 Reasonable Factors Other Than Age Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 3046-AA87 Proposed Rule
Stage
156 Regulations To Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act 3046-AA85 Final Rule Stage
Amendments Act
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
157 Office of Government Information Services 3095-AB62 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
158 8(a) Business Development 3245-AF53 Proposed Rule
Stage
159 Small Business Size Standards: Retail Trade Industries 3245-AF69 Proposed Rule
Stage
160 Small Business Size Standards: Other Services 3245-AF70 Proposed Rule
Stage
161 Small Business Size Standards: Accommodations and Food Service Industries 3245-AF71 Proposed Rule
Stage
162 Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contract Program 3245-AG06 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
163 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Endocrine System Disorders (436P) 0960-AD78 Proposed Rule
Stage
164 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Respiratory System Disorders (859P) 0960-AF58 Proposed Rule
Stage
[[Page 64148]]
165 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders (886P) 0960-AF69 Proposed Rule
Stage
166 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hematological Disorders (974P) 0960-AF88 Proposed Rule
Stage
167 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Immune (HIV) System Disorders (3466P) 0960-AG71 Proposed Rule
Stage
168 Reestablishing Uniform National Disability Adjudication Provisions (3502P) 0960-AG80 Proposed Rule
Stage
169 Disability Determinations by State Agency Disability Examiners (3510P) 0960-AG87 Proposed Rule
Stage
170 Temporary Authorization for Federal Disability Examiners to Adjudicate Hearing Requests On-The- 0960-AG97 Proposed Rule
Record (3526P) Stage
171 Attorney Advisory Program Permanent Rule (3578P) 0960-AH05 Proposed Rule
Stage
172 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hearing Loss (2862F) 0960-AG20 Final Rule Stage
173 Revisions to Rules on Representation of Parties (3396F) 0960-AG56 Final Rule Stage
174 Setting the Time and Place for a Hearing Before an Administrative Law Judge (3481F) 0960-AG61 Final Rule Stage
175 Amendments to Regulations Regarding Major Life-Changing Events Affecting Income-Related Monthly 0960-AH06 Final Rule Stage
Adjustments to Medicare Part B Premiums (3574F)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
176 Tribal Background Investigation Submission Requirements and Timing 3141-AA15 Proposed Rule
Stage
177 Class II and Class III Minimum Internal Control Standards 3141-AA27 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
178 Periodic Reporting of Service Performance Measurements and Customer Satisfaction 3211-AA05 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E9-28608 Filed 12-04-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-27-S
[[Page 64149]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
USDA's regulatory efforts in 2010 will continue to focus on
implementing the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L.
110-246), known as the ``2008 Farm Bill,'' which covers major farm,
trade, conservation, rural development, energy, nutrition assistance
and other programs. In addition, USDA will implement regulations that
will improve program outcomes by achieving the Department's high
priority goals as well as reducing burden on stakeholders, program
participants, and small businesses. Important areas of activity include
the following:
Nutrition Assistance
As changes are made for the nutrition assistance programs,
USDA will work to foster actions that will help improve
diets, and particularly to prevent and reduce overweight
and obesity. In 2010, FNS will continue to promote
nutritional knowledge and education while minimizing
participant and vendor fraud.
Food Safety
In the area of food safety, USDA will continue to develop
science-based regulations that improve the safety of meat,
poultry, egg, and farm-raised catfish 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. To assist small entities
to comply with food safety requirements, the Food Safety
and Inspection Service will continue to collaborate with
other USDA agencies and State partners in the enhanced
small business outreach program.
Conservation
USDA will continue to focus on implementing the conservation
programs authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill. Over the past
year, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has
promulgated 11 interim and proposed rules and has received
public comment on them. In 2010, NRCS will finalize these
rules which include the Conservation Stewardship Program
and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Promoting Rural Development and Renewable Energy
USDA priority regulatory actions for the Rural Development
mission primarily relate to promulgating relations for
programs authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill, including the
Title 9 Energy programs and the Rural Micro-
Entrepreneurship Program. USDA has utilized Notices of
Funding Availability implement many of these programs in
Fiscal Year 2009. Regulations are needed to maintain them.
In addition, USDA needs to finalize the reform of its on-
going broadband access program through an interim rule that
will combine provisions of a proposed rule published in
2007 and changes in the program that were authorized in the
2008 Farm Bill.
USDA will continue to promote sustainable economic
opportunities to revitalize rural communities through the
purchase and use of renewable, environmentally friendly
biobased products through its BioPreferred Program
(formerly the Federal Biobased Product Preferred
Procurement Program). USDA will continue to designate
groups of biobased products to receive procurement
preference from Federal agencies and contractors. In
addition, USDA will finalize a rule establishing the
Voluntary Labeling Program for biobased products.
Trade Promotion, Market Development, Farm Loans, and Disaster
Assistance
USDA will work to ensure a strong U.S. agricultural system
through trade promotion, market development, farm income
support, disaster assistance, and farm loan programs. In
addition to the regulations already implemented, including
those pertaining to the eligibility for farm program
payments, the Farm Service Agency will issue new
regulations implementing disaster assistance programs to
compensate agricultural producers for production losses due
to natural disasters. Regulations will also be developed to
implement conservation loan programs intended to help
producers finance the construction of conservation
measures.
Other Regulatory Activities
USDA will work to facilitate a fair, competitive marketplace,
support the organic sector, and continue regulatory work to
protect the health and value of U.S. agricultural and
natural resources. USDA will promulgate regulations to
enhance enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. USDA
will also finalize a rule specifying access to pasture
standards for organically raised ruminants. In addition,
USDA will amend regulations related to the importation of
nursery products and animals and animal products. Further,
USDA will propose specific standards for the humane
handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds
under the Animal Welfare Act.
Reducing Paperwork Burden on Customers
USDA has made substantial progress in implementing the goal of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to reduce the burden of information
collection on the public. To meet the requirements of the Government
Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) and the E-Government Act, agencies
across USDA are providing electronic alternatives to their
traditionally paper-based customer transactions. As a result, producers
increasingly have the option to electronically file forms and all other
documentation online. To facilitate the expansion of electronic
government, USDA implemented an electronic authentication capability
that allows customers to ``sign-on'' once and conduct business with all
USDA agencies. Supporting these efforts are ongoing analyses to
identify and eliminate redundant data collections and streamline
collection instructions. The end result of implementing these
initiatives is better service to our customers enabling them to choose
when and where to conduct business with USDA.
Major Regulatory Priorities
This document represents summary information on prospective significant
regulations as called for in Executive Order 12866. The following
agencies are represented in this regulatory plan, along with a summary
of their mission and key regulatory priorities for 2010:
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
2010 regulatory plan supports the goal to ensure that all of
[[Page 64150]]
America's children have access to safe, nutritious and balanced meals
and its three related objectives:
Improve 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 finalize rules implementing provisions of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to simplify
program administration, support work, and improve access to
benefits in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) formerly the Food Stamp Program. FNS will continue
to improve SNAP administration by developing a rule to
implement provisions of the Food, Conservation, and Energy
Act of 2008 that address eligibility, certification,
employment, and training issues. An interim rule
implementing provisions of the Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 2004 to establish automatic
eligibility for homeless children for school meals further
supports this objective.
Promote Healthier Eating Habits and Lifestyles. This objective
represents FNS's efforts to improve the diets of its
clients through nutrition education, and to ensure that
program benefits meet appropriate standards to effectively
improve nutrition for program participants. In support of
this objective, FNS plans to propose rules updating the
nutrition standards in the school meals programs; implement
the SNAP nutrition education provisions of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; and establish
permanent rules for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program
which currently operates in a select number of schools in
each State, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands.
Improve Nutrition Assistance Program Management and Customer
Service. This objective represents FNS's ongoing commitment
to maximize the accuracy of benefits issued, maximize the
efficiency and effectiveness of program operations, and
minimize participant and vendor fraud. In support of this
objective, FNS plans to finalize rules in the Child and
Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and
Children Program (WIC) to improve program management and
prevent vendor fraud. FNS will also finalize a rule to
improve the SNAP quality control process and propose a rule
to improve the SNAP retailer sanction process.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Mission: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible
for ensuring that meat, poultry, egg, and catfish 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, egg, and catfish
products are wholesome and not adulterated or misbranded. FSIS
continues to review its existing authorities and regulations to
streamline excessively prescriptive regulations, to revise or remove
regulations that are inconsistent with the Agency's hazard analysis and
critical control point (HACCP) regulations, and to ensure that it can
address emerging food safety challenges. FSIS is also working with the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to better delineate the two
agencies' jurisdictions over various food products. Following are some
of the Agency's recent and planned initiatives:
Non-ambulatory Disabled Cattle. In March 2009, FSIS published a final
rule requiring that all cattle that become non-ambulatory disabled at
any time before slaughter, including those that become non-ambulatory
disabled after passing ante-mortem inspection, must be condemned and
properly disposed of. Under the previous regulations, FSIS inspection
personnel determined, on case by-case basis, the disposition of cattle
that became non-ambulatory disabled after they had passed ante-mortem
inspection. The final rule removed the provision for case-by-case
determination by FSIS inspection personnel.
Country of Origin Labeling. In March 2009, FSIS affirmed its August
2008 interim final rule requiring country-of-origin labeling (COOL) of
any meat or poultry product that is a ``covered commodity'' as defined
by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in the regulations set out
in AMS's January 2009 final rule on mandatory country-of-origin
labeling (COOL).
2008 Farm Bill-related Rulemakings. The 2008 Farm Bill, made several
amendments to statutes administered by FSIS and gave the Agency other
instructions. As a result, FSIS is developing new regulations to
implement: mandatory inspection for catfish; a program for interstate
shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry products; and recall
procedure and process control reassessment requirements for inspected
establishments.
Catfish Inspection. FSIS is developing regulations to
implement 2008 Farm Bill amendments of the FMIA (in Pub. L.
110-246, Sec. 11016) to make catfish amenable to the FMIA.
The regulations will define ``catfish'' and the scope of
coverage of the regulations to apply to establishments that
process catfish and catfish products. The regulations will
take into account the conditions under which the catfish
are raised and transported to a processing establishment.
Interstate shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry
products. FSIS is proposing regulations to implement a new
voluntary Federal-State cooperative inspection program
under which State-inspected establishments with 25 or fewer
employees would be eligible to ship meat and poultry
products in interstate commerce. State-inspected
establishments selected to participate in this program
would be required to comply with all Federal standards
under the FMIA and the PPIA. These establishments would
receive inspection services from State inspection personnel
that have been trained and certified to assist with
enforcement of the FMIA and PPIA. Meat and poultry products
produced under the program that have been inspected and
passed by selected State inspection personnel would bear a
Federal mark of inspection. Section 11015 of the 2008 Farm
Bill provides for the interstate shipment of State-
inspected meat and poultry products from selected
establishments and requires that FSIS promulgate
implementing regulations no later than 18 months from the
date of its enactment.
Notification, Documentation, and Recordkeeping Requirements
for Inspected Establishments. FSIS is proposing regulations
that will implement Sec. 11017 of the 2008 Farm Bill on
notification, documentation, and recordkeeping requirements
for inspected establishments. This section amends the FMIA
and PPIA to require establishments that are subject to
inspection under these Acts to promptly notify the Agency
when an adulterated or misbranded product received by or
originating from the
[[Page 64151]]
establishment has entered into commerce. Section 11017 also
requires establishments subject to inspection under the
FMIA and PPIA to prepare and maintain current procedures
for the recall of all products produced and shipped by the
establishment and document each reassessment of the
establishment's process control plans.
Revision of Egg Products Inspection Regulations. FSIS is
planning to propose requirements for federally inspected
egg product plants to develop and implement HACCP systems
and sanitation standard operating procedures. The Agency
will be proposing pathogen reduction performance standards
for egg products. Further, the Agency will be proposing to
remove requirements for FSIS approval of egg-product plant
drawings, specifications, and equipment before their use,
and to end the system for pre-marketing approval of
labeling for egg products.
Rulemakings in Support of the FSIS Public Health Information
System. To support its food safety inspection activities,
FSIS is developing the Public Health Information System
(PHIS). PHIS, which is user-friendly and Web-based, will
replace many of the Agency's current systems and automate
many business processes. Among the many other services it
will provide, PHIS will automate and streamline the export
and import application and certification processes. To
facilitate the implementation of these PHIS applications,
FSIS will propose to amend the meat, poultry products, and
egg products inspection regulations to provide for
electronic export and import application and certification
processes as alternatives to the current paper-based
systems for these certifications. The new electronic system
will enable the Agency to process an establishment's
application for export certification, verify that the
establishment and product meet the application and
certification requirements, approve the application, and
process the export certificate. The Agency is proposing the
export application and certification service as a
reimbursable service under Agricultural Marketing Act
authority.
Rulemaking to support control of Escherichia coli O157:H7.
FSIS will propose to require that any business that grinds
or chops raw beef products, including products that are
ground or chopped at the request of an individual consumer,
keep records that will fully and correctly disclose all
transactions involved in the business that are subject to
the FMIA. These records, such as grinding logs, provide
critical information about how, when, and where ground
product was prepared, shipped, received, stored, and
handled, and are essential to illness outbreak
investigations, recalls, and other public health activities
that FSIS conducts. Businesses that will be required to
comply with this proposed rule will be FSIS-inspected
establishments and retail facilities that grind or chop raw
beef products, including beef manufacturing trimmings
derived from cattle not slaughtered on site at the official
establishment or retail store. An FSIS-inspected
establishment that grinds or chops raw beef products
derived from cattle slaughtered at that same establishment
will be exempt from the requirements of the proposed rule.
Other Planned Initiatives:
Performance Standards for Ready-to-Eat Products. FSIS plans to finalize
a February 2001 proposed rule to establish food safety performance
standards for all processed ready-to-eat (RTE) meat and poultry
products and for partially heat-treated meat and poultry products that
are not ready-to-eat. The proposal also contained provisions addressing
post-lethality contamination of RTE products with Listeria
monocytogenes. In June 2003, FSIS published an interim final rule
requiring establishments to prevent L. monocytogenes contamination of
RTE products. The Agency is evaluating the effectiveness of this
interim final rule, which in 2004 was the subject of a regulatory
reform nomination to OMB. FSIS has carefully reviewed its economic
analysis of the interim final rule in response to this recommendation
and is planning to adjust provisions of the rule to reduce the
information collection burden on small businesses. FSIS is also
planning further action with respect to other elements of its 2001
proposal on performance standards for processed meat and poultry
products, based on quantitative risk assessments of target pathogens in
processed products.
FSIS plans to propose to amend the poultry products inspection
regulations to put in place a system in which the establishment sorts
the carcasses for defects, and the Agency verifies that the system is
under control and producing safe and wholesome product. The Agency
would propose to adopt performance standards, designed to ensure that
the establishments are carrying out slaughter, dressing, and chilling
operations in a manner that ensures no significant growth of pathogens.
The chilling performance standard would replace the requirement for
ready-to-cook poultry products to be chilled to 40 [deg]F or below
within certain time limits according to the weight of the dressed
carcasses. Poultry establishments would have to carry out slaughtering,
dressing, and chilling operations in a manner that ensures no
significant growth of pathogens.
FSIS is collaborating with the Food and Drug Administration in an
effort to rationalize the division of food protection responsibilities
between the two agencies and eliminate confusion over which agency has
jurisdiction over which kinds of products. The agencies are taking an
approach that involves considering how the meat or poultry ingredients
contribute to the characteristics and basic identity of food products.
Thus, FSIS plans to propose amending its regulations to exclude from
its jurisdiction cheese and cheese products prepared with less than 50
percent meat or poultry; breads, rolls, and buns prepared with less
than 50 percent meat or poultry; dried poultry soup mixes; flavor bases
and reaction/process flavors; pizza with meat or poultry; and salad
dressings prepared with less than 50 percent meat or poultry. FSIS also
plans to clarify that bagel dogs, natural casings, and closed-face meat
or poultry sandwiches are subject to the Agency's jurisdiction.
FSIS Small Business Implications:
The great majority of businesses regulated by FSIS are small
businesses. Some of the regulations listed above substantially affect
small businesses. Some rulemakings can benefit small businesses. For
example, the rule on interstate shipment of State-inspected products
will open interstate markets to some small State-inspected
establishments that previously could only sell their products within
State boundaries.
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.
The Agency collaborates in this effort with other USDA agencies and
cooperating State partners. For example, FSIS makes plant owners and
[[Page 64152]]
operators aware of loan programs, available through USDA's Rural
Business and Cooperative programs, to help them in upgrading their
facilities. FSIS employees meet proactively with small and very small
plant operators to learn more about their specific needs and provide
joint training sessions for small and very small plants and FSIS
employees.
Agricultural Marketing Service
Mission: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) provides marketing
services to producers, manufacturers, distributors, importers,
exporters, and consumers of food products. The AMS also manages the
government's food purchases, supervises food quality grading, maintains
food quality standards, and supervises the Federal research and
promotion programs.
Priorities: AMS priority items for the next year include a rulemaking
required as a result of passage of the 2008 Farm Bill and a final rule
for the National Organic Program.
Dairy Promotion and Research Program (Dairy Import Assessments). The
Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (Dairy Act) authorized USDA
to create a national producer program for dairy product promotion,
research, and nutrition education as part of a comprehensive strategy
to increase human consumption of milk and dairy products. Dairy farmers
fund this self-help program through a mandatory assessment on all milk
produced in the contiguous 48 States and marketed commercially. Dairy
farmers administer the national program through the National Dairy
Promotion and Research Board (Dairy Board).
The 2008 Farm Bill extended the program to include producers in Alaska,
Hawaii, and Puerto Rico who will pay an assessment of $0.15 per
hundredweight of milk production. Imported dairy products will be
assessed at $0.075 per hundredweight of fluid milk equivalent. AMS
published proposed regulations establishing the program in the May 19,
2009, Federal Register. The proposal had a 30-day comment period.
Comments received for this rule are currently under review. AMS expects
to publish a final rule early next year.
Access to Pasture. Since implementation of the NOP, some members of the
public have advocated for a more explicit regulatory standard on the
relationship between livestock, particularly dairy animals, and grazing
land. They have asserted the current regulatory language on access to
pasture for ruminants and temporary confinement based on an animal's
stage of production, when applied together, do not provide a uniform
requirement for the pasturing of ruminant animals that meet the
principles underlying an organic management system for livestock and
livestock products that consumers expect. AMS published a proposed rule
with a request for comment on October 24, 2008. The comment period
ended December 23, 2008. AMS received over 80,000 comments. Due to the
high volume of comments received, final action on this rule is not
expected before December 2009.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Mission: A major part of the mission of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) is 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 Animal Welfare Act.
Priorities: With respect to animal health, APHIS is continuing work to
revise its regulations concerning bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) to provide a more comprehensive and universally applicable
framework for the importation of certain animals and products. In the
area of plant health, APHIS is in the midst of a revision to its
regulations for importing nursery stock (plants for planting) to better
address plant health risks associated with propagative material. APHIS
also plans to propose standards for the humane handling, care,
treatment, and transportation of birds covered under the Animal Welfare
Act.
Grain, Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Mission: The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
facilitates the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals,
oilseeds, and related agricultural products and promotes fair and
competitive trading practices for the overall benefit of consumers and
American agriculture.
Priorities: GIPSA is continuing work that will finalize its August,
2007 proposed rule regarding the records that live poultry dealers must
furnish poultry growers, including requirements for the timing and
contents of poultry growing arrangements. The requirements contained in
the final rule are intended to help both poultry growers and live
poultry dealers by providing the growers with more information about
the poultry growing arrangement at an earlier stage.
In addition, GIPSA intends to propose a rule that will define practices
or conduct that are unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive, and/
or that represent the making or giving of an undue or unreasonable
preference or advantage, and ensure that producers and growers can
fully participate in any arbitration process that may arise related to
livestock or poultry contracts. This regulation is being proposed in
accordance with the authority granted to the Secretary by the Packers
and Stockyards Act of 1921 and with the requirements of Sections 11005
and 11006 of the 2008 Farm Bill.
