<DOC>
[November 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 227)]
[Unified Agenda]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID: f:ua081101.wais]

[Page 71095-71304]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Regulatory Information Service Center





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Introduction to The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal 
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 227 / Monday, November 24, 2008 / The 
Regulatory Plan

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 227 / Monday, November 24, 2008 / The 
Regulatory Plan

[[Page 71095]]





REGULATORY INFORMATION SERVICE CENTER



Introduction to The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal 
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions



AGENCY: Regulatory Information Service Center.

ACTION: Introduction to The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.

_______________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY: The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies publish 
semiannual regulatory agendas in the Federal Register describing 
regulatory actions they are developing that may have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 
602). Executive Order 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' signed 
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), as amended, and Office of Management 
and Budget memoranda implementing section 4 of that Order establish 
minimum standards for agencies' agendas, including specific types of 
information for each entry. Section 4 of Executive Order 12866 also 
directs that each agency prepare, as part of its submission to the fall 
edition of the Unified Agenda, a regulatory plan of the most important 
significant regulatory actions that the agency reasonably expects to 
issue in proposed or final form during the upcoming fiscal year. The 
Regulatory Plan (Plan) and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda) help agencies fulfill these 
requirements.

    Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 were printed in 
their entirety in the Federal Register. Beginning with the fall 2007 
edition, the Internet is the basic means for conveying Regulatory 
Agenda information to the maximum extent legally permissible. The 
complete Unified Agenda for fall 2008, including The Regulatory Plan, 
is available to the public at http://reginfo.gov.

    The fall 2008 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the Federal 
Register consists of The Regulatory Plan and agency regulatory 
flexibility agendas, in accordance with the publication requirements of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Agency regulatory flexibility agendas 
contain only those Agenda entries for rules which are likely to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
and entries that have been selected for periodic review under section 
610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    The complete fall 2008 Unified Agenda contains the plans of 28 
Federal agencies and the regulatory agendas for these and 33 other 
Federal agencies.

ADDRESSES: Regulatory Information Service Center (MI), General Services 
Administration, 1800 F Street NW., Suite 3039, Washington, DC 20405.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about specific 
regulatory actions, please refer to the Agency Contact listed for each 
entry.

    To provide comment on or to obtain further information about this 
publication, contact: John C. Thomas, Executive Director, Regulatory 
Information Service Center (MI), General Services Administration, 1800 
F Street NW., Suite 3039, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 482-7340. You may 
also send comments to us by e-mail at:

RISC@gsa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

  Introduction to The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal
                   Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

I. What Are The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda?.........   71096
II. Why Are The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda             71097
 Published?.....................................................
III. How Are The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda            71097
 Organized?.....................................................
IV. What Information Appears for Each Entry?....................   71098
V. Abbreviations................................................   71100
VI. How Can Users Get Copies of the Plan and the Agenda?........   71100

Introduction to the Fall 2008 Regulatory Plan...................   71101

                         AGENCY REGULATORY PLANS

                           Cabinet Departments

Department of Agriculture.......................................   71112
Department of Commerce..........................................   71134
Department of Defense...........................................   71146
Department of Education.........................................   71152
Department of Energy............................................   71154
Department of Health and Human Services.........................   71157
Department of Homeland Security.................................   71165
Department of Housing and Urban Development.....................   71199
Department of the Interior......................................   71203
Department of Justice...........................................   71217
Department of Labor.............................................   71223
Department of Transportation....................................   71230
Department of the Treasury......................................   71242
Department of Veterans Affairs..................................   71253

                        Other Executive Agencies

Environmental Protection Agency.................................   71254
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.........................   71270
General Services Administration.................................   71272
National Aeronautics and Space Administration...................   71273
National Archives and Records Administration....................   71274
Office of Personnel Management..................................   71275
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation............................   71276
Small Business Administration...................................   71278
Social Security Administration..................................   71280

                     Independent Regulatory Agencies

Consumer Product Safety Commission..............................   71289
Federal Maritime Commission.....................................   71291
Federal Trade Commission........................................   71292
National Indian Gaming Commission...............................   71302
Postal Regulatory Commission....................................   71303

                             AGENCY AGENDAS

                           Cabinet Departments

Department of Agriculture.......................................   71305
Department of Commerce..........................................   71325
Department of Health and Human Services.........................   71355
Department of Homeland Security.................................   71377
Department of Housing and Urban Development.....................   71387
Department of Justice...........................................   71391
Department of Labor.............................................   71395
Department of Transportation....................................   71401

                        Other Executive Agencies

Environmental Protection Agency.................................   71423
General Services Administration.................................   71435
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
  Institute of Museum and Library Services......................   71439
  National Endowment for the Arts...............................   71441

[[Page 71096]]


Office of Personnel Management..................................   71443
Small Business Administration...................................   71447

                             Joint Authority

Department of Defense/General Services Administration/National     71453
 Aeronautics and Space Administration (Federal Acquisition
 Regulation)....................................................

                     Independent Regulatory Agencies

Federal Communications Commission...............................   71457
Federal Reserve System..........................................   71503
National Credit Union Administration............................   71507
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...................................   71509
Securities and Exchange Commission..............................   71513



<HEAD>INTRODUCTION TO THE REGULATORY PLAN AND THE UNIFIED AGENDA OF 
FEDERAL REGULATORY AND DEREGULATORY ACTIONS


<HEAD>I. What Are The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda?

     The Regulatory Plan serves as a defining statement of the 
Administration's regulatory and deregulatory policies and priorities. 
The Plan is part of the fall edition of the Unified Agenda. Each 
participating agency's regulatory plan contains: (1) A narrative 
statement of the agency's regulatory priorities and, for most agencies, 
(2) a description of the most important significant regulatory and 
deregulatory actions that the agency reasonably expects to issue in 
proposed or final form during the upcoming fiscal year. This edition 
includes the regulatory plans of 28 agencies.

     The Unified Agenda provides information about regulations that the 
Government is considering or reviewing. The Unified Agenda has appeared 
in the Federal Register twice each year since 1983 and has been 
available online since 1995. In order to further the Administration's 
commitment to use modern technology to deliver better service to the 
American people for lower cost, beginning with the fall 2007 edition, 
the Internet is the basic means for conveying Regulatory Agenda 
information to the maximum extent legally permissible. The complete 
Unified Agenda, including The Regulatory Plan, is available to the 
public at http://reginfo.gov. The online Unified Agenda offers flexible 
search tools and will soon offer access to the entire historic Unified 
Agenda database.

     The fall 2008 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the Federal 
Register consists of The Regulatory Plan and agency regulatory 
flexibility agendas, in accordance with the publication requirements of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Agency regulatory flexibility agendas 
contain only those Agenda entries for rules which are likely to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
and entries that have been selected for periodic review under section 
610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Printed entries display only the 
fields required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Complete agenda 
information for those entries appears, in a uniform format, in the 
online Unified Agenda at http://reginfo.gov.

     These publication formats meet the publication mandates of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866, as amended, as 
well as move the Agenda process toward the Administration's goal of e-
Government, while providing a substantial reduction in printing costs 
compared with prior editions. The current format does not reduce the 
amount of information available to the public, but it does limit most 
of the content of the Agenda to online access. The complete online 
edition of the Unified Agenda includes regulatory agendas from 61 
Federal agencies. Agencies of the United States Congress are not 
included.

     The following agencies have no entries identified for inclusion in 
the printed regulatory flexibility agenda. An asterisk (*) indicates 
agencies that appear in the Regulatory Plan. The regulatory agendas of 
these agencies are available to the public at http://reginfo.gov.

    Department of Defense *

    Department of Education *

    Department of Energy *

    Department of the Interior *

    Department of State

    Department of the Treasury *

    Department of Veterans Affairs *

    Agency for International Development

    Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

    Commission on Civil Rights

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled

    Consumer Product Safety Commission *

    Corporation for National and Community Service

    Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of 
Columbia

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission *

    Farm Credit Administration

    Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation

    Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

    Federal Housing Finance Agency

    Federal Housing Finance Board

    Federal Maritime Commission *

    Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

    Federal Trade Commission *

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration *

    National Archives and Records Administration *

    National Endowment for the Humanities

    National Indian Gaming Commission *

    National Science Foundation

    Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

    Office of Government Ethics

    Office of Management and Budget

    Peace Corps

    Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation *

    Postal Regulatory Commission *

    Railroad Retirement Board

    Selective Service System

    Social Security Administration *

    Surface Transportation Board

    The Regulatory Information Service Center (the Center) compiles the 
Plan and the Unified Agenda for the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), part of the Office

[[Page 71097]]

of Management and Budget. OIRA is responsible for overseeing the 
Federal Government's regulatory, paperwork, and information resource 
management activities, including implementation of Executive Order 
12866. The Center also provides information about Federal regulatory 
activity to the President and his Executive Office, the Congress, 
agency managers, and the public.

    The activities included in the Agenda are, in general, those that 
will have a regulatory action within the next 12 months. Agencies may 
choose to include activities that will have a longer timeframe than 12 
months. Agency agendas also show actions or reviews completed or 
withdrawn since the last Unified Agenda. Executive Order 12866 does not 
require agencies to include regulations concerning military or foreign 
affairs functions or regulations related to agency organization, 
management, or personnel matters.

    Agencies prepared entries for this publication to give the public 
notice of their plans to review, propose, and issue regulations. They 
have tried to predict their activities over the next 12 months as 
accurately as possible, but dates and schedules are subject to change. 
Agencies may withdraw some of the regulations now under development, 
and they may issue or propose other regulations not included in their 
agendas. Agency actions in the rulemaking process may occur before or 
after the dates they have listed. The Regulatory Plan and the Unified 
Agenda do not create a legal obligation on agencies to adhere to 
schedules in this publication or to confine their regulatory activities 
to those regulations that appear within it.


<HEAD>II. Why Are The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda Published?

    The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda help agencies comply 
with their obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and various 
Executive orders and other statutes.


<HEAD>Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to identify those 
rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 602). Agencies meet that requirement 
by including the information in their submissions for the Unified 
Agenda. Agencies may also indicate those regulations that they are 
reviewing as part of their periodic review of existing rules under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610). Executive Order 13272 
entitled ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency 
Rulemaking,'' signed August 13, 2002 (67 FR 53461) provides additional 
guidance on compliance with the Act.


<HEAD>Executive Order 12866

    Executive Order 12866 entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 
signed September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735) requires covered agencies to 
prepare an agenda of all regulations under development or review. The 
Order also requires that certain agencies prepare annually a regulatory 
plan of their ``most important significant regulatory actions,'' which 
appears as part of the fall Unified Agenda. The requirements for 
regulatory plans were amended by Executive Order 13422 entitled 
``Further Amendment to Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' signed January 18, 2007 (72 FR 2763).


<HEAD>Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 entitled ``Federalism,'' signed August 4, 
1999 (64 FR 43255) directs agencies to have an accountable process to 
ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have ``federalism 
implications'' as defined in the Order. Under the Order, an agency that 
is proposing regulations with federalism implications, which either 
preempt State law or impose nonstatutory unfunded substantial direct 
compliance costs on State and local governments, must consult with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
regulation. In addition, the agency must provide to the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget a federalism summary impact statement 
for such regulations, which consists of a description of the extent of 
the agency's prior consultation with State and local officials, a 
summary of their concerns and the agency's position supporting the need 
to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which those 
concerns have been met. As part of this effort, agencies include in 
their submissions for the Unified Agenda information on whether their 
regulatory actions may have an effect on the various levels of 
government and whether those actions have federalism implications.


<HEAD>Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

     The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, title II) 
requires agencies to prepare written assessments of the costs and 
benefits of significant regulatory actions ``that may result in the 
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more . . . in any 1 year . 
. . .'' The requirement does not apply to independent regulatory 
agencies, nor does it apply to certain subject areas excluded by 
section 4 of the Act. Affected agencies identify in the Unified Agenda 
those regulatory actions they believe are subject to title II of the 
Act.


<HEAD>Executive Order 13211

     Executive Order 13211 entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations 
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' signed 
May 18, 2001 (66 FR 28355) directs agencies to provide, to the extent 
possible, information regarding the adverse effects that agency actions 
may have on the supply, distribution, and use of energy. Under the 
Order, the agency must prepare and submit a Statement of Energy Effects 
to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for ``those matters 
identified as significant energy actions.'' As part of this effort, 
agencies may optionally include in their submissions for the Unified 
Agenda information on whether they have prepared or plan to prepare a 
Statement of Energy Effects for their regulatory actions.


<HEAD>Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

     The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 
104-121, title II) established a procedure for congressional review of 
rules (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), which defers, unless exempted, the 
effective date of a ``major'' rule for at least 60 days from the 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The Act 
specifies that a rule is ``major'' if it has resulted or is likely to 
result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
meets other criteria specified in that Act. The Act provides that the 
Administrator of OIRA will make the final determination as to whether a 
rule is major.


<HEAD>III. How Are The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda 
Organized?

     The Regulatory Plan appears in part II of a daily edition of the 
Federal Register. The Plan is a single document beginning with an 
introduction, followed by a table of contents, followed by each 
agency's section of the Plan.

[[Page 71098]]

Following the Plan in the Federal Register, as separate parts, are the 
regulatory flexibility agendas for each agency whose agenda includes 
entries for rules which are likely to have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities or rules that have 
been selected for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. Each printed agenda appears as a separate part. The 
sections of the Plan and the parts of the Unified Agenda are organized 
alphabetically in four groups: Cabinet departments; other executive 
agencies; the Federal Acquisition Regulation, a joint authority (Agenda 
only); and independent regulatory agencies. Agencies may in turn be 
divided into subagencies. Each printed agency agenda has a table of 
contents listing the agency's printed entries that follow.

     Each agency's section of the Plan contains a narrative statement 
of regulatory priorities and, for most agencies, a description of the 
agency's most important significant regulatory and deregulatory 
actions. Each agency's part of the Agenda contains a preamble providing 
information specific to that agency plus descriptions of the agency's 
regulatory and deregulatory actions.

     The online, complete Unified Agenda contains the preambles of all 
participating agencies. Unlike the printed edition, the online Agenda 
has no fixed ordering. In the online Agenda, users can select the 
particular agencies whose agendas they want to see. Users have broad 
flexibility to specify the characteristics of the entries of interest 
to them by choosing the desired responses to individual data fields. To 
see a listing of all of an agency's entries, a user can select the 
agency without specifying any particular characteristics of entries.

     Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking 
stages. In the Plan, only the first three stages are applicable. Some 
agencies use subheadings to identify regulations that are grouped 
according to particular topics. The rulemaking stages are:

1. Prerule Stage -- actions agencies will undertake to determine 
    whether or how to initiate rulemaking. Such actions occur prior to 
    a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and may include Advance 
    Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) and reviews of existing 
    regulations.
2. Proposed Rule Stage -- actions for which agencies plan to publish a 
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as the next step in their rulemaking 
    process or for which the closing date of the NPRM Comment Period is 
    the next step.
3. Final Rule Stage -- actions for which agencies plan to publish a 
    final rule or an interim final rule or to take other final action 
    as the next step.
4. Long-Term Actions -- items under development but for which the 
    agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 
    months after publication of this edition of the Unified Agenda. 
    Some of the entries in this section may contain abbreviated 
    information.
5. Completed Actions -- actions or reviews the agency has completed or 
    withdrawn since publishing its last agenda. This section also 
    includes items the agency began and completed between issues of the 
    Agenda.

     A bullet (<bullet>) preceding the title of an entry indicates that 
the entry is appearing in the Unified Agenda for the first time.

     In the printed edition, all entries are numbered sequentially from 
the beginning to the end of the publication. The sequence number 
preceding the title of each entry identifies the location of the entry 
in this edition. This sequence number is used as the reference in the 
printed table of contents. Sequence numbers are not used in the online 
Unified Agenda because the unique Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is 
able to provide this cross-reference capability.

     Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 contained 
several indexes, which identified entries with various characteristics. 
These included regulatory actions for which agencies believe that the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act may require a Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, actions selected for periodic review under section 610(c) of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and actions that may have federalism 
implications as defined in Executive Order 13132 or other effects on 
levels of government. These indexes are no longer compiled, because 
users of the online Unified Agenda have the flexibility to search for 
entries with any combination of desired characteristics. The online 
edition retains the Unified Agenda's subject index based on the Federal 
Register Thesaurus of Indexing Terms. In addition, online users have 
the option of searching Agenda text fields for words or phrases.


<HEAD>IV. What Information Appears for Each Entry?

     All entries in the Unified Agenda contain uniform data elements 
including, at a minimum, the following information:

     Title of the Regulation -- a brief description of the subject of 
the regulation. In the printed edition, the notation ``Section 610 
Review'' following the title indicates that the agency has selected the 
rule for its periodic review of existing rules under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610(c)). Some agencies have indicated 
completions of section 610 reviews or rulemaking actions resulting from 
completed section 610 reviews. In the online edition, these notations 
appear as separate fields.

     Priority -- an indication of the significance of the regulation. 
Agencies assign each entry to one of the following five categories of 
significance.

(1) Economically Significant

 As defined in Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking action that will 
    have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
    will adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of 
    the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 
    public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
    communities. The definition of an ``economically significant'' rule 
    is similar but not identical to the definition of a ``major'' rule 
    under 5 U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 104-121). (See below.)

(2) Other Significant

 A rulemaking that is not Economically Significant but is considered 
    Significant by the agency. This category includes rules that the 
    agency anticipates will be reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or 
    rules that are a priority of the agency head. These rules may or 
    may not be included in the agency's regulatory plan.

(3) Substantive, Nonsignificant

 A rulemaking that has substantive impacts but is neither Significant, 
    nor Routine and Frequent, nor Informational/Administrative/Other.

(4) Routine and Frequent

 A rulemaking that is a specific case of a multiple recurring 
    application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal

[[Page 71099]]

    Regulations and that does not alter the body of the regulation.

(5) Informational/Administrative/Other

 A rulemaking that is primarily informational or pertains to agency 
    matters not central to accomplishing the agency's regulatory 
    mandate but that the agency places in the Unified Agenda to inform 
    the public of the activity.

     Major -- whether the rule is ``major'' under 5 U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 
104-121) because it has resulted or is likely to result in an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or meets other criteria 
specified in that Act. The Act provides that the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will make the final 
determination as to whether a rule is major.

     Unfunded Mandates -- whether the rule is covered by section 202 of 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). The Act 
requires that, before issuing an NPRM likely to result in a mandate 
that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of more than 
$100 million in 1 year, agencies, other than independent regulatory 
agencies, shall prepare a written statement containing an assessment of 
the anticipated costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

     Legal Authority -- the section(s) of the United States Code 
(U.S.C.) or Public Law (Pub. L.) or the Executive order (E.O.) that 
authorize(s) the regulatory action. Agencies may provide popular name 
references to laws in addition to these citations.

     CFR Citation -- the section(s) of the Code of Federal Regulations 
that will be affected by the action.

     Legal Deadline -- whether the action is subject to a statutory or 
judicial deadline, the date of that deadline, and whether the deadline 
pertains to an NPRM, a Final Action, or some other action.

     Abstract -- a brief description of the problem the regulation will 
address; the need for a Federal solution; to the extent available, 
alternatives that the agency is considering to address the problem; and 
potential costs and benefits of the action.

     Timetable -- the dates and citations (if available) for all past 
steps and a projected date for at least the next step for the 
regulatory action. A date printed in the form 08/00/09 means the agency 
is predicting the month and year the action will take place but not the 
day it will occur. In some instances, agencies may indicate what the 
next action will be, but the date of that action is ``To Be 
Determined.'' ``Next Action Undetermined'' indicates the agency does 
not know what action it will take next.

     Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required -- whether an analysis is 
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
because the rulemaking action is likely to have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Act.

     Small Entities Affected -- the types of small entities 
(businesses, governmental jurisdictions, or organizations) on which the 
rulemaking action is likely to have an impact as defined by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Some agencies have chosen to indicate 
likely effects on small entities even though they believe that a 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis will not be required.

     Government Levels Affected -- whether the action is expected to 
affect levels of government and, if so, whether the governments are 
State, local, tribal, or Federal.

     International Impacts -- whether the regulation is expected to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise may be of 
interest to the Nation's international trading partners (new data 
element, added in fall 2008).

     Federalism -- whether the action has ``federalism implications'' 
as defined in Executive Order 13132. This term refers to actions ``that 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' 
Independent regulatory agencies are not required to supply this 
information.

     Agency Contact -- the name and phone number of at least one person 
in the agency who is knowledgeable about the rulemaking action. The 
agency may also provide the title, address, fax number, e-mail address, 
and TDD for each agency contact.

     Some agencies have provided the following optional information:

     RIN Information URL -- the Internet address of a site that 
provides more information about the entry.

     Public Comment URL -- the Internet address of a site that will 
accept public comments on the entry. Alternatively, timely public 
comments may be submitted at the governmentwide e-rulemaking site, 
http://www.regulations.gov.

     Additional Information -- any information an agency wishes to 
include that does not have a specific corresponding data element.

     Compliance Cost to the Public -- the estimated gross compliance 
cost of the action.

     Affected Sectors -- the industrial sectors that the action may 
most affect, either directly or indirectly. Affected Sectors are 
identified by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 
codes.

     Energy Effects -- an indication of whether the agency has prepared 
or plans to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for the action, as 
required by Executive Order 13211 ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' signed May 
18, 2001 (66 FR 28355).

     Related RINs -- one or more past or current RINs associated with 
activity related to this action, such as merged RINs, split RINs, new 
activity for previously completed RINs, or duplicate RINs.

     Entries appearing in The Regulatory Plan include some or all of 
the following additional data elements, but will, at a minimum, include 
information in Statement of Need and in Anticipated Costs and Benefits:

     Statement of Need -- a description of the need for the regulatory 
action.

     Summary of the Legal Basis -- a description of the legal basis for 
the action, including whether any aspect of the action is required by 
statute or court order.

     Alternatives -- a description of the alternatives the agency has 
considered or will consider as required by section 4(c)(1)(B) of 
Executive Order 12866.

     Anticipated Costs and Benefits -- a description of preliminary 
estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of the action.

     Risks -- a description of the magnitude of the risk the action 
addresses, the amount by which the agency expects

[[Page 71100]]

the action to reduce this risk, and the relation of the risk and this 
risk reduction effort to other risks and risk reduction efforts within 
the agency's jurisdiction.


<HEAD>V. Abbreviations

     The following abbreviations appear throughout this publication:

     ANPRM -- An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is a preliminary 
notice, published in the Federal Register, announcing that an agency is 
considering a regulatory action. An agency may issue an ANPRM before it 
develops a detailed proposed rule. An ANPRM describes the general area 
that may be subject to regulation and usually asks for public comment 
on the issues and options being discussed. An ANPRM is issued only when 
an agency believes it needs to gather more information before 
proceeding to a notice of proposed rulemaking.

     CFR -- The Code of Federal Regulations is an annual codification 
of the general and permanent regulations published in the Federal 
Register by the agencies of the Federal Government. The Code is divided 
into 50 titles, each title covering a broad area subject to Federal 
regulation. The CFR is keyed to and kept up to date by the daily issues 
of the Federal Register.

     EO -- An Executive order is a directive from the President to 
Executive agencies, issued under constitutional or statutory authority. 
Executive orders are published in the Federal Register and in title 3 
of the Code of Federal Regulations.

     FR -- The Federal Register is a daily Federal Government 
publication that provides a uniform system for publishing Presidential 
documents, all proposed and final regulations, notices of meetings, and 
other official documents issued by Federal agencies.

     FY -- The Federal fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30.

     NPRM -- A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is the document an agency 
issues and publishes in the Federal Register that describes and 
solicits public comments on a proposed regulatory action. Under the 
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), an NPRM must include, at a 
minimum:

<bullet> a statement of the time, place, and nature of the public 
    rulemaking proceeding;
<bullet> a reference to the legal authority under which the rule is 
    proposed; and
<bullet> either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a 
    description of the subjects and issues involved.

     PL (or Pub. L.) -- A public law is a law passed by Congress and 
signed by the President or enacted over his veto. It has general 
applicability, unlike a private law that applies only to those persons 
or entities specifically designated. Public laws are numbered in 
sequence throughout the 2-year life of each Congress; for example, PL 
110-4 is the fourth public law of the 110th Congress.

     RFA -- A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is a description and 
analysis of the impact of a rule on small entities, including small 
businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and certain small not-
for-profit organizations. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.) requires each agency to prepare an initial RFA for public 
comment when it is required to publish an NPRM and to make available a 
final RFA when the final rule is published, unless the agency head 
certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.

     RIN -- The Regulation Identifier Number is assigned by the 
Regulatory Information Service Center to identify each regulatory 
action listed in The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda, as 
directed by Executive Order 12866 (section 4(b)). Additionally, OMB has 
asked agencies to include RINs in the headings of their Rule and 
Proposed Rule documents when publishing them in the Federal Register, 
to make it easier for the public and agency officials to track the 
publication history of regulatory actions throughout their development.

     Seq. No. -- The sequence number identifies the location of an 
entry in the printed edition of the Agenda. Note that a specific 
regulatory action will have the same RIN throughout its development but 
will generally have different sequence numbers if it appears in 
different printed editions of The Regulatory Plan and the Agenda. 
Sequence numbers are not used in the online Unified Agenda.

     USC -- The United States Code is a consolidation and codification 
of all general and permanent laws of the United States. The USC is 
divided into 50 titles, each title covering a broad area of Federal 
law.


<HEAD>VI. How Can Users Get Copies of the Plan and the Agenda?

     Copies of the Federal Register issue containing the printed 
edition of The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda (agency 
regulatory flexibility agendas) are available from the Superintendent 
of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, 
Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Telephone: (202) 512-1800 or 1-866-512-1800 
(toll-free).

     Copies of individual agency materials may be available directly 
from the agency or may be found on the agency's website. Please contact 
the particular agency for further information.

     All editions of The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions since fall 1995 are 
available in electronic form at http://reginfo.gov. This site currently 
offers flexible search tools for recent editions. By early 2009, 
searchable access to the entire historic Unified Agenda database back 
to 1983 will be added to the site.

     In accordance with regulations for the Federal Register, the 
Government Printing Office's GPO Access website contains copies of the 
Agendas and Regulatory Plans that have been printed in the Federal 
Register. These documents are available at:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ua/index.html

Dated: November 12, 2008.

 John C. Thomas,
Executive Director.

[FR Doc. Filed 11-21-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-27-S


                          The Regulatory Plan 


____________________________________________________________________

[[Page 71101]]



                <HEAD>INTRODUCTION TO THE FALL 2008 REGULATORY PLAN

                Federal regulation is a fundamental instrument of 
                national policy. It is one of the three major tools -- 
                in addition to spending and taxing -- used to implement 
                policy. It is used to advance numerous public 
                objectives, including homeland security, transportation 
                safety, environmental protection, educational quality, 
                food safety, health care quality, equal employment 
                opportunity, energy security, immigration control, and 
                consumer protection. The Office of Management and 
                Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory 
                Affairs (OIRA) is responsible for overseeing and 
                coordinating the Federal Government's regulatory 
                policies.

                The Regulatory Plan is published as part of the fall 
                edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 
                Deregulatory Actions, and serves as a statement of the 
                Administration's regulatory and deregulatory policies 
                and priorities. The purpose of the Plan is to make the 
                regulatory process more accessible to the public and to 
                ensure that the planning and coordination necessary for 
                a well-functioning regulatory process occurs. The Plan 
                identifies regulatory priorities and contains 
                information about the most significant regulatory 
                actions agencies expect to undertake in the coming 
                year. An accessible regulatory process enables citizen 
                centered service.

                Federal Regulatory Policy

                Federal regulations should be sensible and based on 
                sound science, economics, and the law. Accordingly, the 
                Bush Administration strove for a regulatory process 
                that adopted new rules when markets failed to serve the 
                public interest, simplified and modified existing rules 
                to make them more effective, less costly or less 
                intrusive, and rescinded outmoded rules whose benefits 
                did not justify their costs. In pursuing this agenda, 
                OMB has adopted an approach based on the principles of 
                regulatory analysis and policy espoused in Executive 
                Order 12866, signed by President Clinton in 1993.

                Effective regulatory policy is not uniformly pro-
                regulation or anti-regulation. It originates with the 
                authority granted under the law. Within the discretion 
                available to the regulating agency through its 
                statutory authority, agencies apply a number of 
                principles articulated in Executive Order 12866, as 
                well as other applicable Executive Orders, in order to 
                design regulations that achieve their desired ends in 
                the most efficient way. This involves bringing to bear 
                on the policy problem sound economic principles, the 
                highest quality information, and the best possible 
                science. This is not always an easy task, and designing 
                regulations does not involve the rote application of 
                quantified data to reach policy decisions. In making 
                regulatory decisions, we expect agencies to consider 
                not only benefits and costs that can be quantified and 
                expressed in monetary units, but also other attributes 
                and factors that cannot be integrated readily in a 
                benefit-cost framework, such as privacy and fairness. 
                Effective regulation is the result of the careful use 
                of all available high-quality data, and the application 
                of broad principles established by the President.

                The Administration's e-rulemaking program is designed 
                to increase transparency and improve the public's 
                ability to become involved in the rulemaking process. 
                Visitors to the website, www.regulations.gov, can view 
                and

[[Page 71102]]

                comment electronically on regulations proposed by 
                Federal departments and agencies. Current and prior 
                editions of the Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda are 
                available electronically in searchable database format 
                on both www.regulations.gov and www.reginfo.gov.

                For new rulemakings and programs, OIRA has enhanced the 
                transparency of OMB's regulatory review process. OIRA's 
                website allows the public to identify which rules are 
                formally under review at OMB and which rules have 
                recently completed review or have been returned to 
                agencies for reconsideration. OIRA has increased the 
                amount of information available on its website. In 
                addition to information on meetings and correspondence, 
                OIRA makes available communications from the OIRA 
                Administrator to agencies, including ``prompt 
                letters,'' ``return letters,'' and ``post review 
                letters.''

                For existing rulemakings, OMB initiated a series of 
                calls for reform nominations in 2001, 2002, and 2004. 
                In the 2004 draft Report to Congress on the Costs and 
                Benefits of Federal Regulation, OMB requested public 
                nominations of promising regulatory reforms relevant to 
                the manufacturing sector. Commenters were asked to 
                suggest specific reforms to rules, guidance documents, 
                or paperwork requirements that would improve 
                manufacturing regulation by reducing unnecessary costs, 
                increasing effectiveness, enhancing competitiveness, 
                reducing uncertainty, and increasing flexibility. In 
                response to the solicitation, OMB received 189 distinct 
                reform nominations from 41 commenters. Of these, 
                Federal agencies and OMB have determined that 76 
                nominations have potential merit and justify further 
                action. According to the 2008 draft OMB Report to 
                Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal 
                Regulation, agencies have completed 60 of the 76 
                priority reforms. For further information, all of these 
                Reports are available on OIRA's website at http://
                www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/regpol.html.

                The Administration's 2008 Regulatory Priorities

                With regard to Federal regulation, the Administration's 
                objective is quality, not quantity. Those rules that 
                are finalized promise to be more effective, less 
                intrusive, and more cost-effective in achieving 
                national objectives while demonstrating greater 
                resilience. OMB seeks to ensure that the public is 
                provided with the information needed to understand and 
                comment on the Federal regulatory agenda. Accordingly, 
                the 2008 Regulatory Plan highlights the following 
                themes:

                        <bullet> Regulations that are particularly good 
                            examples of the Administration's ``smart'' 
                            regulation agenda to streamline regulations 
                            and reporting requirements, which is a key 
                            part of the President's economic plan.

                        <bullet> Regulations of particular concern to 
                            small businesses.

                        <bullet> Regulations addressing the 2004 
                            nominations for promising regulatory 
                            reforms in the manufacturing sector.

                In addition, the 2008 Regulatory Plan includes for the 
                first time an identification of regulations that may 
                have international trade and investment effects. The 
                Plan now includes an ``international flag'' for such 
                regulations, which the public can use to search for a 
                list of entries with international impacts or interest. 
                This enhanced capability grew out of a recommendation 
                developed through OMB's ongoing work with the 
                Secretariat General of the European Commission through 
                the U.S.-EU High Level Regulatory Forum. Specifically, 
                the Forum recognized the value of timely announcement 
                of planned regulations that may have international 
                trade and investment effects, and recommended that both 
                the U.S. and the EU develop a mechanism to provide the 
                public with such information.


[[Page 71103]]



                Conclusion

                Smarter regulatory policies, created through public 
                participation, transparency, and cooperation across 
                Federal agencies, are key Executive Branch objectives. 
                The following department and agency plans provide 
                further information on regulatory priorities. All 
                agencies' plans are a reflection of the 
                Administration's Federal Regulatory Policy objectives, 
                which aim at implementing an effective and results-
                oriented regulatory system. As the eighth and final 
                Regulatory Plan of the Administration, this plan 
                reflects our efforts to have a regulatory system that 
                protects and improves Americans' health, safety and 
                environment, secures their rights, and ensures a fair 
                and competitive economic system, while respecting their 
                prerogative to make their own decisions and not 
                imposing unnecessary costs. One of the opportunities 
                for the new Administration, in addition to maintaining 
                and furthering these efforts, will be to continue 
                enhancing the transparency and accountability of the 
                regulatory process to the public. The following 
                department and agency plans provide additional 
                information on their individual regulatory priorities.

[[Page 71105]]


                                                                DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1                Animal Welfare; Regulations and Standards for Birds                                                         0579-AC02    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
2                Importation of Plants for Planting; Establishing a New Category of Plants for Planting Not                  0579-AC03    Proposed Rule
                 Authorized for Importation Pending Risk Assessment                                                                               Stage
3                Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Importation of Bovines and Bovine Products                                0579-AC68    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
4                Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering                      0579-AC31 Final Rule Stage
5                Child and Adult Care Food Program: Improving Management and Program Integrity                               0584-AC24 Final Rule Stage
6                FSP: Eligibility and Certification Provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002      0584-AD30    Final Rule Stage
7                Quality Control Provisions                                                                               0584-AD31    Final Rule Stage
8                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
9                Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): WIC Vendor Cost           0584-AD71    Final Rule Stage
                 Containment
10               Changes to Regulatory Jurisdiction Over Certain Food Products Containing Meat and Poultry                0583-AD28       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
11               New Poultry Slaughter Inspection                                                                         0583-AD32       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
12               Notification, Documentation and Recordkeeping Requirements for Inspected Establishments                  0583-AD34       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
13               Mandatory Inspection of Catfish and Catfish Products                                                     0583-AD36       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
14               Federal-State Interstate Shipment Cooperative Inspection Program                                         0583-AD37       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
15               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
16               Requirements for the Disposition of Cattle that Become Non-Ambulatory Disabled Following Ante-           0583-AD35    Final Rule Stage
                 Mortem Inspection
17               Mandatory Country Of Origin Labeling Of Covered Commodities Including Muscle Cuts Of Beef                0583-AD38    Final Rule Stage
                 (Including Veal), Lamb, Chicken, Goat, and Pork; Ground Beef, Gr. Lamb, Gr. Chicken, Gr. Goat, and
                 Gr. Pork
18               Resource Agency Procedures for Conditions and Prescriptions in Hydropower Licenses                          0596-AC42 Final Rule Stage
19               Special Areas; State-Specific Inventoried Roadless Area Management: Colorado                                0596-AC74 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20               Amendment to Coastal Migratory Pelagics FMP, Red Drum FMP, Reef Fish FMP, Spiny Lobster FMP, and         0648-AS65       Proposed Rule
                 Stone Crab FMP To Provide for Regulation of Marine Aquaculture                                                                   Stage
21               Certification of Nations Whose Fishing Vessels Are Engaged in IUU Fishing or Bycatch of Protected        0648-AV51       Proposed Rule
                 Living Marine Resources                                                                                                          Stage
22               Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions and Interjurisdictional              0648-AW38       Proposed Rule
                 Fisheries Act Disaster Assistance Programs                                                                                       Stage
23               Provide Guidance for the Limited Access Privilege Program Provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens             0648-AX13       Proposed Rule
                 Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006                                                                  Stage
24               Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA) Environmental            0648-AV53    Final Rule Stage
                 Review Procedure
25               Guidance for Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures to End Overfishing                          0648-AV60    Final Rule Stage
26               Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy Training in the Hawaii Range Complex                      0648-AW86    Final Rule Stage

[[Page 71106]]


27               Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy's Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training (AFAST)            0648-AW90    Final Rule Stage
28               Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy Training in the Southern California Range Complex         0648-AW91    Final Rule Stage
                 (SOCAL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29               Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS); TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits       0720-AB27       Proposed Rule
                 Program                                                                                                                          Stage
30               TRICARE: Relationship Between the TRICARE Program and Employer-Sponsored Group Health Coverage           0720-AB17    Final Rule Stage
31               TRICARE: Outpatient Hospital Prospective Payment System (OPPS)                                           0720-AB19    Final Rule Stage
32               CHAMPUS/TRICARE: Inclusion of TRICARE Retail Pharmacy Program in Federal Procurement of                  0720-AB22    Final Rule Stage
                 Pharmaceuticals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33               Title IV and Title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended                                       1840-AC95    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                  DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34               Energy Efficiency Standards for Fluorescent and Incandescent Reflector Lamps                             1904-AA92       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
35               Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Electric and Gas Ranges and Ovens and Microwave            1904-AB49    Final Rule Stage
                 Ovens, and Commercial Clothes Washers
36               Energy Efficiency Standards for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment                                       1904-AB59    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                         DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37               Control of Communicable Diseases Foreign Quarantine                                                      0920-AA12    Final Rule Stage
38               Medical Device Reporting; Electronic Submission Requirements                                             0910-AF86       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
39               Electronic Registration and Listing for Devices                                                          0910-AF88       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
40               Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs                                                          0910-AC14 Final Rule Stage
41               Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs for Treatment Use                                               0910-AF14    Final Rule Stage
42               Changes to the Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System for FY 2010 (CMS-1406-P)                    0938-AP39       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
43               Revisions to Payment Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule for CY 2010 (CMS-1413-P)                  0938-AP40       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage

[[Page 71107]]


44               Changes to the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System and Ambulatory Surgical Center             0938-AP41       Proposed Rule
                 Payment System for CY 2010 (CMS-1414-P)                                                                                          Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                             DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45               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)
46               United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program (US-VISIT), Enrollment of        1601-AA35    Final Rule Stage
                 Additional Aliens in US-VISIT
47               Documents and Receipts Acceptable for Employment Eligibility Verification                                1615-AB72       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
48               Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Transitional Nonimmigrant Investor Classification           1615-AB75       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
49               Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Transitional Workers Classification                         1615-AB76       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
50               Changes to Requirements Affecting H-2A Nonimmigrants                                                     1615-AB65    Final Rule Stage
51               Changes to Requirements Affecting H-2B Nonimmigrants and Their Employers                                 1615-AB67    Final Rule Stage
52               Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC); Card Reader Requirements (USCG-2007-28915)       1625-AB21       Prerule Stage
53               Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training,          1625-AA16       Proposed Rule
                 Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) for Seafarers, 1978 (USCG-2004-17914)                                                     Stage
54               Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters (USCG-2001-10486)       1625-AA32       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
55               Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System (USCG-     1625-AA99       Proposed Rule
                 2005-21869)                                                                                                                      Stage
56               Passenger and Inspected Vessel Stability Requirements (USCG-2007-0030)                                   1625-AB20       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
57               Advance Information on Private Aircraft Arriving and Departing the United States                         1651-AA41    Final Rule Stage
58               Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements                                             1651-AA70    Final Rule Stage
59               Changes to the Visa Waiver Program To Implement the Electronic System for Travel Authorization           1651-AA72    Final Rule Stage
                 (ESTA) Program
60               Implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program                                                      1651-AA77    Final Rule Stage
61               Aircraft Repair Station Security                                                                         1652-AA38       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
62               Large Aircraft Security Program, Other Aircraft Operator Security Programs, and Airport Operator         1652-AA53       Proposed Rule
                 Security Program                                                                                                                 Stage
63               Public Transportation--Security Training of Employees                                                    1652-AA55       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
64               Public Transportation--Security Plan                                                                     1652-AA56       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
65               Railroads--Security Training of Employees                                                                1652-AA57       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
66               Railroads--Vulnerability Assessment and Security Plan                                                    1652-AA58       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
67               Over-the-Road Buses--Security Training of Employees                                                      1652-AA59       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
68               Over-the-Road Buses--Vulnerability Assessment and Security Plan                                          1652-AA60       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
69               Secure Flight Program                                                                                    1652-AA45    Final Rule Stage
70               Rail Transportation Security                                                                             1652-AA51    Final Rule Stage

[[Page 71108]]


71               Air Cargo Screening                                                                                      1652-AA64    Final Rule Stage
72               Amendment of Flight Training Regulations for F and M Nonimmigrants and to Transition J Flight            1653-AA43       Proposed Rule
                 Training Programs of the Department of State to M Flight Programs with the Department of Homeland                                Stage
                 Security
73               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
74               Special Community Disaster Loans Program                                                                 1660-AA44       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
75               Update of FEMA's Public Assistance Regulations                                                           1660-AA51       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
76               Disaster Assistance; Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households                                    1660-AA18    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                       DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
77               Refinement of Income and Rent Determinations in Public and Assisted Housing Programs (FR-4998)           2501-AD16    Final Rule Stage
78               Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA): Simplification and Improvement of the Process of          2502-AI61    Final Rule Stage
                 Obtaining Home Mortgages and Reducing Consumer Costs (FR-5180)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                               DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
79               Placement of Excess Spoil                                                                                   1029-AC04 Final Rule Stage
80               Oil Shale Leasing and Operations                                                                         1004-AD90    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                  DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
81               Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities          1190-AA44    Final Rule Stage
82               Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services                      1190-AA46    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                   DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
83               Senior Community Service Employment Program                                                              1205-AB48       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
84               Senior Community Service Employment Program; Performance Accountability                                  1205-AB47    Final Rule Stage
85               Fiduciary Requirements for Disclosure in Participant-Directed Individual Account Plans                   1210-AB07    Final Rule Stage
86               Prohibited Transaction Exemption for Provision of Investment Advice to Participants in Individual        1210-AB13    Final Rule Stage
                 Account Plans
87               Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica                                                              1218-AB70       Prerule Stage
88               Cranes and Derricks                                                                                         1218-AC01    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
89               Hazard Communication                                                                                        1218-AC20    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 71109]]


                                                              DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90               Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections                                                                  2105-AD72       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
91               Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) Equipage Mandate To Support Air Traffic Control      2120-AI92       Proposed Rule
                 Service                                                                                                                          Stage
92               National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners                                                         2126-AA97       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
93               Carrier Safety Fitness Determination                                                                     2126-AB11       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
94               Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards                            2126-AB02    Final Rule Stage
95               Ejection Mitigation                                                                                      2127-AK23       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
96               Pipeline Safety: Distribution Integrity Management                                                       2137-AE15    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                               DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
97               Basel II Standardized Approach                                                                           1557-AD07    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98               Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide                         2060-AO19       Prerule Stage
99               Review of the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of      2060-AO72       Prerule Stage
                 Sulfur
100              Formaldehyde Emissions from Pressed Wood Products                                                        2070-AJ44       Prerule Stage
101              Definition of Solid Waste for Non-Hazardous Materials                                                    2050-AG44       Prerule Stage
102              Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule                                                                  2060-AO79       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
103              Renewable Fuels Standard Program                                                                         2060-AO81       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
104              Risk and Technology Review Phase II Group 2A                                                             2060-AO91       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
105              Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Point Source          2040-AE91       Proposed Rule
                 Category                                                                                                                         Stage
106              Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review: Emission Increases for      2060-AN28    Final Rule Stage
                 Electric Generating Units
107              Hazardous Waste Manifest Revisions -- Standards and Procedures for Electronic Manifests                  2050-AG20    Final Rule Stage
108              CERCLA--Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of Hazardous Substances From Animal          2050-AG37    Final Rule Stage
                 Waste at Farms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                         EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
109              Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act                                                                3046-AA84       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
110              Disparate Impact Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act                                          3046-AA76    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 71110]]


                                                      NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
111              Federal Records Management                                                                               3095-AB16    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                              SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
112              Lender Oversight Program                                                                                 3245-AE14    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                             SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
113              Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Respiratory System Disorders (859P)                              0960-AF58       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
114              Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders (886P)                                          0960-AF69       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
115              Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hematological Disorders (974P)                                   0960-AF88       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
116              Additional Insured Status Requirements for Certain Alien Workers (2882P)                                 0960-AG22       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
117              Revisions to Rules on Representation of Parties (3396F)                                                  0960-AG56       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
118              Setting the Time and Place for a Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (3481P)                      0960-AG61       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
119              Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Immune (HIV) System Disorders (3466P)                            0960-AG71       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
120              Amendments to Application Filing Date Requirements for Certain Military Members of the Uniformed         0960-AG73       Proposed Rule
                 Service (3474P)                                                                                                                  Stage
121              Reestablishing Appeals Council Level Provisions in the Boston Region (3502P)                             0960-AG80       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
122              Disability Determinations by State Agency Disability Examiners (3510P)                                   0960-AG87       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
123              Amendments to Rules on Fee Payments and Sanctions (3513P)                                                0960-AG90       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
124              Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hearing Loss (2862F)                                             0960-AG20    Final Rule Stage
125              Revised Medical Criteria for Malignant Neoplastic Diseases (3429F)                                       0960-AG57    Final Rule Stage
126              Authorization of Representative Fees (3508F)                                                             0960-AG82    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                           CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
127              Flammability Standard for Upholstered Furniture                                                          3041-AB35    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                            NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
128              Technical Standards for Gaming Machines and Gaming Systems                                               3141-AA29    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 71111]]


                                                              POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
129              Accounting Practices and Principles                                                                      3211-AA04    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[FR Doc. Filed 11-21-08;8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-27-S

[[Page 71112]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
USDA's regulatory efforts in 2009 will focus on implementing the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (``2008 Farm Bill'') covering 
major farm, trade, conservation, rural development, nutrition 
assistance and other programs. In addition to work implementing the 
2008 Farm Bill, USDA's regulatory activities in 2009 will cover a broad 
range of issues. Within the rulemaking process is the department-wide 
effort to reduce burden on participants and program administrators 
alike by focusing on improving program outcomes, and particularly on 
achieving the performance measures specified in the USDA and agency 
Strategic Plans. Important areas of activity include the following:
<bullet> USDA will continue regulatory work to protect the health and 
            value of U.S. agricultural and natural resources while 
            facilitating trade flows. This includes amending 
            regulations related to the importation of fruits and 
            vegetables, nursery products, animals and animal products, 
            and continuing work related to regulation of plant and 
            animal biotechnologies. In addition, USDA will propose 
            specific standards for the humane handling, care, 
            treatment, and transportation of birds under the Animal 
            Welfare Act.
<bullet> In the area of food safety, USDA will continue to develop 
            science-based regulations that improve the safety of meat, 
            poultry, and egg products in the least burdensome and most 
            cost-effective manner. Regulations will be revised to 
            address emerging food safety challenges, streamlined to 
            remove excessively prescriptive regulations, and updated to 
            be made consistent with hazard analysis and critical 
            control point principles. As required by the 2008 Farm 
            Bill, USDA will also develop science-based regulations that 
            improve the safety of catfish in the least burdensome and 
            most cost-effective manner. 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.
<bullet> 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 2009, FNS will continue to promote 
            nutritional knowledge and education while minimizing 
            participant and vendor fraud. USDA has priority projects in 
            the Rural Development mission area to strengthen the 
            regulations for its broadband access program to better 
            focus on areas without such access, to consolidate and 
            streamline its regulations relating to the delivery of its 
            guaranteed loan programs, and to promulgate new regulations 
            that promote the development and production of advanced 
            biofuels.
<bullet> USDA has priority projects in the Rural Development mission 
            area to strengthen the regulations for its broadband access 
            program to better focus on areas without access. Rural 
            Development will publish new regulations that will 
            consolidate and streamline the delivery of its guaranteed 
            loan programs. Rural Development is anticipating the 
            publication of both interim final rules by the end of the 
            year. Finally, pursuant to the 2008 Farm Bill, Rural 
            Development will promulgate new regulations that promote 
            the development and production of advanced biofuels.
<bullet> USDA will continue to promote economic opportunities for 
            agriculture and rural communities 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 publish rules establishing the 
            Voluntary Labeling Program for biobased products.
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.
The Role of Regulations
The programs of USDA are diverse and far reaching, as are the 
regulations that attend their delivery. Regulations codify how USDA 
will conduct its business, including the specifics of access to, and 
eligibility for, USDA programs. Regulations also specify the 
responsibilities of State and local governments, private industry, 
businesses, and individuals that are necessary to comply with their 
provisions.
The diversity in purpose and outreach of USDA programs contributes 
significantly to USDA being near the top of the list of departments 
that produce the largest number of regulations annually. These 
regulations range from nutrition standards for the school lunch 
program, to natural resource and environmental measures governing 
national forest usage and soil conservation, to emergency producer 
assistance as a result of natural disasters, to regulations protecting 
American agribusiness (a major dollar value contributor to exports) 
from the ravages of domestic or foreign plant or animal pestilence, and 
they extend from farm to supermarket to ensure the safety, quality, and 
availability of the Nation's food supply.
Many regulations function in a dynamic environment, which requires 
their periodic modification. The factors determining various 
entitlement, eligibility, and administrative criteria often change from 
year to year. Therefore, many significant regulations must be revised 
annually to reflect changes in economic and market benchmarks.
Almost all legislation that affects USDA programs has accompanying 
regulatory needs, often with a significant impact resulting in the 
modification, addition, or deletion of many programs. In 2009, USDA 
will implement the 2008 Farm Bill through regulations on major programs 
covering domestic commodity support, crop insurance, conservation, 
export and foreign food assistance, bioenergy, rural development, 
agricultural research, and food and nutrition programs.

[[Page 71113]]

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 2009:
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 fully implement the 2008 
Farm Bill, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The 2008 
Farm Bill, which was enacted on June 18, 2008, governs Federal farm 
programs through 2012. Among its major provisions are to provide income 
support for wheat, feed grains, upland cotton, rice, oilseeds, and 
other commodities through three programs: Direct payments, counter-
cyclical payments, and marketing loans. It also provides a new 
alternative income support program, the average crop revenue election 
program. In addition, the 2008 Farm Bill provides a set of standing 
disaster assistance programs, including a new revenue based program for 
supplemental agricultural disaster assistance. These entirely new 
programs require completely new regulations and revision of the 
existing program regulations. In addition, significant revisions in 
existing regulations will be required to address new reforms in 
criteria for program eligibility and limitations on payments to 
participants. It 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. As these and 
future changes required by Administration initiatives and new 
legislation are made, the Agency's focus will be to implement the 
changes in such a way as to provide benefits while minimizing program 
complexity and regulatory burden for program participants. 
Opportunities will be taken to clarify, simplify, and reduce confusion 
whenever possible. The Agency's ability to promote new policy 
initiatives when implementing these regulations is limited due to the 
need to adhere to legislative intent. Therefore, due to their combined 
economic magnitude, they are noted here to acknowledge their 
significance in the overall USDA regulatory plan, but are not further 
listed in the body of the plan that appears below (the regulations are 
all included in the Unified Agenda).
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 
2008 regulatory plan supports USDA's Strategic Goal 5, ``Improve the 
Nation's Nutrition and Health,'' and its three related objectives:
<bullet> Improve Access to Nutritious Food. This objective represents 
            FNS's efforts to improve nutrition by providing access to 
            program benefits (Food Stamps, WIC food vouchers and 
            nutrition services, 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 (P.L. 107-171) to simplify 
            program administration, support work, and improve access to 
            benefits in the Food Stamp Program (FSP). The Agency will 
            also issue rules implementing provisions of the Child 
            Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-
            265) to establish automatic eligibility for homeless 
            children for school meals.
<bullet> Promote Healthier Eating Habits and Lifestyles. This objective 
            represents FNS's efforts to improve nutrition knowledge and 
            behavior through nutrition education and breastfeeding 
            promotion, and to ensure that program benefits meet the 
            appropriate nutrition standards to effectively improve 
            nutrition for program participants. In support of this 
            objective, FNS plans to finalize a rule revising 
            requirements that allow schools to substitute 
            nutritionally-equivalent non-dairy beverages for fluid milk 
            at the request of a recipient's parent in addition to 
            medical care providers.
<bullet> 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, as well as finalize rules in the FSP 
            to improve the Quality Control 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' 2008 Regulatory Plan helps implement USDA's Strategic 
Goal 4, ``Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and 
Food Supply,'' particularly the objective to reduce the incidence of 
foodborne illnesses related to meat, poultry, egg products, and, once a 
program is implemented, catfish in the U.S. FSIS is working toward a 
more scientific inspection system with a more risk-based approach to 
ensuring that meat, poultry, egg products, and catfish are wholesome 
and not adulterated or misbranded.
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 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.

[[Page 71114]]

Following are some of the Agency's recent and planned initiatives:
In July 2008, FSIS published a final rule on the Availability of Retail 
Consignee During Meat and Poultry Product recalls. This final rule 
should enhance the public health by helping consumers to determine 
whether they have recalled product in their refrigerator freezer or 
pantry.
FSIS is proposing to require 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 current regulations, FSIS 
inspection personnel determine, on case by-case basis, the disposition 
of cattle that become nonambulatory disabled after they have passed 
ante-mortem inspection. FSIS is proposing to remove the provision for 
case-by-case determination by FSIS inspection personnel.
2008 Farm Bill-related Rulemakings:
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246), known 
as 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. FSIS is also developing 
regulations on country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for certain meat and 
poultry commodities to conform to final regulations promulgated by 
USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service.
Catfish Inspection:
FSIS is developing regulations to implement 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, to be implemented no later than 18 
months from the date of enactment of the 2008 Farm Bill, 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 product from 
selected establishments and requires that FSIS promulgate implementing 
regulations no later than 18 months from the date of its enactment.
Food safety improvement:
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 that an adulterated or 
misbranded product received by or originating from the establishment 
has entered into commerce, if the establishment 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; (2) document each reassessment of the 
process control plans of the establishment; and (3) upon request, make 
the procedures and reassessed control plans available to FSIS 
inspection personnel for review and copying.
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 the 2001 proposal, 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, 
as demonstrated by control of the pathogens or indicator organisms. The 
Agency would also verify that vulnerable points in the process are 
under control.
Small business implications:
The great majority of businesses regulated by FSIS are small 
businesses. With the exception of the non-ambulatory disabled cattle 
rulemaking, 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 recognizes the difficulties faced by many small and very small 
establishments in complying with necessary, science-based food-safety 
or other consumer protection requirements and in assuming the 
associated technical and financial burdens. FSIS attempts to reduce the 
burdens of its regulations on small business by providing alternative 
dates of compliance, furnishing detailed compliance guidance material, 
and conducting outreach programs to small and very small 
establishments.
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

[[Page 71115]]

example, FSIS makes plant owners and operators aware of loan programs, 
available through USDA's Rural Business and Cooperative programs, to 
help them in upgrading their facilities. FSIS employees 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.
International trade or investment effects:
To be eligible for the importation of meat, poultry, or egg products 
into the United States, foreign inspection systems and establishments 
must meet regulatory standards that are equivalent to those that FSIS 
administers. For most of the regulatory initiatives described above, 
foreign inspection systems will have to ensure that they are 
maintaining equivalent standards. For example, in order to be able to 
continue to ship catfish-type products to the United States, foreign 
countries will have to have inspection systems for catfish and catfish 
products that impose requirements that are equivalent to those that 
FSIS will establish in the rulemaking described above.
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: APHIS is continuing work to revise its biotechnology 
regulations to reflect new consolidated authorities under the Plant 
Protection Act and to address advances in technology. APHIS also plans 
to revise its regulations for importing nursery stock to better address 
plant health risks associated with propagative material. With respect 
to animal health, the Agency intends to revise its regulations 
concerning bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) to provide a more 
comprehensive framework for the importation of certain animals and 
products. The revision of the regulations regarding BSE will likely be 
of most interest to those countries that currently export large volumes 
of live bovines or bovine-derived products to the United States, as 
well as to those countries from which such commodities are currently 
prohibited, but that may wish to export live bovines or bovine products 
to the United States in the future. APHIS also plans to propose 
standards for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation 
of birds covered under the Animal Welfare Act.
Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the 
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
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 several 
rulemakings as a result of passage of the Food, Conservation, and 
Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill). These include the following:
Country of Origin Labeling:
On August 1, 2008, AMS published an interim final rule implementing the 
Mandatory Country of Origin and Labeling (COOL) of Beef, Pork, Lamb, 
Chicken, Goat, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, Peanuts, Pecans, 
Ginseng, and Macadamia Nuts as directed by the 2002 Farm Bill. The rule 
requires retailers to notify their customers of the country of origin 
of covered commodities. Covered commodities include muscle cuts of beef 
(including veal), lamb, chicken, goat, and pork; ground beef, ground 
lamb, ground chicken, ground goat, and ground pork; perishable 
agricultural commodities; macadamia nuts; pecans; ginseng; and peanuts. 
Because the 2008 Farm Bill contained a number of provisions that amends 
the regulations, AMS published an interim final rule with request for 
comments to allow newly affected industries the opportunity to comment 
prior to issuance of a final rule. The COOL interim final rule for wild 
and farm-raised fish and shellfish was published On October 5, 2004.
Dairy Promotion and Research Program:
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. An 
interim final rule will implement these new provisions.
 Dairy Forward Pricing:
The 2008 Farm Bill re-established the Dairy Forward Pricing Program, 
which allows dairy farmers to voluntarily enter into forward contracts 
with milk handlers. The original Dairy Forward Pricing Program operated 
on a pilot basis from 1999 through 2004. A forward contract is an 
agreement to sell a stated quantity of milk, for a stated period, at a 
stated priced. This voluntary risk management tool will allow producers 
and handlers to ``lock in'' prices, reducing risks associated with 
changes in price and income and enhancing the ability to obtain 
financing. AMS intends to issue an interim final rule to implement the 
program as provided for in the 2008 Farm Bill.
Establish Procedures for Farmers' Market Promotion Program:
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) will establish regulations for 
the operation of the Farmers' Market Promotion Program (FMPP) 
incorporating new amendments enacted in the 2008 Farm Bill. The purpose 
of the FMPP is to make grants available to eligible entities for 
projects to ``establish, expand, and promote farmers' markets and to 
promote direct producer-to-consumer marketing''; increase domestic 
consumption of agricultural commodities by improving and expanding, or 
assisting in the improvement and expansion of domestic farm ers' 
markets, roadside stands, community-supported agriculture programs, 
agri-tourism activities, and other direct producer-to-

[[Page 71116]]

consumer market opportunities; and develop, or aid in the development 
of, new farmers' markets, roadside stands, community-supported 
agriculture programs, agri-tourism activities, and other direct 
producer-to-consumer marketing opportunities.
Other important rulemakings the Agency will undertake include two 
proposed rules amending the National Organic Program regulations. The 
1990 Organic Foods Production Act, established the National Organic 
Program (NOP) within the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). It also 
established the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), as an advisory 
body to the NOP. The program was established to create organic 
standards and to require and oversee mandatory certification or organic 
production. The NOP regulations were implemented in 2002.
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.
Dairy Replacement:
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is proposing to amend the 
National Organic Program (NOP) regulations to clarify the regulations 
with respect to the sourcing of dairy replacement animals. AMS expects 
to publish a proposed rule with request for comment in spring 2009 
requesting input on existing origin of livestock provisions.
AMS Program Rulemaking Pages: All of AMS' rules published in the 
Federal Register are available on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov. This site also includes commenting instructions 
and addresses, links to news releases and background material, and 
comments received on various rules.
Forest Service
Mission: The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health, 
productivity, and diversity of the Nation's forests and rangelands to 
meet the needs of present and future generations. This includes 
protecting and managing National Forest System lands; providing 
technical and financial assistance to States, communities, and private 
forest landowners; and developing and providing scientific and 
technical assistance and scientific exchanges in support of 
international forest and range conservation.
Priorities: Roadless Rules - On January 12, 2001, the Department of 
Agriculture promulgated the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) to 
provide for the conservation and management of approximately 58.5 
million acres of inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest 
System under the principles of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 
1960. On July 14, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Wyoming found the 2001 roadless rule to be unlawful and ordered that 
the rule be permanently enjoined. The final rule for Inventoried 
Roadless Area Management for the State of Idaho was published October 
16, 2008. The State of Colorado has petitioned the Secretary pursuant 
to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(e) and 7 C.F.R. Sec. 1.28 for state specific rules 
to replace this national rule.
The 2008 Farm Bill identifies 3 rule-making actions specific to the 
Forest Service. These proposals are priority for the agency for fall 
2008.
<bullet> Community Forest And Open Space Conservation Program - This 
            program will provide federal matching grants to help local 
            government, tribes, or non-profit organizations acquire 
            private forests that are threatened by conversion to non-
            forest uses.
<bullet> Pest And Disease Revolving Loan Fund - The Pest and Disease 
            Revolving Loan Fund authorizes low interest loans to local 
            governments for equipment & contracts to aid in combating 
            invasive species outbreaks in community trees and forests.
<bullet> Forest Products For Traditional And Cultural Purposes - The 
            Forest Products for Traditional and Cultural Purposes 
            provision authorizes Indian Tribes free use of forest 
            products from National Forest System lands for traditional 
            and cultural purposes.
Rural Development
Mission: Rural Development's mission is to support increased economic 
opportunities and improved quality of life in rural America. This 
support is provided through loan guarantees, grants and technical 
assistance for rural housing, community facilities, business and 
industry, and electric, telecommunication and water and waste disposal 
facilities.
Priorities: USDA has priority projects in Rural Development to 
strengthen the regulations for its broadband access program to better 
focus on areas without such access. Rural Development will publish new 
regulations that will consolidate and streamline the delivery of its 
guaranteed loan programs. Rural Development is anticipating the 
publication of both interim final rules by the end of the year. 
Finally, pursuant to the 2008 Farm Bill, Rural Development will 
promulgate new regulations that promote the development and production 
of advanced biofuels.
Departmental Administration
Mission: Departmental Administration's mission is to provide management 
leadership to ensure that 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: The regulatory priority for Departmental Administration is 
to continue implementing the BioPreferred Program (formerly the Federal 
Biobased Product Preferred Procurement Program) authorized by the 2008 
Farm Bill (Public Law 110-246). Included in this priority are proposed 
and final regulations designating items for preferred Federal 
procurement. These regulations will assist in the expansion of market 
opportunities for manufacturers of biobased products, resulting in 
economic opportunities for American agricultural producers and rural 
communities. These efforts support USDA's strategic goal ``To enhance 
the competitiveness and sustainability of rural and farm economies.'' 
In addition, Departmental Administration will look to begin 
implementation of the BioPreferred labeling program. Once implemented, 
this program will allow biobased manufacturers to receive a label to be 
used in the commercial market to distinguish their products as 
biobased.
Aggregate Costs and Benefits
Per E.O. 13422, USDA is required to provide its best estimate of the 
combined aggregate costs and benefits of final regulations included in 
the Regulatory Plan. For calendar year 2009, USDA's priority will be to 
fully implement the 2008 Farm Bill, the Food, Conservation, and Energy 
Act of 2008. The 2008 Farm Bill governs

[[Page 71117]]

Federal farm programs through 2012. Provisions will require completely 
new regulations and revision of existing program regulations. 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--Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

1. 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                            02/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End         04/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


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:
Darrel Styles
Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal Care
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 84
Riverdale, MD 20737-1234
Phone: 301 734-0658
RIN: 0579-AC02
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
2. 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 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

[[Page 71118]]

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                            02/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End         04/00/09

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 Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 133
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236
Phone: 301 734-5306
RIN: 0579-AC03
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
3. 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 bovine regulations unchanged. The current 
regulations are not consistent with the latest scientific information, 
however, and, as a result, are more restrictive than necessary. 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                            02/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End         04/00/09

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.