Farm Service Agency
Mission: The Farm Service Agency's (FSA) mission is to stabilize farm
income; to assist owners and operators of farms and ranches to conserve
and enhance soil, water, and related natural resources; to provide
credit to new or existing farmers and ranchers who are temporarily
unable to obtain credit from commercial sources; and to help farm
operations recover from the effects of disaster, as prescribed by
various statutes.
Priorities: FSA's priority for 2009 will be to continue implementing
the 2008 Farm Bill. The 2008 Farm Bill, which was enacted on June 18,
2008, governs Federal farm programs through the 2012. New regulatory
actions include:
Disaster Assistance. The 2008 Farm Bill provides a set of
standing disaster assistance programs, including a new
revenue based program for supplemental agricultural
disaster assistance. These programs require completely new
regulations and revision of existing program regulations.
Biomass Crop Assistance Program. In addition, the 2008 Farm
Bill adds a new biomass crop assistance program that
supports the Administration's energy initiative to
accelerate the investment in and production of biofuels.
The program will provide financial assistance to
agricultural and forest land owners and operators
[[Page 64153]]
to establish and produce eligible crops, including woody
biomass, for conversion to bioenergy, and the collection,
harvest, storage, and transportation of eligible material
for use in a biomass conversion facility.
Farm Loan Programs. The 2008 Farm Bill also requires changes
to farm operating loans, down payment loans, and emergency
loans, including expanding to include socially
disadvantaged farmers, increasing loan limits, loan size,
funding targets, interest rates, and graduating borrowers
to commercial credit. In addition, it establishes a new
direct and guaranteed loan program to assist farmers in
implementing conservation practices. FSA will develop and
issue the regulations and make program funds available to
eligible clientele in as timely a manner as possible.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Mission: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) mission is
to provide leadership in a partnership effort to help America's private
land owners and managers conserve their soil, water, and other natural
resources.
Priorities: NRCS regulatory priorities for FY 2010 will be to finalize
the rules promulgated pursuant to the 2008 Farm Bill. The 2008 Farm
Bill, which was enacted on June 18, 2008, governs USDA conservation
programs through 2012. NRCS promulgated 11 interim and proposed
rulemakings pursuant to the 2008 Farm Bill, and received public comment
for each of the regulations. In order to provide certainty and clarity
for NRCS program participants, NRCS will address the public comments in
final rulemaking and make any necessary clarifications or adjustments
in response to those comments.
Among the programs authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill, the Conservation
Stewardship Program and Environmental Quality Incentives Program
represent a significant public investment in environmental improvement
and stewardship. The 2008 Farm Bill also re-authorized and expanded
several other financial assistance and conservation easement programs,
including the Agricultural Management Assistance program, the Farm and
Ranch Lands Protection Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program, the
Healthy Forests Reserve Program, the Regional Equity provisions, the
State Technical Committee, the Technical Service Provider Assistance
Initiative, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program.
During FY 2009, NRCS promulgated an interim final rule to identify
Categorical Exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1970 to streamline delivery of projects funded by the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009. NRCS plans to finalize the Categorical
Exclusion rule in response to public comments. Finally, NRCS intends to
promulgate a program for its ACES program to provide consistency with
how ACES is used by other agencies.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Mission: Promoting a dynamic business environment in rural America is
the goal of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS). Business
Programs works in partnership with the private sector and the
community-based organizations to provide financial assistance and
business planning, and helps fund projects that create or preserve
quality jobs and/or promote a clean rural environment. The 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. The mission of
Cooperative Program of RBS is to promote understanding and use of the
cooperative form of business as a viable organizational option for
marketing and distributing agricultural products.
Priorities: RBS's priority for 2009 will be to fully implement the 2008
Farm Bill. This includes promulgating regulations for Section 9003
(Biorefinery Assistance Program), Section 9004 (Repowering Assistance
Program) Section 9005 (Bioenergy program for Advanced Biofuels) and
Section 6022 (Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program). The Agency
has been administering Sections 9003 and 9004 through the use of
various Notices (Notices of Funds Availability and Contract Proposal),
rather than regulation. Revisions to Section 9007 (Rural Energy for
America Program) will be made to incorporate Energy Audits and
Renewable Energy Development Assistance and Feasibility Studies for
Rural Energy Systems as eligible grant purposes, as well as other Farm
Bill changes to the Section 9007 program. In addition, regulations for
the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program will be revised to
reflect Farm Bill provisions relating to locally or regionally produced
agricultural food products. These rules will be developed to minimize
program complexity and burden on the public while enhancing program
delivery and Agency oversight.
Rural Utilities Service
Mission: To improve the quality of life in rural America by providing
investment capital for the deployment of critical rural utilities
telecommunications, electric and water and waste disposal
infrastructure. Financial assistance is provided to rural utilities;
municipalities; commercial corporations; limited liability companies;
public utility districts; Indian tribes; and cooperative, nonprofit,
limited-dividend, or mutual associations. The public-private
partnership which is forged between RUS and these industries results in
billions of dollars in rural infrastructure development and creates
thousands of jobs for the American economy.
Priorities: RUS' priority in 2010 is fulfilling the President's goal of
bringing affordable broadband to all rural Americans by continuing to
develop a final rule for the Broadband Loan Program, which was
authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, P.L.
107-171, (2002 Farm Bill) and subsequently amended by the 2008 Farm
Bill. In May 2007, RUS published a proposed rule to improve the focus
and strengthen the financial stability of the program that was being
administered under regulations developed for the 2002 Farm Bill. Before
this proposed rule could be finalized the 2008 Farm Bill became law,
significantly changing the statutory requirements of the Broadband Loan
Program. Consequently, RUS now plans to publish an interim rule that
will combine the provisions of the proposed rule with the changes made
by the 2008 Farm Bill.
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) into law. The Recovery Act
expanded RUS's existing authority to make loans and provides new
authority to make grants to facilitate broadband deployment in rural
areas. RUS has been tasked with the time sensitive priority of
developing the regulation for this new authority. The Agency will,
however, also continue to develop a final rule for the Broadband
Program based upon change include in the 2008 Farm Bill.
Departmental Administration
Mission: Departmental Administration's mission is to provide management
leadership to ensure that
[[Page 64154]]
USDA administrative programs, policies, advice and counsel meet the
needs of USDA program organizations, consistent with laws and mandates;
and provide safe and efficient facilities and services to customers.
Priorities: In July 2009, USDA's Departmental Administration published
the proposed rule to establish a program to label eligible products
made from biobased feedstocks. As part of this rulemaking, USDA will be
accepting public comments through September 2009 on how to implement a
program that promotes the purchase of products made from agricultural
and forestry feedstocks. Once the public comment period is closed, USDA
will finalize the labeling regulation to allow manufacturers and
vendors of biobased products to display the label on their packaging
and marketing materials. Once completed, this regulation will implement
a section of the 2008 Farm Bill and will promote alternative uses of
agriculture and forest materials.
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. In addition, aggregation
omits benefits and costs that cannot be reliably quantified, such as
improved health resulting from increased access to more nutritious
foods; higher levels of food safety; and increased quality of life
derived from investments in rural infrastructure. Some benefits and
costs associated with rules listed in the Regulatory Plan cannot
currently be quantified as the rules are still being formulated. For
2010, the Department's focus on Farm Bill and other regulations will be
to implement the changes in such a way as to provide benefits while
minimizing program complexity and regulatory burden for program
participants.
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
1. NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM: ACCESS TO PASTURE
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 6501 et seq
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 205
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The National Organic Program (NOP) is administered by the Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS). Under the NOP, AMS established national
standards for the production and handling of organically produced
agricultural products. Since implementation of the NOP, some members of
the public have advocated for a more explicit regulatory standard on
the relationship between livestock, particularly dairy animals, and
grazing land. They have asserted the current regulatory language on
access to pasture for ruminants and temporary confinement based on an
animal's stage of production, when applied together, do not provide a
uniform requirement for the pasturing of ruminant animals that meet the
principles underlying an organic management system for livestock and
livestock products that consumers expect. Comments received as a result
of the proposed rule will assist in determining the Agency's next steps
in rulemaking on this issue.
Statement of Need:
AMS has determined that current regulations regarding access to pasture
and the contribution of grazing to the diet of organically raised
livestock lack sufficient specificity and clarity to enable AMS to
efficiently administer the Program. Organic System Plans (OSPs) dealing
with livestock management reflect different application of existing
regulations and interpretations of requirements across Accredited
Certifying Agents (ACAs). AMS has received 11 complaints requesting
enforcement actions for alleged violations of the pasture provisions of
the NOP livestock standards.
Furthermore, over the period 1994 to 2005, the National Organic
Standards Board (NOSB) made six recommendations regarding access to the
outdoors for livestock, pasture, and conditions for temporary
confinement of animals. The NOSB process for the development of
recommendations consists of: (1) identification of a need by members of
the public, the NOSB, or the NOP; (2) development of a draft NOSB
recommendation; (3) public meeting notice published by the NOP on its
website and in the Federal Register; (4) solicitation of public
comments on the recommendation through regulations.gov and at the
NOSB's public meetings; (5) finalization of the recommendation; (6)
NOSB approval of the recommendation; and (7) NOSB referral to the
Secretary for the Secretary's consideration and any appropriate action
(e.g., rulemaking, policy development, guidance).
In response, on April 13, 2006, NOP published an Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (71 FR 19131) seeking input on the role of
pasture in the NOP regulations and what parts of the NOP regulations
should be amended to address the role of pasture in organic livestock
management.
More than 80,500 comments were received on the ANPRM. Support for
strict standards and greater detail on the role of pasture in organic
livestock production was nearly unanimous with just 28 of the comments
opposing changes to the pasture requirements. Organic consumers have
clearly stated in comments that they expect organic ruminants to graze
pasture and receive not less than 30 percent of their Dry Matter Intake
(DMI) needs from grazing. Nearly all of the over 80,500 comments were
received from consumers requesting regulations that would clearly
establish grazing as a primary source of nourishment. Approximately
80,250 of these comments were in a modified form letter. Many of these
consumers requested that grazing account for at least 30 percent of the
ruminant's DMI needs.
AMS published a proposed rule with a request for comment on October 24,
2008. The comment period ended December 23, 2008. AMS received more
than 80,000 comments. Due to the high volume of comments received,
final action on this rule is not expected before December 2009.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The NOP is authorized by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990
(OFPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. section 6501 et. seq.). The AMS
administers the NOP. Under the NOP, AMS oversees national standards for
the production and handling of organically produced agricultural
products. This action is being taken by AMS to ensure that NOP
livestock production regulations have sufficient specificity and
clarity to enable AMS and accredited certifying agents to efficiently
administer the NOP
[[Page 64155]]
and to facilitate and improve compliance and enforcement. This action
is also intended to satisfy consumer expectations that ruminant
livestock animals graze pastures during the growing season.
Alternatives:
Alternatives to this proposed rulemaking are to: (1) Make no changes to
the existing regulations; (2) adopt a reduced pasturing period, such as
the 120-day minimum period recommended by the NOSB and some commenters;
or (3) adopt a three ruminants per acre stocking rate measure as
suggested by some commenters.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Costs:
This action will increase the cost of production for producers who
currently do not pasture their animals and those producers who do not
manage their pastures at a sufficient level to provide at least 30
percent DMI. For organic slaughter stock producers, an increase in
costs might result in a greater volume of slaughter animals, at least
in the short term, entering the market driving down prices. Longer term
these increased costs could result in increased consumer prices unless
the increased costs are off set by reductions in other costs of
production. Other costs of production that could be expected to go down
are costs associated with producer harvest and purchase of feed and the
cost of herd health.
Benefits:
This final rule brings uniformity in application to the livestock
regulations; especially as they relate to the pasturing of ruminants.
This uniformity will create equitable, consistent, performance
standards for all ruminant livestock producers. Producers who currently
operate based on grazing will perceive a benefit because these
producers claim an economic disadvantage in competing with livestock
operations that do not provide pasture. This proposed rule would also
bring uniformity in application to the livestock regulations. This
uniformity in application will allow the ACAs and AMS to administer the
livestock regulations in a way that reflects consumer preferences
regarding the production of organic livestock and their products.
Commenters have clearly stated that they expect organic ruminants to
graze pasture and receive not less than 30 percent of their dry matter
needs from grazing. Because of this, it is crucial that consumer
expectations are met. This proposed rulemaking is intended to reflect
consumer expectations and producer perspectives. This action makes
clear what access to pasture means under the NOP.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 04/13/06 71 FR 19131
ANPRM Comment Period End 06/12/06
NPRM 10/24/08 73 FR 63583
NPRM Comment Period End 12/23/08
Final Action 12/00/09
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State
Agency Contact:
Richard H. Mathews
Chief of Standards Development and Review Branch
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-3252
Fax: 202 205-7808
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0581-AC57
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--AMS
2. NATIONAL DAIRY PROMOTION AND RESEARCH PROGRAM; FINAL RULE ON
AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDER
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 4501 to 4514; 7 USC 7401
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 1150
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, September 19, 2008, Assessments on imported dairy
products must be implemented by deadline.
With the passage of Section 1507 in the 2008 Farm Bill, the Dairy Act
was amended to apply certain assessments to Alaska, Hawaii, the
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The 2008
Farm Bill authorized the Secretary to issue regulations to implement
the mandatory dairy import assessment without providing a notice and
comment period. However, due to the interest of affected parties a
notice and comment period was provided.
Abstract:
The Dairy Act authorizes the Order for dairy product promotion,
research, and nutrition education as part of a comprehensive strategy
to increase human consumption of milk and dairy products and to reduce
milk surpluses. The program functions to strengthen the dairy
industry's position in the marketplace by maintaining and expanding
domestic and foreign consumption of fluid milk and dairy products.
Amendments to the Order are pursuant to the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills.
The 2002 Farm Bill mandates that the Order be amended to implement an
assessment on imported dairy products to fund promotion and research.
The 2008 Farm Bill specifies a mandatory assessment rate of 7.5-cent
per hundredweight of milk, or equivalent thereof, on dairy products
imported into the United States. Additionally, in accordance with the
2008 Farm Bill, the term ``United States'' is the Dairy Act is amended
to mean all States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico. Producers in these areas will be assessed 15 cents per
hundredweight for all milk produced and marketed.
Statement of Need:
In response to the May 19, 2009 (74 FR 23359) proposed rule (National
Dairy Promotion and Research Program; Proposed Rule on Amendments to
the Order), AMS received 189 timely comments from consumers, dairy
producers, foreign governments, importers, exporters, manufacturers,
members of Congress, trade associations, and other interested parties.
The comments covered a wide range of topics, including 39 in opposition
to the proposal and 150 in support of the proposal. Opponents of the
proposal expressed concern over the lack of a referendum requirement
among those affected; default assessment rates; lack of ability to no
longer promote State-branded dairy products; lack of importer
organizations eligible to become a Qualified Program; disputed the
cost-benefit analysis for
[[Page 64156]]
importers and producers; and cited unreasonable importer paperwork and
record keeping burdens.
Proponents of the proposal expressed support for an expedited
implementation of the dairy import assessment; cited the enhanced
benefits both domestic producers and importers will receive as a result
of implementation; recommended new Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes;
use of a default assessment rate; recommended regular reporting of the
products and assessments on imports; and all thresholds for compliance
with U.S. trade obligations have been met.
AMS plans to issue a final rule implementing the dairy import
assessment in the near future. In response to the comments received and
after consultation with USTR, AMS is addressing, in the final rule,
referenda, alternative assessment rates, and compliance and enforcement
activity. All remaining changes are miscellaneous and minor in nature
in order to clarify regulatory text.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The National Dairy Promotion and Research Program (National Program) is
authorized under the authorized under the provisions of the Dairy
Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4501-4514), and the
Dairy Promotion and Research Order (7 CFR Part 1150). The Dairy
Programs unit of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service has day--to--day
oversight responsibilities for the National Program.
Alternatives:
There are no alternatives, as this rulemaking is a matter of law based
on the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Assessments to dairy producers under the Order are relatively small
compared to producer revenue. If dairy producers in Alaska, Hawaii, the
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico had paid
assessments of $0.15 per hundredweight of milk marketed in 2007, it is
estimated that $1.1 million would have been paid. This is about 0.6
percent of the $192 million total value of milk produced and marketed
in these areas.
Benefits to producers in these areas are assumed to be similar to those
benefits received by producers of other U.S. geographical regions.
Cornell University has conducted an independent economic analysis of
the Program that is included in the annual report to Congress. Cornell
determined that from 1998 through 2007, each dollar invested in generic
dairy marketing by dairy farmers during the period would return between
$5.52 and $5.94, on average, in net revenue to farmers.
Assessments collected from importers under the National Program will be
relatively small compared to the value of dairy imports. If importers
had been assessed $0.075 per hundredweight, or equivalent thereof, for
imported dairy products in 2007 as specified in this rule, it is
estimated that less than $6.1 million would have been paid. This is
about 0.3 percent of the $2.4 billion value of the dairy products
imported in 2007.
Risks:
If the amendments are not implemented, USDA would be in violation of
the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 05/19/09 74 FR 23359
NPRM Comment Period End 06/18/09
Final Action 02/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Organizations
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Whitney Rick
Promotion and Research Branch Chief
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-6909
Fax: 202 720-0285
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0581-AC87
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
3. ANIMAL WELFARE; REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS FOR BIRDS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 2131 to 2159
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 1 to 3
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
APHIS intends to establish standards for the humane handling, care,
treatment, and transportation of birds other than birds bred for use in
research.
Statement of Need:
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 amended the
definition of animal in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) by specifically
excluding birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus,
bred for use in research. While the definition of animal in the
regulations contained in 9 CFR part 1 has excluded rats of the genus
Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research, that
definition has also excluded all birds (i.e., not just those birds bred
for use in research). In line with this change to the definition of
animal in the AWA, APHIS intends to establish standards in 9 CFR part 3
for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds
other than those birds bred for use in research.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture 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 immediate handlers. Animals covered by the AWA include
birds that are not bred for use in research.
Alternatives:
To be identified.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
To be determined.
Risks:
Not applicable.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 01/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End 04/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
[[Page 64157]]
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
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 20737-1234
Phone: 301 734-0954
RIN: 0579-AC02
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
4. BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY; IMPORTATION OF BOVINES AND BOVINE
PRODUCTS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 450; 7 USC 1622; 7 USC 7701 to 7772; 7 USC 8301 to 8317; 21 USC
136 and 136a; 31 USC 9701
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 92 to 96; 9 CFR 98
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would amend the regulations regarding the importation
of bovines and bovine products. Under this rulemaking, countries would
be classified as either negligible risk, controlled risk, or
undetermined risk for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Some
commodities would be allowed importation into the United States
regardless of the BSE classification of the country of export. Other
commodities would be subject to importation restrictions or
prohibitions based on the type of commodity and the BSE classification
of the country. The criteria for country classification and commodity
import would be closely aligned with those of the World Organization
for Animal Health.
Statement of Need:
We are proposing to amend the regulations after conducting a thorough
review of relevant scientific literature and a comprehensive evaluation
of the issues and concluding that the proposed changes would continue
to guard against the introduction of BSE into the United States, while
allowing the importation of additional animals and animal products into
this country.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Under the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.),
the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate regulations to
prevent the introduction into the United States or dissemination of any
pest or disease of livestock.
Alternatives:
We could leave the current bovine regulations unchanged, but
maintaining the status quo would not provide an opportunity to apply
the latest scientific evidence to our BSE-related import conditions.
Another alternative--modifying the BSE regulations related to the
importation of bovines and bovine-derived products to precisely match
the OIE guidelines without allowing for modification deemed necessary
by APHIS--would not allow APHIS to independently interpret the
scientific literature or reflect current USDA regulations and policies.
Making no changes to the current regulations that govern the
importation of cervids and camelids would perpetuate an unnecessary
constraint on trade in those commodities, because cervids and camelids
pose an extremely low BSE risk.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Undetermined.
Risks:
APHIS has concluded that the proposed changes would continue to guard
against the introduction of BSE into the United States.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End 02/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Federal
International Impacts:
This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.
Additional Information:
Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact:
Christopher Robinson
Senior Staff Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services, National Center
for Import and Export, VS
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 40
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231
Phone: 301 734-7837
RIN: 0579-AC68
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
5. IMPORTATION OF PLANTS FOR PLANTING; ESTABLISHING A NEW CATEGORY OF
PLANTS FOR PLANTING NOT AUTHORIZED FOR IMPORTATION PENDING RISK
ASSESSMENT (RULEMAKING RESULTING FROM A SECTION 610 REVIEW)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 450; 7 USC 7701 to 7772; 7 USC 7781 to 7786; 21 USC 136 and 136a
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 319
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This action would establish a new category in the regulations governing
the importation of nursery stock, also known as plants for planting.
This category would list taxa of plants for planting whose importation
is not authorized pending risk assessment. We would allow foreign
governments to request that a pest risk assessment be conducted for a
taxon whose importation is not authorized pending risk evaluation.
After the pest risk assessment was completed, we would conduct
rulemaking to remove the
[[Page 64158]]
taxon from the proposed category if determined appropriate by the risk
assessment. We are also proposing to expand the scope of the plants
regulated in the plants for planting regulations to include non-
vascular plants. These changes would allow us to react more quickly to
evidence that a taxon of plants for planting may pose a pest risk while
ensuring that our actions are based on scientific evidence.
Statement of Need:
APHIS typically relies on inspection at a Federal plant inspection
station or port of entry to mitigate the risks of pest introduction
associated with the importation of plants for planting. Importation of
plants for planting is further restricted or prohibited only if there
is specific evidence that such importation could introduce a quarantine
pest into the United States. Most of the taxa of plants for planting
currently being imported have not been thoroughly studied to determine
whether their importation presents a risk of introducing a quarantine
pest into the United States. The volume and the number of types of
plants for planting have increased dramatically in recent years, and
there are several problems associated with gathering data on what
plants for planting are being imported and on the risks such
importation presents. In addition, quarantine pests that enter the
United States via the importation of plants for planting pose a
particularly high risk of becoming established within the United
States. The current regulations need to be amended to better address
these risks.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the importation
or entry of any plant if the Secretary determines that the prohibition
or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction into the United
States of a plant pest or noxious weed (7 U.S.C. 7712).
Alternatives:
APHIS has identified one alternative to the approach we are
considering. We could prohibit the importation of all nursery stock
pending risk evaluation, approval, and notice-and-comment rulemaking,
similar to APHIS's approach to regulating imported fruits and
vegetables. This approach would lead to a major interruption in
international trade and would have significant economic effects on both
U.S. importers and U.S. consumers of plants for planting.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Undetermined.
Risks:
In the absence of some action to revise the nursery stock regulations
to allow us to better address pest risks, increased introductions of
plant pests via imported nursery stock are likely, causing extensive
damage to both agricultural and natural plant resources.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 07/23/09 74 FR 36403
NPRM Comment Period End 10/21/09
Final Rule 07/00/10
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:
Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact:
Arnold T. Tschanz
Senior Risk Manager, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 133
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231
Phone: 301 734-5306
RIN: 0579-AC03
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
6. ENFORCEMENT OF THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
7 USC 181
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 201
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, June 18, 2010.
Abstract:
GIPSA is proposing regulations under the Packers & Stockyards Act,
1921, that clarify when certain conduct in the livestock and poultry
industries represents the making or giving of an undue or unreasonable
preference or advantage or subjects a person or locality to an undue or
unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. These proposed regulations also
establish criteria GIPSA will consider in determining whether a live
poultry dealer has provided reasonable notice to poultry growers of any
suspension of the delivery of birds under a poultry growing
arrangement; when a requirement of additional capital investments over
the life of a poultry growing arrangement or swine production contract
constitutes a violation of the P&S Act; and whether a live poultry
dealer or swine contractor has provided a reasonable period of time for
a poultry grower or a swine production contract grower to remedy a
breach of contract that could lead to termination of the poultry
growing arrangement or swine production contract. The Farm Bill also
instructed the Secretary to promulgate regulations to ensure that
producers and growers are afforded the opportunity to fully participate
in the arbitration process if they so choose.
Statement of Need:
In enacting Title XI of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008
(Farm Bill) (P.L. 110-246), Congress recognized the nature of problems
encountered in the livestock and poultry industries and amended the
Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act). These amendments established new
requirements for participants in the livestock and poultry industries
and required the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) to establish
criteria to consider when determining that certain other conduct is in
violation of the P&S Act.
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration's (GIPSA)
attempts to enforce the broad prohibitions of the P&S Act have been
frustrated, in part because it has not previously defined what conduct
[[Page 64159]]
constitutes an unfair practice or the giving of an undue preference or
advantage. The new regulations that GIPSA is proposing describe and
clarify conduct that violates the P&S Act and allow for more effective
and efficient enforcement by GIPSA. They will clarify conditions for
industry compliance with the P&S Act and provide for a fairer market
place.
In accordance with the Farm Bill, GIPSA is proposing regulations under
the P&S Act that would clarify when certain conduct in the livestock
and poultry industries represents the making or giving of an undue or
unreasonable preference or advantage or subjects a person or locality
to an undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. These proposed
regulations also establish criteria that GIPSA will consider in
determining whether a live poultry dealer has provided reasonable
notice to poultry growers of a suspension of the delivery of birds
under a poultry growing arrangement; when a requirement of additional
capital investments over the life of a poultry growing arrangement or
swine production contract constitutes a violation of the P&S Act; and
whether a packer, swine contractor or live poultry dealer has provided
a reasonable period of time for a grower or a swine producer to remedy
a breach of contract that could lead to termination of the growing
arrangement or production contract.
The Farm Bill also instructed the Secretary to promulgate regulations
to ensure that poultry growers, swine production contract growers and
livestock producers are afforded the opportunity to fully participate
in the arbitration process, if they so choose. We are proposing a
required format for providing poultry growers, swine production
contract growers and livestock producers the opportunity to decline the
use of arbitration in contracts requiring arbitration. We are also
proposing criteria that we will consider in finding that poultry
growers, swine production contract growers and livestock producers have
a meaningful opportunity to participate fully in the arbitration
process if they voluntarily agree to do so. We will use these criteria
to assess the overall fairness of the arbitration process.
In addition to proposing regulations in accordance with the Farm Bill,
GIPSA is proposing regulations that would prohibit certain conduct
because it is unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive, in
violation of the P&S Act. These additional proposed regulations are
promulgated under the authority of Sec. 407 of the P&S Act, and
complement those required by the Farm Bill to help ensure fair trade
and competition in the livestock and poultry industries.
These regulations are intended to address the increased use of
contracting in the marketing and production of livestock and poultry by
entities under the jurisdiction of the P&S Act, and practices that
result from the use of market power and alterations in private property
rights, which violate the spirit and letter of the P&S Act. The effect
increased contracting has had, and continues to have, on individual
agricultural producers has significantly changed the industry and the
rural economy as a whole, making these proposed regulations necessary.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 407 of the P&S Act (7 U.S.C. 228) provides that the Secretary
``may make such rules, regulations, and orders as may be necessary to
carry out the provisions of this Act.'' Sections 11005 and 11006 of the
Farm Bill became effective June 18, 2008, and instruct the Secretary to
promulgate additional regulations as described in this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
Alternatives:
The Farm Bill explicitly directs the Secretary to promulgate certain
regulations. GIPSA determined that additional regulations are necessary
to provide notice to all regulated entities of types of practices and
conduct that GIPSA considers ``unfair'' so that regulated entities are
fully informed of actions or practices that are considered ``unfair''
and therefore, prohibited. Within both the mandatory and discretionary
regulatory provisions we considered alternative options.
For example, GIPSA considered shorter notice periods in situations when
a live poultry dealer suspends delivery of birds to a poultry grower.
These alternatives would not have provided adequate trust and integrity
in the livestock and poultry markets. Other alternatives may have been
more restrictive. We considered prohibiting the use of arbitration to
resolve disputes; however, that option goes against a popular method of
dispute resolution in other industries and is not in line with the
spirit of the 2008 Farm Bill. GIPSA believes that this proposed rule
represents the best option to level the playing field between packers,
swine contractors, live poultry dealers, and the nation's poultry
growers, swine production contract growers, or livestock producers for
the benefit of more efficient marketing and public good.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Costs:
Costs are aggregated into three major types: 1) administrative costs,
which include items such as office work, postage, filing, and copying;
2) costs of analysis, such as a business conducting a profit-loss
analysis; and 3) adjustment costs, such as costs related to changing
business behavior to achieve compliance with the proposed regulation.
Benefits:
Benefits are also aggregated into three major groups: 1) increased
pricing efficiency; 2) allocation efficiency; and 3) competitive
efficiency.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/09
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
H. Tess Butler
Regulatory Liaison
Department of Agriculture
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-7486
Fax: 202 690-2173
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0580-AB07
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--GIPSA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
7. POULTRY CONTRACTS; INITIATION, PERFORMANCE, AND TERMINATION
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 221
[[Page 64160]]
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 201
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
GIPSA is amending the regulations issued under the Packers and
Stockyards Act, 1921, regarding the records that live poultry dealers
must furnish poultry growers, including requirements for the timing and
contents of poultry growing arrangements. The amendments to the
regulatlions will require that live poultry dealers timely deliver a
copy of an offered poultry growing arrangement to growers; include
information about any Performance Improvement Plan in poultry growing
arrangements; include provisions for written termination notices in
poultry growing arrangements; and notwithstanding a confidentiality
provision, allow growers to discuss the terms of poultry growing
arrangements with designated individuals.
Statement of Need:
The Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)
believes that the failure to disclose certain terms in a poultry
growing arrangement constitutes an unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive
practice in violation of section 202 (7 U.S.C. 192) of the Packers and
Stockyards Act (P&S Act).
Because of vertical integration and high concentration within the
poultry industry, poultry growers do not realistically have the option
of negotiating more favorable poultry growing arrangement terms with
competing live poultry dealers because there may be no other live
poultry dealers in the poultry grower's immediate geographic area or
there may be significant differences in equipment requirements among
live poultry dealers. There is considerable asymmetry of information
and an imbalance in market power. This final rule will level the
playing field by requiring that all live poultry dealers adopt fair and
transparent practices when dealing with poultry growers.
Summary of Legal Basis:
One of GIPSA's primary functions is the enforcement of the P&S Act, (7
U.S.C. 181 et seq.) (P&S Act). Under authority granted to us by the
Secretary of Agriculture, GIPSA is authorized (7 U.S.C. 228) to make
those regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of the P&S Act.
Alternatives:
GIPSA collected input on several alternatives like issuing policy
guidance to GIPSA employees, providing public notice that failure to
provide growers with additional contract information was an unfair
practice in violation of Sec. 202 of the P&S Act, or recommending that
growers seek redress of grievances through civil court action or
arbitration. GIPSA determined that none of these alternatives will meet
the needs of poultry growers. We believe, however, that this final rule
will provide the best means of achieving statutory intent at the lowest
cost to poultry growers and live poultry dealers.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Costs:
The costs to both poultry growers and live poultry dealers are
negligible, as the rule does not impose significant additional
requirements that increase actions that the poultry grower and the live
poultry dealer must enact; they merely affect the timeliness of those
actions. In some cases, the final rule requires that the poultry grower
and the live poultry dealer commit to writing terms and conditions that
are already in effect, but do not mandate what those terms and
conditions must be. Thus, the only additional cost is the cost of
producing and transmitting the printed document.
Benefits:
Collectively, the regulatory provisions in the final rule mitigate
potential asymmetries of information between poultry growers and the
live poultry dealers, which will lead to better decisions on the terms
of compensation and reduce the potential for the expression of anti-
competitive market power. The provisions achieve this primarily by
improving the quality and timeliness of information to growers, and to
some extent to live poultry dealers as well. Benefits should accrue to
poultry growers from an enhanced basis for making the decision as to
whether to enter into a growout contract, and from additional time
available to make plans for any necessary adjustments in those
instances when the poultry grower is subject to a contract termination.
Net social welfare will benefit from improved accuracy in the value
(pricing) decisions involved in transactions between poultry growers
and live poultry dealers as they negotiate contract terms.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 08/01/07 72 FR 41952
NPRM Comment Period End 10/30/07
Final Action 12/00/09
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
H. Tess Butler
Regulatory Liaison
Department of Agriculture
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-7486
Fax: 202 690-2173
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0580-AA98
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
8. ELIGIBILITY, CERTIFICATION, AND EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROVISIONS
OF THE FOOD, CONSERVATION AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
PL 110-246; PL 104-121
CFR Citation:
7 CFR Part 273
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This proposed rule would amend the regulations governing the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to implement
provisions from the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Public
Law 110-246) (FCEA) concerning the eligibility and
[[Page 64161]]
certification of SNAP applicants and participants and SNAP employment
and training. In addition, this proposed rule would revise 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. Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is
also proposing two discretionary revisions to SNAP regulations to
provide State agencies options that are currently available only
through waivers. These provisions would 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 would impact the
associated paperwork burdens. (08-006)
Statement of Need:
This proposed rule would amend the regulations governing the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to implement
provisions from the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Public
Law 110-246) (FCEA) concerning the eligibility and certification of
SNAP applicants and participants and SNAP employment and training. In
addition, this proposed rule would revise 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. Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is also proposing
2 discretionary revisions to SNAP regulations to provide State agencies
options that are currently available only through waivers. These
provisions would 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 would impact the associated paperwork
burdens.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246) and 7
CFR Part 273.
Alternatives:
Not applicable.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Anticipated costs have not been determined; however, it is anticipated
that this rule would impact the associated paperwork burdens.
Risks:
Not applicable.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 05/00/10
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
9. SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: FARM BILL OF 2008
RETAILER SANCTIONS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
PL 110-246
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 276
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This proposed rule would implement provisions under Section 4132 of the
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, also referred to as the Farm
Bill of 2008. Under Section 4132, the Department of Agriculture's Food
and Nutrition Service (FNS) is provided with greater authority and
flexibility when sanctioning retail or wholesale food stores that
violate Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rules.
Specifically, the Department is authorized to assess a civil penalty
and to disqualify a retail or wholesale food store authorized to
participate in SNAP. Previously, the Department could assess a civil
penalty or disqualification, but not both. Section 4132 also eliminates
the minimum disqualification period which was previously set at six
months.
In addition to implementing statutory provisions, this rule proposes to
provide a clear administrative penalty when an authorized retailer or
wholesale food store redeems a SNAP participant's Program benefits
without the knowledge of the participant. All Program benefits are
issued through the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) system. The EBT
system establishes data that may be used to identify fraud committed by
retail food stores. While stealing Program benefits could be prosecuted
under current statute, Program regulations do not provide a clear
penalty for these thefts. The proposed rule would establish an
administrative penalty for such thefts equivalent to the penalty for
trafficking in Program benefits, which is the permanent
disqualification of a retailer or wholesale food store from SNAP
participation.
Finally, the Department proposes to identify additional administrative
retail violations and the associated sanction that would be imposed
against the retail food store for committing the violation. For
instance, to maintain integrity, FNS requires retail and wholesale food
stores to key enter EBT card data in the presence of the actual EBT
card. The proposed rule would codify this requirement and identify the
specific sanction that would be imposed if retail food stores are found
to be in violation. (08-007)
Statement of Need:
This proposed rule would implement provisions under Section 4132 of the
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, also referred to as the Farm
Bill of 2008. Under Section 4132, the Department of Agriculture's Food
and Nutrition Service (FNS) is provided with greater authority and
flexibility when sanctioning retail or wholesale food stores that
violate Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rules.
Specifically, the Department is authorized to assess a civil penalty
and to disqualify a retail or wholesale food store authorized to
participate in SNAP. Previously, the Department could assess a civil
penalty or disqualification, but not both. Section 4132 also eliminates
the minimum disqualification period which was previously set at six
months. In addition to implementing statutory provisions, this rule
proposes to provide a clear administrative penalty when an authorized
retailer or
[[Page 64162]]
wholesale food store redeems a SNAP participant's Program benefits
without the knowledge of the participant. All Program benefits are
issued through the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) system. The EBT
system establishes data that may be used to identify fraud committed by
retail food stores. While stealing Program benefits could be prosecuted
under current statute, Program regulations do not provide a clear
penalty for these thefts. The proposed rule would establish an
administrative penalty for such thefts equivalent to the penalty for
trafficking in Program benefits, which is the permanent
disqualification of a retailer or wholesale food store from SNAP
participation. Finally, the Department proposes to identify additional
administrative retail violations and the associated sanction that would
be imposed against the retail food store for committing the violation.
For instance, to maintain integrity, FNS requires retail and wholesale
food stores to key enter EBT card data in the presence of the actual
EBT card. The proposed rule would codify this requirement and identify
the specific sanction that would be imposed if retail food stores are
found to be in violation.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 4132, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law
110-246).
Alternatives:
Not applicable.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Anticipated costs are undetermined at this time until more research is
conducted.
Risks:
Not applicable.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 06/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
Note: This RIN replaces the previously issued RIN 0584-AD78.
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-AD88
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
10. FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROGRAM
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; National School Lunch Act
(NSLA); 42 U.S.C. 1769(a)
CFR Citation:
7 CFR Part 211
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended the National
School Lunch Act (NSLA) to add section 19, the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Program (FFVP). Section 19 establishes the FFVP as a
permanent national program in a select number of schools in each State,
the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
Schools in all States must apply annually for FFVP funding.
This proposed rule would implement statutory requirements currently
established through program policy and guidance for operators at the
State and local level. The proposed rule would set forth requirements
detailed in the statute for school selection and participation, State
agency outreach to needy schools, the yearly application process, and
the funding and allocation processes for schools and States. The
proposed rule would also include the statutory per student funding
range and the requirement for a program evaluation.
In addition, the proposed rule would establish oversight activity and
reporting and record keeping requirements that are not included in FFVP
statutory requirements. Implementation of this rule is not expected to
result in expenses for program operators because they receive funding
to cover food purchases and administrative costs. (09-007)
Statement of Need:
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended the National
School Lunch Act (NSLA) to add section 19, the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Program (FFVP). Section 19 establishes the FFVP as a
permanent national program in a select number of schools in each State,
the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
Schools in all States must apply annually for FFVP funding. This
proposed rule would implement statutory requirements currently
established through program policy and guidance for operators at the
State and local level. The proposed rule would set forth requirements
detailed in the statute for school selection and participation, State
agency outreach to needy schools, the yearly application process, and
the funding and allocation processes for schools and States. The
proposed rule would also include the statutory per student funding
range and the requirement for a program evaluation.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 19, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. National School
Lunch Act (NSLA). 42 U.S.C. 1769(a).
Alternatives:
Because this proposed rule would implement statutory requirements set
forth by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 by adding
section 19, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP), to the
National School Lunch Act, alternatives to this process are not known
or being pursued at this time.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Implementation of this rule is not expected to result in expenses for
program operators because they receive funding to cover food purchases
and administrative costs.
Risks:
No risks by implementing this proposed rule have been identified at
this time.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 04/00/10
Final Action 12/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
[[Page 64163]]
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-AD96
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
11. CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM: IMPROVING MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM
INTEGRITY
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
42 USC 1766; PL 103-448; PL 104-193; PL 105-336
CFR Citation:
7 CFR Part 226
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rule amends the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
regulations. The changes in this rule result from the findings of State
and Federal program reviews and from audits and investigations
conducted by the Office of Inspector General. This rule revises: State
agency criteria for approving and renewing institution applications;
program training and other operating requirements for child care
institutions and facilities; and State and institution-level monitoring
requirements. This rule also includes changes that are required by the
Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-448), the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of
1996 (Pub. L. 104-193), and the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-336).
The changes are designed to improve program operations and monitoring
at the State and institution levels and, where possible, to streamline
and simplify program requirements for State agencies and institutions.