[[Page 71119]]

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

                              -----------

4. INTRODUCTION OF ORGANISMS AND PRODUCTS ALTERED OR PRODUCED THROUGH 
GENETIC ENGINEERING

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 7701 to 7772; 7 USC 7781 to 7786; 31 USC 9701


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 340


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would revise the regulations regarding the importation, 
interstate movement, and environmental release of certain genetically 
engineered organisms in order to bring the regulations into alignment 
with provisions of the Plant Protection Act. The revisions would also 
update the regulations in response to advances in genetic science and 
technology and our accumulated experience in implementing the current 
regulations. This is the first comprehensive review and revision of the 
regulations since they were established in 1987. This rule would affect 
persons involved in the importation, interstate movement, or release 
into the environment of genetically engineered plants and certain other 
genetically engineered organisms.


Statement of Need:


APHIS currently regulates the introduction (movement into the United 
States or interstate, or release into the environment) of genetically 
engineered organisms that may present a plant pest risk under 7 CFR 
part 340, ``Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced 
Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is 
Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests.'' APHIS is evaluating its regulatory 
program to determine if there is a need to revise its regulations in 
light of our current knowledge and experience and advances in science 
and technology.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The primary authority is provided by the Plant Protection Act, which 
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to prohibit or restrict the 
importation, entry, and movement in interstate commerce any plant, 
plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed, or other 
article if necessary to prevent the introduction into or dissemination 
within the United States of any plant pest or noxious weed. Such 
articles may include genetically engineered products.


Alternatives:


A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) prepared for this action 
evaluates all of the regulatory alternatives under consideration by the 
Agency. Some key alternatives considered include whether APHIS should 
broaden the scope of the regulations to reflect its authority over 
noxious weeds and biological control organisms; whether and how to 
revise the regulations to make the Agency's use of risk-based 
categories--where genetically engineered organisms are classified 
according to risk and familiarity so that oversight and confinement 
vary by category--more refined, more explicit and more transparent to 
the industry and the public and what criteria should be used to 
establish risk-based categories; how to manage genetically engineered 
organisms that present only minor unresolved risks that can be 
mitigated effectively, and what factors should be considered in 
establishing appropriate mitigations; whether new or additional 
regulatory mechanisms are needed to ensure that genetically engineered 
organisms producing pharmaceutical or industrial compounds are subject 
to requirements and oversight commensurate with the potential risks; 
for organisms that might be commercialized but that do not meet the 
criteria for deregulation, whether a new type of permitting system 
would be more appropriate in terms of efficiency and effectiveness than 
the current system; whether APHIS should establish a new regulatory 
approach to address incidents of low-level presence of genetically 
engineered plant material; whether APHIS should establish a new 
regulatory mechanism to allow for imports of commodities for 
nonpropagative use, that is, for food, feed, or processing, in cases 
where these commodities might not have been deregulated in the United 
States; and whether to expand its current exemption from interstate 
movement restrictions additional well-studied, low-risk, genetically 
engineered research organisms.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


To be determined.


Risks:


While APHIS has always used a risk-based approach in regulating 
genetically engineered organisms, there is a trend toward more highly 
varied organisms. For example, genetic engineering technology has 
advanced to the point where organisms can be developed that produce 
novel proteins and other substances with biological activity or 
industrial utility. We have initiated this rulemaking because APHIS 
recognizes that the regulatory process may need greater flexibility and 
rigor to more appropriately regulate the increasing variety of 
organisms.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Intent to 
    Prepare an 
    Environmental Impact 
    Statement                   01/23/04                     69 FR 3271
Comment Period End              03/23/04
Notice of Availability of 
    Draft Environmental 
    Impact Statement            07/17/07                    72 FR 39021
Comment Period End              09/11/07
NPRM                            10/09/08                    73 FR 60007
NPRM Comment Period End         11/24/08
Final Action                    01/00/09

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.

[[Page 71120]]

Additional Information:


Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the 
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.


Agency Contact:
John Turner
Director, Policy Coordination Division, BRS
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 146
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236
Phone: 301 734-5720
RIN: 0579-AC31
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

5. 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 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 miscategorized 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                    09/00/09

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 71121]]

Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
9th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-1625
Email: james.herbert@fns.usda.gov
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AC94
RIN: 0584-AC24
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
6. FSP: 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, secs 4101 to 4109, 4114, 4115, and 4401


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 273


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking will amend Food Stamp Program regulations 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 must be 
implemented by State agencies prior to publication of this rule.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The provisions of this rule simplify State administration of the Food 
Stamp Program, 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:


The FSP 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. The FSP 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 the Food Stamp Program, 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. When fully effective in FY 2006, the provisions 
of this rule will add approximately 415,000 new participants.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/16/04                    69 FR 20724
NPRM Comment Period End         06/15/04
Final Action                    01/00/09
Final Action Effective          03/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
9th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-1625
Email: james.herbert@fns.usda.gov
RIN: 0584-AD30
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
7. 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 71122]]

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 time frames 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 variances 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                            02/23/05                    70 FR 55776
NPRM Comment Period End         12/22/05
Final Action                    06/00/09

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
9th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-1625
Email: james.herbert@fns.usda.gov
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AD37
RIN: 0584-AD31
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
8. 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 71123]]

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              08/00/09
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          11/00/09
Final Action                    12/00/10

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
9th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-1625
Email: james.herbert@fns.usda.gov
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AD62
RIN: 0584-AD60
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
9. SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND 
CHILDREN (WIC): WIC VENDOR COST CONTAINMENT

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1786


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 246


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, June 30, 2006.


Abstract:


This final rule amends the WIC regulations to strengthen vendor cost 
containment. The rule incorporates into program regulations new 
legislative requirements that affect the selection, authorization, and 
reimbursement of retail vendors. These requirements are contained in 
the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-
265), which was enacted on June 30, 2004. The rule reflects the 
statutory provisions that require WIC State agencies to implement a 
vendor peer group system, competitive price selection criteria, and 
allowable reimbursement levels in a manner that ensures that the WIC 
Program pays authorized vendors competitive prices for supplemental 
foods. It also requires State agencies to ensure that vendors that 
derive more than 50 percent of their annual food sales revenue from WIC 
food instruments do not result in higher food costs to the program than 
do other vendors. The intent of these provisions is to maximize the 
number of women, infants, and children served with available Federal 
funding. (04-029)


Statement of Need:


This action is needed to implement the vendor cost containment 
provisions of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, 
Public Law 108-265. The rule requires WIC State agencies to operate 
vendor management systems that effectively contain food costs by 
ensuring that prices paid for supplemental foods are competitive. The 
rule also responds to data which indicate that WIC food expenditures 
increasingly include payments to a type of vendor whose prices are not 
governed by the market forces that affect most retail grocers. As a 
result, the prices charged by these vendors tend to be higher than 
those of other retail grocery stores participating in the program. To 
ensure that the program pays competitive prices, this rule codifies the 
new statutory requirements for State agencies to use in evaluating 
vendor applicants' prices during the vendor selection process and when 
paying vendors for supplemental foods following authorization.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 203(e)(10) of Public Law 108-265, Child Nutrition and WIC 
Reauthorization Act of 2004.


Alternatives:


This rule implements the vendor peer group provisions of the Child 
Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, which FNS believes is an 
effective means of controlling WIC food costs. While this Act mandates 
that States establish peer groups, competitive price criteria, and 
allowable reimbursement levels, and states that these requirements must 
result in the outcome of paying above-50-percent vendors no more than 
regular vendors, the rule does not specify particular criteria for peer 
groups or acceptable methods of setting competitive price criteria and 
allowable reimbursement levels. FNS considered mandating specific means 
of developing peer groups, competitive price criteria, and allowable 
reimbursement levels in order to ensure that the outcome of this 
legislation was achieved.


However, given States' responsibility to manage WIC as a discretionary 
grant program and the varying market conditions in each State, FNS 
believes that States need flexibility to develop their own peer groups, 
competitive price criteria, and allowable reimbursement levels. At the 
October 2004 meeting the FNS convened to gain input for this rule, 
States indicated that they needed the ability to design cost 
containment practices that would be effective in their own markets and 
would ensure participant access. In addition, there is little 
information about the effectiveness of particular cost containment 
practices in the variety of markets represented by the 89 WIC State 
agencies. Mandating more specific means of developing peer groups, 
competitive price criteria, and allowable reimbursement levels could 
have unintended negative consequences for participant access, food 
costs and administrative burden.


As States gain experience and the results of their vendor cost 
containment practices become apparent, FNS may develop further 
regulations and guidance to improve vendor cost containment. In the 
interim, FNS believes that the current rule will substantially 
accomplish the goal of the Act of containing food costs and ensuring 
that above-50-percent vendors do not result in higher costs to the WIC 
Program than regular vendors.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs: This rule places new requirements on State agencies; therefore, 
the cost implications of this rule relate primarily to administrative 
burden for WIC State agencies. These cost implications are partially 
dependent on the current practices of State agencies relative to the 
requirements of the rule. Detailed

[[Page 71124]]

information regarding the cost implications of this rule is contained 
in the Regulatory Impact Analysis developed by FNS to accompany this 
rulemaking.


Benefits: The WIC Program will benefit from the provisions of this rule 
by reducing unnecessary food expenditures, thus increasing the 
potential to serve more eligible women, infants, and children for the 
same cost. This rule should have the effect of ensuring that payments 
to vendors, particularly vendors that derive more than 50 percent of 
their annual food sales revenue from WIC food instruments, reflect 
competitive prices for WIC foods. The Regulatory Impact Analysis 
prepared by FNS to accompany this rulemaking projects an estimated 
monthly cost savings of over $6.25 million. (Details of this projection 
can be found in the complete Regulatory Impact Analysis.)


Risks:


Because the vendor peer group provisions in the Child Nutrition and WIC 
Reauthorization Act of 2004 and this rule provide for some flexibility 
in implementation, and because there is a wide degree of variation in 
food prices and current vendor cost containment practices across State 
agencies, the impact of many of the provisions of this rule is 
uncertain. Uncertainties include the administrative burden State 
agencies will incur and the savings that can be realized nationally or 
in any State agency. The major uncertainties for both administrative 
burden and program savings are discussed in greater detail in the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              11/29/05                    70 FR 71708
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          11/29/06
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   12/29/05
Final Action                    04/00/09
Final Action Effective          05/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


URL For More Information:
www.fns.usda.gov/wic

Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
9th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-1625
Email: james.herbert@fns.usda.gov
RIN: 0584-AD71
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

10. 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

[[Page 71125]]

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.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/09

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: charles.gioglio@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AD28
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
11. 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.

[[Page 71126]]

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 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                            09/00/09

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: daniel.engeljohn@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AD32
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
12. <bullet> NOTIFICATION, DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS 
FOR INSPECTED ESTABLISHMENTS

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


21 U.S.C. 612 and 613; 21 U.S.C. 459


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


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; (2) 
document each reassessment of the process control plans of the 
establishment; and (3) upon request, make the procedures and reassessed 
control plans available to inspectors appointed by the Secretary for 
review and copying.


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. The Agency will consider 
alternative methods of implementation, and the effects on foreign and 
domestic commerce and on small business associated with the 
alternatives.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FSIS will conduct an analysis to determine the costs and benefits 
associated with this rulemaking. FSIS has made an initial determination 
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.


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

[[Page 71127]]

Agency will consider any risks to public health or other pertinent 
risks associated with these actions.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Proposed Rule                   03/00/09

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: victoria.levine@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AD34
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
13. <bullet> MANDATORY INSPECTION OF CATFISH AND CATFISH PRODUCTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


21 U.S.C. 601 et seq. Pub L. 110-249, Sec. 11016


CFR Citation:


9 CFR Chapter III, Subchapter F (new)


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 2009, Final regulations NLT 18 months after 
enactment of Pub. L. 110-246.


Abstract:


The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 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 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 (Public Law 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. 601-695 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                            03/00/09
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Agency Contact:
Dr. John Hicks
Risk Management Division, Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and 
Inspection Service
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0032
Fax: 202 720-7027
Email: john.hicks@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AD36
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
14. <bullet> FEDERAL-STATE INTERSTATE SHIPMENT COOPERATIVE INSPECTION 
PROGRAM

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


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

[[Page 71128]]

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-
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                            01/00/09
Final Action                    01/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Rachel Edelstein
Director, Policy Issuances Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-5627
Fax: 202 690-0486
Email: rachel.edelstein@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AD37
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

15. 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

[[Page 71129]]

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
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                  09/00/09
Final Action                    09/00/09

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: daniel.engeljohn@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AC46
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
16. <bullet> REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DISPOSITION OF CATTLE THAT BECOME 
NON-AMBULATORY DISABLED FOLLOWING ANTE-MORTEM INSPECTION

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


21 U.S.C. 621; 21 U.S.C. 603(a); 21 U.S.C. 603(b)


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 309.3


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


FSIS is proposing to remove the provision in 309.3(e) that allows FSIS 
inspection personnel to determine the disposition of cattle that become 
non-ambulatory disabled after they have passed ante-mortem inspection 
on a case-by-case basis. If FSIS finalizes this proposed rule, cattle 
that become non-ambulatory disabled from an acute

[[Page 71130]]

injury after ante-mortem inspection will no longer be eligible to 
proceed to slaughter as ``U.S. Suspects.'' Instead, FSIS inspectors 
will tag these cattle as ``U.S. condemned'' and prohibit these animals 
from proceeding to slaughter.


Statement of Need:


This rule is necessary to better ensure effective implementation of 
ante-mortem inspection pursuant to 21 USC 603(a) and of humane handling 
requirements pursuant to 21 USC 603(b).


This rule is also necessary to make clear that establishments have an 
affirmative obligation to make FSIS personnel aware when an animal goes 
down. This regulatory requirement will preclude establishments from 
attempting to force such animals to rise.


Summary of Legal Basis:


FSIS is proposing this rule under 21 U.S.C 621, which gives FSIS the 
authority to adopt regulations for the efficient administration of the 
FMIA. The amendment in this proposal would better ensure effective 
implementation of ante-mortem inspection pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 603(a) 
and of humane handling requirements established pursuant to 21 U.S.C 
603(b).


Alternatives:


This proposed rule is likely to have only minimum economic effects on 
the beef industry and consumers. Based on the Agency's 2007 survey 
data, out of the approximately 33.7 million cattle slaughtered in 2007, 
FSIS estimates that about 1,300 cattle -- about 600 cull cattle (i.e., 
mostly cows and bulls) and 700 steers and heifers -- were in this 
category. Data from the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) indicate 
that the market value for a cull cattle carcass and parts is between 
$500 and $1,000, and the market value for a steer or heifer carcass and 
parts is between $900 and $1,100. Therefore, the estimated total market 
value of the carcasses and parts from cattle that would be condemned 
under this proposed rule would be in the range of $930,000 to 
$1,370,000 per year.


If adopted as a final rule, the proposed amendment would benefit both 
consumers and the beef industry by enhancing public confidence in the 
U.S. beef supply. This proposed rule would enhance public confidence by 
eliminating any controversy surrounding the condemnation of cattle that 
become non-ambulatory disabled after ante-mortem inspection and by 
preventing the slaughter of cattle that may be unfit for human food. It 
would also reduce the potential for inhumane handling of non-ambulatory 
disabled cattle at slaughter operations.


This proposed rule would also assist the United States in international 
trade relations and negotiations by providing greater confidence to 
those countries that continue to raise questions about American beef. 
The proposed amendment would increase consumer confidence and U.S. 
access to overseas markets. Thus, the proposed rule will generally 
benefit the industry because it would likely lead to higher sales and 
revenue.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Not applicable.


Risks:


Not Applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/29/08                    73 FR 50889
Final Action                    01/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


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: daniel.engeljohn@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AD35
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
17. <bullet> MANDATORY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING OF COVERED 
COMMODITIES INCLUDING MUSCLE CUTS OF BEEF (INCLUDING VEAL), LAMB, 
CHICKEN, GOAT, AND PORK; GROUND BEEF, GR. LAMB, GR. CHICKEN, GR. GOAT, 
AND GR. PORK

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


Public Law 110-234 (2008 Farm Bill)


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 381


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, September 30, 2008, Statutory implementation deadline 
per the 2008 Bill.


Abstract:


FSIS is amending its regulations through an interim final rule to make 
clear that country of origin labeling of covered commodities that 
complies with the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 and the 
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) interim regulations will be 
generically approved under 9 CFR 317.5 and 9 CFR 381.133


Statement of Need:


Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Covered Commodities including 
Muscle Cuts of Beef (including Veal), Lamb, Chicken, Goat, and Pork; 
Ground Beef, Ground Lamb, Ground Chicken, Ground Goat, and Ground Pork 
-- Interim final rule. (This rule makes minor changes to FSIS 
regulations based on mandatory country of origin labeling 
requirements.)


Summary of Legal Basis:


FSIS is amending its regulations based on mandatory country of origin 
labeling for meat and poultry covered commodities based on the Food, 
Conservation and Energy Act of 2008. Meat covered commodities include 
muscle cuts of beef (including veal), lamb, chicken, goat, and pork; 
ground beef, ground lamb, ground chicken, ground goat, and ground pork. 
This rule will provide consumers with additional information on which 
to base their purchasing decisions.


Alternatives:


 Not applicable.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


None. All costs for this interim final rule are covered under the USDA/
AMS COOL rule published on August 1, 2008 (73 FR 45106).


Risks:


There are no risks associated with this rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              08/28/08                    73 FR 50701
Final Action                    12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No

[[Page 71131]]

Small Entities Affected:


No


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: charles.gioglio@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AD38
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Forest Service (FS)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

18. RESOURCE AGENCY PROCEDURES FOR CONDITIONS AND PRESCRIPTIONS IN 
HYDROPOWER LICENSES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 109-58


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 1


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 7, 2005.


Public Law 109-58 charges agencies requiring mandatory conditions and 
prescriptions with the promulgation of new regulations by November 7, 
2005, to provide the regulatory framework to implement a trial-type 
hearing process.


Abstract:


The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) contains provisions 
requiring a trial-type hearing to resolve disputed issues of material 
fact related to mandatory conditions and prescriptions required under 
the issuance of a Federal hydropower license. The law also mandates 
that the Agency consider alternatives to proposed mandatory conditions 
and prescriptions. This law charges agencies requiring mandatory 
conditions and prescriptions with the promulgation of new regulations 
by November 7, 2005, to provide the regulatory framework to implement 
the trial-type hearing process. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
acting through the Forest Service, is one of the agencies required 
under the Act to provide a trial-type hearing and issue an implementing 
regulation. To meet the statutory deadline, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, along with the U.S. Departments of the Interior and 
Commerce, issued a joint interim final rule. The Department of the 
Interior is the lead agency in this effort.


 The Forest Service adopted an interim final rule at 7 CFR part 1 
establishing a trial-type hearing procedure to resolve disputed issues 
of material fact related to mandatory conditions and prescriptions 
required under the issuance of a Federal hydropower license. The 
interim final rule also provides a process for the filing of proposed 
alternative conditions and prescriptions.


Statement of Need:


The Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, and Commerce are jointly 
revising the procedures they established for expedited trial-type 
hearings. The three Departments are also revising the procedures they 
established for the consideration of alternative conditions and 
prescriptions submitted by any party to a Federal Energy Regulatory 
(FERC) hydroelectric licensing proceeding. Three substantially similar 
rules are being promulgated - one for each agency - with a joint 
preamble. The rules and preamble reflect changes to each Department's 
interim final rules, in response to public comments and the 
Departments' experience in implementing their interim final rules.


Summary of Legal Basis:


On November 17, 2005, the Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, and 
Commerce jointly published interim final rules implementing section 241 
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), Pub. L. 109-58. 70 FR 69804-
51. In their joint preamble, the Departments stated that, based upon 
comments received and experience gained with their interim final rules, 
they would consider revising the rules.


Alternatives:


There was some discussion among the Departmental/Agency representatives 
over the interpretation of the scope of work and trigger for conducting 
an alternative condition analysis. DOI proposed that the group conduct 
an alternative condition analysis on ALL mandatory conditions. The DOI 
position was agreed to with some clarification that this approach was 
selected as it is not explicit in the language of Section 241 of the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Final rule addresses the uncertainty by commenters about the 
``Interim Final'' rule from 2005 and it incorporates some of the 
lessons learned of some of the Trial Type and Alternative Condition 
processes conducted since promulgation of the Interim Final Rule.


 The most notable costs are staff time to conduct an Alternative 
Condition Analysis for all mandatory terms and conditions submitted to 
FERC and potential litigation challenging the Alternative Condition 
Analysis due to limited expertise in some of the legislated 
considerations when conducting an Alternative Condition Analysis.


Risks:


No risks have been identified at this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              11/17/05                    70 FR 69804
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          01/17/06
Final Action                    12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Lorrie Parker
Regulatory Analyst
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
ATTN: ORMS, D&R Branch
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-0003
Phone: 202 205-6560
Fax: 202 260-6539
Email: lsparker@fs.fed.us
RIN: 0596-AC42
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FS
19. SPECIAL AREAS; STATE-SPECIFIC INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREA MANAGEMENT: 
COLORADO

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

[[Page 71132]]

Legal Authority:


Not Yet Determined


CFR Citation:


36 CFR 294


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On April 11, 2007, Governor of Colorado Ritter submitted a petition 
under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 
553(e)) and Agriculture Department regulation (7 CFR 1.28) to 
promulgate regulations, in cooperation with the State, for the 
management of inventoried roadless areas within the State of Colorado. 
After review and recommendation by the Roadless Area Conservation 
National Advisory Committee, the Secretary accepted the Governor's 
petition and initiated a proposed rulemaking for inventoried roadless 
areas in Colorado. The proposed rulemaking would manage Colorado's 
inventoried roadless areas by prohibiting road building and tree 
cutting, with some exceptions, on 4.1 million acres of inventoried 
roadless areas in Colorado. The 4.1 million acres reflect the most 
updated IRA boundaries for Colorado, which incorporate planning rule 
revisions since 2001 on several Colorado national forests. Inventoried 
roadless areas that are allocated to ski area special uses 
(approximately 10,000 acres) would also be removed from roadless 
designation. Road construction and reconstruction plus timber 
harvesting would be prohibited in inventoried roadless areas, with some 
exceptions, on the Arapaho-Roosevelt, Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre, Gunnison, 
Manti-La Sal, Pike-San Isabel, Rio Grande, Routt, San Juan, and White 
River National Forests in Colorado. Exceptions to the prohibitions 
would be allowed for certain health, safety, valid existing rights, 
resource protection, and ecological management needs.


Web site: http://roadless.fs.fed.us


Statement of Need:


The Department of Agriculture is committed to conserving and managing 
roadless values and considers inventoried roadless areas an important 
component of the National Forest System. The roadless rule has been the 
subject of 10 lawsuits in Federal district courts in Idaho, Utah, North 
Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, and the District of Columbia. On July 14, 
2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming found the 
2001 roadless rule to be unlawful and ordered that the rule be 
permanently enjoined. On May 13, 2005, the Forest Service promulgated 
the State Petitions Rule. The State Petitions Rule allowed Governors to 
voluntarily seek establishment of or adjustment of management 
requirements for National Forest System inventoried roadless areas 
within their States. If a petition was not received within 18 months, 
inventoried roadless areas would be guided by individual land 
management plans. It also established the Roadless Area Conservation 
National Advisory Committee (RACNAC) to make recommendations on State-
petitions to the Secretary. With the promulgation of the State 
Petitions Rule, the Tenth Circuit, which was reviewing an appeal by 
intervenors of the Wyoming court's decision, dismissed the case as 
moot. Under the guidance of the State Petitions Rule the States of 
California, Idaho, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, and 
Virginia filed a petition with the Secretary. The Secretary instructed 
the Forest Service to enter into rulemaking for North Carolina, South 
Carolina, and Virginia. Two lawsuits were filed against the State 
Petitions Rule in the Federal district court for the Northern District 
of California.


One suit was filed by the States of California, New Mexico, Oregon, and 
Washington with the State of Montana being amicus curiae in support of 
plaintiffs; and the States of Alaska and Idaho are amici curiae to 
USDA. The other lawsuit was filed by a coalition of environmental 
groups. On September 20, 2006, the Federal district court enjoined the 
State Petitions Rule and reinstated the roadless rule. In an effort to 
again re-enjoin the roadless rule, the State of Wyoming filed a second 
lawsuit in the Federal district court for Wyoming on January 12, 2007. 
Oral hearing for this lawsuit was held October 19 and decision is 
pending. With the reinstatement of roadless rule, the Under Secretary 
announced that interested States could still petition the Secretary 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. section 553(e) and 7 CFR section 1.28. On November 
13, 2006, Colorado Governor Bill Owens submitted his petition under 
these authorities. On April 11, 2007, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter 
resubmitted the petition with amendments. The RACNAC reviewed the 
petition and made recommendations to the Secretary on August 2, 2007.


Collaboratively working on the establishment of a State-specific 
roadless rule for the petitioning State will allow the State the level 
of management of inventoried roadless areas it seeks to best meet its 
needs in balance with the Department's and Forest Service's goals for 
the conserving and managing roadless values nationally. In addition, it 
will allow for the management of these lands in that State without 
being affected by other legal actions concerning the roadless rule or 
State Petitions Rule.


Summary of Legal Basis:


On January 12, 2001, the Department of Agriculture promulgated the 
Roadless Area Conservation Rule to provide for the conservation and 
management of approximately 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless 
areas within the National Forest System under the principles of the 
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. The State of Colorado has 
petitioned the Secretary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. section 553(e) and 7 CFR 
section 1.28 for state-specific rules to replace this national rule.


Alternatives:


The Forest Service is preparing environmental impact statements in 
support of the rulemaking effort. Besides the proposed rule, two 
alternatives are being considered: (1) Continuation of the RACR for 
management of these inventoried roadless areas, and (2) using existing 
forest plans and future forest plan revisions to determine the 
management of these areas.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The proposed rule is an economically significant rule, and will have an 
annual effect of more than $100 million or more on the economy nor 
adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 
public health or safety, nor State or local governments. This proposed 
rule is not expected to interfere with an action taken or planned by 
another Agency nor raise new legal or policy issues. This proposed rule 
will not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 
or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such 
programs. Furthermore, the proposed rule is programmatic in nature, 
consisting of direction for road construction, road reconstruction, 
timber harvesting, special uses including ski resorts, and 
discretionary mineral activities, which would be applied to future 
management activities

[[Page 71133]]

on inventoried roadless areas in Colorado.


Risks:


The rule is programmatic in nature and would constrain certain 
activities that would reduce roadless area characteristics. Reducing or 
controlling the development of these lands will reduce the risk of 
environmental effects associated with development activities like road 
construction, timber harvesting, and mineral extraction. Therefore 
soil, water, and air quality; sources of drinking water; diversity of 
plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, 
proposed, candidate, and sensitive species dependent on large, 
undisturbed areas of land; scenic quality; traditional cultural 
properties and sacred sites; and other locally unique characteristics 
would be maintained.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/25/08                    73 FR 43544
NPRM Comment Period End         10/23/08
Final Action                    01/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Tribal


URL For More Information:
www.roadless.fs.fed.us.

Agency Contact:
Lorrie Parker
Regulatory Analyst
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
ATTN: ORMS, D&R Branch,
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-0003
Phone: 202 205-6560
Fax: 202 205-6539
Email: lsparker@fs.fed.us
RIN: 0596-AC74
BILLING CODE 3410-90-S

[[Page 71134]]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
Enhancing long-term economic growth is a central focus of the 
President's policies and priorities. The mission of the Department of 
Commerce is to promote job creation, economic growth, technological 
competitiveness, sustainable development, and improve living standards 
for all Americans by working in partnership with businesses, 
universities, communities, and workers to:
<bullet> Build for the future and promote U.S. economic competitiveness 
            in the global marketplace by strengthening and safeguarding 
            the Nation's economic infrastructure;
<bullet> Keep America competitive with cutting-edge science and 
            technology and an unrivaled information base; and
<bullet> Provide effective management and stewardship of our nation's 
            resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic 
            opportunities.
The DOC mission statement, containing our three strategic themes, 
provides the vehicle for understanding the Department's aims, how they 
interlock, and how they are to be implemented through our programs. 
This statement was developed with the intent that it serve as both a 
statement of departmental philosophy and as the guiding force behind 
the Department's programs.
The importance that this mission statement and these strategic themes 
have for the Nation is amplified by the vision they pursue for 
America's communities, businesses, and families. Commerce is the 
smallest Cabinet agency, yet our presence is felt, and our 
contributions are found, in every State.
The DOC touches Americans, daily, in many ways--we make possible the 
weather reports that all of us hear every morning; we facilitate the 
technology that all of us use in the workplace and in the home each 
day; we support the development, gathering, and transmitting of 
information essential to competitive business; we make possible the 
diversity of companies and goods found in America's (and the world's) 
marketplace; and we support environmental and economic health for the 
communities in which Americans live.
The DOC has a clear and powerful vision for itself, for its role in the 
Federal Government, and for its roles supporting the American people, 
now and in the future. We confront the intersection of trade promotion, 
civilian technology, economic development, sustainable development, and 
economic analysis, and we want to provide leadership in these areas for 
the Nation.
We work to provide programs and services that serve our country's 
businesses, communities, and families, as initiated and supported by 
the President and the Congress. We are dedicated to making these 
programs and services as effective as possible, while ensuring that 
they are being delivered in the most cost-effective ways. We seek to 
function in close concert with other agencies having complementary 
responsibilities so that our collective impact can be most powerful. We 
seek to meet the needs of our customers quickly and efficiently, with 
programs, information, and services they require and deserve.
As a permanent part of the Federal Government, but serving an 
Administration and Congress that can vary with election results, we 
seek to serve the unchanging needs of the Nation, according to the 
priorities of the President and the Congress. The President's 
priorities for the Department range from issues concerning the economy 
to the environment. For example, the President directs the Department 
to promote electronic commerce activities; encourage open and free 
trade; represent American business interests abroad; and assist small 
businesses to expand and create jobs. We are able to address these 
priorities effectively by functioning in accordance with the 
legislation that supports our programs and by working closely with the 
President and the committees in Congress that have programmatic and 
financial oversight for our programs.
The DOC also promotes and expedites American exports, helps nurture 
business contacts abroad, protects U.S. firms from unfair foreign 
competition, and makes how-to-export information accessible to small 
and mid-sized companies throughout the Nation, thereby ensuring that 
U.S. market opportunities span the globe.
The DOC encourages development in every community, clearing the way for 
private-sector growth by building and rebuilding economically deprived 
and distressed communities. We promote minority entrepreneurship to 
establish businesses that frequently anchor neighborhoods and create 
new job opportunities. We work with the private sector to enhance 
competitive assets.
As the Nation looks to revitalize its industries and communities, the 
DOC works as a partner with private entities to build America with an 
eye on the future. Through technology, research and development, and 
innovation, we are making sure America continues to prosper in the 
short term, while also helping industries prepare for long-term 
success.
The DOC's considerable information capacities help businesses 
understand clearly where our national and world economies are going and 
take advantage of that knowledge by planning the road ahead. Armed with 
the Department's economic and demographic statistics, businesses can 
undertake new ventures, investments, and expansions that make our 
economy grow.
The DOC has instituted programs and policies that lead to cutting-edge, 
competitive, and better paying jobs. We work every day to boost 
exports, to deregulate business, to help smaller manufacturers battle 
foreign competition, to advance the technologies critical to our future 
prosperity, to invest in our communities, and to fuse economic and 
environmental goals.
The DOC is American business' surest ally in job creation, serving as a 
vital resource base, a tireless advocate, and its Cabinet-level voice.
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 fiscal year 2009. During the 
next year, NOAA plans to publish nine rulemaking actions that are 
designated as Regulatory Plan actions. Further information on these 
actions is provided below.
Though not principally a regulatory agency, the DOC has long been a 
leader in advocating and using market-oriented regulatory approaches in 
lieu of traditional command-and-control regulations when such 
approaches offer a better alternative. All regulations are designed and 
implemented to maximize societal benefits while placing the

[[Page 71135]]

smallest possible burden on those being regulated.
The DOC is also refocusing on its regulatory mission by taking into 
account, among other things, the President's regulatory principles. To 
the extent permitted by law, all preregulatory and regulatory 
activities and decisions adhere to the Administration's statement of 
regulatory philosophy and principles, as set forth in section 1 of 
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, we have made bold and dramatic 
changes, never being satisfied with the status quo. We have emphasized, 
initiated, and expanded programs that work in partnership with the 
American people to secure the Nation's economic future. At the same 
time, we have downsized, cut regulations, closed offices, and 
eliminated programs and jobs that are not part of our core mission. The 
bottom line is that, after much thought and debate, we have made many 
hard choices needed to make this Department ``state of the art.''
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
The 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 services vital to public safety and 
to the Nation's economy, such as weather 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 
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 Administration is committed to an environmental strategy that 
promotes sustainable economic development and rejects the false choice 
between environmental goals and economic growth. The intent is to have 
the Government's economic decisions guided by a comprehensive 
understanding of the environment. 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, assessments, and forecasts of environmental 
phenomena on which resource management 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: 
modernizing 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 2009, 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

[[Page 71136]]

individual transferable quotas, which permit quota-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.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act contains ten national standards against which 
fishery management measures are evaluated. NMFS has supplemented the 
standards with guidelines interpreting each standard, and has updated 
and added to those guidelines. One of the national standards requires 
that management measures, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid 
unnecessary duplication. Under the guidelines, NMFS will not approve 
management measures submitted by an FMC unless the fishery is in need 
of management. Together, the standards and the guidelines correspond to 
many of the Administration's principles of regulation as set forth in 
section 1(b) of Executive Order 12866. One of the national standards 
establishes a qualitative equivalent to the Executive Order's ``net 
benefits'' requirement--one of the focuses of the Administration's 
statement of regulatory philosophy as stated in section 1(a) of the 
Executive Order.
On January 12, 2007, the President signed into law the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA). 
This important new law was identified by the President as one of his 
priority actions in the U.S. Ocean Plan. The enactment of the law 
reaffirms the importance of the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but 
more importantly, it implements important groundbreaking provisions 
that could enhance fisheries management. The new measures implemented 
by this law would work to end overfishing; promote market-based 
management approaches; improve science by providing a stronger role for 
peer review and for the Councils' Science and Statistical Committees 
(SSC) in decision-making, and improving the collection of accurate and 
precise fishing data; and enhance international cooperation by 
addressing illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and 
bycatch of protected living marine resources. NMFS will be initiating 
several rulemakings in the coming year to implement these important 
provisions.
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 nine actions that rise to the level of ``most 
important'' of the Departments significant regulatory actions, and thus 
are included in this year's Regulatory Plan. Three actions implement 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Six actions implement provisions of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act (MSRA). One regulation that 
may be of particular interest to international trading partners 
concerns the Certification of Nations Whose Fishing Vessels are Engaged 
in Illegal, Unreported, or Unregulated Fishing or Bycatch of Protected 
Living Marine Resources, as described below.
``Certification of Nations Whose Fishing Vessels Are Engaged in IUU 
Fishing or Bycatch of Protected Living Marine Resources'' - In this 
action, NMFS would establish 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. 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. Negative certification of a

[[Page 71137]]

nation may result in the imposition of trade measures.
``Provide Guidance for the Limited Access Privilege Program Provisions 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Reauthorization Act of 2006'' - This action would provide national 
guidance on the use of Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPP) as 
fishery management tools. The guidance is intended to assist the 
fishery management councils and NMFS headquarters and regional offices 
in developing and implementing LAPPs.
``Guidance for Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures to End 
Overfishing'' - In this action, NMFS would implement provisions that 
require fishery management plans to establish a mechanism for 
specifying annual catch limits (ACLs) in the plans implementing 
regulations or annual specifications, at a level such that overfishing 
does not occur in a fishery. In addition, this action would implement 
measures to ensure accountability.
``Disaster Assistance Programs'' - This action would govern 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. The intended result 
is to clarify and interpret the fishery disaster assistance provisions 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act 
and thereby ensure consistency and facilitate the processing of 
requests.
``Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization 
Act Environmental Review Procedure'' - This final rule would revise and 
update NMFS procedures for complying with the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) in the context of fishery management actions 
developed pursuant to the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act. These regulations are modeled on the Council of 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the procedural 
provisions of NEPA, and are designed to conform to the timelines for 
review and approval of fishery management plans and plan amendments.
``Amendment to Coastal Migratory Pelagics FMP, Red Drum FMP, Reef Fish 
FMP, Spiny Lobster FMP, and Stone Crab FMP to Provide for Regulation of 
Marine Aquaculture'' - The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is 
developing an Aquaculture Fishery Management Plan, which if approved, 
would establish a regional permitting process for regulating and 
promoting environmentally sound and economically sustainable 
aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic zone.
``Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy's Atlantic Fleet 
Active Sonar Training (AFAST)'' - NMFS has received a request from the 
U.S. Navy for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to 
training activities conducted off the U.S. Atlantic Coast and in the 
Gulf of Mexico for the period of January 2009 through January 2014. 
These training activities are classified as military readiness 
activities. The final regulations would authorize these activities and 
govern the take of marine mammals.
``Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy Training in the 
Southern California Range Complex'' - NMFS has received a request from 
the U.S. Navy for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to 
training activities conducted in the Southern California Range Complex 
, which extends south and southwest off the southern California coast, 
for the period of January 2009 through January 2014. These training 
activities are classified as military readiness activities. The final 
regulations would authorize these activities and govern the take of 
marine mammals.
``Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy Training in the Hawaii 
Range Complex'' - NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy for 
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to training activities 
conducted within the Hawaii Range Complex (HRC) for the period of 
December 2008 through December 2013. These training activities are 
classified as military readiness activities. The final regulations 
would authorize these activities and govern the take of marine mammals.
NOAA's nine Regulatory Plan actions support several of the President's 
priorities as stated in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. Specifically, NMFS' 
regulatory actions implement the President's ongoing effort to combat 
international illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing activities 
through its proposed identification and certification process and 
support the goal to use market-based systems for fisheries management.
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:
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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

[[Page 71138]]

            sensitive goods and technology from other supplier 
            countries.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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

                              -----------

20. AMENDMENT TO COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGICS FMP, RED DRUM FMP, REEF 
FISH FMP, SPINY LOBSTER FMP, AND STONE CRAB FMP TO PROVIDE FOR 
REGULATION OF MARINE AQUACULTURE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


16 USC 1801 et seq


CFR Citation:


50 CFR 622


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The purpose of the amendment is to develop a regulatory permitting 
process for regulating and promoting environmentally sound and 
economically sustainable aquaculture in the Gulf Exclusive Economic 
Zone. Possible management actions include: (1) Types of aquaculture 
permits required; (2) duration aquaculture permits are effective; (3) 
conditions for permit issuance; (4) species allowed for aquaculture; 
(5) allowable aquaculture systems; (6) designation of sites or areas 
for conducting aquaculture; (7) buffer zones for aquaculture 
facilities; (8) recordkeeping and reporting requirements; and (9) 
regulations to aid in the enforcement of marine aquaculture facilities.


Statement of Need:


Demand for protein is increasing in the United States and commercial 
wild-capture fisheries will not likely be adequate to meet this growing 
demand. Aquaculture is one method to meet current and future demands 
for seafood. Supplementing the harvest of domestic fisheries with 
cultured product will help the U.S. meet consumers' growing demand for 
seafood and may reduce the nation's dependence on seafood imports. 
Currently, the U.S. imports over 80 percent of the seafood consumed in 
the country, and the annual U.S. seafood trade deficit is at an all 
time high of over $9 billion.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 
1801 et seq.


Alternatives:


The Council's Aquaculture FMP includes 10 actions, each with an 
associated range of alternatives. These actions and alternatives are 
collectively intended to establish a regional permitting process for 
offshore aquaculture. Management actions in the FMP include: 1) 
Aquaculture permit requirements, eligibility, and transferability; 2) 
duration aquaculture permits are effective; 3) aquaculture application 
requirements, operational requirements, and restrictions; 4) species 
allowed for aquaculture; 5) allowable aquaculture systems; 6) marine 
aquaculture siting requirements and conditions; 7) restricted access 
zones for aquaculture facilities; 8) recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements; 9) biological reference points and status determination 
criteria; and 10) framework procedures for modifying biological 
reference points and regulatory measures.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Environmental and social/economic costs and benefits are described in 
detail in the Council's Aquaculture FMP. Potential benefits include: 
establishing a rigorous review process for reviewing and approving/
denying aquaculture permits, increasing optimum yield by supplementing 
the harvest of wild domestic fisheries with cultured products, and 
reducing the nation's dependence on imported seafood. Anticipated costs 
include: increased administration and oversight of an aquaculture 
permitting process and potential negative environmental impacts to wild 
marine resources. Approval of an aquaculture permitting system may also 
benefit fishing communities by creating new jobs or impact fishing 
communities if cultured products economically displace domestic 
seafood.


Risks:


National offshore aquaculture legislation has also been previously 
proposed by the Administration. This action may reduce the need for 
uniform national legislation and allow aquaculture regulations to vary 
by region.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/00/08
NPRM Comment Period End         12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Roy Crabtree
Regional Administrator, Southeast Region
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
263 Thirteenth Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Phone: 727 570-5305
Fax: 727 570-5583
Email: roy.crabtree@noaa.gov
RIN: 0648-AS65
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--NOAA
21. CERTIFICATION OF NATIONS WHOSE FISHING VESSELS ARE ENGAGED IN IUU 
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 is establishing a process of

[[Page 71139]]

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 U.S.C. 1826j to 1826k), 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.


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                            12/00/08

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
Email: chrisopher.rogers@noaa.gov
RIN: 0648-AV51
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--NOAA
22. 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 Interjurisdicational 
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, 
characteristics of commercial fishery failures and 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

[[Page 71140]]

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 U.S.C. 1861, 
1864), as amended, and sections 308(b) or 308(d) of the IFA (16 U.S.C. 
4107).


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 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                            11/00/08
NPRM Comment Period             01/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State, Tribal


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: charles.cooper@noaa.gov
RIN: 0648-AW38
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--NOAA
23. <bullet> PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR THE LIMITED ACCESS PRIVILEGE PROGRAM 
PROVISIONS OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT 
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2006

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 the 
National Marine Fisheries Service regional offices in developing and 
implementing LAPPs.


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 U.S.C. 561, 16 U.S.C. 773, et seq., and 16 
U.S.C. 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                            04/00/09

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
RIN: 0648-AX13

[[Page 71141]]

_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--NOAA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

24. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT 
REAUTHORIZATION ACT (MSRA) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


16 USC 1801


CFR Citation:


50 CFR 700


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, July 11, 2007.


Final, Statutory, January 11, 2008.


Abstract:


Section 107 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Reauthorization Act (MSRA) (Pub. L. 109-479) requires NOAA Fisheries to 
revise and update agency procedures for complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in context of fishery management 
actions. It further requires that NOAA Fisheries consult with the 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Regional Fishery 
Management Councils (Councils), and involve the public in the 
development of the revised procedures. The MSRA provides that the 
resulting procedures will be the sole environmental impact assessment 
procedure for fishery management actions, and that they must conform to 
the time lines for review and approval of fishery management plans and 
plan amendments; and integrate applicable environmental analytical 
procedures, including the time frames for public input, with the 
procedure for the preparation and dissemination of fishery management 
plans, plan amendments and other actions taken or approved pursuant to 
this Act in order to provide for timely, clear and concise analysis 
that is useful to decision makers and the public, reduce extraneous 
paperwork, and effectively involve the public.


NOAA Fisheries is currently consulting with the councils, the Public 
and CEQ to develop a proposed procedure.


Statement of Need:


In December 2006, the U.S. Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
which was signed into law by the President on January 12, 2007 (Public 
Law 109-479). Section 107 requires NMFS to better integrate and more 
closely align applicable environmental analytical procedures with the 
Magnuson Stevens Act's fishery management process.


Congress directed the Secretary, acting through NMFS, and in 
consultation with the regional fishery management councils (Councils) 
and CEQ, to revise and update agency procedures to comply with NEPA. 
Congress stated that the procedures shall:


 (A) conform to the [Magnuson-Stevens Act's] time lines for review and 
approval of fishery management plans and amendments under this section; 
and (B) integrate applicable environmental analytical procedures, 
including the time frames for public input, with the procedure for the 
preparation and dissemination of fishery management plans, plan 
amendments, and other actions taken or approved pursuant to this Act in 
order to provide for timely, clear and concise analysis that is useful 
to decision makers and the public, reduce extraneous paperwork and 
effectively involving the public. 16 U.S.C. 1854(i)(1)(A) and (B).


Moreover, Congress stated that the revised and updated procedures are 
to be the sole environmental impact assessment procedure for fishery 
management actions (e.g., FMPs, FMP amendments, or other actions taken 
or approved pursuant to the Magnuson Stevens Act) used by the Councils 
or NMFS. 16 U.S.C. 1854(i)(2). Finally, Congress authorized and 
directed NMFS, in cooperation with CEQ and the Councils, to involve the 
affected public in the development of the revised procedures.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 
1801 et seq.


Alternatives:


In the process of developing the proposed rule NMFS identified 
alternatives for possible fisheries-specific improvements in several 
general categories: form of NEPA documentation; roles and 
responsibilities of Councils and NMFS in the NEPA process; timing and 
flow of process; and other elements (experimental fishing, emergencies, 
page limits, and the range of alternatives to be analyzed). The NMFS 
preferred alternative as expressed in the proposed rule was developed 
after serious consideration of input received through extensive 
internal and external outreach. NMFS also considered the ``No Action'' 
alternative. Under the ``no action'' alternative, NMFS would not issue 
a final rule and the environmental review process for Magnuson-Stevens 
Act actions would proceed under the status quo.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The modifications to the NEPA procedures for fishery management actions 
are intended to allow for more efficient response to fishery management 
needs while ensuring continued compliance with NEPA requirements. 
Because these provisions would create a new approach to NEPA 
compliance, litigation challenges would be likely as implementation 
progressed. Additional costs may also be incurred, for example, where 
the conflict of interest provisions require use of a more expensive 
contractor. However, it is impossible to predict such additional costs, 
if any.


Risks:


The risk of not taking action would be that NMFS would not meet its 
statutory mandate under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            05/14/08                    73 FR 27997
NPRM Comment Period End         06/13/08
Final Action                    11/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Roy Crabtree
Regional Administrator, Southeast Region
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
263 Thirteenth Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Phone: 727 570-5305
Fax: 727 570-5583
Email: roy.crabtree@noaa.gov
RIN: 0648-AV53

[[Page 71142]]

_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--NOAA
25. GUIDANCE FOR ANNUAL CATCH LIMITS AND ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES TO END 
OVERFISHING

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


16 USC 1853


CFR Citation:


50 CFR 600.310


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 104(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA), requires that in fishing 
year 2010, for fisheries determined by the Secretary to be subject to 
overfishing, and in fishing year 2011, for all other fisheries, that 
fishery management plans establish annual catch limits (ACLs), 
including regulations and annual specifications, at a level such that 
overfishing does not occur in a fishery, including measures to ensure 
accountability.


The National Marine Fisheries Service intends to prepare guidance on 
how to establish adequate ACLs and AMs by revising its National 
Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310. This is because NS1 of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act states that ``Conservation and management 
measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing 
basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States 
fishing industry.''


Statement of Need:


The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as 
amended by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA) (Pub. L. 109-479), requires that 
``any fishery management plan which is prepared by any [Fishery 
Management] Council, or by the Secretary [of Commerce], with respect to 
any fishery, shall-establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch 
limits in the plan (including a multiyear plan), implementing 
regulations, or annual specifications, at a level such that overfishing 
does not occur in the fishery, including measures to ensure 
accountability'' (see MSA section 303(a)(15)). NMFS, on behalf of the 
Secretary, has decided to revise the National Standard 1 (NS1) 
guidelines to include guidance about how to use annual catch limits 
(ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) to end and prevent 
overfishing. NMFS believes that revisions to the NS1 guidelines will 
assist the Councils and the Secretary in addressing new MSA 
requirements, ensure greater consistency in approaches to ending 
overfishing and rebuilding stocks, increase efficiency in reviewing 
actions and tracking annual management performance, and improve 
communication between NMFS and the Councils.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 
1801 et seq.


Alternatives:


No Action. Do not revise the current NS1 guidelines to include guidance 
for ACLs and AMs. Councils are statutorily required to implement ACLs 
and AMs. Without guidelines, Councils may develop and submit fishery 
management plan (FMP) amendments that the Secretary may determine to be 
inadequate. Secretarial disapproval of an FMP amendment would be 
followed by a request that the Council modify and resubmit their 
amendment, making it unlikely that the ACLs and AMs can be implemented 
by the first statutory deadline of 2010, for stocks undergoing 
overfishing, and 2011, for all other stocks.


Preferred Action. Revise the current NS1 guidelines to include guidance 
for ACLs and AMs. Councils and the Secretary are more likely to prepare 
adequate ACLs and AMs for ending and preventing overfishing, if NMFS 
provides guidance through the NS1 guidelines, than by relying on 
statutory language alone. Secretarial approval of FMP amendments that 
contain adequate ACLs and AMs for ending overfishing is more likely if 
NMFS provides new guidance on NS1, ACLs and AMs. Also, if NMFS provides 
such guidance, it is more likely that FMPs will have ACLs and AMs in 
place for stocks undergoing overfishing by the first statutory deadline 
of 2010, and the second statutory deadline of 2011, for all other 
stocks.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


There are no economic, social or environmental impacts of the proposed 
guideline revisions themselves. When the Councils and/or the Secretary 
revise FMPs per the guidelines, they will develop specific management 
actions and evaluate the economic, social, and environmental impacts of 
those measures at that time.


Risks:


The National Marine Fisheries Service intends to revise the NS1 
guidelines to combine requirements for ACLs and AMs, and new rebuilding 
plan provisions with current NS1 guidelines that cover topics such as 
maximum sustainable yield, optimum yield, and status determination 
criteria for overfishing and overfished definitions. NMFS believes that 
by combining new guidance about how to use ACLs and AMs to end or 
prevent overfishing, along with the various principles already 
contained in the MSA such as overfishing, rebuilding overfished stocks, 
and achieving optimum yield, the Councils and stakeholders of fisheries 
would experience less confusion than they would in the absence of new 
guidelines.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/09/08                    73 FR 32526
Notice                          06/26/08                    73 FR 36300
Comment Period End              08/13/08                    73 FR 47125
NPRM Comment Period End         09/08/08
Comment Period Extended         09/22/08
Final Action                    03/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


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
RIN: 0648-AV60
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--NOAA
26. <bullet> TAKING AND IMPORTING MARINE MAMMALS; U.S. NAVY TRAINING IN 
THE HAWAII RANGE COMPLEX

Priority:


Other Significant

[[Page 71143]]

Legal Authority:


16 USC 1361 et seq


CFR Citation:


50 CFR 216


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is proposing the issuance 
of regulations and subsequent Letters of Authorization (LOAs) for the 
Navy to take individuals of 24 species of marine mammals incidental to 
upcoming Navy training activities to be conducted within the Hawaii 
Range Complex, which covers 235,000 nm2 around the Main Hawaiian 
Islands, over the course of 5 years. These training activities are 
classified as military readiness activities. These training activities 
may incidentally take (by Level B Harassment) marine mammals present 
within the HRC by exposing them to sound from mid-frequency or high 
frequency active sonar (MFAS/HFAS) or to underwater detonations at 
levels that NMFS associates with the take of marine mammals. Further, 
though we do not expect it to occur, NMFS proposes to authorize the 
Navy to take, by injury or mortality, up to 10 individuals each of 10 
species over the course of the 5-year period (bottlenose dolphin, Kogia 
spp., melon-headed whale, pantropical spotted dolphin, pygmy killer 
whale, short-finned pilot whale, striped dolphin, and Cuvier's, 
Longman's, and Blainville's beaked whale). Because of the public 
interest and likelihood of litigation, this application and proposal is 
considered controversial.


Statement of Need:


NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for authorization 
to take marine mammals incidental to training activities conducted 
within the Hawaii Range Complex (HRC) for the period of December 2008 
through December 2013. These training activities are classified as 
military readiness activities. The Navy states that these training 
activities may incidentally take marine mammals present within the HRC 
by exposing them to sound from mid-frequency or high frequency active 
sonar or to underwater detonations at levels that NMFS associates with 
the take of marine mammals. The final regulations would authorize these 
activities and govern the take of marine mammals.


The Navy's mission is to maintain, train, and equip combat-ready naval 
forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and maintaining 
freedom of the seas. Title 10, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) section 5062 directs 
the Chief of Naval Operations to train all naval forces for combat. The 
Chief of Naval Operations meets that direction, in part, by conducting 
at-sea training exercises and ensuring naval forces have access to 
ranges, operating areas and airspace where they can develop and 
maintain skills for wartime missions and conduct research, development, 
test, and evaluation of naval weapons systems. The HRC, where the Navy 
has, for more than 40 years, routinely conducted training and major 
exercises in the waters around the Hawaiian Islands, is a critical part 
of the Navy's mission, especially as it relates to training. Centrally 
located in the Pacific Ocean between the west coast of the United 
States and the naval stations in the western Pacific, and surrounding 
the most isolated islands in the world, the HRC has the infrastructure 
(i.e., extensive existing range assets and training capabilities) to 
support a large number of forces in a location both remote and under 
U.S. control. The range surrounds the major homeport of Naval Station 
Pearl Harbor, enabling re-supply and repairs to submarines and surface 
ships alike. The isolation of the range offers an invaluable facility 
on which to conduct missile testing and training. Able to link with the 
U.S. Army's Pohakuloa Training Area, as well as U.S. Air Force and U.S. 
Marine Corps bases where aircraft basing and amphibious training may 
occur, the HRC provides a superior joint training environment for all 
the U.S. armed services and advanced missile testing capability.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A).


Alternatives:


A number of alternatives were analyzed in the Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement prepared for this action, published in April 2007, and 
available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Because the Navy is the only entity that will be directly affected by 
this rulemaking, NMFS did not perform an analysis of the anticipated 
costs and benefits.


Risks:


This rule addresses the risk of take incidental to Navy training 
activities. The rule analyzes the risk of such take.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/23/08                    73 FR 35510
NPRM Comment Period End         07/23/08
Final Action                    01/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
James H. Lecky
Director, Office of Protected Resources
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301 713-2332
Fax: 301 427-2520
Email: jim.lecky@noaa.gov
RIN: 0648-AW86
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--NOAA
27. <bullet> TAKING AND IMPORTING MARINE MAMMALS; U.S. NAVY'S ATLANTIC 
FLEET ACTIVE SONAR TRAINING (AFAST)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


16 USC 1361


CFR Citation:


50 CFR 216


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In February 2008, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) received 
an application from the Navy for MMPA Letters of Authorization (LOAs) 
to take individuals of 39 species of marine mammals incidental to Navy 
Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training (AFAST) to be conducted off the 
Atlantic Coast of the U.S. and in the Gulf of Mexico over the course of 
5 years. These military readiness training activities may incidentally 
take marine mammals

[[Page 71144]]

present in the area by exposing them to sound from mid-frequency or 
high frequency active sonar (MFAS/HFAS) or to underwater explosive 
detonations that may take marine mammals. Further, though we do not 
anticipate it to occur, the Navy requests authorization to take, by 
injury or mortality, up to 10 total beaked whales over the course of 5 
years (any combination of six species).


NMFS participated as a cooperating agency on the Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) analyzing the effects on the environment from the 
Navy's proposed activity. Take of marine mammals will be minimized 
through: (1) Powerdown and shutdown of sonar when marine mammals are 
detected within ranges where the received sound level is likely to 
result in temporary threshold shift (TTS) or injury, (2) the use of 
exclusion zones that avoid exposing marine mammals to explosives likely 
to result in injury or death of marine mammals, and (3) the 
implementation of a Stranding Response Plan for the HRC, which includes 
a shutdown provision in and requires NMFS and the Navy develop an MOA 
to allow the Navy to assist NMFS in stranding response/investigation 
through in-kind services. NMFS is still working with the Navy to 
determine if additional protective measures are appropriate. 
Additionally, NMFS and the Navy have worked to develop a robust 
monitoring plan to help further determine the effects that MFAS/HFAS 
have on marine mammals.


Statement of Need:


NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for authorization 
to take marine mammals incidental to training activities conducted off 
the U.S. Atlantic Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico for the period of 
January 2009 through January 2014. The final regulations would 
authorize these activities and govern the take of marine mammals.


These training activities are classified as military readiness 
activities. The Navy states, and NMFS concurs, that these training 
activities may incidentally take marine mammals present within the 
AFAST Study Area by exposing them to sound from mid-frequency or high 
frequency active sonar or to employment of the improved extended echo 
ranging (IEER) system. The IEER consists of an explosive source 
sonobuoy (AN/SSQ-110A) and an air deployable active receiver (ADAR) 
sonobuoy (AN/SSQ-101).


The purpose of the Navy's proposed action is to provide mid- and high-
frequency active sonar and IEER system training for U.S. Navy Atlantic 
Fleet ship, submarine, and aircraft crews, as well as to conduct 
research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) activities to 
support the requirements of the Fleet Readiness Training Plan (FRTP) 
and stay proficient in anti-submarine warfare and mine warfare skills. 
The FRTP is the Navy's training cycle that requires naval forces to 
build up in preparation for operational deployment and to maintain a 
high level of proficiency and readiness while deployed. All phases of 
the FRTP training cycle are needed to meet Title 10 requirements. 
Specifically, the Navy's need for training and RDT&E is found in Title 
10 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 5062 (10 U.S.C. 5062). 
Title 10 U.S.C. 5062 requires the Navy to be ``organized, trained, and 
equipped primarily for prompt and sustained combat incident to 
operations at sea.''


Summary of Legal Basis:


Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A).