(95-024)
Statement of Need:
In recent years, State and Federal program reviews have found numerous
cases of mismanagement, abuse, and in some instances, fraud, by child
care institutions and facilities in the CACFP. These reviews revealed
weaknesses in management controls over program operations and examples
of regulatory noncompliance by institutions, including failure to pay
facilities or failure to pay them in a timely manner; improper use of
program funds for non-program expenditures; and improper meal
reimbursements due to incorrect meal counts or to mis-categorized or
incomplete income eligibility statements. In addition, audits and
investigations conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) have
raised serious concerns regarding the adequacy of financial and
administrative controls in CACFP. Based on its findings, OIG
recommended changes to CACFP review requirements and management
controls.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Some of the changes proposed in the rule are discretionary changes
being made in response to deficiencies found in program reviews and OIG
audits. Other changes codify statutory changes made by the Healthy
Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-448), the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub.
L. 104-193), and the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-336).
Alternatives:
In developing the proposal, the Agency considered various alternatives
to minimize burden on State agencies and institutions while ensuring
effective program operation. Key areas in which alternatives were
considered include State agency reviews of institutions and sponsoring
organization oversight of day care homes.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
This rule contains changes designed to improve management and financial
integrity in the CACFP. When implemented, these changes would affect
all entities in CACFP, from USDA to participating children and
children's households. These changes will primarily affect the
procedures used by State agencies in reviewing applications submitted
by, and monitoring the performance of, institutions which are
participating or wish to participate in the CACFP. Those changes which
would affect institutions and facilities will not, in the aggregate,
have a significant economic impact.
Data on CACFP integrity is limited, despite numerous OIG reports on
individual institutions and facilities that have been deficient in
CACFP management. While program reviews and OIG reports clearly
illustrate that there are weaknesses in parts of the program
regulations and that there have been weaknesses in oversight, neither
program reviews, OIG reports, nor any other data sources illustrate the
prevalence and magnitude of CACFP fraud and abuse. This lack of
information precludes USDA from estimating the amount of money lost due
to fraud and abuse or the reduction in fraud and abuse the changes in
this rule will realize.
Risks:
Operating under interim rules puts State agencies and institutions at
risk of implementing Program provisions subject to change in a final
rule.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 09/12/00 65 FR 55103
NPRM Comment Period End 12/11/00
Interim Final Rule 06/27/02 67 FR 43448
Interim Final Rule
Effective 07/29/02
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 12/24/02
Interim Final Rule 09/01/04 69 FR 53502
Interim Final Rule
Effective 10/01/04
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 09/01/05
Final Action 03/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Federalism:
This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.
[[Page 64164]]
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]
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AC94
RIN: 0584-AC24
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
12. SNAP: ELIGIBILITY AND CERTIFICATION PROVISIONS OF THE FARM SECURITY
AND RURAL INVESTMENT ACT OF 2002
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
PL 107-171, sections 4101 to 4109, 4114, 4115, and 4401
CFR Citation:
7 CFR Part 273
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking will amend the regulations of the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp
Program, to implement 11 provisions of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 that establish new eligibility and certification
requirements for the receipt of food stamps. (02-007)
Statement of Need:
The rule is needed to implement the food stamp certification and
eligibility provisions of Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The legal basis for this rule is Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Alternatives:
This final rule deals with changes required by Public Law 107-171, the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Department has
limited discretion in implementing provisions of that law. Most of the
provisions in this rule were effective October 1, 2002, and were
implemented by State agencies prior to publication of this rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The provisions of this rule simplify State administration of SNAP,
increase eligibility for the program among certain groups, increase
access to the program among low-income families and individuals, and
increase benefit levels. The provisions of Public Law 107-171
implemented by this rule have a 5-year cost of approximately $1.9
billion.
Risks:
SNAP provides nutrition assistance to millions of Americans
nationwide--working families, eligible non-citizens, and elderly and
disabled individuals. Many low-income families don't earn enough money
and many elderly and disabled individuals don't receive enough in
retirement or disability benefits to meet all of their expenses and
purchase healthy and nutritious meals. SNAP serves a vital role in
helping these families and individuals achieve and maintain self-
sufficiency and purchase a nutritious diet. This rule implements the
certification and eligibility provisions of Public Law 107-171, the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. It simplifies State
administration of SNAP, increases eligibility for the program among
certain groups, increases access to the program among low-income
families and individuals, and increases benefit levels. The provisions
of this rule increase benefits by approximately $1.95 billion over 5
years.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 04/16/04 69 FR 20724
NPRM Comment Period End 06/15/04
Final Action 12/00/09
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-AD30
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
13. QUALITY CONTROL PROVISIONS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 2011 to 2032; PL 107-171
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 273; 7 CFR 275
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rule finalizes the interim rule ``Non-Discretionary Quality
Control Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 107-171'' (published
October 16, 2003 at 68 FR 59519) and the proposed rule ``Discretionary
Quality Control Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 107-171''
(published September 23, 2005 at 70 FR 55776).
The following quality control (QC) provisions required by sections 4118
and 4119 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (title
IV of Pub. L. 107-171) and contained in the interim rule are
implemented by this final rule:
1) Timeframes for completing quality control reviews;
2) Timeframes for completing the arbitration process;
3) Timeframes for determining final error rates;
4) The threshold for potential sanctions and time period for sanctions;
5) The calculation of State error rates;
6) The formula for determining States' liability amounts;
7) Sanction notification and method of payment; and
8) Corrective action plans.
The following provisions required by sections 4118 and 4119 and
additional policy and technical changes, and contained in the proposed
rule, are implemented by this final rule.
[[Page 64165]]
Legislative changes based on or required by sections 4118 and 4119:
1) Eliminate enhanced funding;
2) Establish timeframes for completing individual quality control
reviews; and
3) Establish procedures for adjusting liability determinations
following appeal decisions.
Policy and technical changes:
1) Require State agency QC reviewers to attempt to complete review when
a household refuses to cooperate;
2) Mandate FNS validation of negative sample for purposes of high
performance bonuses;
3) Revise procedures for conducting negative case reviews;
4) Revise timeframes for household penalties for refusal to cooperate
with State and Federal QC reviews;
5) Revise procedures for QC reviews of demonstration and SSA processed
cases;
6) Eliminate requirement to report differences resulting from Federal
information exchange systems (FIX) errors;
7) Eliminate references to integrated QC; and
8) Update definitions section to remove out-dated definitions. (02-014)
Statement of Need:
The rule is needed to implement the food stamp quality control
provisions of Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The legal basis for this rule is Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Alternatives:
This rule deals with changes required by Public Law 107-171, the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Department has no
discretion in implementing the time frames for completing quality
control reviews, the arbitration process, and determining the final
error rates; the threshold for potential sanctions and the time period
for the sanctions; the calculation for State error rates; the formula
for determining liability amounts; the sanction notification; method of
payment for liabilities; corrective action planning, and the
elimination of enhanced funding. These provisions were effective for
the fiscal year 2003 quality control review period and must have been
implemented by FNS and State agencies during fiscal year 2003. This
rule also deals in part with discretionary changes to the quality
control system resulting from Public Law 107-171. The provision
addressing results of appeals is required to be regulated by Public Law
107-171. The remaining changes amend existing regulations and are
required to make technical changes resulting from these changes or to
update policy consistent with current requirements.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The provisions of this rule are not anticipated to have any impact on
benefit levels or administrative costs.
Risks:
The FSP provides nutrition assistance to millions of Americans
nationwide. The quality control system measures the accuracy of States
providing food stamp benefits to the program recipients. This rule is
intended to implement the quality control provisions of Public Law 107-
701, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. It will
significantly revise the system for determining State agency
liabilities and sanctions for high payment error rates.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 10/16/03 68 FR 59519
Interim Final Rule
Effective 12/15/03
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 01/14/04
NPRM 09/23/05 70 FR 55776
NPRM Comment Period End 12/22/05
Final Action 03/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, 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]
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AD37
RIN: 0584-AD31
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
14. DIRECT CERTIFICATION OF CHILDREN IN FOOD STAMP HOUSEHOLDS AND
CERTIFICATION OF HOMELESS, MIGRANT, AND RUNAWAY CHILDREN FOR FREE MEALS
IN THE NSLP, SBP, AND SMP
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 108-265, sec 104
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 215; 7 CFR 220; 7 CFR 245
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
In response to Public Law 108-265, which amended the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act, 7 CFR 245, Determining Eligibility for Free
and Reduced Price Meals and Free Milk in Schools, will be amended to
establish categorical (automatic) eligibility for free meals and free
milk upon documentation that a child is (1) homeless as defined by the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; (2) a runaway served by grant
programs under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act; or (3) migratory as
defined in section 1309(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act. The rule also requires phase-in of mandatory direct certification
for children who are members of households receiving food stamps and
continues discretionary direct certification for other categorically
eligible children. (04-018)
Statement of Need:
The changes made to the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act
concerning direct certification are intended to improve program access,
reduce paperwork, and improve the accuracy of the delivery of free meal
benefits. This regulation will implement the statutory changes and
provide State agencies and local educational agencies with the policies
and procedures to conduct mandatory and discretionary direct
certification.
Summary of Legal Basis:
These changes are being made in response to provisions in Public Law
108-265.
Alternatives:
FNS will be working closely with State agencies to implement the
changes made by this regulation and will be
[[Page 64166]]
developing extensive guidance materials in conjunction with our
cooperators.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
This regulation will reduce paperwork, target benefits more precisely,
and will improve program access of eligible school children.
Risks:
This regulation may require adjustments to existing computer systems to
more readily share information between schools, food stamp offices, and
other agencies.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 02/00/10
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 05/00/10
Final Action 05/00/11
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]
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AD62
RIN: 0584-AD60
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
15. EGG PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
21 USC 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 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 Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).
FSIS also is 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. The Agency also plans to eliminate the prior
label approval system for egg products. This proposal will not
encompass shell egg packers. In the near future, FSIS will initiate
non-regulatory outreach efforts for shell egg packers that will provide
information intended to help them to safely process shell eggs intended
for human consumption or further processing.
Statement of Need:
The actions being proposed are part of FSIS' regulatory reform effort
to improve FSIS' shell egg and 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:
This proposed rule is authorized under the Egg Products Inspection Act
(21 U.S.C. 1031 to 1056). It is not the result of any specific mandate
by the Congress or a Federal court.
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 a 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 common farm-to-table approach for
shell egg and egg products food safety. Other Federal agencies and
local governments are not likely to be affected.
Egg and egg product inspection systems of foreign countries wishing to
export eggs and 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 Small Business
Administration criteria. If
[[Page 64167]]
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. In light of recent scientific studies that
raise questions about the efficacy of current regulations, however, it
is likely that measurable reductions will be achieved in the risk of
foodborne illness.
The preliminary anticipated annualized costs of the proposed action are
approximately $7.0 million. The preliminary anticipated benefits of the
proposed action are approximately $90.0 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 SE in eggs and
for Salmonella spp. in liquid egg products to evaluate the risk
associated with the regulatory alternatives.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 06/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, State
Federalism:
Undetermined
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
16. PRIOR LABELING APPROVAL SYSTEM: GENERIC LABEL APPROVAL
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
21 USC 451 to 470; 21 USC 601 to 695
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 327; 9 CFR 381; 9 CFR 412
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:
This action is authorized under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C.
451 et seq.).
Alternatives:
FSIS 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 proposed rule would permit the Agency to realize an estimated cost
savings of $670,000 over 10 years. The proposed 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 08/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
[[Page 64168]]
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Jeff Canavan
Labeling and Program Delivery Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
5601 Sunnyside Ave
Beltsville, MD 20705-4576
Phone: 301 504-0878
Fax: 301-504-0872
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AC59
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
17. CHANGES TO REGULATORY JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN FOOD PRODUCTS
CONTAINING MEAT AND POULTRY
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
21 USC 601(j); 21 USC 454(f)
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 303.1; 9 CFR 381.15
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) have concluded that a clearer approach to
determining jurisdiction over meat and poultry products is possible.
This approach involves considering the contribution of the meat or
poultry ingredients to the identity of the food. FSIS is proposing to
amend the Federal meat and poultry products inspection regulations to
provide consistency and predictability in the regulatory jurisdiction
over nine products or product categories. Historically there has been
confusion about whether these products fall within the jurisdiction of
FSIS or FDA. These proposed changes would exempt cheese and cheese
products prepared with less than 50 percent meat or poultry; breads,
rolls and buns prepared with less than 50 percent meat or poultry;
dried poultry soup mixes; flavor bases and flavors; pizza with meat or
poultry; and salad dressings prepared with less than 50 percent meat or
poultry from the requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and
the Poultry Product Inspection Act and would clarify that bagel dogs,
natural casings, and close faced-sandwiches are subject to the
requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry
Products Inspection Act.
Statement of Need:
Over the years, FSIS has made decisions about the jurisdiction under
which food products containing meat or poultry ingredients are produced
based on the amount of meat or poultry in the product; whether the
product is represented as a meat or poultry product (that is, whether a
term that refers to meat or poultry is used on labeling); whether the
product is perceived by consumers as a product of the meat or poultry
industries; and whether the product contains poultry or meat from an
accepted source. With regard to the consumer perception factor, FSIS
made decisions on a case-by-case basis, mostly in response to
situations involving determinations for compliance and enforcement.
Although this case-by-case approach resulted in decisions that made
sense at the time that they were made, a review in 2004 to 2005 by a
working group of FSIS and FDA representatives showed that some of the
decisions do not appear to be fully consistent with other product
decisions and that the reasoning behind various determinations was not
fully articulated or supported.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 to 695),
the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 to 470), and
the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1032), and the
regulations that implement these Acts, FSIS has authority over all meat
food and poultry products and processed egg products. Under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the regulations that implement
it, FDA has authority over all foods not under FSIS' jurisdiction,
including dairy, bread and other grain products, vegetables and other
produce, and other products, such as seafood.
According to the provisions of the FMIA and PPIA, the Secretary has the
authority to exempt certain human food products from the definition of
a meat food product (21 U.S.C. 601(j)) or a poultry product (20 U.S.C.
454(f)) based on either of two factors: (1) The product contains only a
relatively small proportion of livestock ingredients or poultry
ingredients, or (2) the product historically has not been considered by
consumers as a product of the meat food or poultry industry, and under
such conditions as he or she may prescribe to ensure that the livestock
or poultry ingredients are not adulterated and that the products are
not represented as meat food or poultry products.
Alternatives:
FSIS has considered over the years a number of variations to clarify
the confusion regarding jurisdiction for these various products.
Alternative 1: Maintain the status quo. Although FSIS has considered
taking no action at this time, the Agency does not recommend this
option because of the continued confusion that exists among industry
and consumers as to jurisdictional coverage for nine categories of
products.
Alternative 2: Reassess the statutory factors for making jurisdiction
decision and recommend an amendment. The amendment of the statute would
be from the historical perception factor because that is the factor, of
the two statutory factors, that the working group identified as leading
to the state of confusion about the jurisdiction of certain products
containing meat or poultry.
Alternative 3: Adopt some of the FDA/FSIS working group's suggested
approach to making clear and transparent jurisdiction decisions by
proposing changes to regulations to codify the current policies on
exempted products.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
FSIS estimates that the initial and recurring costs of the rule to
industry would be approximately $5 million and $7 million,
respectively. These costs would be attributable to new Sanitation SOP
and HACCP plan development, as well as to labeling changes and
training. FSIS would incur $7 million in annual recurring costs
(salaries and benefits). Establishments coming under FSIS jurisdiction
also would incur costs for recordkeeping, monitoring, testing, and
annual HACCP plan reassessment.
Benefits to industry would accrue from reduced confusion over Agency
jurisdiction, which may affect labeling and recordkeeping costs. There
may be spill-over benefits accruing from changes in consumer behavior.
Also, there would be improvement in efficiency in use of FDA and FSIS
resources.
[[Page 64169]]
Risks:
None
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Charles Gioglio
Labeling and Program Delivery Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0279
Fax: 202 205-3625
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AD28
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
18. NEW POULTRY SLAUGHTER INSPECTION
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
21 USC 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 is proposing 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
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 is also
proposing 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. The
proposed rule would establish new performance standards to reduce
pathogens. 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 proposed new system, young chicken 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 is proposing 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,
would encourage industry to more readily use new technology, and would
include new performance standards to reduce pathogens.
This proposed rule is an example of regulatory reform because it would
facilitate technological innovation in young chicken slaughter
establishments. 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:
The Secretary of Agriculture is charged by the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (PPIA--21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) with carrying out a
mandatory poultry products inspection program. The Act requires post-
mortem inspection of all carcasses of slaughtered poultry subject to
the Act and such reinspection as deemed necessary (21 U.S.C. 455(b)).
The Secretary is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as
are necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act (21 U.S.C.
463(b)). The Agency has tentatively determined that this rule would
facilitate FSIS post-mortem inspection of young chicken carcasses. The
proposed new system would likely result in more efficient and effective
use of Agency resources and in industry innovations.
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.
4) Propose standards of identity regulations for young chickens that
include trim and processing defect criteria and that take into account
the intended use of the product.
5) Propose a voluntary new inspection system for young chicken
slaughter establishments and propose standards of identity for whole
chickens, regardless of the products' intended use.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The proposed performance standards and the implementation of public
health-based inspection would likely improve the public health. FSIS is
conducting a risk assessment for this proposed rule to assess the
likely public health benefits that the implementation of this rule may
achieve.
Establishments that volunteer for this proposed new inspection system
alternative would likely need to make capital investments in facilities
and equipment. They may also need to add labor (trained employees).
However, one of the beneficial effects of these investments would
likely be the lowering of the average cost per pound to dress poultry
properly. Cost savings would likely result because of increased line
speeds, increased productivity, and increased flexibility to industry.
The expected lower average unit cost for dressing poultry would likely
give a marketing advantage to establishments under the new system.
Consumers would likely benefit from lower retail prices for high
quality poultry products. The rule would also likely provide
opportunities for the industry to innovate because of the increased
flexibility it would allow poultry slaughter establishments. In
addition, in the public sector, benefits would accrue to FSIS from the
more effective deployment of FSIS inspection program personnel to
verify process control based on risk factors at each establishment.
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
[[Page 64170]]
carcasses. FSIS believes that through better allocation of inspection
resources and the use of performance standards, it would be able to
reduce the prevalence of salmonella and other pathogens in young
chickens.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 09/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
State
Agency Contact:
Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0495
Fax: 202 401-1760
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AD32
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
19. NOTIFICATION, DOCUMENTATION, AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR
INSPECTED ESTABLISHMENTS
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
21 USC 612 to 613; 21 USC 459
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 417.4; ; 9 CFR 418
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to require
establishments subject to inspection under the Federal Meat Inspection
Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to promptly notify the
Secretary of Agriculture that an adulterated or misbranded product
received by or originating from the establishment has entered into
commerce, if the establishment believes or has reason to believe that
this has happened. FSIS is also proposing to require these
establishments to: (1) prepare and maintain current procedures for the
recall of all products produced and shipped by the establishment; and
(2) document each reassessment of the process control plans of the
establishment.
Statement of Need:
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246,
Sec. 11017), known as the 2008 Farm Bill, amended the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) to
require establishments subject to inspection under these Acts to
promptly notify the Secretary that an adulterated or misbranded product
received by or originating from the establishment has entered into
commerce, if the establishment believes or has reason to believe that
this has happened. Section 11017 also requires establishments subject
to inspection under the FMIA and PPIA to: (1) prepare and maintain
current procedures for the recall of all products produced and shipped
by the establishment; and (2) document each reassessment of the process
control plans of the establishment.
Summary of Legal Basis:
21 U.S.C. 612 and 613; 21 U.S.C. 459, and Public Law 110-246, Sec.
11017.
Alternatives:
The option of no rulemaking is unavailable.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Approximate costs: $5.0 million for labor and costs; $5.2 million for
first year costs; $0.7 million average costs adjusted with a 3%
inflation rate for following years. Total approximate costs: $10.2
million. The average cost of this proposed rule to small entities is
expected to be less than one tenth of one cent of meat and poultry food
products per annum. Therefore, FSIS has made an initial determination
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Approximate benefits: benefits have not been monetized because
quantified data on benefits attributable to this proposed rule are not
available. Non-monetary benefits include improved protection of the
public health, improved HACCP plans, and improved recall effectiveness.