Alternatives:


A number of alternatives were analyzed in the Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement prepared for this action, published on February 15, 
2008, and available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Because the Navy is the only entity that will be directly affected by 
this rulemaking, NMFS did not perform an analysis of the anticipated 
costs and benefits.


Risks:


This rule addresses the risk of take incidental to Navy training 
activities. The rule analyzes the risk of such take.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/14/08                    73 FR 60754
NPRM Comment Period End         11/13/08
Final Action                    01/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
James H. Lecky
Director, Office of Protected Resources
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301 713-2332
Fax: 301 427-2520
Email: jim.lecky@noaa.gov
RIN: 0648-AW90
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--NOAA
28. <bullet> TAKING AND IMPORTING MARINE MAMMALS; U.S. NAVY TRAINING IN 
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RANGE COMPLEX (SOCAL)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


16 USC 1361


CFR Citation:


50 CFR 216


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On April 1, 2008, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting 
authorization for the take of individuals of 37 species of marine 
mammals incidental to upcoming Navy training activities, maintenance, 
and research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) activities 
to be conducted within the Southern California Range Complex, which 
extends southwest approximately 600 nm in the general shape of a 200-nm 
wide rectangle (see the Navy's application), over the course of 5 
years. These training activities are classified as military readiness 
activities. The Navy states, and NMFS concurs, that these military 
readiness activities may incidentally take marine mammals present 
within SOCAL by exposing them to sound from mid-frequency or high 
frequency active sonar (MFAS/HFAS) or underwater detonations. The Navy 
requests authorization to take individuals of 37 species of marine 
mammals by Level B Harassment. Further, though they do not anticipate 
it to occur, the Navy requests authorization to take, by injury or 
mortality, up to 10 beaked whales over the course of the 5-yr 
regulations.

[[Page 71145]]

In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under Section 
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the ``permissible methods 
of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the 
least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its 
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and 
areas of similar significance.'' NMFS reviewed the proposed SOCAL 
activities and the proposed SOCAL mitigation measures presented in the 
Navy's application to determine whether the activities and mitigation 
measures were capable of achieving the least practicable adverse effect 
on marine mammals. NMFS determined that further discussion was 
necessary regarding the potential relationship between the operation of 
MFAS/HFAS and marine mammal strandings. NMFS worked with the Navy to 
identify additional practicable and effective mitigation measures, 
which included a careful balancing of the likely benefit of any 
particular measure to the marine mammals with the likely effect of that 
measure on personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact 
on the activity.


Statement of Need:


NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for authorization 
to take marine mammals incidental to training activities conducted in 
the Southern California Range Complex (SOCAL), which extends south and 
southwest off the southern California coast, for the period of January 
2009 through January 2014. The final regulations would authorize these 
activities and govern the take of marine mammals.


These training activities are classified as military readiness 
activities. The Navy states, and NMFS concurs, that these military 
readiness activities may incidentally take marine mammals present 
within SOCAL by exposing them to sound from mid-frequency or high 
frequency active sonar or underwater detonations.


The Navy's mission is to maintain, train, and equip combat-ready naval 
forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and maintaining 
freedom of the seas. Title 10, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 5062 directs the 
Chief of Naval Operations to train all naval forces for combat. The 
Chief of Naval Operations meets that direction, in part, by conducting 
at-sea training exercises and ensuring naval forces have access to 
ranges, operating areas and airspace where they can develop and 
maintain skills for wartime missions and conduct research, development, 
testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) of naval weapons systems.


The Navy proposes to implement actions within the SOCAL Range Complex 
to: Increase training and RDT&E operations from current levels as 
necessary to support the Navy-wide training plan, known as the Fleet 
Readiness Training Plan (FRTP); accommodate mission requirements 
associated with force structure changes and introduction of new weapons 
and systems to the Fleet; and implement enhanced range complex 
capabilities.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A).


Alternatives:


A number of alternatives were analyzed in the Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement prepared for this action, published in April 2008, and 
available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Because the Navy is the only entity that will be directly affected by 
this rulemaking, NMFS did not perform an analysis of the anticipated 
costs and benefits.


Risks:


This rule addresses the risk of take incidental to Navy training 
activities. The rule analyzes the risk of such take.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/14/08                    73 FR 60836
NPRM Comment Period End         11/13/08
Final Action                    01/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
James H. Lecky
Director, Office of Protected Resources
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301 713-2332
Fax: 301 427-2520
Email: jim.lecky@noaa.gov
RIN: 0648-AW91
BILLING CODE 3510-BW-S

[[Page 71146]]

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), 
nine Unified Combatant Commands, eighteen Defense Agencies, and twelve 
DoD Field Activities. It has 1,385,122 military personnel and 692,176 
civilians assigned as of June 30, 2008, 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:
<bullet> Simplify Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 
            (DFARS) policy relating to acquisition of Government 
            property, consistent with the recent significant revisions 
            to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 45.
<bullet> Implement in the FAR and DFARS the waiver of certain statutory 
            requirements when acquiring commercially available off-the-
            shelf items.
<bullet> Simplify and clarify the DFARS coverage of multiyear 
            acquisitions.
<bullet> Simplify and clarify the DFARS coverage of patents, data, and 
            copyrights, dramatically reducing the amount of regulatory 
            text and the number of required clauses.
<bullet> Improve the contract closeout process.
2. Regulations of Particular Interest to Small Business
 Of interest to Small Businesses are regulations to:
<bullet> Revise the FAR to clarify the relationship among small 
            business programs.
<bullet> Revise the FAR to implement changes in the HUBZone Program, in 
            accordance with Small Business Administration regulations.
<bullet> Add a procurement goal for Native Hawaiian-serving 
            institutions and Alaska Native-serving institutions.
3. Regulations with International Effects or Interest
Of international effect or interest are regulations to:
<bullet> Provide authority to limit competition in the acquisition of 
            products or services, other than small arms, acquired in 
            support of operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.
<bullet> Revise the DFARS to implement the pending Defense Procurement 
            Trade Cooperation Treaties with the United Kingdom and 
            Australia, upon ratification.
<bullet> Remove from the FAR the prohibition of imports from North 
            Korea.
<bullet> Revise the FAR and DFARS list of least developed countries 
            that are designated countries under the Trade Agreements 
            Act to add Liberia and remove Cape Verde.
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:
<bullet> Making Sense of Regulation: 2001 Report to Congress on the 
            Costs and Benefits of Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on 
            State, Local, and Tribal Entities.
<bullet> Stimulating Smarter Regulation: 2002 Report to Congress on the 
            Costs and Benefits of Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on 
            State, Local, and Tribal Entities.
<bullet> 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 four 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 civil functions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
acquisition, health affairs, and the National Security Personnel 
System.
1. Regulatory Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

[[Page 71147]]

Army Regulatory Program's Compliance with the National Historic 
Preservation Act
 In 1990, the Army Corps of Engineers published as appendix C of 33 CFR 
part 325, a rule that governs compliance with the National Historic 
Preservation Act (NHPA) for the Army's Regulatory Program. Over the 
years, there have been substantial changes in policy, and the NHPA was 
amended in 1992, leading to the publication in December 2000 of new 
implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800, issued by the Advisory 
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). Those regulations were amended 
on July 6, 2004. The ACHP's regulations allow Federal agencies to 
utilize alternate procedures in lieu of the regulations at 36 CFR part 
800. In 2005 and 2007, the Corps Headquarters issued supplemental 
guidance on compliance with the NHPA while efforts were underway to 
revise or replace Appendix C. To solicit public comment on the 
appropriate mechanism for revising the Army Regulatory Program's 
process for considering effects to historic properties resulting from 
activities authorized by DA permits, the Army Corps of Engineers 
published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to obtain 
the views of interested parties. After reviewing the comments received 
in response to the ANPRM, the Army Corps of Engineers held facilitated 
stakeholder meetings to determine the best course of action for 
revising its procedures to comply with the requirements of Section 106 
of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Corps also held 
additional focus group meetings facilitated by our eight division 
offices to gather input from federally recognized tribes on their 
recommendations concerning how government-to-government consultation 
could occur. After reviewing those recommendations, the Corps developed 
a consultation plan, and is currently in the process of conducting 
government-to-government consultation with federally recognized tribes. 
Also, our division offices have solicited information on topics that 
any new alternative procedure should address.
2. Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy
 The Department of Defense continuously reviews the DFARS and continues 
to lead Government efforts to:
<bullet> Establish a new restriction on acquisition of specialty metals 
            under 10 U.S.C. 2533b, as amended by the FY08 National 
            Defense Authorization Act. Provides exemption from domestic 
            source requirements for all electronics; commercially 
            available off-the-shelf items, except high performance 
            magnets and fasteners; for fasteners and commercial 
            derivative military articles when using market basket 
            approach; minimal amounts of specialty metals; and, 
            national security requirements.
<bullet> Revise the FAR and the DFARS to require contractor personnel 
            who are authorized to accompany the U.S. Armed Forces 
            deployed outside the United States or are performing 
            outside the United States in a theater of operations during 
            contingency or certain other operations, or at a diplomatic 
            or consular mission to report human rights violations, as 
            well as kidnapping and sexual assault violations. Implement 
            the DoD Law of War Program, requiring contractors to be 
            trained in the Law of War and to report violations.
<bullet> Revise the FAR to make requirements for Government contractor 
            internal control systems more similar of U.S. Sentencing 
            Guidelines; mandate timely disclosure of civil or criminal 
            wrongdoing related to the award, performance, or closeout 
            of a Government contract or subcontract thereunder; mandate 
            full cooperation with Government investigators; make 
            failure to timely disclose significant overpayments or 
            violations of civil or criminal wrongdoing a cause for 
            suspension/debarment.
<bullet> Revise the FAR to address service contractor employee personal 
            conflicts of interest and organizational conflicts of 
            interest and limit contractor access to information.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> Providing 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.
3. 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 plans to submit the following rules:
<bullet> 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 ends September 23, 2008.
<bullet> Proposed rule on CHAMPUS/TRICARE: Pharmacy Benefits Program. 
            This rule implements several changes enacted by the John 
            Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
            2007 (NDAA-07), Pub. L. 109-364, and accompanying 
            recommendations of the Conference Committee, set forth in 
            H. Conf. Rept. 109-702.

[[Page 71148]]

            Specifically, this rule recommends changes to adopt state-
            of-the-art pharmacy benefit management practices to 
            encourage greater use of the TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy 
            (TMOP) Program, generic drugs, formulary drugs, and over-
            the-counter (OTC) drugs. This rule will not affect retail 
            pharmacy copayment amounts (currently under a statutory 
            cap). The proposed rule should publish before the end of 
            2008.
<bullet> 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. This is an 
            economically significant rule. The proposed rule was 
            published March 28, 2008 (73 FR 16612). The comment period 
            ended May 27, 2008.
<bullet> 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.
4. 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) require 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 should be published by the end of 2008.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOD--Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs (DODOASHA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

29. <bullet> CIVILIAN HEALTH AND MEDICAL PROGRAM OF THE UNIFORMED 
SERVICES (CHAMPUS); TRICARE PHARMACY BENEFITS PROGRAM

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


5 USC 301; 10 USC ch 55


CFR Citation:


32 CFR 199


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule implements several changes enacted by the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (NDAA-07), Pub. 
L. 109-364, and accompanying recommendations of the Conference 
Committee, set forth in H. Conf. Rept. 109-702. Specifically, this rule 
recommends changes to adopt state-of-the-art pharmacy benefit 
management practices to encourage greater use of the TRICARE Mail Order 
Pharmacy (TMOP) Program, generic drugs, formulary drugs, and over-the-
counter (OTC) drugs. The rule would not affect retail pharmacy 
copayment amounts (currently under a statutory cap).


Statement of Need:


This rule implements congressionally directed changes to adopt state-
of-the art pharmacy benefit management practices to encourage greater 
use of the TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy Program (TMOP), generic drugs, 
formulary drugs, and over-the-counter drugs.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rule implements several changes enacted by the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Pub. L. 109-
364, and accompanying recommendations of the Conference Committee, set 
forth in H. Conf. Rept. 109-702. Legal authority includes 10 U.S.C. 
Sec.  1074g.


Alternatives:


The Department is initiating the changes consistent with Congressional 
direction and the recommendations from the Task Force on the Future of 
Military Health Care. Current statutory restrictions, including a cap 
on retail pharmacy co-payments, limit available alternatives.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The rule is part of an overall strategy to encourage the use of value-
based pharmaceutical agents and cost-effective dispensing venues. 
Allowing beneficiaries to receive non-formulary pharmaceutical agents 
through only the TMOP allows the Department to reinforce the 
encouragement to use more cost-effective pharmaceutical agents. The 
overall effect of the rule is expected to be a degree of moderation in 
the rapid growth of the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program.


Risks:


The primary risk this rule seeks to address is what the GAO recently 
called ``the fiscal sustainability of'' DoD's pharmacy benefits 
program. Pharmacy benefits, particularly retail pharmacy benefits, 
represent the segment of the TRICARE program that has experienced the 
most uncontrolled increase in costs. The GAO said retail pharmacy costs 
from FY-2000 to FY-

[[Page 71149]]

2006 rose ``almost ninefold from $455 million to $3.9 billion.'' The 
rule will address this problem, to an extent, by encouraging greater 
use of more cost-effective drugs, particularly formulary drugs, generic 
drugs, and, when appropriate, over-the-counter drugs.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


The TRICARE Retail Pharmacy rule is now being reported as RIN 0720-
AB22.


Agency Contact:
Captain William Blanche
Department of Defense
Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs
1200 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1200
Phone: 703 681-2890
Email: william.blanche@tma.osd.mil
Related RIN: Previously reported as 0720-AB22
RIN: 0720-AB27
_______________________________________________________________________
DOD--DODOASHA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

30. TRICARE: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRICARE PROGRAM AND EMPLOYER-
SPONSORED GROUP HEALTH COVERAGE

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


5 USC 301; 10 USC ch 55


CFR Citation:


32 CFR 199


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, January 8, 2008.


John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
directed the Secretary of Defense to report to the House and Senate 
Armed Services committees on the treatment of cafeteria plans and non-
TRICARE exclusive employer-provided incentives under the Department's 
implementation of section 707 of the Act regarding employer-sponsored 
group health care plans.


Abstract:


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.


Statement of Need:


Section 707 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, directed 
the Department of Defense to establish section 1097c for addition to 
Chapter 55 of title 10, Untied States Code. Section 1097c will act to 
prohibit employers from offering incentives to TRICARE-eligible 
employees not to enroll, or to terminate enrollment, in an employer-
offered Group Health Plan (GHP). Many employers, including state and 
local governments, have begun to offer their employees who are TRICARE 
eligible a TRICARE Supplement as an incentive not to enroll in the 
employer's primary GHP. These actions shift thousands of dollars of 
annual health costs per employee to the Defense Department, draining 
resources from higher national security priorities. This is what 10 
U.S.C. 1097c is designed to stop.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2007, 
directed the Secretary of Defense to report to the House and Senate 
Armed Services committees on the treatment of cafeteria plans and non-
TRICARE exclusive employer-provided incentives under the Department's 
implementation of section 707 of the Act regarding employer sponsored 
group health care plans. As enacted, section 707 added to title 10, 
United States Code, section 1097c, which extends to TRICARE the same 
prohibition on offering financial or other incentives not to enroll in 
a Group Health Plan (GHP) that currently applies to Medicare under 
section 1862(b)(3)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395y(b)(3)(C)).


Alternatives:


This rule complies with a Congressional mandate. No other alternatives 
were developed.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


There are no additional or anticipated Government cost associated with 
prohibiting employers from offering incentives to TRICARE-eligible 
employees not to enroll in an employer-offered GHP. There are no 
additional or anticipated cost for current beneficiaries enrolled in 
TRICARE. Any additional cost associated with this rule will be borne 
entirely by the employers who are currently offering such incentives 
and placing their current health cost on the Defense Department.


Risks:


There is no anticipated risk accompanying this action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/28/08                    73 FR 16612
NPRM Comment Period End         05/27/08
Final Action                    10/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Jody Donehoo
Department of Defense
Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs
1200 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301
Phone: 703 681-0039
RIN: 0720-AB17
_______________________________________________________________________
DOD--DODOASHA
31. TRICARE: OUTPATIENT HOSPITAL PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM (OPPS)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


5 USC 301; 10 USC ch 55


CFR Citation:


32 CFR 199

[[Page 71150]]

Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This 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 this system 
including certain related provisions of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.


Statement of Need:


This final rule implements the TRICARE Hospital Outpatient Prospective 
Payment System (OPPS) as mandated under section 707 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2002 (NDAA-02), Pub. L. 107-
107 (December 28, 2001), changing the statutory authorization in 10 
U.S.C. 1079(j)(2) to provide that TRICARE payment methods for 
institutional care be determined, to the extent practicable, in 
accordance with the same reimbursement rules used by Medicare. Under 
the above Congressional mandate, TRICARE will be paying for hospital 
outpatient services in accordance with the provisions outlined in 
section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act and its implementing 
Medicare regulation (42 CFR Sec.  419).


Summary of Legal Basis:


There is a statutory basis for this final rule: Section 707 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2002 (NDAA-02), Pub. 
L. 107-107.


Alternatives:


This is a statutory change; consequently, no alternatives were 
considered.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Anticipated costs of implementation are $20 million. Anticipated cost-
savings for first full year of implementation are $80 - $90 million.


Risks:


Failure to publish this final rule would result in noncompliance with a 
statutory provision--the NDAA-02/Public Law 107-107.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/01/08                    73 FR 17271
NPRM Comment Period End         06/02/08
Final Action                    12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
David E. Bennett
Department of Defense
Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs
1200 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301
Phone: 303 676-3494
Email: david.bennett@tma.osd.mil
RIN: 0720-AB19
_______________________________________________________________________
DOD--DODOASHA
32. CHAMPUS/TRICARE: INCLUSION OF TRICARE RETAIL PHARMACY PROGRAM IN 
FEDERAL PROCUREMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


5 USC 301; 10 USC ch 55


CFR Citation:


32 CFR 199


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008 (NDAA-08) (Public Law 110-181) states with respect to any 
prescription filled on or after the date of enactment of the NDAA, the 
TRICARE retail pharmacy program (TRRx) shall be treated as an element 
of the DoD for purposes of procurement of drugs by Federal agencies 
under section 8126 of title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.), to the 
extent necessary to ensure pharmaceuticals paid for by the DoD that are 
provided by network retail pharmacies under the program to eligible 
covered beneficiaries are subject to the pricing standards in such 
section 8126. NDAA-08 was enacted on January 28, 2008. The statute 
requires implementing regulations. This proposed rule is to implement 
section 703.


Statement of Need:


This proposed rule implements changes as directed by the enactment of 
NDAA for FY08 (January 28, 2008) 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.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This proposed rule implements Section 703 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (NDAA-08) (Public Law 110-181).


Alternatives:


The Department is initiating the proposed changes consistent with clear 
congressional direction.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This regulation will extend federal ceiling prices (FCP) to eligible 
prescriptions dispensed through the TRICARE retail pharmacy network. 
This change represents hundreds of millions of dollars annually in 
government savings while remaining transparent to beneficiaries and the 
retail pharmacy network. The cost to administer this program is very 
small compared to the cost savings it will generate.


Risks:


This regulation helps to mitigate the long term financial risks 
associated with sustaining the TRICARE pharmacy benefit. By obtaining 
consistent and favorable pricing at the retail, mail, and MTF points of 
service, the overall growth in program costs should slow. Price 
normalization among military treatment facilities, TRICARE Mail Order 
Pharmacy (TMOP), and the TRRx is possible; maintaining a competitive 
Uniform Formulary process mitigates this risk. We believe there is 
sufficient competition among pharmaceutical manufacturers to keep 
acquisition costs low for all points of service available through the 
TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/25/08                    73 FR 43394
NPRM Comment Period End         09/23/08
Final Action                    12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No

[[Page 71151]]

Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Captain William Blanche
Department of Defense
Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs
1200 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1200
Phone: 703 681-2890
Email: william.blanche@tma.osd.mil
RIN: 0720-AB22
BILLING CODE 5001-06-S

[[Page 71152]]

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
General
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. Our roles include 
providing leadership and financial assistance for education to 
agencies, institutions, and individuals in situations in which there is 
a national interest, such as in helping all students to reach grade-
level standards in reading/language arts and mathematics; assisting 
students in their pursuit of postsecondary education; monitoring and 
enforcing the implementation of Federal civil rights laws in programs 
and activities that receive Federal financial assistance; and 
supporting research, evaluation, and dissemination of findings to 
improve the quality of education.
We administer programs that affect nearly every American during his or 
her life. For the 2008-2009 school year, we project that about 50 
million students will attend some 97,000 elementary and secondary 
schools in approximately 14,000 public school districts, and that about 
18.3 million students will enroll in degree-granting postsecondary 
schools.
We have worked effectively with a broad range of interested parties and 
the general public to develop regulations, guidance, technical 
assistance, and approaches to compliance. In developing and 
implementing regulations, we are committed to working closely with 
affected persons and groups, 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.
In particular, we 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 the development of regulations is necessary, 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), a new, electronic single 
Governmentwide access point (www.regulations.gov) that enables the 
public to search, read, download, and submit comments on different 
types of Federal regulatory documents. In the case of our Department, 
this system provides the public with the opportunity to file 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. In addition, FDMS enables the public to read 
comments filed by other members of the public during the public comment 
period and to respond to those comments.
We are continuing our efforts to streamline information collections, 
reduce the burden on information providers involved in our programs, 
and make information maintained by us easily accessible to the public.
No Child Left Behind
We look forward to congressional reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, and to building on the results of its 
most recent reauthorization through the No Child Left Behind Act of 
2001. No Child Left Behind has increased accountability for States, 
school districts, and schools; provided greater choice for parents and 
students, particularly those students attending low-performing schools; 
provided more flexibility for States and local educational agencies in 
the use of Federal education dollars; and placed a stronger emphasis on 
using scientifically based research to guide instruction, especially in 
reading for our youngest children.
As necessary, we intend to amend current regulations to reflect the 
reauthorization of this statute.
Higher Education
The Higher Education Opportunity Act (P.L. 110-135), signed by the 
President on August 14, 2008, amends and extends the Higher Education 
Act of 1965 (HEA). This major piece of legislation made a wide variety 
of changes to the student financial aid and institutional aid programs 
under the HEA, including--
<bullet> Extensive new reporting requirements and consumer disclosures, 
            particularly regarding student loan terms and conditions;
<bullet> A new ``Adjunct Teacher Corps'' that would draw on the skills 
            of well-qualified individuals outside of the public 
            education system to meet specialized teaching needs in 
            secondary schools;
<bullet> A new maintenance-of-effort requirement regarding State 
            funding of higher education;
<bullet> A new appeals process under which TRIO applicants may appeal 
            scoring decisions, and new requirements regarding the 
            methodologies that ED may use to evaluate the Upward Bound 
            and other TRIO programs;
<bullet> The availability of two Pell Grants in one year to students 
            who are attending an institution of higher education year-
            round, and an 18-semester overall limitation on a student's 
            eligibility to receive Pell Grants;
<bullet> Changes undoing ED's regulations regarding mandatory 
            assignment to ED of defaulted Federal Perkins Loans held by 
            institutions that have been unable to collect on those 
            loans for seven or more years;
<bullet> Several time-sensitive corrections to changes made by the 
            Ensuring Continuing Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 
            (P.L. 110-227, ECASLA) to the eligibility and deferment 
            requirements for PLUS Loans, loan limits for unsubsidized 
            student loans, and eligibility requirements for the 
            Academic Competitiveness Grant and National SMART Grant 
            programs; and
<bullet> Changes to the so-called ``90-10'' rule (which requires a 
            proprietary institution of higher education participating 
            in the Title IV student aid programs to derive at least 10 
            percent of its total revenues from non-Title IV sources).
 This legislation also creates more than 60 new programs, many of which 
will require implementing regulations if Congress appropriates funds 
for them.
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. In the coming year we 
will be conducting negotiated rulemaking to implement the law's new 
requirements.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
We plan to issue later this year final regulations that would address 
issues in part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
(IDEA) that were not covered by final regulations issued in August 
2006. We also plan to issue later this year final regulations 
implementing changes to the part C program--the early intervention

[[Page 71153]]

program for infants and toddlers with disabilities -- under the IDEA.
Student Privacy
 In March 2008, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the 
regulations governing education records maintained by educational 
agencies and institutions under section 444 of the General Education 
Provisions Act, which is also known as the Family Educational Rights 
and Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. We plan to issue later this fall 
final regulations addressing several key privacy issues, including 
permissible disclosures of student information in health and safety 
emergencies, disclosures to contractors and other outside parties in 
connection with the outsourcing of institutional services and 
functions, and redisclosures by State and Federal officials.
Other Potential Regulatory Activities
Congress is considering legislation to reauthorize the Adult Education 
and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) (Title II of the Workforce Investment 
Act of 1998)--including the National Institute for Literacy--and the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Administration is working with Congress 
to ensure that any changes to these laws improve and streamline 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 that they 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.
During the coming year, other regulations may be necessitated by 
legislation or programmatic experience. In developing and promulgating 
any additional regulations we will be guided by the following 
Principles for Regulating:
Principles for Regulating
Our Principles for Regulating 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 any regulations or with 
only limited regulations.
We will regulate only if regulating improves the quality and equality 
of services to our customers. We will regulate only if absolutely 
necessary and then in the most flexible, most equitable, and least 
burdensome way possible.
In deciding when to regulate, we consider:
<bullet> Whether regulations are essential to promote quality and 
            equality of opportunity in education.
<bullet> Whether a demonstrated problem cannot be resolved without 
            regulation.
<bullet> Whether regulations are necessary to provide a legally binding 
            interpretation to resolve ambiguity.
<bullet> Whether entities or situations to be regulated are so diverse 
            that a uniform approach through regulation does more harm 
            than good.
In deciding how to regulate, we are mindful of the following 
principles:
<bullet> Regulate no more than necessary.
<bullet> Minimize burden to the extent possible, and promote multiple 
            approaches to meeting statutory requirements when possible.
<bullet> Encourage federally funded activities to be coordinated with 
            State and local reform activities.
<bullet> Ensure that benefits justify costs of regulation.
<bullet> To the extent possible, establish performance objectives 
            rather than specify compliance behavior.
<bullet> Encourage flexibility to the extent possible so institutional 
            forces and incentives achieve desired results.
_______________________________________________________________________
ED--Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

33. <bullet> TITLE IV AND TITLE II OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965, 
AS AMENDED

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


20 USC 1098a


CFR Citation:


34 CFR Chapter VI


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Secretary will propose regulations to implement the student 
financial aid and other provisions of Title IV, and possibly Title II, 
of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Higher Education 
Opportunity Act of 2008, P.L. 110-315.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are needed to implement certain provisions of the 
Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, P.L. 110-315, which amended 
the Higher Education Act of 1965.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These regulations are proposed to implement provisions of the Higher 
Education Opportunity Act of 2008, P.L. 110-315.


Alternatives:


To be determined.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


To be determined.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
David Bergeron
Department of Education
Office of Postsecondary Education
Room 8022
1990 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202 502-7815
RIN: 1840-AC95
BILLING CODE 4000-01-S

[[Page 71154]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The Department of Energy (Department or DOE) makes vital contributions 
to the Nation's welfare through its activities focused on improving 
national security, energy supply, energy efficiency, environmental 
remediation, and energy research. The Department's mission is to:
<bullet> Promote dependable, affordable and environmentally sound 
            production and distribution of energy;
<bullet> Foster energy efficiency and conservation;
<bullet> Provide responsible stewardship of the Nation's nuclear 
            weapons;
<bullet> Clean up the Department's sites and facilities, which include 
            sites dating back to the Manhattan Project;
<bullet> Lead in the physical sciences and advance the biological, 
            environmental and computational sciences; and
<bullet> Provide premier instruments of science for the Nation's 
            research enterprise.
The Department's regulatory activities are essential to achieving its 
critical mission and to implementing major initiatives of the 
President's National Energy Policy. Among other things, the Regulatory 
Plan (Plan) and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions (Agenda) contain the rulemakings the Department 
will be engaged in during the coming year to fulfill the Department's 
commitment to meeting deadlines for issuance of energy conservation 
standards and related test procedures. The Plan and Agenda also reflect 
the Department's continuing commitment to cut costs, reduce regulatory 
burden, and increase responsiveness to the public.
Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial 
Equipment
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) requires DOE to set 
energy efficiency standards for residential appliances and commercial 
equipment at levels that achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that is both technologically feasible and economically 
justified. Standards already in place for residential products are 
expected to save consumers nearly $93 billion by 2020, and to save 
enough energy to operate all U.S. homes for approximately two years.
On January 31, 2006, the Department released a schedule for setting new 
energy efficiency standards that will save American consumers billions 
of dollars in energy costs. The five-year plan outlined how DOE would 
address the energy efficiency standards rulemaking backlog and meet the 
statutory requirements established in EPCA and the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 (EPACT 2005). The 2006 plan has been updated to address energy 
efficiency standards requirements included in the Energy Independence 
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). The plan provides for the 
issuance of one rulemaking for each of the 18 products in the backlog. 
The plan also provides for setting energy efficiency standards for 
products required under EPACT 2005 and EISA 2007.
The overall plan for implementing the schedule is contained in the 
periodic Report to Congress required under section 141 of EPACT 2005. 
The plan was last updated in August 2008. All of the reports are posted 
at:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance--standards/schedule--
setting.html.
The report identifies all products for which DOE has missed the 
deadlines established in EPCA (42 U.S.C. Sec.  6291 et seq.) and the 
Department's plan for expeditiously prescribing new or amended 
standards. Information and timetables concerning these actions can also 
be found in the Department's Agenda, which is posted online at: 
www.reginfo.gov.
Estimate of Combined Aggregate Costs and Benefits
The regulatory action on energy efficiency standards for fluorescent 
and incandescent reflector lamps is in the early stages of rulemaking, 
and the Department has not yet proposed candidate standards levels for 
the covered products or equipment. Consequently, DOE cannot provide an 
estimate of combined aggregate costs and benefits for these actions. 
However, and in compliance with law, the Department will issue 
standards that provide the maximum energy savings that are 
technologically feasible and economically justified. Estimates of 
energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the notice of proposed 
rulemaking. The notice of proposed rulemaking for commercial 
refrigeration equipment contains standard levels that, if adopted, 
would result in energy savings of .83 quadrillion BTUs (quads) of 
energy over the course of 30 years (73 FR 50071). The standard levels 
for residential electric and gas ranges and ovens, microwave ovens, and 
commercial clothes washers, set forth in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking (73 FR 62034), if adopted, would result in energy savings of 
.75 quads over 30 years.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

34. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR FLUORESCENT AND INCANDESCENT 
REFLECTOR LAMPS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 6295(i)(1), (3) and (5)


CFR Citation:


10 CFR 430.32


Legal Deadline:


Final, Judicial, June 30, 2009.