Risks:
In preparing regulations on the shipment of adulterated meat and
poultry products by meat and poultry establishments, the preparation
and maintenance of procedures for recalled products produced and
shipped by establishments, and the documentation of each reassessment
of the process control plans by the establishment, the Agency will
consider any risks to public health or other pertinent risks associated
with these actions.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 01/00/10
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-AD34
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
20. MANDATORY INSPECTION OF CATFISH AND CATFISH PRODUCTS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
21 USC 601 et seq PL 110-249, sec 11016
CFR Citation:
9 CFR ch III, subchapter F (new)
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, December 2009, Final regulations NLT 18 months after
enactment of PL 110-246.
Abstract:
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246, sec.
11016), known as the 2008 Farm Bill, amended the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (FMIA) to make catfish an amenable species under the
FMIA. Amenable species must be inspected, so this rule will define
inspection
[[Page 64171]]
requirements for catfish. The regulations will define ``catfish'' and
the scope of coverage of the regulations to apply to establishments
that process farm-raised species of catfish and to catfish and catfish
products. The regulations will take into account the conditions under
which the catfish are raised and transported to a processing
establishment.
Statement of Need:
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246, sec.
11016), known as the 2008 Farm Bill, amended the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (FMIA) to make catfish an amenable species under the
FMIA. The Farm Bill directs the Department to issue final regulations
implementing the FMIA amendments not later than 18 months after the
enactment date (June 18, 2008) of the legislation.
Summary of Legal Basis:
21 U.S.C. 601 to 695 and Public Law 110-246, sec. 11016
Alternatives:
The option of no rulemaking is unavailable. The Agency will consider
alternative methods of implementation and levels of stringency, and the
effects on foreign and domestic commerce and on small business
associated with the alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
FSIS anticipates benefits from uniform standards and the more extensive
and intensive inspection service that FSIS provides (compared with
current voluntary inspection programs). FSIS would apply requirements
for imported catfish that would be equivalent to those applying to
catfish raised and processed in the United States.
Risks:
In preparing regulations on catfish and catfish products, the Agency
will consider any risks to public health or other pertinent risks
associated with the production, processing, and distribution of the
products. FSIS will determine, through scientific risk assessment
procedures, the magnitude of the risks associated with catfish and how
they compare with those associated with other foods in FSIS's
jurisdiction.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 02/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, State
Agency Contact:
William Milton
Assistant Office of Catfish Inspection Programs
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-5735
Fax: 202 690-1742
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AD36
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
21. ELECTRONIC FOREIGN IMPORT CERTIFICATES AND SANITATION
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOPS) REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICIAL IMPORT
ESTABLISHMENTS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695), the Poultry
Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451-470);; Egg Products
Inspection Act (EPIA)(21 U.S.C. 1031-1056)
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 304.3; 9 CFR 327.2, 327.4, ; 9 CFR 381.196, 391.197, 381.198;; 9
CFR 590.915, 590.920
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
FSIS is proposing to amend meat, poultry, and egg products regulations
to provide for the electronic submission of import product and
establishment applications and certificates and delete the
``streamlined'' inspection procedures for Canadian product. In
addition, FSIS is amending its regulations to require Sanitation
Standard Operating Procedures (Sanitation SOPs) in official import
inspection establishments.
Statement of Need:
FSIS is proposing these regulations to provide for the electronic
submission of import product and establishment certificates to allow
the electronic interchange and transmission of data to Agency's
computer-based Public Health Information System (PHIS), which is
currently under development. Providing an electronic format for
imported certificates will enable the government-to-government exchange
of data between FSIS and foreign customs and inspection authorities.
Sanitation SOPs are written procedures that are developed and
implemented by establishments to prevent direct contamination or
adulteration of meat or poultry products. Sanitation SOPs are required
at official (domestic) establishments. Current regulations are
ambiguous concerning Sanitation SOP requirements for official import
inspection establishments. FSIS is proposing to require that official
import inspection establishments comply with the Sanitation SOPs
regulations to eliminate that ambiguity and ensure that products do not
become contaminated as they enter this country.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The authorities for this proposed rule are: the Federal Meat Inspection
Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695), the Poultry Products Inspection Act
(PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451-470), Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA)(21
U.S.C. 1031-1056) and the regulations that implement these Acts.
Alternatives:
The electronic processing of import certifications is voluntary,
therefore, importers still have the option of using the current paper-
based system. The Agency is proposing to require that official import
inspection establishments adopt Sanitation SOPs to prevent direct
contamination or adulteration of product. Therefore, no alternatives
were considered.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The opportunity cost of not amending the regulations would hinder the
Agency's implementation of PHIS. The amendments that provide for the
electronic interchange of data are voluntary, so establishments will
not take them on unless the benefits outweigh the costs. It has been
the Agency's expectation that official import establishments will
maintain Sanitation SOPs, this proposed rule codifies that expectation.
Therefore, the proposed amendment on sanitation requirements will have
no costs to the industry. The proposed rule will facilitate FSIS's use
of the PHIS system, enabling the electronic transmission, issuance, and
authorization of imported product data. The PHIS will enable FSIS
import inspection personnel to
[[Page 64172]]
verify and authorize shipments using electronic data, reducing
inspector workload. The electronic exchange of certificate data will
help to reduce the fraudulent alteration or reproduction of
certificates. The Agency estimates that the electronic processing of
import certificates will reduce the data-entry time for import
inspectors, by 50 to 60 percent.
Risks:
None
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
International Impacts:
This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.
Agency Contact:
Clark Danford
Director, International Policy Division, Office of Policy and Program
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-9824
RIN: 0583-AD39
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
22. 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. 601-695); Poultry
Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451-470); Egg Products
Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031-1056)
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 312.8; 9 CFR 322.1. 322.2, ; 9 CFR 381.104, 381.105, 381.106; 9
CFR 590; 9 CFR 350.3
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to amend the
meat, poultry, and egg product inspection regulations to provide an
electronic export application and certification process that will be
available as an alternative to the paper-based application and
certification method currently in use. The electronic export
application and certification process will be available as a
reimbursable inspection service. FSIS is also proposing to provide
establishments that export meat, poultry, and egg products with
flexibility in the official export inspection marks, and devices used
and how the products are marked for export.
Statement of Need:
FSIS is proposing these regulations to implement the Public Health
Information System (PHIS), a computer-based inspection information
system currently under development. The PHIS will include automation of
the export application and certification process. The current export
application and certification regulations provide only for a paper-
based process, this proposed rule will amend the regulations to provide
for the electronic process. Additionally, this rule is needed to
provide this automated services as a reimbursable certification service
charged to the exporter.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The authorities for this proposed rule are: the Federal Meat Inspection
Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695), the Poultry Products Inspection Act
(PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451-470), the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21
U.S.C. 1031-1056), and the regulations that implement these Acts. FSIS
is proposing the electronic export application and certification
process as a reimbursable service under the Agricultural Marketing Act
7 U.S.C. 1622(h), that provides the Secretary of Agriculture with the
authority to: ``inspect, certify, and identify the class, quality,
quantity, and condition of agricultural products when shipped or
received in interstate commerce, under such rules and regulations as
the Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe, including assessment and
collection of such fees as will be reasonable and as nearly as may be
to cover the cost of the service rendered, to the end that agricultural
products may be marketed to the best advantage, that trading may be
facilitated, and that consumers may be able to obtain the quality
product which they desire.''
Alternatives:
The electronic processing of export applications and certifications 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 estimates that it will take inspection personnel 1 hour to process
an electronic application and issue an electronic certificate. Based on
a workload of accessing and processing an estimated 350,000
applications/certificates per year, at a base time rate of $49.93 per
hour, the cost of recouping the inspector's labor costs for 2009 would
be $17.4 million. The amount charged to the exporter depends upon the
number of electronic applications submitted. The use of the electronic
export application and certificate system is voluntary. Therefore,
exporters will not use this service unless the benefits outweigh the
cost. The electronic export application and certificate process will
reduce and expedite industry workload by eliminating the physical
handling and processing of paperwork. The electronic exchange of export
information between the U.S. and foreign governments will help reduce
the fraudulent alternation or reproduction of certificates. The
electronic system will process the applications and certificates will
permit exporters to move their products faster, thereby increasing the
amount of revenues received at a faster rate. The electronic system
will provide a streamlined and integrated method of processing export
applications and certificates.
Risks:
None
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
[[Page 64173]]
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:
Clark Danford
Director, International Policy Division, Office of Policy and Program
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-9824
RIN: 0583-AD41
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
23. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PROCESSED MEAT AND
POULTRY PRODUCTS; CONTROL OF LISTERIA MONOCYTOGENES IN READY-TO-EAT
MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
21 USC 451 et seq; 21 USC 601 et seq
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 301; 9 CFR 303; 9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 318; 9 CFR 319; 9 CFR 320; 9 CFR
325; 9 CFR 331; 9 CFR 381; 9 CFR 417; 9 CFR 430; 9 CFR 431
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
FSIS has proposed to establish pathogen reduction performance standards
for all ready-to-eat (RTE) and partially heat-treated meat and poultry
products, and measures, including testing, to control Listeria
monocytogenes in RTE products. The performance standards spell out the
objective level of pathogen reduction that establishments must meet
during their operations in order to produce safe products but allow the
use of customized, plant-specific processing procedures other than
those prescribed in the earlier regulations. With HACCP, food safety
performance standards give establishments the incentive and flexibility
to adopt innovative, science-based food safety processing procedures
and controls, while providing objective, measurable standards that can
be verified by Agency inspectional oversight. This set of performance
standards will include and be consistent with standards already in
place for certain ready-to-eat meat and poultry products.
Statement of Need:
Although FSIS routinely samples and tests some ready-to-eat products
for the presence of pathogens prior to distribution, there are no
specific regulatory pathogen reduction requirements for most of these
products. The proposed performance standards are necessary to help
ensure the safety of these products; give establishments the incentive
and flexibility to adopt innovative, science-based food safety
processing procedures and controls; and provide objective, measurable
standards that can be verified by Agency oversight.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 to 695) and the
Poultry Product Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 to 470), FSIS issues
regulations governing the production of meat and poultry products
prepared for distribution in commerce. The regulations, along with FSIS
inspection programs, are designed to ensure that meat and poultry
products are safe, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and
packaged.
Alternatives:
As an alternative to all of the proposed requirements, FSIS considered
taking no action. As alternatives to the proposed performance standard
requirements, FSIS considered end-product testing and requiring ``use-
by'' date labeling on ready-to-eat products.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Benefits are expected to result from fewer contaminated products
entering commercial food distribution channels as a result of improved
sanitation and process controls and in-plant verification. FSIS
believes that the benefits of the rule would exceed the total costs of
implementing its provisions. FSIS currently estimates net benefits from
the 2003 interim final rule at $470 to $575 million, with annual
recurring costs at $150.4 million, if FSIS discounts the capital cost
at 7%. FSIS is continuing to analyze the potential impact of the other
provisions of the proposal.
The other main provisions of the proposed rule are: Lethality
performance standards for Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 and
stabilization performance standards for C. perfringens that firms must
meet when producing RTE meat and poultry products. Most of the costs of
these requirements would be associated with one-time process
performance validation in the first year of implementation of the rule
and with revision of HACCP plans. Benefits are expected to result from
the entry into commercial food distribution channels of product with
lower levels of contamination resulting from improved in-plant process
verification and sanitation. Consequently, there will be fewer cases of
foodborne illness.
Risks:
Before FSIS published the proposed rule, FDA and FSIS had estimated
that each year L. monocytogenes caused 2,540 cases of foodborne
illness, including 500 fatalities. The Agencies estimated that about
65.3 percent of these cases, or 1660 cases and 322 deaths per year,
were attributable to RTE meat and poultry products. The analysis of the
interim final rule on control of L. monocytogenes conservatively
estimated that implementation of the rule would lead to an annual
reduction of 27.3 deaths and 136.7 illnesses at the median. FSIS is
continuing to analyze data on production volume and Listeria controls
in the RTE meat and poultry products industry and is using the FSIS
risk assessment model for L. monocytogenes to determine the likely risk
reduction effects of the rule. Preliminary results indicate that the
risk reductions being achieved are substantially greater than those
estimated in the analysis of the interim rule.
FSIS is also analyzing the potential risk reductions that might be
achieved by implementing the lethality and stabilization performance
standards for products that would be subject to the proposed rule. The
risk reductions to be achieved by the proposed rule and that are being
achieved by the interim rule are intended to contribute to the Agency's
public health protection effort.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 02/27/01 66 FR 12590
[[Page 64174]]
NPRM Comment Period End 05/29/01
NPRM Comment Period
Extended 07/03/01 66 FR 35112
NPRM Comment Period End 09/10/01
Interim Final Rule 06/06/03 68 FR 34208
Interim Final Rule
Effective 10/06/03
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 01/31/05
NPRM Comment Period
Reopened 03/24/05 70 FR 15017
NPRM Comment Period End 05/09/05
Affirmation of Interim
Final Rule 03/00/10
Final Action 08/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0495
Fax: 202 401-1760
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AC46
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
24. FEDERAL-STATE INTERSTATE SHIPMENT COOPERATIVE INSPECTION PROGRAM
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 110-246 (section 11015)
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, December 18, 2009.
Abstract:
FSIS is proposing regulations to implement a new voluntary Federal-
State cooperative inspection program under which State-inspected
establishments with 25 or fewer employees would be eligible to ship
meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. State-inspected
establishments selected to participate in this program would be
required to comply with all Federal standards under the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA).
These establishments would receive inspection services from State
inspection personnel that have been trained and certified to assist
with enforcement of the FMIA and PPIA. Meat and poultry products
produced under the program that have been inspected and passed by
selected State-inspection personnel would bear a Federal mark of
inspection. FSIS is proposing these regulations in response to the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act, enacted on June 18, 2008 (the 2008
Farm Bill). Section 11015 of 2008 Farm Bill provides for the interstate
shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry product from selected
establishments and requires that FSIS promulgate implementing
regulations no later than 18 months from the date of its enactment
Statement of Need:
This action is needed to implement a new Federal-State cooperative
program that will permit certain State-inspected establishments to ship
meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. Inspection services
for establishments selected to participate in the program will be
provided by state inspection personnel that have been trained and
certified in the administration and enforcement of the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) and the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451, et seq.) Meat and poultry
products produced by establishments selected to participate in the
program will bear a Federal mark of inspection.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This action is authorized under section 11015 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill) (PL-110-246).
Section 11015 amends the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C.
601, et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C.
451, et seq.) to establish an optional Federal-State cooperative
program under which State-inspected establishments would be permitted
to ship meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. The law
requires that FSIS promulgate implementing regulations no later than 18
months after the date of enactment.
Alternatives:
1. No action: FSIS did not consider the alternative of no action
because section 11015 of the 2008 Farm Bill requires that it promulgate
regulations to implement the new Federal-State cooperative program. The
Agency did consider alternatives on how to implement the new program.
2. Limit participation in the program to state-inspected establishments
with 25 or fewer employees on average: Under the law, state-inspected
establishments that have 25 or fewer employees on average are permitted
to participate in the program. The law also provides that FSIS may
select establishments that employ more than 25 but fewer than 35
employees on average as of June 18, 2008 (the date of enactment) to
participate in the program. Under the law, if these establishments
employ more than 25 employees on average 3 years after FSIS promulgates
implementing regulations, they are required to transition to a Federal
establishment. FSIS rejected the option of limiting the program to
establishment that employ 25 or fewer employees on average to give
additional small establishments the opportunity to participate in the
program and ship their meat of poultry products in interstate commerce.
3. Permit establishments with 25 to 35 employees on average as of June
18, 2008, to participate in the program. FSIS chose the option of
permitting these establishments to be selected to participate in the
program to give additional small establishments the opportunity to ship
their meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. Under this
option, FSIS will develop a procedure to transition any establishment
that employs more than 25 people on average to a Federal establishment.
Establishments that employee 24 to 35 employees on average as of June
18, 2008, would be subject to the transition procedure beginning on the
date three years after the Agency promulgates implementing regulations.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
FSIS is analyzing the costs of this proposed rule to industry, FSIS,
State and local governments, small entities, and foreign countries.
Participation in the new Federal-State cooperative program will be
optional. Thus, the costs and benefits associated with the proposed
rule will depend on the number of States and establishments that chose
to participate. Very small and certain small establishments State-
[[Page 64175]]
inspected establishments that are selected to participate in the
program are likely to benefit from the program because they will be
permitted sell their products to consumers in other States and foreign
countries.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 09/16/09 74 FR 47648
NPRM Comment Period End 11/16/09
Final Action 09/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, State
Federalism:
This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.
Agency Contact:
Rachel Edelstein
Director, Policy Issuances Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-0399
Fax: 202 690-0486
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AD37
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)
-----------
PRERULE STAGE
-----------
25. RURAL ENERGY SELF-SUFFICIENCY INITIATIVE--SECTION 9009
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
PL 110-246
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Secretary shall establish a Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency
Initiative (grant program) to provide financial assistance for the
purpose of enabling eligible rural communities to substantially
increase the energy self-sufficiency of the eligible rural communities.
Business Programs has the primary role in program implementation and
will work in consultation with the Forest Service on Community Wood
Energy Program. The Forest Service has operated a program in the past
to assist rural school systems in the use of alternative fuels for
heating physical plants. Their expertise will assist Rural Development
in promulgating a valuable program, well suited to the needs of rural
communities.
Statement of Need:
This is a new grant program authorized by the Farm Bill. The purpose of
Section 9009, Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency Initiative, is to provide
financial assistance to enable eligible rural communities to
substantially increase the energy self-sufficiency.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency Initiative was authorized by the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which made available $5
million annually in discretionary funding through 2012, but no funds
have been made available to date.
Alternatives:
An alternative would be to publish a proposed rule without an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Farm Bill currently does not clearly
define eligible rural communities or what eligible entities can apply
on behalf of an eligible community. There are no maximum or minimum
grant amounts set in this program. Additionally, the Farm Bill does not
include any scoring requirements to determine who would receive a grant
under the program. There are other program components not defined in
the statute. Because of the limited discretionary funding for this
program, scoring requirements would need to be determined based on
extremely focused parameters. A determination would need to be made as
to the size of the average project, particularly when you are
considering a community submitting an application to develop and
install an integrated renewable energy system. The program will need to
clearly define an eligible rural community and what type of applicants
would be eligible.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
It is anticipated that there will be costs directly attributable to the
contractor, which is assisting with drafting the notice. Other costs
would be internal costs associated with the promulgation of the rule.
The Agency is confident that the regulations will contain sufficient
safeguards to mitigate any risk associated with a proposed rule and
would be a benefit to the agency as well as potential applicants
considering applying for assistance under this program. Benefits
accruing to the publishing of an advance notice would enable the Agency
to use the public comments to develop a more focused proposed rule.
Risks:
The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or
safety or to the environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 12/00/09
NPRM 07/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End 09/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Local
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Anthony Ashby
Loan Specialist
Department of Agriculture
STOP 3224
1400 Independence Avenue SW, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-0661
Fax: 202 720-6003
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0570-AA77
[[Page 64176]]
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--RBS
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
26. GRANTS FOR EXPANSION OF EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR INDIVIDUALS
WITH DISABILITIES IN RURAL AREAS--SECTION 6023
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
Not Yet Determined
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This is a new program created by the Food, Conservation and Energy Act
of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill). The purpose of the section is to provide
grants to nonprofit organizations to expand and enhance employment
opportunities for individuals with disabilities in rural areas.
Statement of Need:
There is no existing program regulation. USDA Rural Business-
Cooperative Service (RBS) is promulgating regulations to implement
section 6023. The regulation will provide assistance, which includes
grants to nonprofit organizations or consortium of nonprofit
organization that have a significant focus on serving the needs of
individuals with disabilities. Assistance will be awarded on a
competitive basis. Regulatory implementation may include certain
existing requirements identified in 7 CFR for civil rights
requirements, grant servicing requirements, and so forth.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Expansion of Employment Opportunities for Individuals with
Disabilities in Rural Areas is authorized by the Food, Conservation and
Energy Act of 2008. The purpose of the section is to provide grants to
nonprofit organizations to expand and enhance employment opportunities
for individuals with disabilities in rural areas.
Alternatives:
There are no alternatives to issuing a proposed regulation in order to
allow the public opportunity to provide comments on the program
requirements.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The only costs, aside from contractor costs, are internal costs
associated with the promulgation of the proposed rule. The Agency is
confident that the regulation will contain sufficient safeguards to
mitigate any risk associated with a proposed rule and would be a
benefit to the Agency as well as organizations who utilize the program.
Risks:
None noted.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 01/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End 03/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Andrew Jermolowicz
Assistant Deputy Administrator
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3250
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20250-3250
Phone: 202 720-8460
Fax: 202-720-4641
RIN: 0570-AA72
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--RBS
27. BIOREFINERY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM--SECTION 9003
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 110-246
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The purpose of section 9003 is to assist in the development of new and
emerging technologies for the development of advanced biofuels.
Advanced biofuels are fuels derived from renewable biomass other than
corn kernel starch. The program will increase energy independence,
promote resource conservation, diversify markets for agricultural and
forestry products, create jobs, and enhance economic development in
rural economies. Assistance includes grants and guaranteed loans.
Grants will be awarded on a competitive basis. Eligible entities
include individuals, entities, Indians tribes, units of State or local
governments, farm cooperatives, farmer cooperative organizations,
association of agricultural producers, National Laboratories,
institutions of higher learning, rural electric cooperatives, public
power entities, or a consortium of any of the entities. Regulatory
implementation may include certain requirements identified in existing
Rural Business-Cooperative Service regulations for the Business and
Industry Guaranteed Loan and the Rural Energy for America programs.
Statement of Need:
The program will increase energy independence, promote resource
conservation, diversify markets for agricultural and forestry products,
create jobs, and enhance economic development in rural economies. The
program was originally announced in the Federal Register as an Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on November 20, 2008.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Biorefinery Assistance program was authorized by the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which made available $75,000,000
in mandatory funding for 2009 and $245,000,000 in mandatory funding for
2010, till expended. Additionally, the 2008 Farm Bill provided an
authorization to appropriate up to $150,000,000 in discretionary
funding for each fiscal year 2009 through 2012. The program provides
loan guarantees for the development, construction and retrofitting of
commercial-scale biorefineries, and grants to help pay for the
development and construction costs of demonstration-scale
biorefineries. The purpose is to assist in the development of new and
emerging technologies for the development of advanced biofuels.
[[Page 64177]]
Alternatives:
A Notice of Funding Availability was published in the Federal Register
on November 20, 2008, to implement the program for fiscal year 2009.
Permanent regulation need to be implemented to provide funding in 2010
and further clarify of the program
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
It is anticipated that there will be costs directly attributable to the
contractor, which is assisting with drafting the proposed rule. Other
costs would be internal costs associated with the promulgation of the
proposed rule. The Agency is confident that the regulations contain
sufficient safeguards to mitigate any risk associated with a proposed
rule and would be a benefit to the agency as well as potential
applicants considering applying for payments under this program.
Benefits accruing to the publishing of a proposed rule would clarify
the process, payments, eligibility and understanding of any ambiguity
conveyed in the initial announcement of the program. Additional
benefits stem from the ability of the public and interested parties to
comment on program and consider issues concerning the geographic
location and demographic composition of locatable projects as well as
the ownership criteria.
Risks:
The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or
safety or to the environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 11/20/08 73 FR 70542
ANPRM Comment Period End 01/20/09
NPRM 01/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
William C. Smith
Loan Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3224
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3224
Phone: 202 205-0903
Fax: 202 720-6003
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0570-AA73
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--RBS
28. RURAL BUSINESS RE-POWERING ASSISTANCE--SECTION 9004
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 110-246
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The proposed action will encourage biorefineries existing at the time
the 2008 Farm Bill became law to replace fossil fuels used to produce
heat or power used in their operation by making payments for
installation of new systems that use renewable biomass and/or new
production of energy from renewable biomass.
Payments may be made under section 9004 to any biorefinery that meets
the requirements of this section for a period determined by the
Secretary. The Secretary shall determine the amount of payments to be
made after considering factors addressing fossil fuel offsets and the
cost effectiveness of renewable biomass systems.
Statement of Need:
The new regulations for the program will clarify the application
process and definitively provide rules and regulation regarding the
payment process. These changes are essential to clarify for
verification and measurement of the energy produced which is the basis
for eighty percent of payments under this program.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Repowering Assistance program was authorized by the Food,
Conservation, and, Energy Act of 2008, which made available $35,000,000
in mandatory funding for 2009. A Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
was published on June 12, 2009, making $20 million available and $35
million will be available in 2010. The 2008 Farm Bill also authorizes
$15,000,000 in discretionary funding to be appropriated for each fiscal
year 2009 through 2012. The program provides for the payments to
provide incentives to biorefineries to use renewable biomass for heat
and or power. The purpose is to reduce the dependence of biofuel
producers on fossil fuels and to develop renewable biomass as an
alternative energy source. The proposed new regulations are an
administrative, rather than legislative, initiative.
Alternatives:
Other than issuing a NOFA with the possibility that all funds available
for this program would be obligated, there is no alternative to issuing
a proposed regulation. The proposed regulation provides an opportunity
for public comments on aspects of the program such as level of
payments, geographical eligibility, time frame of prospective payments
and ownership criteria.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The only costs, aside from contractor costs, are internal costs
associated with the promulgation of the proposed rule. The Agency is
confident that the regulations contain sufficient safeguards to
mitigate any risk associated with a proposed rule and would be benefit
to the agency as well as potential applicants considering applying for
payments under this program. Benefits accruing to the publishing from a
proposed rule would be attributable to the opportunity of public
comments which are believed to improve program payment target levels
and shed light on the associated needs and applicants. Publication and
refinement of measurement and verification protocols used in making
payments is expected as result of comments and experience gained from
initiating the program.
Risks:
The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or
safety or to the environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End 02/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
[[Page 64178]]
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Frederick Petok
Loan Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3225
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3225
Phone: 202 690-0784
Fax: 202 720-2213
RIN: 0570-AA74
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--RBS
29. RURAL BUSINESS CONTRACTS FOR PAYMENTS FOR THE BIOENERGY PROGRAM FOR
ADVANCED BIOFUELS--SECTION 9005
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 110-234
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels directs the Secretary of
Agriculture to make payments to eligible producers to support and
ensure an expanding production of advanced biofuels. Advanced biofuels
are defined as `fuel derived from renewable biomass other than corn
kernel starch' in The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The
program will increase energy independence, promote resource
conservation, diversify markets for agricultural and forestry products,
create jobs, and enhance economic development in rural economies. To
receive a payment, an eligible producer shall enter into a contract
with the Secretary of Agriculture for production of advanced biofuels.
The basis for payments under this program are the quantity and duration
of production of biofuel produced by an eligible producer, the net
nonrenewable energy content of the advanced biofuel, and other
appropriate factors as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Statement of Need:
The new regulations for the program known as the Bioenergy Program for
Advanced Biofuels will clarify the application process, eligibility,
payment formula's and eligible products and provide substantive rules
and regulation regarding the payment process. These regulations are
essential to allow for verification and measurement of the advanced
biofuel development promoted by this program.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels program was authorized by
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which made mandatory
funding available of $55,000,000 in for fiscal year (FY) 2009,
$55,000,000 in FY 2010, $85,000,000 in FY 2011 and $105,000,000 in FY
2012. A Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) was published on June 12,
2009 and that made $35 million available in 2009. The remaining $20
million will be available in 2010 in addition to $55 million for 2010,
included in the Farm Bill. An additional $25,000,000 in discretionary
funding is authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year 2009
through 2012 may be made available. The program provides for the
payments to support and ensure expanding the production of advanced
biofuels.
Alternatives:
A NOFA was published in June 2009 for immediate program implementation.
Permanent regulations are required to provide funding for 2010.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
It is anticipated that there will be costs directly attributable to the
contractor, which is assisting with drafting the proposed rule. Other
costs would be internal costs associated with the promulgation of the
proposed rule. The Agency is confident that the regulations contain
sufficient safeguards to mitigate any risk associated with a proposed
rule and would be a benefit to the agency as well as potential
applicants considering applying for payments under this program.
Benefits accruing to the publishing of a proposed rule would clarify
the process, payments, eligibility and understanding of any ambiguity
conveyed in the initial announcement of the program. Additional
benefits stem from the ability of the public and interested parties to
comment on program and consider issues concerning the geographic
location and demographic composition of locatable projects as well as
the ownership criteria.
Risks:
The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or
safety or to the environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End 02/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Diane Berger
Loan/Grant Analyst
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3225
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3225
Phone: 202 260-1508
Fax: 202-720-6003
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0570-AA75
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--RBS
30. RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM--SECTION 9007
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 110-246
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 4280-B; 7 CFR 4280-D
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program (section 9006 of the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA)) is being
replaced with a new program titled the Rural Energy for America Program
(REAP), section 9007 of The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
The new program will provide grants for energy audits and renewable
energy development assistance; and financial assistance for energy
efficiency improvements and renewable energy
[[Page 64179]]
systems. The program will increase energy independence, promote
resource conservation, diversify markets for agricultural and forestry
products, create jobs, and enhance economic development in rural
economies. Eligible entities based on the sub-program of the sub-
section include units of State, tribal, or local government; land grant
or other institutions of higher education; rural electric cooperatives
or public power entities; agricultural producers; rural small
businesses; and any similar entity as determined by the Secretary. The
bill directs that at least 20 percent of funds be used for grants of up
to $20,000 each. The bill merges the energy audit program and the
Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements programs.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) intends to publish a
proposed rule to implement changes to RD Instruction 4280-B and the
Energy Audit and Renewable Energy Development Assistance grant
regulations in RD Instruction 4280-C. The changes will incorporate
provisions from the Farm Bill and other initiatives intended to enhance
program delivery and Agency oversight.
Statement of Need:
Changes are needed to the regulation for the program known as the Rural
Energy for America Program (REAP), due to the changes required by the
2008 Farm Bill. The program was previously called the Renewable Energy
Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvement program and was created by
the 2002 Farm Bill. In addition to the change in the title of the
program, several regulatory changes are needed for REAP as outlined
above. These changes are required to comply with current statutes. The
program was implemented utilizing a notice of funding availability in
FY 2009. Permanent regulation is required to implement the program in
2010.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Rural Energy for America program was authorized by the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which made available $55,000,000
in mandatory funding for 2009, $60,000,000 mandatory funding for 2010,
$70,000,000 mandatory funding for 2011 and 2012. The Farm Bill
authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 in discretionary funding for
each fiscal year 2009 through 2012. The program provides for grants and
guaranteed loan for renewable energy systems and energy efficiency
improvements, and grants for feasibility studies and energy audit and
renewable energy development assistance. The purpose of the program is
to reduce the energy consumption and increase renewable energy
production. The regulations are an administrative and a legislative
initiative.
Alternatives:
There is no alternative to issuing a proposed regulation, which allows
the public an opportunity to provide comments on the program
requirements. Permanent regulations are required to provide funding in
2010.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The only costs, aside from contractor costs, are internal costs
associated with the promulgation of the proposed rule. The Agency is
confident that the regulations contain sufficient safeguards to
mitigate any risk associated with a proposed rule and would be a
benefit to the agency as well as potential applicants considering
applying for payments under this program. Benefits accruing to the
publishing from a proposed rule would be attributable to the
opportunity of public comments which are believed to improve program
implementation and impact.
Risks:
The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or
safety or to the environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End 05/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Kelley Oehler
Deputy Loan Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3225
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3225
Phone: 202 720-6819
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0570-AA76
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--RBS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
31. RURAL MICROENTREPRENEUR ASSISTANCE PROGRAM--SECTION 6022
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 110-246
CFR Citation:
None
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Food Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the Act) includes
Section 6022 establishing the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance
Program (RMAP). The Act mandates that the Secretary of Agriculture
establish a program to make loans and grants to support
microentrepreneurs in the development and ongoing success of rural
microenterprises. The Act further mandates that entities will use funds
borrowed from the Agency to make microloans of not more than $50,000 to
rural microenterprises for eligible purposes; that the Agency will make
grants to provide business based training and technical assistance; and
that the Agency will provide funding to improve the capacity of rural
Microenterprise Development Organizations (MDOs) to provide services to
rural microenterprise clients.
Upon enactment of the Act, a committee was formed to discuss policy,
implementation, and processes needed to move the program forward. In
mid-January, 2009 a listening forum was held at USDA. The object of the
listening forum was to allow public comment regarding the statute and
to obtain opinions regarding the implementation of the program. The
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Business Programs is currently
preparing a proposed rule with an anticipated publication date of late
December 2009. The proposed rule is based on verbiage in the statute,
comments made at the listening forum, research of similar-but not the
same- types of programs within USDA and at other agencies, and the
experience of the writers, one of whom worked in or managed Federal
[[Page 64180]]
microentrepreneurship programs for 13 years. The goal of the proposed
rule is to obtain public comment, revise the rule accordingly, and
ensure a sound program. Comments received from the proposed rule will
be used as a basis for publication of a final rule which is anticipated
for the spring of 2010.
The proposed rule will include instructions for the management of loan
and grant programming and for the management of the ultimate recipient
microloan portfolio. Any organization receiving a loan under the
program will be expected to capitalize a revolving loan fund which will
make loans of $50,000 or less to ultimate recipients. Any organization
that receives a loan will also be automatically eligible to receive a
grant so that it may provide an integrated program of micro-level
lending coupled with business based training and technical assistance
for its microborrowers. Grants will also be provided to build the
capacity of rural MDOs so that they may improve their operations and
services for the end users, or so that they may improve the operational
capacity of other MDOs to provide services to end users.
This program will require a complete new set of regulations.
Statement of Need:
The new regulation for the program will be user friendly and responsive
to industry comments. Publication of the proposed rule is crucial to
program implementation. The program will directly create new
businesses, assist with the expansion of existing microbusinesses (for
purposes of this program, a microenterprise is a rural business that
employs 10 or fewer Full Time Employees (FTE)), create jobs, increase
the flow of tax dollars to rural communities, and add lasting value in
terms of rural community impact.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The RMAP was authorized by the Food Conservation and Energy Act of
2008. The Act establishes the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance
Program and mandates that the new program will make loans and grants to
support microentrepreneurs in the development and ongoing success of
rural microenterprises. It further mandates that entities will use
funds borrowed from the Agency to make microloans of not more than
$50,000 to rural microenterprises for eligible purposes; that the
Agency will make grants to provide business based training and
technical assistance; and that the Agency will provide funding to
improve the capacity of rural MDOs to provide services to rural
microenterprise clients.
The purpose of the program is to increase access to capital and
business based training in rural areas for rural business owners and
potential business owners at the start up and micro levels.
Alternatives:
The proposed rule process is our only current route for implementation.
Funding for the initial four years (2009-2012) of the program is
mandatory and FY2009 funding will be expendable in FY2010. The proposed
rule will allow the Agency to use both years' funding in the inaugural
year of program implementation.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Costs:
Initial costs include the cost of the listening conference; staff time;
and the cost of the regulation writing contractor that works in close
concert with staff.
Ongoing costs include a minimal increase of one FTE, and space for
same, at the National Office level. The state offices are not currently
under consideration for more FTEs as a result of this program.
Other costs will/do include the cost of automation of distribution of
funding, loan servicing, grant servicing, repayment systems, and
oversight systems. The assigned office (Specialty Programs Division)
has been working with the Information Technology (IT) offices to
implement the program through RULSS which is the newer generation of
agency automation systems and is the most flexible in terms of meeting
the needs of the statute. Finally, Training will be required for field
staff.
Cost Mitigation--To mitigate implementation costs the proposed rule has
considered existing programs to ensure that implementation will be less
process based and more results driven when compared to other programs.
Automated processes will help ensure efficiency. Use of existing field
staff will keep new FTEs to a minimum.
Benefits:
The initial benefits to program implementation include the addition of
a small rural business lending program that increases access to Rural
Development programming by adding to the starting end of the business
financing continuum of services. The program allows Rural Development
to open its doors to rural clients at the very beginning level of the
business start-up and initial growth phases, and provide assistance to
businesses that are often too small to be considered viable for a bank
loan. The long term benefits to program implementation include long
term availability of this new pathway to assist rural start-up
businesses; increased access to business capital in rural areas, at a
grass roots level, and often to pre-bankable ultimate recipients;
expansion of business opportunities in rural areas; increased tax flow
as businesses become profitable; increased job creation and rural job
retention as new and existing microbusinesses sprout and grow; support
of micro level entities producing organic food product, locally grown
food product, and locally manufactured goods for intra and interstate
export; service industry growth; increased opportunity for rural youth;
and legal immigrants; and increased exposure of Rural Development
funding programs to the target constituency.
Mandatory funding is set at $4 million for FY2009; $4 million for
FY2010; $4 million for FY2011; and $3 million for FY2012. The statute
authorizes up to $40 million per year for each of the years in addition
to mandatory funding.
Risks:
Program risks include making of loans and grants to multiple types of
entities for multiple purposes with a singular goal; ability to select
appropriately capable lending and training entities; reliance on
selected entities for sound microloan underwriting and appropriate
portfolio management; and availability of enough grant funding for
ongoing technical assistance in the out years. We anticipate mitigating
these risks via sound regulatory guidance, appropriate training, and
clear communication of expectations to selected participants. Further,
the statute is based in part on a successful non-USDA program of a
similar nature with which many of the stakeholders and selected
participants will be familiar providing this agency with a level of
confidence.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 10/07/09 74 FR 51714
NPRM Comment Period End 11/23/09
Final Rule 02/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
[[Page 64181]]
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Jody Raskind
Director, Specialty Lenders Division
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3225
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3224
Phone: 202 690-1400
Email: [email protected]
Lori Washington
Loan Specialist, Specialty Lenders Division
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3225
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-9815
Fax: 202 720-2213
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0570-AA71
BILLING CODE 3410-90-S
[[Page 64182]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Budget details how this
Administration plans to lift our economy out of recession, and lay a
new foundation for long-term growth and prosperity. The Department of
Commerce (the ``Department'' or ``Commerce'') is aligning itself to
contribute to both of these goals.
Established in 1903, the Department of Commerce is one of the oldest
Cabinet-level agencies in the Federal Government. The Department'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. The Department currently
employs approximately 53,000 people around the world, although this
workforce will more than double temporarily in 2010, due to the
decennial census.
The Department 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, the Department
works in partnership with businesses, universities, communities, and
workers to:
Innovate by creating new ideas through cutting-edge science
and technology from advances in nanotechnology, to ocean
exploration, to broadband deployment and by protecting
American innovations through the patent and trademark
system;
Support entrepreneurship and commercialization by enabling
community development and strengthening minority businesses
and small manufacturers;
Maintain U.S. economic competitiveness in the global
marketplace by promoting exports, ensuring a level playing
field for U.S. businesses, and ensuring that technology
transfer is consistent with our nation's economic and
security interests;
Provide effective management and stewardship of our nation's
resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic
opportunities; and
Make informed policy decisions and enable better understanding
of the economy by providing accurate economic and
demographic data.
The Department 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 the Department.
Responding to the Administration's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles
The vast majority of the Department's programs and activities do not
involve regulation. Of the Department'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 2010. During the next year,
NOAA plans to publish four rulemaking actions that are designated as
Regulatory Plan actions. Further information on these actions is
provided below.
The Department 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 the Department 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 the departmental goal of promoting
stewardship by providing assessments of the global environment.
Recognizing that economic growth must go hand-in-hand with
environmental stewardship, the Department, 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. The
Department is where business and environmental interests intersect, and
the classic debate on the use of natural resources is transformed into
a ``win-win'' situation for the environment and the economy.
Three of NOAA's major components, the National Marine Fisheries
Services (NMFS), the National Ocean Service (NOS), and the National
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS),
exercise regulatory authority.
NMFS oversees the management and conservation of the Nation's marine
fisheries, protects threatened and endangered marine and anadromous
species and marine mammals, and promotes economic development of the
U.S. fishing industry. NOS assists the coastal states in their
management of land and ocean resources in their coastal zones,
including estuarine research reserves; manages the Nation's 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.
The Department, 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,
[[Page 64183]]
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 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 fiscal year 2010, a number of the preregulatory and
regulatory actions will be significant. The exact number of such
rulemakings is unknown, since they are usually initiated by the actions
of eight regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) that are
responsible for preparing fishery management plans (FMPs) and FMP
amendments, and for drafting implementing regulations for each managed
fishery. NOAA issues regulations to implement FMPs and FMP amendments.