Abstract:


The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, establishes 
initial energy efficiency standard levels for fluorescent lamps and 
incandescent reflector lamps. EPCA also requires DOE to undertake two 
subsequent rulemakings to determine whether the standard for a covered 
product should be amended. This is the first review of the standards 
for fluorescent and incandescent lamps. Previously, this rulemaking had 
considered energy conservation standards for general service 
incandescent lamps, however the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007 established standard levels for general service incandescent lamps 
and modified spectrum general service incandescent lamps which take 
effect between 2012 and 2014. DOE is therefore no longer considering 
these lamps in this rulemaking.


Statement of Need:


The Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires minimum energy 
efficiency standards for appliances, which has the effect of 
eliminating inefficient appliances and equipment from the market.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The EPCA, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, establishes 
initial

[[Page 71155]]

energy efficiency standard levels for fluorescent lamps and 
incandescent reflector lamps. The EPCA also requires DOE to undertake 
two subsequent rulemakings to determine whether the standard for a 
covered product should be amended.


Alternatives:


The statute requires the Department to conduct rulemakings to review 
standards and to revise standards to achieve the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. In making this determination, the 
Department conducts a thorough analysis of the alternative standard 
levels, including the existing standard, based on the criteria 
specified by the statute.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


More efficient lamps may be more costly to purchase initially but will 
be economically justified over the life of the lamps. Benefits that may 
result from higher efficiency standards for these lighting products 
include significant energy savings along with a reduction in 
environmental impacts. The specific costs and benefits have not been 
established because DOE is still in the early stages of the rulemaking 
and has not yet proposed a standard level. Estimates of energy savings 
will be provided when the DOE issues the notice of proposed rulemaking 
for this regulatory action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: Public Meeting, 
    Framework Document 
    Availability                05/31/06                    71 FR 30834
ANPRM                           03/13/08                    73 FR 13620
ANPRM Comment Period End        04/14/08
NPRM                            11/00/08
Final Action                    06/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Additional Information:


The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 prescribes standards 
for general service incandescent lamps. Because standards are now in 
place for these products, they have been removed from this rulemaking.


Agency Contact:
Linda Graves
Office of Building Technologies Program, EE-2J
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-1851
Email: linda.graves@ee.doe.gov
Related RIN: Related to 1904-AB72
RIN: 1904-AA92
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--EE

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

35. ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC AND GAS 
RANGES AND OVENS AND MICROWAVE OVENS, AND COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 6295(g) to (h)(cc); 42 USC 6313(e)


CFR Citation:


10 CFR 430; 10 CFR 431


Legal Deadline:


Final, Judicial, March 31, 2009.


Abstract:


The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, establishes 
initial energy efficiency standard levels for many types of major 
residential appliances and generally requires DOE to undertake two 
subsequent rulemakings, at specified times, to determine whether the 
extant standard for a covered product should be amended. Through this 
combined rulemaking, the Department is evaluating potential amendments 
to update the current energy efficiency standards for residential 
electric and gas ranges and ovens (including a new provision specific 
to microwave ovens) and is also considering establishing energy 
efficiency standards for commercial clothes washers, as required by the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005, which further amended EPCA. Previously, this 
rulemaking also included dishwashers and dehumidifiers. Because the 
Energy Independence Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) prescribed standards for 
dishwashers and dehumidifiers, they have been removed from the 
rulemaking.


Statement of Need:


EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency standards for appliances, which 
has the effect of eliminating inefficient appliances and equipment from 
the market.


Summary of Legal Basis:


EPCA establishes initial energy efficiency standards for most types of 
major residential appliances and certain commercial equipment. EPCA 
generally requires DOE to subsequently undertake rulemaking, at 
specified times, to determine whether the standard for a covered 
product should be made more stringent. Pursuant to EPCA, the Department 
has conducted prior energy efficiency standards rulemakings for 
residential electric and gas ranges and ovens, as well as dishwashers. 
In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended EPCA to authorize 
the Department to establish standards for energy (and water, where 
appropriate) used in the operation of dehumidifiers and commercial 
clothes washers, as well as to authorize the Department to conduct 
rulemakings to assess whether higher standards are appropriate.


Alternatives:


The statute requires the Department to conduct rulemakings to review 
standards and to revise standards to achieve the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. In making this determination, the 
Department conducts a thorough analysis of the alternative standard 
levels, including the existing standard, based on the criteria 
specified by statute.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The standard levels for residential electric and gas ranges and ovens, 
microwave ovens, and commercial clothes washers set forth in the notice 
of proposed rulemaking, if adopted, would result in energy savings of 
.75 quadrillion BTUs of energy (quads) over 30 years.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: Public Meeting, 
    Framework Document 
    Availability                03/27/06                    71 FR 15059
ANPRM                           11/15/07                    72 FR 64432
ANPRM Comment Period End        01/29/08

[[Page 71156]]

NPRM                            10/17/08                    73 FR 62033
NPRM Comment Period End         12/16/08
Final Action                    03/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Additional Information:


EISA of 2007 prescribes standards for both dehumidifiers and 
dishwashers. Because standards are now in place for these products, 
they have been removed from this rulemaking.


Agency Contact:
Stephen Witkowski
Office of Building Technologies Program, EE-2J
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-7463
Email: stephen.witkowski@ee.doe.gov
Related RIN: Related to 1904-AB78
RIN: 1904-AB49
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--EE
36. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 6313(c)(4)(A)


CFR Citation:


10 CFR 431


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, January 1, 2009.


Abstract:


The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) amendments to the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) require that DOE establish standards 
for ice cream freezers; self-contained commercial refrigerators, 
freezers, and refrigerator-freezers without doors; and remote-
condensing commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-
freezers.


Statement of Need:


EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency standards for appliances, which 
has the effect of eliminating inefficient appliances and equipment from 
the market.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The EPACT 2005 amendments to EPCA authorize DOE to establish energy 
conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment.


Alternatives:


The statute requires the Department to conduct rulemakings to review 
standards and to revise standards to achieve the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. In making this determination, the 
Department conducts a thorough analysis of the alternative standard 
levels, including the existing standard, based on the criteria 
specified by statute.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The commercial refrigeration equipment standard levels set forth in the 
notice of proposed rulemaking, if adopted, would result in energy 
savings of .83 quadrillion BTUs of energy (quads) over 30 years.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: Public Meeting, 
    Framework Document 
    Availabiltiy                04/25/06                    71 FR 23876
ANPRM                           07/26/07                    72 FR 41162
ANPRM Comment Period End        10/09/07
NPRM                            08/25/08                    73 FR 50071
NPRM Comment Period End         10/24/08
Final Action                    01/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


URL For More Information:
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance--standards/commercial/
refrigeration--equipment.html

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Charles Llenza
Office of Building Technologies Program, EE-2J
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-2192
Email: charles.llenza@ee.doe.gov
RIN: 1904-AB59
BILLING CODE 6450-01-S

[[Page 71157]]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the Federal 
Government's principal agency for protecting the health of all 
Americans and providing essential human services. HHS responsibilities 
include: Medicare, Medicaid, support for public health preparedness, 
biomedical research, substance abuse and mental health treatment and 
prevention, assurance of safe and effective drugs and other medical 
products, food safety, financial assistance to low income families, the 
Head Start program, services to older Americans, and direct health 
services delivery.
The HHS budget constitutes almost a quarter of all Federal outlays, and 
the Department administers more grant dollars than all other Federal 
agencies combined. The Medicare program is the Nation's largest health 
insurer, handling more than 1 billion claims per year. Medicare, 
Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) 
together provide health care to more than 92 million beneficiaries, or 
almost one in three Americans.
HHS works closely with State and local governments. Many HHS-funded 
services are provided at the local level by State or county agencies, 
or through private sector grantees. The Department's 300 programs are 
administered by 11 Operating Divisions.
Since assuming the leadership of HHS, Secretary Michael O. Leavitt has 
consistently sought to make transparent his approach to overseeing the 
Department's programs. His current statement of the Department's 
priorities is available for public review at http://www.hhs.gov/
secretary/ priorities/index. The regulatory actions noted below reflect 
this policy framework.
Food Safety - Secretary Leavitt recently chaired the Interagency 
Working Group on Import Safety established by the President. The final 
report of the Working Group is accessible at: http://
www.importsafety.gov/report/actionupdate/actionplanupdate.pdf. 
Reflecting the importance of the Nation's effort to strengthen import 
regulatory and inspection systems, the Plan includes:
<bullet> a final rule completing the rulemaking process requiring that 
            the Food and Drug Administration be notified prior to the 
            entry of imported food into the United States; and
<bullet> a final rule designed to have significant effect in reducing 
            the risk of mortality and morbidity from salmonella-
            contaminated eggs.
Healthier US Initiative - The Secretary's priorities include emphasis 
on disease prevention and the need for individual responsibility for 
personal wellness. His HealthierUS initiative is a national effort to 
prevent and reduce the costs of disease, and promote community health 
and wellness. The Plan accordingly includes a final rule amending 
existing regulations governing investigational new drugs - the rule 
would delineate new avenues of access for patients to obtain such 
therapies on an individual basis. The Plan also includes a final rule 
to establish a multi-tiered illness detection and response process for 
communicable diseases, enhancing the Nation's public health prevention 
capacity.
Medicare Modernization - The Secretary's statement of priorities 
includes a focus on Medicare modernization. The Regulatory Plan, 
accordingly, highlights final rules establishing annual adjustments in 
payment amounts under Medicare for physicians' services and for 
hospital outpatient services for calendar year 2010; and for hospital 
inpatient services for fiscal year 2010.
Health Information Technology - The Secretary's strategy for reforming 
the Nation's health sector stresses maximum use of electronic 
information technology. The FY 2009 Regulatory Plan accordingly 
includes proposals: (1) to require medical-device firms to register 
electronically with the FDA; and (2) electronically to report to FDA 
post-marketing information about approved devices.
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

37. CONTROL OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES FOREIGN QUARANTINE

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Legal Authority:


Not Yet Determined


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 70 and 71


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


By statute, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has broad 
authority to prevent introduction, transmission, and spread of 
communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and 
from one State or possession into another. Quarantine regulations are 
divided into two parts: Part 71 dealing with foreign arrivals and part 
70 dealing with interstate matters. This rule (42 CFR part 71) will 
update and improve CDC's response to both global and domestic disease 
threats by creating a multi-tiered illness detection and response 
process thus substantially enhancing the public health system's ability 
to slow the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable. The 
rule will also modify current Federal regulations governing the 
apprehension, quarantinable disease, while respecting individual 
autonomy.


CDC maintains quarantine stations at 20 ports of entry staffed with 
medical and public health officers who respond to reports of diseases 
from carriers. According to the statutory scheme, the President 
determines through Executive order which diseases may subject 
individuals to quarantine. The current disease list, which was last 
updated in April 2005, includes cholera, diphtheria, tuberculosis, 
plague, smallpox, yellow fever, viral hemorrhagic fevers, severe acute 
respiratory syndrome (SARS), and influenza caused by novel or re-
emergent influenza viruses that are causing, or have the potential to 
cause a pandemic.


Statement of Need:


The quarantine or isolation of persons believed to be infected with or 
exposed to a communicable disease are public health prevention measures 
that have been used effectively to contain the spread of disease. As 
diseases evolve due to natural occurrences or man-made events, it is 
important to ensure that prevention procedures reflect new threats and 
uniform ways to contain them. Recent experiences with emerging 
infectious diseases such as West Nile Virus, SARS, and monkeypox have 
illustrated both the

[[Page 71158]]

rapidity with which disease may spread throughout the world and the 
impact that communicable diseases, when left unchecked, may have on the 
global economy. Stopping an outbreak--whether it is naturally occurring 
or intentionally caused--requires the use of the most rapid and 
effective public health tools available. Two of these tools are 
isolation and quarantine. Isolation refers to the separation or 
restriction of movement of ill persons with an infectious disease in 
order to prevent transmission to those who are not ill. Quarantine 
refers to the separation and restriction of movement of persons who, 
while not yet ill, have been exposed to an infectious agent and 
therefore may become infectious. Isolation and quarantine of ill and 
exposed persons may be one of the best initial strategies to prevent 
the uncontrolled spread of highly dangerous biologic agents--especially 
when combined with other health strategies such as vaccination, 
prophylactic drug treatment, and other appropriate infection control 
measures.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These regulations would be proposed under the authority of 25 U.S.C. 
198, 231, 2001; 42 U.S.C. 243, 264 to 271. In addition, section 361(b) 
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264(b)) authorizes the 
``apprehension, detention, or conditional release'' of persons to 
prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of specified 
communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and 
from one State or possession into another. Among other public health 
powers, the lawful ability to inspect property, to medically examine 
and monitor persons, and to detain or quarantine exists in current 
regulations. Acknowledging the critical importance of protecting the 
public's health, long-standing court decisions uphold the ability of 
Congress and State legislatures to enact quarantine and other public 
health laws and to have them executed by public health officials.


Alternatives:


These regulations are necessary to ensure that HHS has the tools it 
needs to respond to public health emergencies and disease threats. Any 
less stringent alternatives would prevent the Department from the most 
effective possible pursuit of this objective.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The primary cost impact of the proposed rule would be data collection, 
transmission, storage and retrieval, and costs associated with contact 
tracing. The benefits of this rule will offer procedures that more 
completely describe the 21st century implementation of disease 
containment measures such as isolation and quarantine. These procedures 
are expected to expedite and improve CDC operations by allowing 
immediate medical follow-up of potentially infected passengers and 
their contacts. The benefits of the rule would be measured in terms of 
the number of deaths and illnesses prevented by rapid intervention.


Risks:


Failure to move forward with this rulemaking would hinder the Nation's 
ability to use the most rapid and effective public health tools 
available when responding to public health emergencies and disease 
threats.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/30/05                    70 FR 71892
Final Action                    04/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Stacy Howard
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CLFT Building 16, Room 4324
MS E03
Atlanta, GA 30329
Phone: 404 718-1056
RIN: 0920-AA12
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

38. MEDICAL DEVICE REPORTING; ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


21 USC 352; 21 USC 360; 21 USC 360i; 21 USC 360j; 21 USC 371; 21 USC 
374


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 803


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to amend its 
postmarket medical device reporting regulations to require that 
manufacturers, importers, and user facilities submit mandatory reports 
of medical device adverse events to the agency in an electronic format 
that FDA can process, review, and archive. FDA is taking this action to 
improve the Agency's systems for collecting and analyzing postmarketing 
safety reports. The proposed change would help the Agency to more 
quickly review safety reports and identify emerging public health 
issues.


Statement of Need:


The proposed rule would require user facilities and medical device 
manufacturers and importers to submit medical device adverse event 
reports in electronic format instead of using a paper form. FDA is 
taking this action to improve its adverse event reporting program by 
enabling it to more quickly receive and process these reports.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Agency has legal authority under section 519 of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require adverse event reports. The proposed 
rule would require manufacturers, importers, and user facilities to 
change their procedures to send reports of medical device adverse 
events to FDA in electronic format instead of using a hard copy form.


Alternatives:


The alternatives to this rulemaking include not updating the medical 
device reporting requirements and not requiring submission of this 
information in electronic format. For over 20 years, medical device 
manufacturers, importers, and user facilities have sent adverse event 
reports to FDA on paper forms. Processing paper forms is a time 
consuming and expensive process. FDA believes this rulemaking is the 
preferable alternative.

[[Page 71159]]

Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The principal benefit would be to public health because the increased 
speed in the processing and analysis of the more than 200,000 medical 
device reports currently submitted annually on paper. In addition, 
requiring electronic submission would reduce FDA annual operating costs 
by $1.25 million.


The total one-time cost for modifying SOPs and establishing electronic 
submission capabilities is estimated to range from $58.6 million to 
$79.7 million. Annually recurring costs totaled $8.5 million and 
included maintenance of electronic submission capabilities, including 
renewing the electronic certificate, and for some firms the incremental 
cost to maintain high-speed internet access.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Agency Contact:
Myrna Hanna
Regulations Staff
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-215)
1350 Piccard Drive
PI50 RM150F
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: 240 276-2347
Fax: 240 276-2352
Email: myrna.hanna@fda.hhs.gov
RIN: 0910-AF86
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA
39. ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION AND LISTING FOR DEVICES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 107-188, sec 321; 21 USC 360(a) to 360(j); 21 USC 360(p)


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 807


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


FDA is proposing to amend the medical device establishment registration 
and listing requirements under 21 CFR part 807 to reflect the 
requirements in section 321 of the Public Health Security and 
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (BT Act) and section 
510(p) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act). Section 
510(p) was added to the act by section 207 of the Medical Device User 
Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (MDUFMA), and later amended by 
section 224 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 
(FDAAA). This proposed rule would require domestic and foreign device 
establishments to submit registration and listing data electronically 
via the Internet using FDA's Unified Registration and Listing System. 
This proposed rule would convert registration and listing to a 
paperless process. However, for those companies that do not have access 
to the Web, FDA would offer an avenue by which they can register, list, 
and update information with a paper submission. The proposed rule also 
would amend part 807 to reflect the timeframes for device establishment 
registration and listing established by sections 222 and 223 of FDAAA.


Statement of Need:


FDA is proposing to amend the medical device establishment registration 
and listing requirements under 21 CFR part 807 to reflect the 
requirements in section 321 of the the BT Act and section 510(p) of the 
act, which was added by section 207 of MDUFMA and later amended by 
section 224 of FDAAA. This proposed rule would improve FDA's device 
establishment registration and listing system and utilize the latest 
technology in the collection of this information.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The statutory basis for our authority includes sections 510(a) through 
(j), 510(p), 701, 801, and 903 of the act.


Alternatives:


The alternatives to this rulemaking include not updating the 
registration and listing regulations and not requiring the electronic 
submission of registration and listing information. Because of the new 
statutory requirements, and the advances in data collection and 
transmission technology, FDA believes this rulemaking is the preferable 
alternative to the paper system currently in place.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Agency believes that there may be some one-time costs associated 
with the rulemaking, which involve resource costs of familiarizing 
users with the electronic system. Recurring costs related to submission 
of the information by domestic firms would probably remain the same or 
decrease because a paper submission and postage is not required. There 
might be some increase in the financial burden on foreign firms since 
they will have to supply additional registration information as 
required by section 321 of the BT Act.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Agency Contact:
Myrna Hanna
Regulations Staff
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-215)
1350 Piccard Drive
PI50 RM150F
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: 240 276-2347
Fax: 240 276-2352
Email: myrna.hanna@fda.hhs.gov
RIN: 0910-AF88

[[Page 71160]]

_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

40. PREVENTION OF SALMONELLA ENTERITIDIS IN SHELL EGGS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Legal Authority:


21 USC 321; 21 USC 342; 21 USC 371; 21 USC 381; 21 USC 393; 42 USC 243; 
42 USC 264; 42 USC 271; . . .


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 16; 21 CFR 116; 21 CFR 118


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Publication of this final rule is an action item in the Food Protection 
Plan announced by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 
November 2007.


In July 1999, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Food 
Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) committed to developing an action plan 
to address the presence of Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) in shell eggs 
and egg products using a farm-to-table approach. FDA and FSIS held a 
public meeting on August 26, 1999, to obtain stakeholder input on the 
draft goals, as well as to further develop the objectives and action 
items for the action plan. The Egg Safety Action Plan was announced on 
December 11, 1999. The goal of the Action Plan is to reduce egg-related 
SE illnesses by 50 percent by 2005 and eliminate egg-related SE 
illnesses by 2010. The Egg Safety Action Plan consists of eight 
objectives covering all stages of the farm-to-table continuum as well 
as support functions. On March 30, 2000 (Columbus, OH), April 6, 2000 
(Sacramento, CA), and July 31, 2000 (Washington, DC), joint public 
meetings were held by FDA and FSIS to solicit and discuss information 
related to the implementation of the objectives in the Egg Safety 
Action Plan.


On September 22, 2004, FDA published a proposed rule that would require 
egg safety measures to prevent the contamination of shell eggs with SE 
during egg production. The proposal also solicited comment on whether 
recordkeeping requirements should include a written SE prevention plan 
and records for compliance with the SE prevention measures, and whether 
safe egg handling and preparation practices should be mandated for 
retail establishments that specifically serve a highly susceptible 
population (e.g., nursing homes, hospitals, day care centers). The 
proposed egg production SE prevention measures included: (1) Provisions 
for procurement of chicks and pullets; (2) a biosecurity program; (3) a 
rodent and pest control program; (4) cleaning and disinfection of 
poultry houses that have had an environmental or egg test positive for 
SE; (5) egg testing when an environmental test is positive; and (6) 
refrigerated storage of eggs held at the farm. Additionally, to verify 
that the measures have been effective, the rule proposes that producers 
test the poultry house environment for SE. If the environmental test is 
positive, eggs from that environment must be tested for SE, and if the 
egg test is positive, the eggs must be diverted to egg products 
processing or a treatment process that achieves at least a five-log 
destruction of SE.


The proposed rule was a step in a broader farm-to-table egg safety 
effort that includes FDA's requirements for safe handling statements on 
egg cartons, and refrigerated storage of shell eggs at retail, and egg 
safety education for consumers and retail establishments. The rule had 
a 90-day comment period, which ended December 21, 2004. To discuss the 
proposed rule and solicit comments from interested stakeholders, FDA 
held three public meetings: October 28, 2004, in College Park, MD; 
November 9, 2004, in Chicago, IL; and November 16, 2004, in Los 
Angeles, CA. The comment period was reopened until July 25, 2005, to 
solicit further comment and information on industry practices and 
programs that prevent SE-monitored chicks from becoming infected by SE 
during the period of pullet rearing until placement into laying hen 
houses.


Statement of Need:


FDA proposed regulations as part of the farm-to-table safety system for 
eggs outlined by the President's Council on Food Safety in its Egg 
Safety Action Plan. FDA intends to publish a final egg safety rule 
because of the continued reports of outbreaks of foodborne illness and 
death caused by SE that are associated with the consumption of shell 
eggs. The agency believes that this rule, when final, will have 
significant effect in reducing the risk of illness from SE-contaminated 
eggs and will contribute significantly to the interim public health 
goal of a 50 percent reduction in egg-related SE illness.


Summary of Legal Basis:


FDA's legal basis derives in part from sections 402(a)(4) and 701(a) of 
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) ((21 U.S.C. 
342(a)(4) and 371(a)). Under section 402(a)(4) of the Act, a food is 
adulterated if it is prepared, packed, or held in insanitary conditions 
whereby it may have been contaminated with filth or may have been 
rendered injurious to health. Under section 701(a) of the Act, FDA is 
authorized to issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of the 
Act. FDA's legal basis also derives from section 361 of the Public 
Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 264), which gives FDA authority 
to promulgate regulations to control the spread of communicable 
disease.


Alternatives:


There are several alternatives that the Agency considered in the 
proposed rule. The principal alternatives included: (1) No new 
regulatory action; (2) alternative testing requirements; (3) 
alternative on-farm prevention measures; (4) alternative retail 
requirements; and (5) HACCP.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The benefits from a final regulation to control Salmonella enteritidis 
in shell eggs derive from improved practices that reduce contamination 
and generate benefits measured as the value of the human illnesses 
prevented. FDA has produced estimates of costs and benefits for a 
number of options. The mitigations considered include on-farm rodent 
control, changes in retail food preparation practices, diversion of 
eggs from infected flocks to pasteurization, recordkeeping, 
refrigeration, and feed testing. The actual costs and benefits of the 
final rule will depend upon the set of mitigations chosen and the set 
of entities covered.


Risks:


The potential for contamination of eggs with SE and its subsequent 
survival or growth must be considered a very serious risk because of 
the possibility that such contamination, survival, and growth could 
cause widespread foodborne illness, including some severe long-term 
effects and even loss of life. FDA's decision to publish a

[[Page 71161]]

final rule to reduce this risk of SE contamination of shell eggs is 
based on a considerable body of evidence, literature, and expertise in 
this area. In addition, this decision was also based on the USDA risk 
assessment on SE in shell eggs and egg products and the identified 
public health benefits associated with controlling SE in eggs at the 
farm and retail levels.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/22/04                    69 FR 56824
NPRM Comment Period End         12/21/04
NPRM Reopened Comment 
    Period End                  06/09/05                    70 FR 24490
NPRM Extension of 
    Reopened Comment 
    Period End                  07/25/05                    70 FR 33404
Final Action                    04/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State


Federalism:


 This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.


Agency Contact:
John F. Sheehan
Director
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Division of Plant and Dairy Food Safety (HFS-315)
Room 3B-012
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 20740
Phone: 301 436-2367
Fax: 301 436-2632
Email: john.sheehan@fda.hhs.gov
RIN: 0910-AC14
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA
41. EXPANDED ACCESS TO INVESTIGATIONAL DRUGS FOR TREATMENT USE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


21 USC 355; 21 USC 360bbb; 21 USC 371; 42 USC 262


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 312.42; 21 CFR 312.300; 21 CFR 312.305; 21 CFR 312.310; 21 CFR 
312.315; 21 CFR 312.320


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food and Drug Administration proposed in the Federal Register of 
December 14, 2006 (75 FR 75147), to amend the regulations governing 
investigational new drugs (IND) to describe the ways patients may 
obtain investigational drugs for treatment use under expanded access 
programs. Such use of investigational drugs would be available to: (1) 
Individual patients, including in emergencies; (2) intermediate-size 
patient populations; and (3) larger populations under a treatment 
protocol or treatment IND.


Statement of Need:


The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 
(Modernization Act) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(the Act) to include specific provisions concerning expanded access to 
investigational drugs for treatment use. In particular, section 561(b) 
of the Act permits any person, acting through a licensed physician, to 
request access to an investigational drug to diagnose, monitor, or 
treat a serious disease or condition provided that a number of 
conditions are met. The rule is needed to incorporate into FDA's 
regulations this and other provisions of the Modernization Act 
concerning access to investigational drugs.


In addition, the agency seeks to increase awareness and knowledge of 
expanded access programs and the procedures for obtaining 
investigational drugs for treatment use. The rule will assist in 
achieving this goal by describing in detail the criteria, submission 
requirements, and safeguards applicable to different types of treatment 
uses.


Summary of Legal Basis:


FDA has the authority to impose requirements concerning the treatment 
use of investigational drugs under various sections of the Act, 
including sections 505(i), 561, and 701(a) (21 U.S.C. 355(i), 360bbb, 
and 371(a)).


Section 505(i) of the Act directs the Secretary to promulgate 
regulations exempting from the operation of the new drug approval 
requirements drugs intended solely for investigational use by experts 
qualified by scientific training and expertise to investigate the 
safety and effectiveness of drugs. The rule explains procedures and 
criteria for obtaining FDA authorization for treatment uses of 
investigational drugs.


The Modernization Act provides significant additional authority for 
this rulemaking. Section 561(a) states that the Secretary may, under 
appropriate conditions determined by the Secretary, authorize the 
shipment of investigational drugs for the diagnosis, monitoring, or 
treatment of a serious disease or condition in emergency situations. 
Section 561(b) allows any person, acting through a physician licensed 
in accordance with State law, to request from a manufacturer or 
distributor an investigational drug for the diagnosis, monitoring, or 
treatment of a serious disease or condition if certain conditions are 
met. Section 561(c) closely tracks FDA's existing regulation at 21 CFR 
part 312.34 providing for treatment use by large patient populations 
under a treatment protocol or treatment IND if a number of conditions 
are met.


Section 701(a) provides the Secretary with the general authority to 
promulgate regulations for the efficient enforcement of the Act. By 
clarifying the criteria and procedures relating to treatment use of 
investigational products, this rule is expected to aid in the efficient 
enforcement of the Act.


Alternatives:


One alternative to this rulemaking that FDA considered was not to 
promulgate regulations implementing the expanded access provisions of 
the Modernization Act. However, the agency believes that promulgating 
regulations would further improve the availability of investigational 
drugs for treatment use by providing clear direction to sponsors, 
patients, and licensed physicians about the criteria for authorizing 
treatment use and what information must be submitted to FDA.


Another alternative FDA considered was a regulation describing only 
individual patient and large scale expanded access criteria. However, 
the agency concluded that it would be preferable to have a third 
category of expanded access for intermediate-size patient populations.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FDA expects that the costs of the rule will range from a low of about 
$109,350 to $218,700 in the first year following implementation of the 
final rule, to a high of about $325,500 to $567,825 in the fourth and 
fifth years. These

[[Page 71162]]

estimates suggest that total annual costs for the rule would be between 
$1.2 million and $2.2 million for the 5-year period following 
implementation of the final rule. The agency also expects that the 
estimated incremental cost burdens associated with this rule are likely 
to be widely dispersed among affected entities.


The benefits of the rule are expected to result from improved patient 
access to investigational drugs generally and from treatment use being 
made available for a broader variety of disease conditions and 
treatment settings. In particular, the clarification of eligibility 
criteria and submission requirements would enhance patient access by 
easing the administrative burdens on individual physicians seeking 
investigational drugs for their patients and on sponsors who make 
investigational drugs available for treatment use.


Risks:


The agency foresees no risks associated with the rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/14/06                    71 FR 75147
NPRM Comment Period End         03/14/07
Final Action                    11/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Elena N. Cohen
Regulatory Counsel
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
10903 New Hampshire Ave.
Bldg. 51, Room 6356
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002
Phone: 301 796-3602
Fax: 301 847-8440
Email: elena.cohen@fda.hhs.gov
RIN: 0910-AF14
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

42. <bullet> CHANGES TO THE HOSPITAL INPATIENT PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT 
SYSTEM FOR FY 2010 (CMS-1406-P)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


Sec 1886(d) of the Social Security Act


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 412


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 2009.


Final, Statutory, August 1, 2009.


Abstract:


This major rule proposes to revise the Medicare hospital inpatient 
prospective payment systems (IPPS) for operating and capital-related 
costs to implement changes arising from our continuing experience with 
these systems.


Statement of Need:


CMS annually revises the Medicare hospital inpatient prospective 
payment systems (IPPS) for operating and capital-related costs to 
implement changes arising from our continuing experience with these 
systems. In addition, we describe the proposed changes to the amounts 
and factors used to determine the rates for Medicare hospital inpatient 
services for operating costs and capital-related costs. The proposed 
rule solicits comments on the proposed IPPS payment rates and new 
policies. CMS will issue a final rule containing the payment rates for 
the 2010 IPPS at least 60 days before October 1, 2009.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Social Security Act (the Act) sets forth a system of payment for 
the operating costs of acute care hospital inpatient stays under 
Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) based on prospectively set rates. 
The Act requires the Secretary to pay for the capital-related costs of 
hospital inpatient stays under a prospective payment system (PPS). 
Under these PPSs, Medicare payment for hospital inpatient operating and 
capital-related costs is made at predetermined, specific rates for each 
hospital discharge. These changes would be applicable to services 
furnished on or after October 1, 2009.


Alternatives:


None. This is a statutory requirement.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Total expenditures will be adjusted for FY 2010.


Risks:


If this regulation is not published timely, inpatient hospital services 
will not be paid appropriately beginning October 1, 2009.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Tiffany Swygert
Health Insurance Specialist
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Div of Acute Care, Hosp and Ambulatory Policy Group
Mailstop C4-25-11
7500 Security Blvd
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-4642
Email: tiffany.swygert@cms.hhs.gov
RIN: 0938-AP39
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--CMS
43. <bullet> REVISIONS TO PAYMENT POLICIES UNDER THE PHYSICIAN FEE 
SCHEDULE FOR CY 2010 (CMS-1413-P)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


Social Security Act, sec 1102; Social Security Act, sec 1871

[[Page 71163]]

CFR Citation:


42 CFR 405; 42 CFR 410 to 411; 42 CFR 413 to 414; 42 CFR 426


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 1, 2009.


Abstract:


This major proposed rule would revise payment polices under the 
physician fee schedule, as well as other policy changes to payment 
under Part B.


Statement of Need:


The statute requires that we establish each year, by regulation, 
payment amounts for all physicians' services furnished in all fee 
schedule areas. This major proposed rule would make changes affecting 
Medicare Part B payment to physicians and other Part B suppliers.


The final rule has a statutory publication date of November 1, 2009, 
and implementation of January 1, 2010.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 1848 of the Social Security Act (the Act) establishes the 
payment for physician services provided under Medicare. Section 1848 of 
the Act imposes a deadline of no later than November 1 for publication 
of the final physician fee schedule rule.


Alternatives:


None. This is a statutory requirement.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Total expenditures will be adjusted for CY 2010.


Risks:


If this regulation is not published timely, physician services will not 
be paid appropriately.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Diane Milstead
Health Insurance Specialist
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Centers for Medicaid Mangement
Mailstop C4-03-06
7500 Security Blvd
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-3355
Email: diane.milstead@cms.hhs.gov
Related RIN: Related to 0938-AN04
RIN: 0938-AP40
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--CMS
44. <bullet> CHANGES TO THE HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT 
SYSTEM AND AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR CY 2010 (CMS-
1414-P)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


BBA; PPRA; BIPA; MMA; MMSEA; MIPPA


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 410; 42 CFR 410 to 413; 42 CFR 416; 42 CFR 419


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 1, 2009.


Abstract:


This major rule would revise the Medicare hospital outpatient 
prospective payment system to implement applicable statutory 
requirements and changes arising from our continuing experience with 
this system and to implement certain related provisions of the Medicare 
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003. In 
addition, the proposed rule describes proposed changes to the amounts 
and factors used to determine the payment rates for Medicare hospital 
outpatient services paid under the prospective payment system. The rule 
also proposes changes to the Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System 
list of services and rates. These changes would be applicable to 
services furnished on or after January 1 annually.


Statement of Need:


Medicare pays over 4,200 hospitals for outpatient department services 
under the hospital outpatient prospective payment system (OPPS). The 
OPPS is based on groups of clinically similar services called 
ambulatory payment classifications (APCs). CMS annually revises the APC 
payment amounts based on claims data, proposes new payment polices, and 
updates the payments for inflation using the market basket. The 
proposed rule solicits comments on the proposed OPPS payment rates and 
new policies. This rule does not impact payments to critical access 
hospitals as they are not paid under the OPPS. CMS will issue a final 
rule containing the payment rates for the 2010 OPPS at least 60 days 
before January 1, 2010.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 1833 of the Social Security Act establishes Medicare payment 
for hospital outpatient services. The final rule revises the Medicare 
hospital OPPS to implement applicable statutory requirements and 
changes arising from our continuing experience with this system and to 
implement certain related provisions of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003. In addition, the 
proposed and final rules describe changes to the outpatient APC system, 
relative payment weights, outlier adjustments, and other amounts and 
factors used to determine the payment rates for Medicare hospital 
outpatient services paid under the prospective payment system. These 
changes would be applicable to services furnished on or after January 
1, 2010.


Alternatives:


None. This is a statutory requirement.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Total expenditures will be adjusted for CY 2010.


Risks:


If this regulation is not published timely, outpatient hospital 
services will not be paid appropriately beginning January 1, 2010.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal

[[Page 71164]]

Federalism:


 This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.


Agency Contact:
Alberta Dwivedi
Health Insurance Specialist
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Centers for Medicare Management
Mailstop C5-01-26
7500 Security Blvd
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-0763
Email: alberta.dwivedi@cms.hhs.gov
RIN: 0938-AP41
BILLING CODE 4150-24-S

[[Page 71165]]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Homeland Security was created in 2003 pursuant to the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296. The Department's 
Strategic Plan governs the development of DHS's strategies, programs 
and projects, and ultimately is reflected in the Department's budget 
and regulatory agenda. DHS's Strategic Plan is posted on the 
Department's web site: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/DHS--
StratPlan--FINAL--spread.pdf.
The Strategic Plan sets forth the five strategic goals of the Secretary 
of Homeland Security. Those goals are:
1. Protect our Nation from Dangerous People
2. Protect our Nation from Dangerous Goods
3. Protect Critical Infrastructure
4. Strengthen our Nation's Preparedness and Emergency Response 
            Capabilities
5. Strengthen and Unify DHS Operations and Management
The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's 2008 Fall 
Regulatory Program and in the Unified Agenda support the Department's 
Strategic Plan and each of the five Strategic Goals listed above. These 
regulations will improve the Department's ability to accomplish its 
primary missions.
The regulations identified in the Department's 2008 Fall Regulatory 
Program also address recent legislative initiatives including, but not 
limited to: the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act 
of 2008 (9/11 Act), Pub. L. 110-53 (Aug. 3, 2007); the Post-Katrina 
Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA), Pub. L. 109-295 (Oct. 
4, 2006); the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), Pub. 
L. No. 110-220 (May 7, 2008); the Security and Accountability for Every 
Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), Pub. L. 109-347 (Oct. 13, 2006); and 
the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. 110-329 (Sept. 30, 2008).
DHS strives for organizational excellence and uses a centralized and 
unified approach in managing its regulatory resources. The Department's 
regulatory program, including the Unified Regulatory Agenda and 
Regulatory Plan, is managed by the Office of the General Counsel. In 
addition, DHS senior leadership reviews each significant regulatory 
project to ensure that the project fosters and supports the 
Department's Strategic Goals.
DHS is also committed to ensuring that all of its regulatory 
initiatives are aligned with its guiding principles to protect civil 
rights and civil liberties, integrate our actions, build coalitions and 
partnerships, develop human resources, innovate, and be accountable to 
the American public. The Department values public involvement in the 
development of its Regulatory Plan, Unified Agenda, and regulations, 
and takes particular concern with the impact its rules have on small 
businesses. DHS and each of its components continue to emphasize the 
use of plain language in our notices and rulemaking documents to 
promote a better understanding of regulations and increased public 
participation in the Department's rulemakings.
The Fall 2008 Regulatory Plan for DHS includes regulations issued by 
the Department's major offices and directorates such as the National 
Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). In addition, it includes 
regulations from DHS components--including U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS), the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Federal Emergency Management 
Administration (FEMA), the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(ICE), and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)--that have 
active regulatory programs. Below is a discussion of the Fall 2008 
Regulatory Plan for DHS offices and directorates as well as DHS 
regulatory components.
National Protection and Programs Directorate
US-VISIT
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) is an 
integrated, automated entry-exit system that records the arrival and 
departure of aliens, verifies aliens' identities, and authenticates 
aliens' travel documents by comparison of biometric identifiers. The 
goals of US-VISIT are to enhance the security of U.S. citizens and 
visitors to the United States, facilitate legitimate travel and trade, 
ensure the integrity of the U.S. immigration system, and protect the 
privacy of visitors to the United States.
Currently, aliens entering the United States pursuant to a nonimmigrant 
visa, or those traveling without a visa as part of the Visa Waiver 
Program, are subject to US-VISIT requirements with certain limited 
exceptions. NPPD will be issuing a final rule to expand the population 
of aliens who will be subject to US-VISIT requirements to nearly all 
aliens, including lawful permanent residents. Specifically, as proposed 
in our July 27, 2006 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the 
following classes of aliens, among others, would become subject to US-
VISIT requirements:
<bullet> Lawful permanent residents.
<bullet> Aliens seeking admission on immigrant visas.
<bullet> Refugees and asylees.
<bullet> Certain Canadian citizens who receive a Form I-94 at 
            inspection or who require a waiver of inadmissibility. (DHS 
            did not propose to change the exemption for Canadian 
            citizens entering the United States for temporary business 
            or pleasure purposes under B visas).
<bullet> Aliens paroled into the United States.
<bullet> Aliens applying for admission under the Guam Visa Waiver 
            Program.
NPPD also published an NPRM on April 24, 2008, proposing to establish 
an exit program at all air and sea ports of departure in the United 
States. Under section 711 of the 9/11 Act, DHS is required to establish 
an air exit system and to certify to Congress that such system is in 
place no later than June 30, 2009. DHS planned to issue a final rule by 
the end of 2008 to meet the requirements of the 9/11 Recommendations 
Act. However, under the title III, Division D of the recently enacted 
Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2009, the Department is now required to conduct two 
pilot programs to test the proposed methods of collecting biometric 
information from aliens upon departure from the United States before 
DHS can issue a final rule. DHS continues to work to ensure that the 
final air/sea exit rule will be issued during fiscal year 2009.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
The mission of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is to 
protect national security while conveying our Nation's privileges of 
freedom and citizenship through the rule of law. The three strategic 
priorities of USCIS are national security, customer service and 
organizational excellence. USCIS seeks to welcome lawful immigrants 
while preventing

[[Page 71166]]

exploitation of the immigration system, and we seek to create and 
maintain a high-performing, integrated, public service organization. As 
a nation of immigrants, the United States has a strong commitment to 
welcoming those individuals who seek entry through our legal 
immigration system, and also to assisting those in need of humanitarian 
protection against harm.
USCIS has an essential role in supporting DHS's Strategic Goal to 
ensure the security and integrity of the immigration system by making 
certain that immigrants and nonimmigrants comply with the laws and 
security mandates to prevent those who seek to exploit our immigration 
benefits or engage in illegal activities from obtaining lawful status 
in this country.
USCIS also strives to provide efficient, courteous, accurate, and 
responsive services to those who seek and qualify for admission to our 
country as well as provide seamless, transparent and dedicated customer 
support services and organizational excellence within the agency. To 
meet these goals, USCIS is pursuing the following regulatory 
initiatives, which will directly support the core priorities of the 
Department.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Transitional Nonimmigrant 
Investor Classification. This rule proposes to implement the 
nonimmigrant investor visa provisions of the Consolidated Natural 
Resources Act of 2008. The Act extends the immigration laws of the 
United States to the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. 
This proposed rule responds to the Congressional mandate requiring the 
federal government to assume responsibility for visas for foreign 
investors entering the CNMI. This rule proposes to amend the DHS 
regulations governing E-2 nonimmigrant treaty investors; it will 
establish procedures for classifying investors in the CNMI with long-
term E2 nonimmigrant investor status. The benefits of this rule will 
include protection from the threat posed by the use of fraudulent visas 
from CNMI as means of entering the United States.
Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker Provisions for the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Marianas Islands. This rule proposes to implement the 
nonimmigrant transitional worker provisions of the Consolidated Natural 
Resources Act of 2008. The purpose of these provisions is to provide 
for a transition from an economy supported by a sizable population of 
temporary workers to an economy that is supported by temporary and 
permanent workers under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This rule 
proposes to amend DHS regulations to provide for a nonimmigrant 
transitional worker category for the CNMI only and to allow for enough 
planning by employers who may need to replace workers and who may need 
to have temporary workers perform legitimate business travel. The 
benefits of the proposed rule will include maintenance of current 
levels of employment in the CNMI and consistency with other USCIS 
regulations.
Designation of Acceptable Documents for Employment Verification. This 
rulemaking will reduce the number of acceptable documents that 
employees may present for Employment Verification, or Form I-9 
purposes. The current employment verification process uses a very dated 
list of acceptable documents. USCIS will shorten the list of acceptable 
documents and reissue the Form I-9 with a shorter list of more highly 
secure documents. The benefit of this rulemaking is that it will 
provide for more detail, specificity, and security regarding acceptable 
identity and employment authorization documents.
Changes Affecting H-2A and H-2B Nonimmigrants and Their Employers. 
USCIS will be finalizing two rulemaking actions affecting the standards 
USCIS will use to grant H-2A (temporary and seasonal agricultural 
workers) and H-2B (temporary non-agricultural workers) status to 
nonimmigrant aliens. The H-2A rule removes certain limitations on H-2A 
employers and adopts streamlining measures in order to encourage and 
facilitate the lawful employment of foreign temporary and seasonal 
agricultural workers. The final rule also addresses concerns regarding 
the integrity of the H-2A program and sets forth several conditions to 
prevent fraud and to protect laborers' rights. The purpose of the final 
rule is to provide agricultural employers with an orderly and timely 
flow of legal workers, thereby decreasing their reliance on 
unauthorized workers, while protecting the rights of laborers.
The H-2B rule removes certain limitations on H-2B employers and adopts 
streamlining measures in order to facilitate the lawful employment of 
foreign temporary nonagricultural workers. The final rule also 
addresses concerns regarding the integrity of the H-2B program and sets 
forth several conditions to prevent fraud and protect laborers' rights. 
The final rule will benefit U.S. businesses by facilitating a timely 
flow of legal workers while ensuring the integrity of the program.
Both final rules provide that DHS will refuse to grant petitions for H-
2A or H-2B nonimmigrant status for nationals of countries consistently 
refusing or unreasonably denying repatriation of their nationals. DHS 
will identify any countries that it has determined fail to adequately 
repatriate their nationals by notice in the Federal Register. Finally, 
both rules also establish a pilot exit control program for certain H-2A 
and H-2B workers, by requiring them to report their departure at 
designated ports of entry.
United States Coast Guard
The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) is an Armed Service of the United 
States and the only military organization within DHS. It is the 
principal federal agency responsible for maritime safety, security, and 
environmental stewardship and delivers daily value to the Nation 
through multi-mission resources, authorities, and capabilities.
Effective governance in the maritime domain hinges upon an integrated 
approach to safety, security, and environmental stewardship. The Coast 
Guard's policies and capabilities are integrated and interdependent, 
delivering results through a network of enduring partnerships. The 
Coast Guard's ability to field versatile capabilities and highly-
trained personnel is the U.S. Government's most significant and 
important strength in the maritime environment.
America is a maritime nation, and our security, resilience, and 
economic prosperity are intrinsically linked to the oceans. Safety, 
efficient waterways, and freedom of transit on the high seas are 
essential to our well-being. The Coast Guard is leaning forward, poised 
to meet the demands of the new millennium. The Coast Guard creates 
value for the public through solid prevention and response efforts. 
Activities involving oversight and regulation, enforcement, maritime 
presence, and public and private partnership foster increased maritime 
safety, security, and stewardship.
The statutory responsibilities of the Coast Guard include ensuring 
marine safety and security, preserving maritime mobility, protecting 
the marine environment, enforcing U.S. laws and international treaties, 
and performing search and rescue. The Coast Guard supports the 
Department's overarching goals of mobilizing and organizing our Nation 
to secure the homeland from terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and

[[Page 71167]]

other emergencies. In performing its duties, the Coast Guard has 
established five strategic goals-maritime safety, protection of natural 
resources, maritime security, maritime mobility and national defense. 
In 2008, the Coast Guard began a strategic campaign to further advance 
the safety of recreational and commercial activities in the maritime 
domain using focused prevention and response programs and activities. 
In partnership with other federal agencies, state and local 
governments, marine industries, and individual mariners, the Coast 
Guard advances the safety of maritime communities, trade, 
transportation, and recreational boating through focused prevention and 
response programs. Although much has been achieved, developing 
comprehensive maritime safety, security, and environmental protection 
regimes for the nation remains our most important goal.
The Coast Guard rulemaking projects identified in the Unified Agenda, 
and the five rules listed below, support these strategic goals and 
reflect our regulatory policies.
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC); Card Reader 
Requirements. The Coast Guard continues the Department's work in the 
important area of implementing the transportation security card 
requirements found in 46 U.S.C. Sec.  70105. Under the TWIC final rule 
issued on January 25, 2007, certain workers in the maritime sector are 
required to undergo security threat assessments and obtain TWICs. These 
cards are used as visual identity badges, and are only read 
electronically if the Coast Guard conducts spot checks or an annual 
examination at a vessel or facility regulated by 33 CFR chapter I, 
subchapter H. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) asks 
whether the Coast Guard should require certain owners and operators of 
these vessels and facilities to also read the cards electronically, 
including checking for a match of the TWIC holder's fingerprint with 
the template stored on the TWIC. These proposed requirements would be 
necessary in order to ensure that only the individual to whom the TWIC 
was issued (and on whom the security threat assessment was conducted) 
is able to use it to gain unescorted access to secure areas or to hold 
their Coast Guard issued merchant mariner credential. The SAFE Port Act 
requires the Coast Guard to promulgate card reader regulations. This 
rulemaking supports the Coast Guard Commandant's strategic goal of 
maritime security.
Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure and Automatic 
Identification System. This is a regulatory action of particular 
importance to the Coast Guard in the Department's Fall 2008 Regulatory 
Plan. Currently, the Coast Guard does not have a mechanism to capture 
vessel, crew, passenger, or specific cargo information on vessels less 
than or equal to 300 gross tons intending to arrive at or depart from 
U.S. ports unless they are arriving with certain dangerous cargo or are 
arriving at a port or place within the 7th Coast Guard District 
(primarily Florida and surrounding waters). To remedy this situation, 
the Coast Guard will issue a NPRM that proposes to expand the 
applicability of these requirements to better enable the Coast Guard to 
correlate vessel Automatic Identification System data with Notices of 
Arrival and Departure (NOAD) data, enhance the Coast Guard's ability to 
identify and track vessels, detect anomalies, improve navigation 
safety, and heighten overall maritime domain awareness and security. 
This rulemaking would expand the applicability of NOADs to include all 
foreign commercial vessels, regardless of tonnage, and all U.S. 
commercial vessels arriving from a foreign port or place. This 
rulemaking supports the Coast Guard Commandant's strategic goals of 
maritime safety and maritime security.
Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International Convention 
on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) for 
Seafarers, 1978. In 1995, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 
comprehensively amended the STCW. The amendments came into force on 
February 1, 1997. This project implements those amendments by revising 
current regulations to ensure that the United States complies with 
their requirements for the training of merchant mariners, the 
documenting of their qualifications, and watch-standing and other 
arrangements aboard seagoing merchant ships of the Unites States. This 
rulemaking also makes several minor editorial and clarification changes 
throughout 46 CFR parts 10, 11, 12, and 15. This project supports the 
Coast Guard Commandant's strategic goal of maritime safety.
Increasing Passenger Weight Standards on Passenger Vessels. This 
project would develop a rule that addresses both the stability 
calculations and the environmental operating requirements for certain 
domestic passenger vessels. The proposed rule would address the 
outdated per-person weight averages that are currently used in 
stability calculations for certain domestic passenger vessels. In 
addition, the proposed rule would add environmental operating 
requirements for domestic passenger vessels that could be adversely 
affected by sudden inclement weather. This rulemaking would increase 
passenger safety by significantly reducing the risk of certain types of 
passenger vessels capsizing due to either passenger overloading or 
operating these vessels in hazardous weather conditions. This 
rulemaking supports the Coast Guard Commandant's strategic goal of 
maritime safety.
Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in 
U.S. Waters. This rulemaking would amend the ballast water management 
requirements (33 CFR part 151 subpart D) and establish a standard that 
specifies the level of biological treatment that must be achieved by a 
ballast water treatment system before ballast water can be discharged 
into U.S. waters. The unintentional introduction of nonindigenous 
species into U.S. waters via the discharge of vessels' ballast water 
has had significant impacts to the nation's aquatic resources, 
biological diversity, and coastal infrastructures. This rulemaking 
would increase the Coast Guard's ability to protect U.S. waters against 
the introduction of nonindigenous species via ballast water discharges 
and supports the Coast Guard Commandant's strategic goal of maritime 
safety and environmental stewardship.
United States Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the federal agency 
principally responsible for the security of our Nation's borders, both 
at and between the ports of entry and at official crossings into the 
United States. CBP must accomplish its border security and enforcement 
mission without stifling the flow of legitimate trade and travel. The 
primary mission of CBP is its homeland security mission, that is, to 
prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United 
States. An important aspect of this priority mission involves improving 
security at our borders and ports of entry, but it also means extending 
our zone of security beyond our physical borders.

[[Page 71168]]

CBP is also responsible for administering laws concerning the 
importation into the United States of goods, and enforcing the laws 
concerning the entry of persons into the United States. This includes 
regulating and facilitating international trade; collecting import 
duties; enforcing U.S. trade, immigration and other laws of the United 
States at our borders; inspecting imports, overseeing the activities of 
persons and businesses engaged in importing; enforcing the laws 
concerning smuggling and trafficking in contraband; apprehending 
individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally; protecting 
our agriculture and economic interests from harmful pests and diseases; 
servicing all people, vehicles and cargo entering the United States; 
maintaining export controls; and protecting U.S. businesses from theft 
of their intellectual property.
In carrying out its priority mission, CBP's goal is to facilitate the 
processing of legitimate trade and people efficiently without 
compromising security. Consistent with its primary mission of homeland 
security, CBP published several final and proposed rules during the 
last fiscal year and intends to propose and finalize others during the 
next fiscal year that are intended to improve security at our borders 
and ports of entry. We have highlighted some of these rules below.
Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). On June 9, 2008, CBP 
published an interim final rule amending Title 8 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. That rule implemented the Electronic System for Travel 
Authorization (ESTA) for aliens who wish to enter the United States 
under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) at air or sea ports of entry. This 
rule, which was effective August 8, 2008, establishes ESTA and 
delineates the data fields that DHS has determined the system will 
collect. The rule requires that each alien traveling to the United 
States under the VWP must obtain electronic travel authorization via 
the ESTA System in advance of such travel. VWP travelers may obtain the 
required ESTA authorization by electronically submitting to CBP 
biographic and other information as currently required by the I-94W 
Nonimmigrant Alien Arrival/Departure Form. The Secretary of Homeland 
Security will inform the public of the date on which ESTA is mandatory 
by Federal Register notice. DHS anticipates that the Secretary of 
Homeland Security will issue this notice in November 2008, for 
implementation of the mandatory ESTA requirements on or before January 
12, 2009. Once ESTA is mandatory, all VWP travelers must either obtain 
travel authorization in advance of travel under ESTA or obtain a visa 
prior to traveling to the United States.
This rule is intended to fulfill the requirements of section 711 of the 
9/11Act. By procedurally shifting from a paper form to an electronic 
form and requiring the data in advance of travel, CBP will be able to 
determine, before the alien departs for the United States, the 
eligibility of nationals from VWP countries and whether such travel 
poses a law enforcement or security risk. In addition to fulfilling a 
statutory mandate, the interim final rule serves the twin goals of 
promoting border security and legitimate travel to the United States. 
By modernizing the VWP, the ESTA is intended to both increase national 
security and provide for greater efficiencies in the screening of 
international travelers by allowing for vetting of subjects of 
potential interest well before boarding, thereby reducing traveler 
delays based on lengthy processes at ports of entry.
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). On April 3, 2008, CBP 
finalized the second phase of a joint DHS and Department of State plan, 
known as WHTI, to implement new documentation requirements for U.S. 
citizens and certain nonimmigrant aliens entering the United States. 
This final rule identifies which documents U.S. citizens and 
nonimmigrant citizens of Canada, Bermuda, and Mexico will be required 
to present when entering the United States from within the Western 
Hemisphere at sea and land ports-of-entry. This final rule is effective 
on June 1, 2009. WHTI implements requirements of the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), as amended, which 
provides that upon full implementation, U.S. citizens and certain 
classes of nonimmigrant aliens may enter the United States only with 
passports or such alternative documents as the Secretary of Homeland 
Security designates as satisfactorily establishing identity and 
citizenship.
Advance Information on Private Aircraft Arriving and Departing the 
United States. On September 18, 2007, CBP published a NPRM titled 
``Advance Information on Private Aircraft Arriving and Departing the 
United States.'' It proposes to require that the pilot of any private 
aircraft arriving in the United States from a foreign location or 
departing the United States for a foreign location provide an advance 
electronic transmission of information to CBP describing all of the 
individuals traveling onboard the aircraft. Under the proposal, the 
pilot must transmit this information by an electronic data interchange 
system approved by CBP. CBP intends to publish a final rule during the 
next fiscal year. These regulations will assist CBP in adequately and 
accurately assessing potential security threats by private aircraft 
entering and departing the United States.
Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements. On 
January 1, 2008, CBP published an NPRM titled ``Importer Security 
Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements.'' It would amend CBP 
regulations to require carriers and importers to provide to CBP, via a 
CBP approved electronic data interchange system, information necessary 
to enable CBP to identify high-risk shipments to prevent smuggling and 
ensure cargo safety and security. Under the proposed rule, importers 
and carriers must submit certain information to CBP before the cargo is 
brought into the United States by vessel. These regulations would 
implement the provisions of section 203 of the Security and 
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 and section 343(a) of the 
Trade Act of 2002, as amended by the Maritime Transportation Security 
Act of 2002. This rule would improve CBP's risk assessment and 
targeting capabilities, while at the same time, enabling the agency to 
facilitate the prompt release of legitimate cargo following its arrival 
in the United States. The information would assist CBP in increasing 
the security of the global trading system. CBP intends to publish a 
final rule during the next fiscal year.
Implementation of Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. Section 702 of the 
Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA) extends the 
immigration laws of the United States to the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and provides for a joint visa waiver 
program for travel to Guam and the CNMI. CBP will be issuing an interim 
final rule to implement section 702 of the CNRA by amending the 
regulations to replace the current Guam Visa Waiver Program with a new 
Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program.
Section 403(1) of the Homeland Security Act transferred the former U.S. 
Customs Service, including functions of the Secretary of the Treasury 
relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security. As part of the 
initial organization of DHS, the Customs

[[Page 71169]]

Service inspection and trade functions were combined with the 
immigration and agricultural inspection functions and the Border Patrol 
and transferred into CBP. The Department of the Treasury, however, 
retained regulatory authority of the U.S. Customs Service relating to 
customs revenue functions. In addition to its plans to continue issuing 
regulations to enhance border security, CBP, during fiscal year 2009, 
expects to continue to issue regulatory documents that will facilitate 
legitimate trade and implement trade benefit programs. CBP regulations 
regarding the customs revenue function are discussed in the regulatory 
plan of the Department of the Treasury.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) primary mission is to 
reduce the loss of life and property and protect the Nation from all 
hazards, including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-
made disasters, by leading and supporting the Nation in a risk-based, 
comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness, protection, 
response, recovery, and mitigation. FEMA is leading the Nation's 
efforts to develop and maintain an integrated, nationwide operational 
capability to prepare for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate 
against hazards, regardless of their cause, in partnership with other 
federal agencies, state and local governments, volunteer organizations, 
and the private sector. The agency also coordinates and implements the 
federal response to disasters declared by the President.
In fiscal year 2009, FEMA will continue to promote the DHS Strategic 
Goals of awareness, prevention, protection, response, and recovery. In 
furtherance of the Department's and agency's goals, FEMA will develop 
regulations that implement provisions of the Post-Katrina Emergency 
Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA) (Pub. L. 109-295).
Disaster Assistance; Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households. 
The first of these rules will update the current interim rule entitled 
``Disaster Assistance; Federal Assistance to Individuals and 
Households.'' This rulemaking would implement section 408 of the Robert 
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec.  5121-5207 (Stafford Act). It would also make further 
revisions to 44 CFR part 206, subparts D (the Individuals and 
Households Program (IHP)) and E. Among other things, it would implement 
section 686 of PKEMRA to remove the IHP subcaps and implement section 
685 regarding semi-permanent and permanent housing construction 
eligibility; revise FEMA's regulations pursuant to section 689 of 
PKEMRA; and revise FEMA's regulations to allow for the payment of 
security deposits and the costs of utilities, excluding telephone 
service, in accordance with section 689d of PKEMRA. This regulation 
would also implement section 689f of PKEMRA by authorizing assistance 
to relocate individuals displaced from their predisaster primary 
residence, to and from alternate locations for short-or long-term 
accommodations.
Public Assistance Program regulations. FEMA will also work to revise 
the Public Assistance Program regulations in 44 CFR part 206 to reflect 
changes made to the Stafford Act by PKEMRA, the Pets Evacuation and 
Transportation Standards Act of 2006 (PETS Act) (Pub. L. 109-308), the 
Local Community Recovery Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-218), and the 
Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act) 
(Pub. L. 109-347), and to make other substantive and nonsubstantive 
clarifications and corrections. The proposed changes will expand 
eligibility to include performing arts facilities and community arts 
centers pursuant to section 688 of PKEMRA; include education in the 
list of critical services pursuant to section 689h of PKEMRA, thus 
allowing private nonprofit educational facilities to be eligible for 
restoration funding; add accelerated Federal assistance to available 
assistance and precautionary evacuations to activities eligible for 
reimbursement pursuant to section 681 of PKEMRA, include household pets 
and service animals in essential assistance pursuant to section 689 of 
PKEMRA and section 4 of the PETS Act, provide for expedited payments of 
grant assistance for the removal of debris pursuant to section 610 of 
the SAFE Port Act, and allow for a contract to be set aside for award 
based on a specific geographic area pursuant to section 2 of the Local 
Community Recovery Act of 2006. Other changes include the addition or 
revision of requirements to improve the Public Assistance grant 
application process.
Special Community Disaster Loans (SCDL) Program. In addition, FEMA 
intends to propose a revision to the Special Community Disaster Loans 
(SCDL) Program to implement loan cancellation provisions for SCDLs 
provided by FEMA to local governments in the Gulf region following 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This rule would not result in the 
automatic cancellation of all SCDLs. Instead, it would propose 
procedures and requirements for governments who received SCDLs to apply 
for cancellation of loan obligations as authorized by section 4502 of 
the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq 
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (Pub. L. 110-28). The proposed 
procedures would provide FEMA with information that would then be used 
to determine when cancellation of a SCDL, in whole or in part, is 
warranted. The proposed rule would not apply to any loans made under 
FEMA's traditional Community Disaster Loans Program which is governed 
under separate regulations.
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
The mission of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is to 
prevent the movement across borders of people, money, and materials 
that could harm our Nation and its people; prevent violations of 
immigration law by terrorists, criminals, and others who exploit us by 
entering and remaining in the country illegally; and mitigate risks to 
national security at home and abroad.
During fiscal year 2009, ICE will pursue rulemakings that implement 
major components of the President's and Department's Strategic Goals. 
Specifically, ICE will focus on two critical areas: improving the 
tracking of foreign students, particularly alien flight training 
students; and fully implementing the certification, oversight, and 
recertification of schools certified by the Student and Exchange 
Visitor Program (SEVP) for attendance by F and/or M nonimmigrant 
students.
Amendment of Flight Training Regulations for F and M Nonimmigrants and 
to Transition J Flight Programs of the Department of State to M Flight 
Programs with the Department of Homeland Security. ICE will transition 
all J flight training programs from Department of State designation to 
DHS (i.e., SEVP certification); and promote international flight safety 
by modifying regulations to expand practical training opportunities for 
those in alien flight training programs. As a matter of national 
security, it is important that DHS provide efficient and effective 
oversight of flight training programs.
Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). ICE will also amend 
regulations, located at 8 CFR 214.3 and 214.4, which govern 
certification, oversight and