Once a rulemaking is triggered by an FMC, the Magnuson-Stevens Act
places stringent deadlines upon NOAA by which it must exercise its
rulemaking responsibilities. FMPs and FMP amendments for Atlantic
highly migratory species, such as bluefin tuna, swordfish, and sharks,
are developed directly by NOAA, not by FMCs.
FMPs address a variety of issues including maximizing fishing
opportunities on healthy stocks, rebuilding overfished stocks, and
addressing gear conflicts. One of the problems that FMPs may address is
preventing overcapitalization (preventing excess fishing capacity) of
fisheries. This may be resolved by market-based systems such as catch
shares, which permit share holders 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. Exceptions include 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 Act 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 Act. 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 the Department's Regulatory Plan,
NMFS is undertaking four actions that rise to the level of ``most
important'' of the Department's significant regulatory actions, and
thus are included in this year's Regulatory Plan. The four 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
[[Page 64184]]
trading partners as it concerns the Certification of Nations Whose
Fishing Vessels are Engaged in Illegal, Unreported, or Unregulated
Fishing or Bycatch of Protected Living Marine Resources. A description
of the four Regulatory Plan actions is provided below.
Certification of Nations Whose Fishing Vessels Are Engaged in Illegal,
Unreported or Unregulated Fishing or Bycatch of Protected Living Marine
Resources (0648-AV51). NOAA's NMFS is establishing a process of
identification and certification to address illegal, unreported, or
unregulated (IUU) activities and bycatch of protected species in
international fisheries. Nations whose fishing vessels engage, or have
been engaged, in IUU fishing would be identified in a biennial report
to Congress, as required under Section 403 of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NMFS would subsequently
certify whether identified nations have taken appropriate corrective
action with respect to the activities of its fishing vessels.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions and
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act Disaster Assistance Programs (0648-
AW38). This final rule would clarify the fishery disaster assistance
provisions under both the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act. The
regulations would establish definitions, characteristics of commercial
fishery failures and fishery resource disasters, and the administrative
process NMFS will follow in processing disaster assistance requests.
Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan
(0648-AW72). The Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan
includes species such as cod, haddock and various flounders. This long-
term plan will implement the necessary reductions to end overfishing as
required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act.
Provide Guidance for the Limited Access Privilege Program (0648-AX13).
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as
reauthorized in 2006, included a section on Limited Access Privilege
Programs (LAPPs). To assist the Councils in developing and implementing
LAPPs, this rulemaking includes guidance on: (1) procedures for
developing LAPPs; (2) eligibility criteria; (3) Council approval of
LAPP programs; (4) initial allocations; (5) restrictions on the sale
and lease of privileges; (6) recovery of administrative costs; and (7)
program review and monitoring.
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) promotes U.S. national and
economic security and foreign policy interests by managing and
enforcing the Department's security-related trade and competitiveness
programs. BIS plays a key role in challenging issues involving national
security and nonproliferation, export growth, and high technology. The
Bureau's continuing major challenge is combating the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction while furthering the growth of U.S.
exports, which are critical to maintaining our leadership in an
increasingly competitive global economy. BIS strives to be the leading
innovator in transforming U.S. strategic trade policy and programs to
adapt to the changing world.
Major Programs and Activities
The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) provide for export controls
on dual-use goods and technology (primarily commercial goods that have
potential military applications) not only to fight proliferation, but
also to pursue other national security, short supply, and foreign
policy goals (such as combating terrorism). Simplifying and updating
these controls in light of the end of the Cold War has been a major
accomplishment of BIS.
BIS is also responsible for:
Enforcing the export control and antiboycott provisions of the
Export Administration Act (EAA), as well as other statutes
such as the Fastener Quality Act. The EAA is enforced
through a variety of administrative, civil, and criminal
sanctions.
Analyzing and protecting the defense industrial and technology
base, pursuant to the Defense Production Act and other
laws. As the Defense Department increases its reliance on
dual-use high technology goods as part of its cost-cutting
efforts, ensuring that we remain competitive in those
sectors and subsectors is critical to our national
security.
Helping Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Russia, and other newly
emerging countries develop effective export control
systems. The effectiveness of U.S. export controls can be
severely undercut if ``rogue states'' or terrorists gain
access to sensitive goods and technology from other
supplier countries.
Working with former defense plants in the Newly Independent
States to help make a successful transition to profitable
and peaceful civilian endeavors. This involves helping
remove unnecessary obstacles to trade and investment and
identifying opportunities for joint ventures with U.S.
companies.
Assisting U.S. defense enterprises to meet the challenge of
the reduction in defense spending by converting to civilian
production and by developing export markets. This work
assists in maintaining our defense industrial base as well
as preserving jobs for U.S. workers.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
32. AMENDMENT 16 TO THE NORTHEAST MULTISPECIES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
16 USC 1801 et seq
CFR Citation:
50 CFR 648
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This action would implement management measures to continue rebuilding
overfished stocks, revise biological reference points, and develop
annual catch limits and accountability measures. This action would also
adopt new sectors as an alternative effort control to days-at-sea
restrictions.
Statement of Need:
Amendment 16 to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan
(FMP) was developed by the New England Fishery Management Council
(Council) as part of the biennial adjustment process established in the
[[Page 64185]]
FMP to evaluate the status of the all NE multispecies stocks; update
status determination criteria for all NE multispecies stocks based upon
the best scientific information available; and to revise management
measures necessary to end overfishing, rebuild overfished NE
multispecies stocks, and mitigate the adverse economic impacts of
increased effort controls. In addition, this action would adopt
rebuilding programs for four NE multispecies stocks newly classified as
being overfished and subject to overfishing and incorporate Atlantic
wolffish into the management unit. Finally, Amendment 16 would
establish procedures for specifying allowable biological catch (ABC)
and annual catch limits (ACLs) and implement accountability measures
(AMs) for each stock managed by the FMP, as required by recent
revisions to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Summary of Legal Basis:
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C.
1801 et seq.
Alternatives:
Amendment 16 includes numerous measures designed to achieve the goals
and objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including
reporting and record keeping requirements, allocation criteria, effort
controls, and administrative and enforcement provisions. Each measure
includes a range of alternatives, including the no action alternative.
Of particular note, Amendment 16 authorizes 17 new sectors and revises
measures for the existing two sectors and. In addition, Amendment 16
includes six options for potential sector contributions (i.e., the
stock allocations that each individual vessel could bring to a
particular sector). Amendment 16 also includes four options for non-
sector effort controls and three alternatives for commercial non-sector
accountability measures. Finally, the Council considered several
additional management measures under Amendment 16, including several
alternative management regimes such as area-based management and a
days-at-sea (DAS) performance plan, but these provisions were not
included in this action at this time.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The costs and benefits associated with measures under Amendment 16 are
described in detail within the associated draft environmental impact
statement (EIS). A final EIS that would include updated analysis of
economic impacts of this action is currently being developed for
submission and review by NMFS. Due to uncertainty in the number of
vessels that may participate in sectors, it is difficult to precisely
quantify the economic impacts of this action. However, should all
affected vessels elect not to participate in sectors and remain under
the current DAS management regime, the potential adverse economic
impacts are expected to be about $15.5 million. Potential benefits of
Amendment 16 include: Ending overfishing and ensuring that overfished
stocks rebuild within established rebuilding time periods, developing a
comprehensive procedure to establish ABCs and ACLs for each stock that
more systematically incorporates both biological and management
uncertainty into the FMP, increasing the accuracy and timeliness of
catch monitoring data throughout the fishery, and increasing the
efficiency and economic return of vessel operations by promoting
participation in sectors. Costs associated with this action include
additional monitoring and reporting costs for vessels; additional
administration and membership costs to vessels participating in
sectors; costs associated with complying with new gear requirements in
some areas; opportunity costs associated with continued effort controls
necessary to rebuild overfished stocks; and increased administration,
monitoring, and enforcement costs to implement sector management.
Risks:
The risks associated with not implementing measures proposed in
Amendment 16 include the potential for continued overfishing on several
stocks and delayed rebuilding of overfished stocks beyond established
rebuilding timelines. Moreover, the continuation of existing measures
would maintain exclusive reliance upon DAS measures to manage the
fishery, forgoing efficiency gains resulting from expanded
participation in sectors, one form of a catch-share management regime.
Further, without this rulemaking, the NE Multispecies FMP would not be
able to establish a process for setting ABCs, ACLs, and AMs for managed
stocks by 2011, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Finally,
because this action would incorporate Atlantic wolffish into the FMP
and specify management measures to rebuild this species, failure to
implement this action could increase the likelihood that this species
would be listed under the Endangered Species Act and result in
substantial economic impacts beyond those considered under this action.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Availability 10/23/09 74 FR 54773
Comment Period End 12/22/09
NPRM 12/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End 01/00/10
Final Rule 03/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Patricia A. Kurkul
Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
55 Great Republic Way
Gloucester, MA 01930
Phone: 978 281-9200
Fax: 978 281-9117
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0648-AW72
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--NOAA
33. PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR THE LIMITED ACCESS PRIVILEGE PROGRAM
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
16 USC 1801 et seq
CFR Citation:
50 CFR 600
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rule will provide regions with interpretive guidance on the use of
Limited Access Privilege Programs as fishery management tools. The
guidance is intended to assist the fishery management councils and NMFS
regional offices in developing and implementing LAPPs.
[[Page 64186]]
Statement of Need:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) intends to propose this rulemaking to
create national guidance for the new Limited Access Privilege Program
(LAPP) provisions found in section 303(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization
Act of 2006 (MSRA). The LAPP provisions provide new incentive-based
options for fisheries management. NMFS has received numerous requests
from constituent groups, Regional Fishery Management Councils
(Councils), and Congress to develop such guidance. This guidance will
assist Councils in developing LAPPs with full consideration of national
perspectives and concerns.
Summary of Legal Basis:
NMFS is proposing these regulations pursuant to its rulemaking
authority under the MSA. 5 USC 561, 16 USC 773 et seq., and 16 USC 1801
et seq.
Alternatives:
Because this rule is presently in the beginning stages of development,
no alternatives have been formulated or analyzed at this time.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Because this rule is presently in the beginning stages of development,
no analysis has been completed at this time to asses the amount that
would be saved or imposed as a result of this rule. However, this rule
does not meet the $100 million annual economic impact threshold and
thus has not been determined to be economically significant under EO
12866.
Risks:
Without this rulemaking, there is a risk that new LAPPs will be
developed that do not meet the requirements of section 303(A), and
therefore may detrimentally impact the fish stocks that they are
designed to manage, the fisheries, or the human environment. Properly
designed LAPPs mitigate environmental risk, ensure fair and equitable
initial allocations, prevent excessive shares, protect the basic
cultural and social framework of the fisheries and fishing communities,
and contribute to public safety and economic prosperity.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 05/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Alan Risenhoover
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1315 East-West Highway
Room 13362
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301 713-2334
Fax: 301 713-0596
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Previously reported as 0648-AV48
RIN: 0648-AX13
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--NOAA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
34. CERTIFICATION OF NATIONS WHOSE FISHING VESSELS ARE ENGAGED IN
ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED OR UNREGULATED FISHING OR BYCATCH OF PROTECTED
LIVING MARINE RESOURCES
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
16 USC 1801 et seq; 16 USC 1826d to 1826k
CFR Citation:
50 CFR 300
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is establishing a process
of identification and certification to address illegal, unreported, or
unregulated (IUU) activities and bycatch of protected species in
international fisheries. Nations whose fishing vessels engage, or have
been engaged, in IUU fishing or bycatch of protected living marine
resources would be identified in a biennial report to Congress, as
required under section 403 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA) of 2006. NMFS would
subsequently certify whether identified nations have taken appropriate
corrective action with respect to the activities of its fishing
vessels, as required under section 403 of MSRA.
Statement of Need:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes regulations to set forth
identification and certification procedures for nations whose vessels
engage in illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing activities
or bycatch of protected living marine resources pursuant to the High
Seas Fishing Moratorium Protection Act (Moratorium Protection Act).
Specifically, the Moratorium Protection Act requires the Secretary of
Commerce to identify in a biennial report to Congress those foreign
nations whose vessels are engaged in IUU fishing or fishing that
results in bycatch of protected living marine resources. The Moratorium
Protection Act also requires the establishment of procedures to certify
whether nations identified in the biennial report are taking
appropriate corrective actions to address IUU fishing or bycatch of
protected living marine resources by fishing vessels of that nation.
Based upon the outcome of the certification procedures developed in
this rulemaking, nations could be subject to import prohibitions on
certain fisheries products and other measures under the authority
provided in the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act if they
are not positively certified by the Secretary of Commerce.
Summary of Legal Basis:
NOAA is proposing these regulations pursuant to its rulemaking
authority under sections 609 and 610 of the High Seas Driftnet Fishing
Moratorium Protection Act (16 USC 1826j-k), as amended by the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act.
Alternatives:
NMFS is currently in the process of developing alternatives, and will
provide this information at a later date.
[[Page 64187]]
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Because this rule is under development, NMFS does not currently have
estimates of the amount of product that is imported into the United
States from other nations whose vessels are engaged in illegal,
unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing or bycatch of protected
living marine resources. Therefore, quantification of the economic
impacts of this rulemaking is not possible at this time. This
rulemaking does not meet the $100 million annual economic impact
threshold and thus has not been determined to be economically
significant under EO 12866.
Risks:
The risks associated with not pursuing the proposed rulemaking include
allowing IUU fishing activities and/or bycatch of protected living
marine resources by foreign vessels to continue without an effective
tool to aid in combating such activities.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 06/11/07 72 FR 32052
ANPRM Comment Period End 07/26/07
NPRM 01/14/09 74 FR 2019
NPRM Comment Period End 05/14/09
Final Action 12/00/09
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Christopher Rogers
Division Chief
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301 713-9090
Fax: 301 713-9106
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Related to 0648-AV23
RIN: 0648-AV51
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--NOAA
35. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT PROVISIONS
AND INTERJURISDICTIONAL FISHERIES ACT DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
16 USC 1861; 16 USC 4107
CFR Citation:
50 CFR 600
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA), as amended, and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries
Act (IFA), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes
regulations to govern the application for and determination of
commercial fishery failures as a basis for acquiring potential disaster
assistance. The regulations would establish definitions and
characteristics of commercial fishery failures, serious disruptions
affecting future production, and harm incurred by fishermen, fishery
resource disasters, requirements for initiating a review by NMFS, and
the administrative process it will follow in processing such
applications. The intended effect of these procedures and requirements
is to clarify the fishery disaster assistance provisions of the MSA and
the IFA through rulemaking and thereby facilitate the processing of
requests.
Statement of Need:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) intends to propose this rule to govern
the requests for determinations of fishery resource disasters as a
basis for acquiring potential disaster assistance. The regulations
would establish definitions and characteristics of commercial fishery
failures, fishery resource disasters, serious disruptions affecting
future production, and harm incurred by fishermen, as well as
requirements for initiating a review by NMFS, and the administrative
process it will follow in processing such applications. The intended
result of these procedures and requirements is to clarify and interpret
the fishery disaster assistance provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act (IFA) through rulemaking and thereby
ensure consistency and facilitate the processing of requests.
Summary of Legal Basis:
NMFS is proposing these regulations pursuant to its rulemaking
authority under sections 312(a) or 315 of the MSA (16 USC 1861, 1864),
as amended, and sections 308(b) or 308(d) of the IFA (16 USC 4107).
Alternatives:
N/A
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Because this rule is presently in the beginning stages of development,
no analysis has been completed at this time to assess the amount that
would be saved or imposed as a result of this rule. However, this rule
does not meet the $100 million annual economic impact threshold and
thus has not been determined to be economically significant under EO
12866.
Risks:
Without this rulemaking, there is a risk that disaster determinations
can be made on an ad hoc basis, without regard to any standardized
guidelines or procedures.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 01/15/09 74 FR 2478
NPRM Comment Period
Extended 02/06/09 74 FR 6257
NPRM Comment Period End 02/17/09
NPRM Comment Period End 04/20/09
Final Action 12/00/09
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State, Tribal
[[Page 64188]]
Agency Contact:
Charles L. Cooper
Program Leader
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301 713-2396
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0648-AW38
BILLING CODE 3510-12-S
[[Page 64189]]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Background
The Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest Federal Department
consisting of three Military Departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force),
ten Unified Combatant Commands, fourteen Defense Agencies, and ten DoD
Field Activities. It has 1,417,747 military personnel and 731,592
civilians assigned as of June 30, 2009, 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 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 Executive Order 12866, there must be
coordination of proposed regulations among the regulatory agencies and
the affected DoD Components. Coordinating the proposed regulations in
advance throughout an organization as large as DoD is straightforward,
yet a formidable undertaking.
DoD is not a regulatory agency, but occasionally it issues regulations
that have an effect on the public. These regulations, while small in
number compared to the regulating agencies, can be significant as
defined in Executive Order 12866. In addition, some of DoD's
regulations may affect the regulatory agencies. DoD, as an integral
part of its program, not only receives coordinating actions from the
regulating 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 12866.
Administration Priorities:
1. Rulemakings that Support the Administration's Regulation Agenda to
Streamline Regulations and Reporting Requirements
The Department plans to:
Revise the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) to delete obsolete restrictions on contracting with
foreign entities for the performance of research and
development in connection with any weapon system or other
military equipment for DoD.
Review of the DFARS requirements for reporting the loss,
theft, damage, or destruction of Government property.
Review of the DFARS requirements for reporting Government
Furnished Equipment and Government Furnished Material in
the DoD Item Unique Identification (IUID) registry.
Review of the DFARS requirements for Unique Item Identifier
marking of Government-furnished Equipment.
Simplify and clarify the DFARS coverage of patents, data, and
copyrights, dramatically reducing the amount of regulatory
text and the number of required clauses.
Simplify and clarify the DFARS coverage of multiyear
acquisitions.
Finalize the DFARS rule that makes the required changes to
conform the DFARS to the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) implementation of the OFPP waivers of certain
statutory requirements when acquiring of COTS items.
Improve the contract closeout process.
2. Regulations of Particular Interest to Small Business
Of interest to Small Businesses are regulations to:
Revise the FAR and DFARS to implement the use of Electronic
Subcontracting Reporting System for both summary and
individual subcontracting reporting.
Consider revisions to the FAR to address the findings of the
Rothe case that Federal contracting programs for minority-
owned and other small businesses that implement 10 U.S.C.
2323 are ``facially unconstitutional.''
Revise the FAR to implement changes in the HUBZone Program, in
accordance with Small Business Administration regulations.
Revise the FAR to clarify the criteria for sole source awards
to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses
concerns.
3. Regulations with International Effects or Interest
Of international effect or interest are regulations to:
Finalize the FAR rule implementing the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 buy American requirements for
construction material.
Finalize the DFARS rule that prohibits procurement of steel
for construction projects or activities for which American
steel producers, fabricators, and manufacturers have been
denied the opportunity to compete for such steel
procurement.
Implement in the DFARS the determinations regarding
participation of South Caucasus/Central and South Asian
states in acquisitions in support of operations in
Afghanistan.
Finalize the DFARS rule that provides authority to limit
competition in the acquisition of products or services,
other than small arms, acquired in support of operations in
Iraq or Afghanistan.
Clarify in the DFARS the criteria for deciding whether a
company is located in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Consider whether to revise the DFARS regulations relating to
acquisition of spare or replacement parts from the original
foreign manufacturer.
Revise the DFARS to implement the pending Defense Procurement
Trade Cooperation Treaties with the United Kingdom and
Australia, upon ratification.
Finalize the DFARS rule that implements the determination that
authorizes acquisition of articles containing para-aramid
fibers and yarns manufactured in a qualifying country, in
accordance with section 807 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY 1999.
Revise the FAR and DFARS list of least designated countries
under the Trade Agreements Act to add Taiwan,
[[Page 64190]]
Peru, Costa Rica, and Oman (FAR only).
Revise the FAR list of articles that are domestically non-
available.
Finalize the FAR rule that prohibits Federal contractors from
restricted business operations in Sudan and imports from
Burma.
Finalize the FAR rule that prohibits Government contracts with
any foreign incorporated entity that is treated as an
inverted domestic corporation under section 835(b) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 or any subsidiary of such
entity.
4. Suggestions From the Public for Reform--Status of DoD Items
Rulemaking Actions in Response to Public Nominations
The Army Corps of Engineers has not undertaken any rulemaking actions
in response to the public nominations submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget in 2001, 2002, or 2004. Those nominations were
discussed in:
Making Sense of Regulation: 2001 Report to Congress on the
Costs and Benefits of Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on
State, Local, and Tribal Entities.
Stimulating Smarter Regulation: 2002 Report to Congress on the
Costs and Benefits of Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on
State, Local, and Tribal Entities.
Progress in Regulatory Reform: 2004 Report to Congress on the
Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded
Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities.
Specific DoD Priorities:
For this Regulatory Plan, there are six specific DoD priorities, all of
which reflect the established regulatory principles. In those areas
where rulemaking or participation in the regulatory process is
required, DoD has studied and developed policy and regulations that
incorporate the provisions of the President's priorities and objectives
under the Executive Order.
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, homeowners, education, health
affairs, and the National Security Personnel System.
1. Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy
The Department of Defense continuously reviews the DFARS and continues
to lead Government efforts to:
Finalize the FAR rules that implement the regulations relating
to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 --
Reporting Requirements, Publicizing Contract Actions,
Whistleblower Protection, and GAO/IG Access to Contractor
Employees.
Revise the DFARS to implement the Weapons System Acquisition
Reform Act of 2009 -- including acquisition strategies to
ensure competition throughout life-cycle of major defense
acquisition programs and address organizational conflicts
of interest in major defense acquisition programs.
Revise DFARS to ensure continuation of contractor services in
support of mission essential functions during an emergency,
such as an influenza pandemic.
Revise the FAR to implement the Executive Orders relating to
project labor agreements, allowability of labor relations
costs, non-displacement of qualified workers, and
notification of employee rights under Federal labor laws.
Revise the FAR to address service contractor employee personal
conflicts of interest and organizational conflicts of
interest and limit contractor access to information.
Revise the FAR to establish a Federal database for Federal
agency contract and grant officers and suspension and
debarment officials, to track information relating to
awardees of Federal contracts and grants.
Revise the FAR to require contractors to verify, through the
use of the E-Verify System, that certain of their employees
are eligible to work in the United States.
Enhance competition by:
-- Limiting the length of contracts awarded non-competitively under
``unusual and compelling urgency'' circumstances to the
minimum contract period necessary to meet requirements, not
to exceed one year, unless approved by the head of the
contracting activity.
-- Requiring publication of notices on FedBizOpps of all sole source
task or delivery orders in excess of the simplified
acquisition thresholds that are placed against multiple
award contracts or multiple award blanket purchase
agreements.
-- Requiring post-award debriefings be provided, as requested, to
disappointed offerors on task and delivery orders in excess
of $5 million (including options).
-- Requiring public disclosure of justification and approval documents
for noncompetitive contracts.
Provide enhanced competition for task and delivery order
contracts and additional market research before awarding a
task or delivery order in excess of the simplified
acquisition threshold.
2. Logistics and Materiel Readiness, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense published or plans to publish rules on
contractors supporting the military in contingency operations:
Interim Final Rule: Private Security Contractors (PSCs)
Operating in Contingency Operations. In order to meet the
mandate of Section 862 of the 2008 National Defense
Authorization Act, this rule establishes policy, assigns
responsibilities and provides procedures for the regulation
of the selection, accountability, training, equipping, and
conduct of personnel performing private security functions
under a covered contract during contingency operations. It
also assigns responsibilities and establishes procedures
for incident reporting, use of and accountability for
equipment, rules for the use of force, and a process for
administrative action or the removal, as appropriate, of
PSCs and PSC personnel. DoD published an interim final rule
on July 17, 2009 (74 FR 34690-34694) with an effective date
of July 17, 2009. The comment period ended August 31, 2009.
Proposed Rule: Program Management of Operational Contract
Support for Contingency Operations. This rule will
incorporate the latest changes and lessons learned into
policy and procedures for program management for the
preparation and execution of contracted support and the
integration of DoD contractor personnel into military
contingency operations outside the United States. DoD
anticipates publishing the proposed rule in the first or
second quarter of FY 2010.
3. Installations and Environment, Department of Defense
[[Page 64191]]
The Department of Defense has published a rule to assist eligible
military and civilian Federal employee homeowners:
Interim Final Rule: This rule continues to authorize the
Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP) under section 3374 of
title 42, United States Code, to assist eligible military
and civilian Federal employee homeowners when the real
estate market is adversely affected by closure or
reduction-in-scope of operations. In accordance with DoD
Directive 5101.1, DoD Executive Agent,`` designates the
Secretary of the Army as the DoD Executive Agent for
administering, managing, and executing the HAP.
Additionally, this rule will allow the Department of
Defense to temporarily expand the existing HAP in
compliance with section 1001 of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009. This temporary expansion covers
certain persons affected by BRAC 2005, certain persons on
permanent change of station orders, and certain wounded
persons and surviving spouses. This rule updates policy,
delegates authority, and assigns responsibilities for
managing Expanded HAP. This is an economically significant
rule. The interim final rule was published September 30,
2009 (74 FR 50109), with an effective date of September 30,
2009. The comment period ended October 30, 2009. DoD
anticipates publishing a final rule in the third quarter of
FY 2010.
4. Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense published or plans to publish a rule
implementing the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008,
title V, P.L. 110-252 (the ``Post-9/11 GI Bill''):
Interim Final Rule: This rule establishes policy, assigns
responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for carrying
out the Post-9/11 GI Bill. It establishes policy for the
use of supplemental educational assistance ``kickers,'' for
members with critical skills or specialties, or for members
serving additional service; for authorizing the
transferability of education benefits; and for the DoD
Education Benefits Fund Board of Actuaries. DoD published
an interim final rule on June 25, 2009 (74 FR 30212-30220)
with an effective date of June 25, 2009. The comment period
ended July 27, 2009.
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 CHAMPUS/TRICARE: Inclusion of TRICARE Retail
Pharmacy Program in Federal Procurement of Pharmaceuticals.
This rule implements changes directed by the enactment of
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(NDAA-08), Pub. L. 110-181, to the extent necessary to
ensure pharmaceuticals, paid for by the DoD that are
provided by pharmacies under the TRICARE Retail Pharmacy
Program (TRRx) to eligible beneficiaries, are subject to
the pricing standards under section 8126 of title 38 United
States Code. This is an economically significant rule. The
proposed rule was published July 25, 2008 (73 FR 43394).
The comment period ended September 23, 2008. The final rule
published March 17, 2009 (74 FR 11279-11293) with an
effective date of May 26, 2009.
Final rule on TRICARE: Outpatient Prospective Payment System
(OPPS). The rule implements a prospective payment system
for hospital outpatient services similar to that furnished
to Medicare beneficiaries, as set forth in section 1833(t)
of the Social Security Act. The rule also recognizes
applicable statutory requirements and changes arising from
Medicare's continuing experience with its system, including
certain related provisions of the Medicare Prescription
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. While
TRICARE intends to remain as true as possible to Medicare's
basic OPPS methodology (i.e., adoption and updating of the
Medicare data elements used in calculating the prospective
payment amounts), there will be some significant deviations
required to accommodate the uniqueness of the TRICARE
program. These deviations have been designed to accommodate
existing TRICARE benefit structure and claims processing
procedures implemented under the TRICARE Next Generation
Contracts (T-NEX) while at the same time eliminating any
undue financial burden to TRICARE Prime, Extra and Standard
beneficiary populations. The proposed rule was published
April 1, 2008 (73 FR 17271). The comment period ended June
2, 2008. The final rule published December 10, 2008 (73 FR
74945-74966) with an effective date of February 9, 2009.
DoD published a notice on February 6, 2009 (74 FR 6228)
delaying the effective date of the final rule to May 1,
2009 and re-opening the final rule for comment. The comment
period ended March 9, 2009. DoD then published a notice May
8, 2009 (74 FR 21547) responding to the comments received.
The effective date of the final rule remained May 1, 2009.
Final rule on TRICARE: Relationship Between the TRICARE
Program and Employer-Sponsored Group Health Coverage. This
rule implements section 1097c of title 10, United States
Code. This law prohibits employers from offering incentives
to TRICARE-eligible employees to not enroll, or to
terminate enrollment, in an employer-offered Group Health
Plan (GHP) that is or would be primary to TRICARE.
Cafeteria plans that comport with section 125 of the
Internal Revenue Code will be permissible so long as the
plan treats all employees the same and does not illegally
take TRICARE eligibility into account. The proposed rule
was published March 28, 2008 (73 FR 16612). The comment
period ended May 27, 2008. DoD anticipates publishing a
final rule in the first quarter of FY 2010.
Final rule on TRICARE: Authorization of Forensic Examinations.
This rule implements section 701 of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2007, Public Law
109-364. Section 701 amends Title 10 of the United States
Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 55, Section 1079(a) by authorizing
coverage for forensic examinations following a sexual
assault or domestic violence for eligible beneficiaries.
This authorizes forensic examinations provided in civilian
health care facilities (e.g., civilian rape crisis
facilities) following sexual assault or domestic
[[Page 64192]]
violence, which is consistent with the services that are
authorized in Military Medical Treatment Facilities for all
beneficiaries who are victims of sexual assault or domestic
violence. The proposed rule was published July 7, 2008 (73
FR 38348-38350). The comment period ended September 5,
2008. The final rule published July 17, 2009 (74 FR 34649-
34696) with an effective date of August 17, 2009.
6. National Security Personnel System, Department of Defense
On November 1, 2005 (70 FR 66115-66164), the Department of Defense and
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued final regulations to
establish the National Security Personnel System (NSPS), a human
resources management system, within DoD, as authorized by the National
Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 108-136, November 24, 2003). These
regulations govern basic pay, staffing, classification, performance
management, labor relations, adverse actions, and employee appeals.
These regulations are designed to ensure that the DoD's human resources
management and labor relations systems align with its critical mission
requirements and protect the civil service rights of its employees.
Subsequent legislation in the National Defense Authorization Act (Pub.
L. 110-181, January 28, 2008) required revision of the NSPS regulation.
DoD and OPM published a proposed rule on May 22, 2008 (73 FR 29882-
29927). The period for public comment ended on June 23, 2008. The final
rule published September 26, 2008 (73 FR 56344-56420) with an effective
date of October 7, 2008. A correction to the final rule effective date
published on October 7, 2008 (73 FR 58435). The effective date was
corrected to November 25, 2009.
DoD and OPM published a proposed rule on December 3, 2008 (73 FR 73606-
73716) to add a Staffing and Employment subpart to the final rule that
was published on September 26, 2008. The period for public comment
ended on January 2, 2009. The final rule published January 16, 2009 (74
FR 2757-2770) with an effective date of March 17, 2009.
On July 16, 2009, a task group under the Defense Business Board (DBB)
made recommendations to significantly alter the National Security
Personnel System (NSPS). The final report of the DBB will be to the
Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The
recommendations may be adopted or rejected. If adopted, some of the
recommendations may be implemented under the current regulation.
However, it is likely that the regulation will require substantial
revision
DoD and OPM anticipate publishing a proposed rule in late winter 2010
and a final rule in the fall of 2010, to be effective 60 days after
final action.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOD--Office of the Secretary (OS)
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
36. HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (HAP)
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
42 USC 3374
CFR Citation:
32 CFR 239
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rule continues to authorize the Homeowners Assistance Program
(HAP) under section 3374 of title 42, United States Code, to assist
eligible military and civilian Federal employee homeowners when the
real estate market is adversely affected by closure or reduction-in-
scope of operations. In accordance with DoD Directive 5101.1, DoD
Executive Agent,`` designates the Secretary of the Army as the DoD
Executive Agent for administering, managing, and executing the HAP.
Additionally, this rule will allow the Department of Defense to
temporarily expand the existing Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP) in
compliance with The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA). This temporary expansion covers certain persons affected by
BRAC 2005, certain persons on permanent change of station (PCS) orders,
and certain wounded persons and surviving spouses. This rule updates
policy, delegates authority, and assigns responsibilities for managing
Expanded HAP.
Statement of Need:
This rule continues to authorize the Homeowners Assistance Program
(HAP) under section 3374 of title 42, United States Code, to assist
eligible military and civilian Federal employee homeowners when the
real estate market is adversely affected by closure or reduction-in-
scope of operations. It updates policy, delegates authority, and
assigns responsibilities for managing HAP. In accordance with DoD
Directive 5101.1, ``DoD Executive Agent,'' designates the Secretary of
the Army as the DoD Executive Agent for administering, managing, and
executing the HAP.
Additionally, this rule will allow the Department of Defense to
temporarily expand the existing HAP in compliance with section 1001 of
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). This rule
updates policy, delegates authority, and assigns responsibilities for
managing Expanded HAP.
Summary of Legal Basis:
42 U.S.C. 3374
Alternatives:
Required by 42 U.S.C. 3374. No alternatives considered.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
There is no cost to the public. Administrative costs to the Department
of Defense for implementation of the authorities under this rule are
eight percent of the $555 million appropriated to fund the Expanded
HAP. Workload will be accomplished with additional staffing and will be
integrated into normal business.
Risks:
The rule will allow the Department of Defense to expand HAP to assist
military families and DoD civilians who recently sold their homes at a
loss. This temporary expansion covers certain persons affected by BRAC
2005, certain persons on permanent change of station orders, and
certain wounded persons and surviving spouses.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 09/30/09 74 FR 50109
Interim Final Rule
Effective 09/30/09
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 10/30/09
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period
Extended 11/16/09 74 FR 58846
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 01/15/10
Final Action 04/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
[[Page 64193]]
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal
Agency Contact:
Deanna Buchner
Department of Defense
Office of the Secretary
3000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-3000
Phone: 703 602-4353
RIN: 0790-AI58
BILLING CODE 5001-06-S
[[Page 64194]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
I. Introduction
We support 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, early childhood programs, elementary and secondary schools,
institutions of higher education, vocational schools, nonprofit
organizations, members of the public, and many others. These efforts
are helping to ensure that all students will be ready for college and
careers, and that all students have an open path towards postsecondary
education. We also vigorously monitor and enforce the implementation of
Federal civil rights laws in education programs and activities that
receive Federal financial assistance, and support innovation and
research, evaluation, and dissemination of findings to improve the
quality of education.
Overall, the programs we administer will affect nearly every American
during his or her life. Indeed, in the 2009-2010 school year about 50
million students will attend an estimated 100,000 elementary and
secondary schools in approximately 13,900 public school districts, and
about 19 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 approaches to compliance 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 parents, students, and educators; State,
local, and tribal governments; and neighborhood groups, schools,
colleges, rehabilitation service 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 all 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 the
opportunity to submit a comment 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. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), historic legislation
designed to stimulate the economy, support job creation, and invest in
critical sectors, including education. The ARRA lays the foundation for
education reform by supporting investments in innovative strategies
that are most likely to lead to improved results for students, long-
term gains in school and school system capacity, and increased
productivity and effectiveness.
The ARRA provides funding for several key formula and discretionary
grant programs for which the Department will be issuing final
regulatory requirements in the next several months. These programs are
as follows:
1. Investing in Innovation Fund. The Investing in Innovation Fund,
established under section 14007 of the ARRA, provides $650
million to support (a) local educational agencies (LEAs),
and (b) nonprofit organizations in partnership with one or
more LEAs or a consortium of schools. The purpose of the
program is to provide competitive grants to applicants with
strong track records in improving student achievement, in
order to expand what works and invest in promising
practices that significantly improve student achievement in
kindergarten through grade 12, as well as help close
achievement gaps, decrease drop-out rates, increase high
school graduation rates, and improve the effectiveness of
teachers and school leaders.
2. School Improvement Grants. In conjunction with Title I funds for
school improvement reserved under section 1003(a) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended
(ESEA), School Improvement Grants under section 1003(g) of
the ESEA are used to improve student achievement in Title I
schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring in order to enable those schools to make
adequate yearly progress and exit improvement status.
Appropriations for School Improvement Grants have grown
from $125 million in fiscal year (FY) 2007 to $546 million
in FY 2009. The ARRA provides an additional $3 billion for
School Improvement Grants in FY 2009. The Department is
finalizing requirements that will govern the total $3.546
billion in FY 2009 school improvement funds. This
unprecedented investment of Federal money has the potential
to support implementation of fundamental changes needed to
turn around some of the Nation's lowest-achieving schools.
3. Teacher Incentive Fund. The Teacher Incentive Fund, established in
2006, supports performance-based teacher and principal
compensation systems in high-need schools, primarily
through grants to school districts and consortia of school
districts. The combined ARRA and FY 2009 appropriation for
this program is approximately $300 million.
B. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended
We look forward to congressional reauthorization of the ESEA that will
build on many of the reforms States and LEAs will be implementing under
the ARRA grant programs described above. As necessary, we intend to
amend current regulations to reflect the reauthorization of this
statute. In the interim we may propose other amendments to the current
regulations.
C. Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009
We expect Congress to enact, and appropriate funds for, several
components of the President's education
[[Page 64195]]
agenda. The House passed H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 2009, in September, and the Senate is expected to
move similar legislation this year. If the legislation is passed, we
expect to propose regulations in the coming months to implement it.
New Programs: The new programs included in the House bill that would
require regulations include the following:
The College Access and Completion Fund, to build a Federal-
State-local partnership to improve college success and
completion, particularly for students from disadvantaged
backgrounds.
The American Graduation Initiative, to promote innovations and
reforms in our nation's community colleges, including
modernization of community college facilities and the
development of online educational resources.
The Early Learning Challenge Fund, to provide competitive
grants to States for the development of statewide
infrastructure of integrated early-learning supports and
services for children from birth through age 5.
Student Loans: H.R. 3221 would also enact the President's proposal to
originate 100 percent of new student loans under the Direct Loan
program, under which the Federal Government provides capital for
student loans. The bill would terminate the origination of loans under
the Federal Family Education Loan program, under which the Federal
Government currently guarantees loans made by the private sector. This
bill also includes a proposal to transform the current Perkins Loan
program from a separate program of revolving funds based at individual
institutions of higher education into a subset of the Direct Loan
program.
D. Higher Education Opportunity Act
The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA), enacted on August 14,
2008, amended and extended the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA).
During the coming year, we plan to amend our regulations to address
several key issues, including issues related to program integrity and
foreign schools. As necessary we may also amend our regulations for
several discretionary grant programs to reflect changes made by the
HEOA.
Unless subject to an exemption, regulations to carry out changes to the
student financial aid programs under Title IV of the HEA must generally
go through the negotiated rulemaking process.
E. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
We plan to issue final regulations implementing changes to the Part C
program--the early intervention program for infants and toddlers with
disabilities--under the IDEA.
F. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
Given the President's emphasis on improving the collection and use of
data as a key element of educational reform, we are reviewing the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) and its
implementing regulations to ensure that States are able to effectively
establish and expand robust statewide longitudinal data systems while
protecting student privacy. If necessary, we will amend our current
FERPA regulations.
G. Other Potential Regulatory Activities
Congress may take up legislation to reauthorize the Adult Education and
Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) (Title II of the Workforce Investment Act
of 1998) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 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 basic 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. 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:
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 so
diverse that a uniform approach through regulation does
more harm than good.
Whether regulations are needed to protect the Federal
interest; that is, to ensure that Federal funds are used
for their intended purpose, and to eliminate fraud, waste,
and abuse.
In deciding how to regulate, we are mindful of the following
principles:
Regulate no more than necessary.
Minimize burden to the extent possible, and promote multiple
approaches to meeting statutory requirements when possible.
Encourage coordination of federally funded activities with
State and local reform activities.
Ensure that benefits justify costs of regulation.
To the extent possible, establish performance objectives
rather than specify compliance behavior.
Encourage flexibility, to the extent possible, so
institutional forces and incentives achieve desired
results.
_______________________________________________________________________