[[Page 71170]]

recertification of schools certified by SEVP for attendance by F and/or 
M nonimmigrant students. The rule will clarify the criteria for initial 
certification, compliance, and recertification of SEVP-certified 
schools every two years.
Transportation Security Administration
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) protects the Nation's 
transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and 
commerce. TSA is committed to continuously setting the standard for 
excellence in transportation security through its people, processes, 
and technology as we work to meet the immediate and long-term needs of 
the transportation sector.
In fiscal year 2009, TSA will promote the DHS Strategic Goals of 
awareness, prevention, protection, response, and service by emphasizing 
regulatory efforts that allow TSA to better identify, detect, and 
protect against threats against various modes of the transportation 
system, while facilitating the efficient movement of the traveling 
public, transportation workers, and cargo.
Screening of Air Cargo. TSA is developing a rulemaking that codifies a 
statutory requirement of the 9/11 Act that TSA establish a system to 
screen 100% of cargo transported on passenger aircraft by August 3, 
2010. To assist in carrying out this mandate, TSA is establishing a 
voluntary program under which it will certify cargo screening 
facilities to screen cargo according to TSA standards prior to its 
being tendered to aircraft operators for carriage on passenger 
aircraft.
Large Aircraft Security Program (General Aviation (GA)). In addition, 
TSA plans to amend current aviation transportation security regulations 
to enhance the security of general aviation by expanding the scope of 
current requirements and by adding new requirements for certain large 
aircraft operators and airports serving those aircraft. To date, the 
government's focus with regard to aviation security generally has been 
on air carriers and commercial operators. As vulnerabilities and risks 
associated with air carriers and commercial operators have been reduced 
or mitigated, terrorists may perceive that GA aircraft are more 
vulnerable and may view them as attractive targets. This rule would 
enhance aviation security by requiring operators of aircraft with a 
maximum certificated takeoff weight above 12,500 pounds (``large 
aircraft'') to adopt a security program and to undertake other security 
measures. The rule would also impose security requirements on certain 
airports that serve large aircraft to adopt security programs.
Security Training for Non-Aviation Modes. TSA also will issue 
regulations to enhance the security of several non-aviation modes of 
transportation, in accordance with the requirements of the 9/11 Act. In 
particular, TSA will issue regulations requiring freight railroads, 
passenger railroads, mass transportation system operators, and over-
the-road bus operators to conduct security training for certain of 
their employees.
Aircraft Repair Station Security. TSA will be promulgating regulations 
to require foreign repair stations that are certificated by the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) under 14 CFR Part 145 to adopt and 
implement standard security programs and to comply with security 
directives issued by TSA. The rule also proposes to codify the scope of 
TSA's existing inspection program and to require regulated parties to 
allow DHS officials to enter, inspect, and test property, facilities, 
and records relevant to repair stations. This rulemaking action 
implements section 1616 of the 9/11 Act.
DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2009
A more detailed description of the priority regulations that comprise 
DHS's Fall 2008 Regulatory Plan follows.
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--Office of the Secretary (OS)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

45. COLLECTION OF ALIEN BIOMETRIC DATA UPON EXIT FROM THE UNITED STATES 
AT AIR AND SEA PORTS OF DEPARTURE; UNITED STATES VISITOR AND IMMIGRANT 
STATUS INDICATOR TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM (US-VISIT)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1101 to 1104; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184 to 1185 (pursuant to EO 
13323); 8 USC 1221; 8 USC 1365a, 1365b; 8 USC 1379; 8 USC 1731 to 1732


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 215.1; 8 CFR 231.4


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


DHS established the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 
Indicator Technology Program (US-VISIT) in accordance with a series of 
legislative mandates requiring that DHS create an integrated automated 
entry-exit system that records the arrival and departure of aliens; 
verifies aliens' identities; and authenticates travel documents. On 
January 5, 2004, DHS published an Interim Final Rule in the Federal 
Register at 69 FR 468 authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
require, in part, certain aliens to provide fingerprints, 
photograph[s], or other biometric identifiers, documentation of 
immigration status in the United States, and other such evidence as may 
be required to determine the alien's identity and whether he or she has 
properly maintained immigration status while in the United States at 
the time of departure from the United States. The Interim Rule 
authorized the establishment of pilot programs at up to fifteen air and 
sea ports of entry to evaluate the implementation of this departure 
procedure. That evaluation pilot has been completed and this rule 
establishes procedures for collection of biometrics from aliens 
departing the United States from air or sea ports. This rule removes 
the limit on the collection of this information from the 15 locations 
of the pilot programs and authorizes implementation at all air and sea 
ports of entry. This rule requires aliens to provide biometric 
identifiers at entry to provide biometric identifiers upon departure at 
any air and sea port of entry at which facilities exist to collect such 
information.


Statement of Need:


This rule establishes an exit system at all air and sea ports of 
departure in the United States. This rule requires aliens subject to 
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program 
biometric requirements upon entering the United States to also provide 
biometric identifiers prior to departing the United States from air or 
sea ports of departure.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.

[[Page 71171]]

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/24/08                    73 FR 22065
NPRM Comment Period End         06/23/08
Other/Final Rule                04/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Helen DeThomas
Management and Programs Analyst
Department of Homeland Security
1616 N. Fort Myer Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 202 298-5173
Email: helen.dethomas@dhs.gov
Related RIN: Previously reported as 1650-AA04
RIN: 1601-AA34
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--OS
46. UNITED STATES VISITOR AND IMMIGRANT STATUS INDICATOR TECHNOLOGY 
PROGRAM (US-VISIT), ENROLLMENT OF ADDITIONAL ALIENS IN US-VISIT

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


PL 106-215, sec 2(a), 114 Stat 337 (June 15, 2000); PL 106-396, sec 
205, 114 Stat 1637, 1641 (October 30, 2000); PL 107-56, sec 114, 115 
Stat 271, 553 (October 26, 2001); PL 107-173, sec 302, 116 Stat 543, 
552 (May 14, 2002)


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 215.8; 8 CFR 235.1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security established the United 
States Visitor and Immigrant Status Technology Program (US-VISIT), 
whose objective is to create and maintain an integrated, automated 
entry-exit system that records the arrival and departure of aliens, 
verifies their identities, and authenticates their travel documents 
through comparison of biometric identifiers. The goals of the US-VISIT 
program are to enhance the security of United States citizens and 
visitors to the United States, facilitate legitimate travel and trade, 
ensure the integrity of the United States immigration system, and 
protect the privacy of visitors to the United States. In its early 
stages, US-VISIT applied only to nonimmigrants with visas and to those 
who did not require a visa as they were entering under the Visa Waiver 
Program. This rule would amend DHS regulations to provide that all 
aliens, including Lawful Permanent Residents, may be enrolled into US-
VISIT, with the exception of Canadian citizens entering the United 
States as either B-1 visitors for business or B-2 visitors for 
pleasure, or these categories of alien expressly exempt by statute or 
regulation.


Statement of Need:


On July 27, 2006, DHS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register 
that outlined DHS' plan to begin enrolling additional groups of aliens 
into the US-VISIT biometric screening protocol. (US-VISIT is an 
integrated, automated entry-exit system that records the arrival and 
departure of aliens, verifies aliens' identities, and authenticates 
aliens' travel documents through the comparison of biometric 
identifiers.) The expansion of US-VISIT biometric screening to these 
additional groups is needed in order to verify the identity and 
authenticity of aliens presenting United States issued travel documents 
upon an application for admission. The expansion is consistent with the 
implementation of the US-VISIT program to date, which has taken an 
incremental, phased-in approach to the biometric screening of aliens 
applying for admission to and exiting from the United States. This 
expansion will encompass the majority of aliens to-date not undergoing 
biometric screening by the US-VISIT program.


Summary of Legal Basis:


While the establishment of the US-VISIT program is found in the 
provisions of several public laws, the abstracts of which have been 
discussed in several rulemakings (See 69 FR 53318, for example), the 
authority for the expansion of the program to additional alien groups 
may be found in section 302(b)(2) of the Enhanced Border Security and 
Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, Public Law 107-173, 116 Stat. 543, 552 
(May 14, 2002). This section of law requires the United States to 
install at all ports of entry equipment and software that allows for 
the biometric comparison and authentication of all United States visas 
and all machine-readable, tamper-resistant travel and entry documents 
that are issued to aliens. The installation of the needed equipment and 
software is complete.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/27/06                    71 FR 42605
NPRM Comment Period End         08/28/06
Final Rule                      11/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Helen DeThomas
Management and Programs Analyst
Department of Homeland Security
1616 N. Fort Myer Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 202 298-5173
Email: helen.dethomas@dhs.gov
Related RIN: Previously reported as 1650-AA06
RIN: 1601-AA35
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

47. <bullet> DOCUMENTS AND RECEIPTS ACCEPTABLE FOR EMPLOYMENT 
ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1324a


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 274a

[[Page 71172]]

Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule proposes amendments to regulations governing the types of 
acceptable identity and employment authorization documents that 
employees may present to their employers for completion of the Form I-
9, Employment Eligibility Verification. The purpose of this proposed 
rule is to further improve the integrity of the employment eligibility 
verification process by adding safeguards and ensuring that the list of 
acceptable identity and employment authorization documents contains 
secure and fraud-resistant documents.


Statement of Need:


To further improve the integrity of the employment eligibility 
verification process, and to ensure that the list of acceptable 
identity and employment authorization documents contain secure and 
fraud-resistant documents.


Summary of Legal Basis:


All employers and agricultural recruiters and referrers for a fee 
(collectively referred to as ``employer(s)'') are required to verify 
the identity and employment authorization of each individual they hire 
for employment in the United States, regardless of the individual's 
citizenship. (See Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 
274A(a)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1324a(a)(1)(B)).


As part of the verification process, employers must complete Form I-9, 
Employment Eligibility Verification, retain the form for a statutorily-
established period of time, and make the form available for inspection 
by certain government officials. (See INA section 274A(b), 8 U.S.C. 
1324a(b); 8 CFR 274a.2).


The documents designated as acceptable for the Form I-9 are divided 
among three lists:


<bullet> List A--documents that establish both identity and employment 
authorization;


<bullet> List B--documents that establish only identity; and


<bullet> List C--documents that establish only employment 
authorization.


 (See INA sections 274A(b)(1)(B),(C) and (D), 8 U.S.C. 
1324a(b)(1)(B),(C); 8 CFR 274a.2(B)(1)(v)(A), B) and (C)).


Additionally, DHS possesses statutory authority to prohibit or place 
conditions on the use of documents establishing the employment 
authorization or identity of individuals for Form I-9 purposes if DHS 
finds, by regulation, that such documents do not reliably establish 
employment authorization or identity or are being used fraudulently to 
an unacceptable degree. (See INA section 274A(b)(1)(E), 8 U.S.C. 
1324a(b)(1)(E)).


The changes proposed in this rule are not required by statute or court 
order.


Alternatives:


This proposed rule requests input from the public on what alternatives, 
if any, DHS should consider. The proposed rule also requests that any 
alternatives suggested should include the costs and benefits of those 
alternatives, as well as the effect on small entities.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


There are significant unquantifiable benefits.


The proposal provides details and specificity on acceptable identity 
and employment authorization documents, which are not present in the 
legislation or current regulations.


Cost Analysis.


The cost benefit analysis of this proposed rule will be provided to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and will be available for review 
in the public docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov once 
this proposed rule is published in the Federal Register.


Risks:


An employment eligibility verification system that relies on a wide 
range of documents may result in misapplication of the employment 
eligibility verification requirements. In addition, a complicated 
system may encourage fraud and result in individuals who are authorized 
to work in the United States being displaced by unauthorized 
individuals.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/00/08
NPRM Comment Period End         12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Miriam Hetfield
Branch Chief, E-Verify Operations
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Suite 8202
490 L'Enfant East SW.
Washington, DC 20024
Phone: 202 358-7777
Email: miriam.hetfield@dhs.gov
Related RIN: Related to 1615-AB69
RIN: 1615-AB72
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
48. <bullet> COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS TRANSITIONAL 
NONIMMIGRANT INVESTOR CLASSIFICATION

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1102; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 
1184; 8 U.S.C. 1186a


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 214


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On May 8, 2008, Public Law 110-229, Commonwealth Natural Resources Act, 
established a transitional period for the application of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Although the CNMI is subject to most 
U.S. laws, the CNMI has administered its own immigration system under 
the terms of its 1976 covenant with the United States. The Department 
of Homeland Security is proposing to amend its regulations by creating 
a new E2 CNMI Investor classification for the duration of the 
transition period. These temporary provisions are necessary to reduce 
the potential harm to the CNMI economy before these foreign workers and 
investors are required to convert into U.S. immigrant or nonimmigrant 
visa classifications.


Statement of Need:


This proposed rule responds to a Congressional mandate that requires 
the Federal Government assume responsibility for visas for entry to 
CNMI by foreign investors. This proposed rule will reduce the degree of 
fraud in visas to CNMI and the threat

[[Page 71173]]

to homeland security posed by terrorists trying to enter CNMI with 
fraudulent visas as a gateway to the continental United States.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This proposed rule is based upon a Congressional mandate to publish 
regulations to implement the nonimmigrant investor visa provisions of 
the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 ( Pub.L. 110-229). This 
public law extends the immigration laws of the United States to the 
CNMI. Public Law 110-229 authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security 
to classify an alien as a CNMI-only nonimmigrant under section 
101(a)(15)(E)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) (8 
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(ii)) if the alien meets the requirements of the 
Act.


Alternatives:


In light of the potential adverse economic impact of such limitations 
and the goal of limiting adverse economic impact on the CNMI, such 
limiting options were not chosen. DHS chose the broadest interpretation 
possible, whereby long-term business investors, perpetual foreign 
investors and foreign retiree investors would be eligible for CNMI E-2 
Investor status, because it believes such an interpretation is most in 
keeping with the mandate to limit adverse economic impact.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Public Costs:


This rule reduces the employer's annual cost by $200 per year ($500 - 
$300), plus any further reduction caused by eliminating the paperwork 
burden associated with the CNMI's process. In 2006 -- 2007, there were 
464 long-term business entry permit holders and 20 perpetual foreign 
investor entry permit holders and retiree investor permit holders, 
totaling 484, or approximately 500 foreign registered investors. The 
total savings to employers from this rule is thus expected to be 
$100,000 per year ($500 x $200).


Cost to the Federal Government:


The yearly Federal Government cost is estimated at $42,310.


Benefits:


The potential abuse of the visa system by those seeking to illegally 
emigrate from the CNMI to Guam or elsewhere in the United States 
reduces the integrity of the United States immigration system by 
increasing the ease by which aliens may unlawfully enter the United 
States through the CNMI. Federal oversight and regulations of CNMI 
foreign investors should help reduce abuse by foreign employees in the 
CNMI, and should help reduce the opportunity for aliens to use the CNMI 
as an entry point into the United States.


Conclusion:


This proposed rule responds to a Congressional mandate that requires 
the Federal Government to assume responsibility for all immigration to 
the CNMI by foreign investors, whether temporary or permanent. This 
proposed rule will implement this mandate and thus contribute to U.S. 
homeland security.


Risks:


This proposed regulation attempts to mitigate potential harm to the 
CNMI economy before the CNMI foreign investors are required to convert 
into United States immigrant or nonimmigrant visa classifications. The 
regulation is intended to assist CNMI investment permit holders to 
convert from their current status to a status covered under the Act 
during the transition period while considering their contributions to 
the well-being of the CNMI economy. Data gathered by the GAO suggests 
that perpetual foreign investors and long-term business permit holders 
invested at least $72 million in the CNMI in 2006 and 2007. The 
proposed regulation attempts to reduce the risk of losing substantial 
investments by including a majority of CNMI's current investor 
categories under the new E2 CNMI classification.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/00/08
NPRM Comment Period End         12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


CIS No. 2458-08


Agency Contact:
Steven Viger
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-1470
Email: steven.w.viger@dhs.gov
RIN: 1615-AB75
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
49. <bullet> COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS TRANSITIONAL 
WORKERS CLASSIFICATION

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 110-229


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 214.2


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule proposes to implement provisions of the Consolidated Natural 
Resources Act of 2008 to provide for a transition for a sizable 
population of temporary workers in the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana 
Islands (CNMI) to workers admitted under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.


Statement of Need:


This rule is required by a statute that requires the Federal Government 
to assume responsibility for visas for entry to the CNMI by non-
resident workers.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), P.L. 110-229, 
enacted on May 8, 2008, extends the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(INA) in full to the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.


Alternatives:


This rule is required by statute and alternatives were not considered.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Each of the estimated 22,000 CNMI transitional workers will be required 
to pay a $320 fee per year, for an annualized cost to the affected 
public of $7 million.

[[Page 71174]]

Risks:


The effect of this rule on the CNMI economy is uncertain at this point. 
The Senate Report of Public Law 110-229 states that there are risks to 
the homeland security as a result of the lack of integrity in the CNMI 
immigration system that resulted in the passage of the legislation 
requiring this rule's promulgation.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/08
NPRM Comment Period End         01/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State


Agency Contact:
Sophia Cox
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., 2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-1522
Email: sophia.cox@dhs.gov
RIN: 1615-AB76
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

50. CHANGES TO REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING H-2A NONIMMIGRANTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1101 and 1102


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 274a


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is amending the regulations 
affecting temporary and seasonal agricultural workers within the H-2A 
nonimmigrant category and their U.S. employers. The rule relaxes the 
current limitations on the ability of U.S. employers to petition 
unnamed agricultural workers to come to the United States and makes 
related changes to the evidentiary requirements for such petitions. In 
addition, the rule revises the current limitations on agricultural 
workers' length of stay, including: Redefining ``temporary 
employment;'' lengthening the amount of time an agricultural worker may 
remain in the United States after their H-2A nonimmigrant status has 
expired; and shortening the time period that an agricultural worker 
whose H-2A nonimmigrant status has expired must wait before he or she 
is eligible to obtain H-2A nonimmigrant status again. Finally, this 
rule provides for temporary employment authorization to agricultural 
workers seeking an extension of their H-2A nonimmigrant status through 
a different U.S. employer. These changes are necessary to encourage and 
facilitate the lawful employment of foreign agricultural workers.


Statement of Need:


The final rule removes certain limitations on H-2A employers and adopts 
streamlining measures in order to encourage and facilitate the lawful 
employment of foreign temporary and seasonal agricultural workers. The 
final rule also addresses concerns regarding the integrity of the H-2A 
program and sets forth several conditions to prevent fraud and to 
protect laborers' rights. The purpose of the final rule is to provide 
agricultural employers with an orderly and timely flow of legal 
workers, thereby decreasing their reliance on unauthorized workers, 
while protecting the rights of laborers.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The H-2A nonimmigrant classification applies to aliens who are coming 
to the United States temporarily to perform agricultural labor or 
services of a temporary or seasonal nature. INA section 
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a).


Alternatives:


Since DHS does not foresee the rule having a significant economic 
impact on small entities, this rule does not put forth significant 
alternatives to minimize impacts.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


USCIS funds the cost of processing applications and petitions for 
immigration and naturalization benefits and services, and USCIS' 
associated operating costs, by charging and collecting fees. For each 
Form I-129 USCIS charges a filing fee of $320. This rule does not 
change that fee, thus, the fee impacts of this rule on each petitioning 
firm are neutral. The enhancements in this rule are expected to 
increase the number of H-2A petitions per year by an estimated 3,600. 
Thus aggregate petition fees for H-2A employees as a result of this 
rule are expected to increase by $1,152,000.


This rule will benefit applicants by:


-- Reducing delays caused by IBIS checks holding up the petition 
application process.


-- Reducing disruption of the life and affairs of H-2A workers in the 
United States.


-- Protecting laborers' rights by precluding payment of fees by the 
alien.


-- Preventing the filing of requests for more workers than needed, visa 
selling, coercion of alien workers and their family members, or other 
practices that exploit workers and stigmatize the H-2A program.


-- Encouraging employers who currently hire seasonal agricultural 
workers who are not properly authorized to work in the United States to 
replace those workers with legal workers.


-- Minimizing immigration fraud and human trafficking.


Risks:


Since DHS does not foresee the rule having a significant economic 
impact on small entities, this rule does not put forth significant 
alternatives to minimize impacts.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/13/08                     73 FR 8230
NPRM Comment Period End         04/14/08
Final Action                    11/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


CIS 2428-07


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

[[Page 71175]]

Agency Contact:
Hiroko Witherow
Service Center Operations
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
111 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8410
Email: hiroko.witherow@dhs.gov
RIN: 1615-AB65
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
51. CHANGES TO REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING H-2B NONIMMIGRANTS AND THEIR 
EMPLOYERS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1101


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 214


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department of Homeland Security is amending its regulations 
affecting temporary nonagricultural workers within the H-2B 
nonimmigrant category and their U.S. employers. The changes are 
designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the H-2B 
nonimmigrant classification. This rule relaxes the current limitations 
on the ability of U.S. employers to petition unnamed nonagricultural 
workers to come to the United States. In addition, this rule creates a 
process that will allow for issuance of a partial approval notice in 
the event that a security check generates adverse information on one 
beneficiary who is part of a multiple beneficiary petition. Finally, 
this rule provides for employer notification to USCIS within 30 days of 
the date that the employee leaves employment or is terminated. These 
proposals will increase the efficiency of the program by eliminating 
certain regulatory barriers.


Statement of Need:


The final rule removes certain limitations on H-2B employers and adopts 
streamlining measures in order to facilitate the lawful employment of 
foreign temporary nonagricultural workers. The final rule also 
addresses concerns regarding the integrity of the H-2B program and sets 
forth several conditions to prevent fraud and protect laborers' rights. 
The final rule will benefit U.S. businesses by facilitating a timely 
flow of legal workers while ensuring the integrity of the program.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The H-2B classification applies to aliens who are coming to the United 
States to perform nonagricultural labor or services of a temporary 
nature. INA section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b); 8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b).


Alternatives:


This rule does not propose alternatives to minimize impacts. What cost 
increases occur due to the revised requirements are not expected to 
significantly affect entities and thus will not have a measurable 
impact on their ability to carry out their business activities.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This rule eliminates the ``extraordinary circumstances'' restriction on 
periods of temporary need longer than one year and provides that such a 
period could last up to three years. This change will greatly benefit 
employers that utilize the H-2B program and that often need workers for 
specific long-term, but temporary projects. The fee impacts of this 
rule are neutral. Only those petitions received before the maximum 
annual number is reached are adjudicated and the fee check deposited. 
Petitions not received before the maximum annual number is reached are 
rejected. Because the total number of H-2B visas available per year 
will not increase and the total number of workers requested already 
greatly exceeds the number of H-2B visas available, fees will not 
increase because there will be no increase in Form I-129 filings that 
are processed.


Risks:


None. The amendments to the regulations affecting H-2B nonimmigrant 
workers and their U.S. employers are designed to improve the efficiency 
and effectiveness of the H-2B nonimmigrant classification while 
ensuring that the rights and interests of U.S. and H-2B workers are 
protected.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/20/08                    73 FR 49109
NPRM Comment Period End         09/19/08
Final Rule                      11/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


2432-07


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Sophia Cox
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., 2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-1522
Email: sophia.cox@dhs.gov
RIN: 1615-AB67
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

52. TRANSPORTATION WORKER IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIAL (TWIC); CARD READER 
REQUIREMENTS (USCG-2007-28915)

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1226, 1231; 46 USC Ch 701; 50 USC 191, 192; EO 12656


CFR Citation:


33 CFR subchapter H


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, August 2010, SAFE Port Act, codified at 46 USC 
70105(k).


The final rule is required 2 years after the start of the pilot 
program.


Abstract:


The Coast Guard is establishing electronic card reader requirements for 
maritime facilities and vessels to be used in combination with TSA's 
Transportation Worker Identification Credential.


Statement of Need:


The Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002 explicitly 
required

[[Page 71176]]

the issuance of a biometric transportation security card to all U.S. 
merchant mariners and to workers requiring unescorted access to secure 
areas of facilities and vessels. On May 22, 2006, the Transportation 
Security Administration (TSA) and the Coast Guard published a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) to carry out this statute, proposing a 
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Program where 
TSA conducts security threat assessments and issues identification 
credentials, while the Coast Guard requires integration of the TWIC 
into the access control systems of vessels, facilities and OCS 
facilities. This would have included the use of biometric TWIC readers 
by vessels, facilities, and OCS facilities. Based upon comments 
received during the public comment period, TSA and the Coast Guard 
bifurcated the TWIC rule. The final rule, published in January of 2007, 
addressed the issuance of the TWIC and use of the TWIC as a ``flash 
pass'' at access control points.


The requirement for integration of the TWIC into access control systems 
via TWIC card readers was deliberately excluded from the first TWIC 
Final Rule due to technology, operational and economic feasibility 
concerns. While the private sector has employed biometrics for a number 
of years in controlled, office-like environments, very few studies have 
examined how biometric card readers will withstand the comparatively 
harsh environments of vessels and facilities. The standard for the 
design and issuance of the TWIC did not provide for the card to be read 
without inserting it into an open slot reader, which commenters felt 
was operationally insufficient for the rigors of application in the 
maritime environment. Also, several commenters stated that the cost of 
biometric card readers would be extremely detrimental for small 
entities. With this in mind, Congress enacted several statutory 
requirements within the Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) 
Port Act of 2006 to guide regulations pertaining to TWIC card readers.


This rulemaking is necessary to comply with the SAFE Port Act and to 
complete the implementation of the TWIC Program in our ports. By 
requiring electronic card readers at vessels and facilities, the Coast 
Guard will further enhance port security and improve access control 
measures.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The statutory authorities for the Coast Guard to prescribe, change, 
revise, or amend these regulations are provided under 33 U.S.C. 1226, 
1231; 46 U.S.C. chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 192; Executive Order 12656, 
3 CFR 1988 Comp., p. 585; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; 
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.


The SAFE Port Act requires a final rule within two years of 
``commencement'' of the TWIC pilot program.


Alternatives:


Alternative 1: Use several, if not all, of the concepts introduced in 
the first TWIC rule NPRM to address card reader requirements. This 
would mean that every facility and vessel regulated by 33 CFR 
subchapter H would need to purchase or have access to at least one 
reader.


Alternative 2: Don't implement a reader requirement, and instead have 
the Coast Guard do spot checks on regulated facilities and vessels 
using hand-held biometric card readers, while TWICs are used as flash 
passes.


Alternative 3: Require the use of card readers at regulated facilities 
and vessels based upon the risk of an access control related 
Transportation Security Incident taking place.


No non-regulatory alternatives are available at this time.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Coast Guard and TSA are in the process of revising earlier reader 
technology and compliance cost analysis from the Regulatory Evaluation 
used in support of the 2006 NPRM. We plan to revise the 2006 cost 
estimates associated with reader technology by incorporating data and 
findings from the pilot program and soliciting public comments. The 
pilot program discussed in the SAFE Port Act focuses on business 
processes, measurements of available technology, and operational 
impacts of readers. As of the publication date of this Regulatory Plan, 
data has not been collected from the pilot program. The Coast Guard and 
TSA anticipate reader technology deployed at vessels and facilities 
will further enhance port security and improve access control measures.


Based on preliminary analysis that does not include pilot data and 
information, we estimate the discounted first-year costs of this 
rulemaking to be $189 million or $204 million at a seven or three 
percent discount rate, respectively. The recurring annual costs after 
the first year, without technology replacement, range between $13.3 
million and $6.9 million, depending on year and discount rate. The 
annual cost of this rulemaking with technology replacement in 2014 
(five years after installation) is about $36 million or $47 million at 
a seven or three percent discount rate, respectively. The annualized 
cost over a ten-year period is $42.6 million or $40.6 million per year 
at a seven percent or three percent interest rate, respectively. We 
also estimate the total discounted ten-year cost of this rulemaking to 
be approximately $299 million at a seven percent discount rate and $347 
million at a three percent discount rate.


Risks:


During the rulemaking process, we will take into account the various 
conditions in which TWIC card readers may be employed. For example, we 
will consider the types of vessels and facilities that will use TWIC 
readers, locations of secure and restricted areas, operational 
constraints, and need for accessibility. As part of this consideration, 
we are using the analytical hierarchy approach to incorporate Maritime 
Security Risk Analysis Model maximum consequence data, criticality, and 
TWIC utility factors to determine the level of TWIC authentication 
necessary at each type of facility and vessel. This will tie TWIC 
reader use requirements with facility and vessel risk, criticality, and 
TWIC utility. Recordkeeping requirements, amendments to security plans, 
and the requirement for data exchanges (i.e., TWIC hotlist) between TSA 
and vessel and facility owners/operators will also be addressed in this 
rulemaking.


The MTSA of 2002 further required the TWIC to be applicable to vessel 
pilots (46 U.S.C. 70105(b)(2)(C)). Most vessel pilots are already 
included in the first TWIC Final Rule as many hold federally issued 
merchant mariner credentials. In this proposed rulemaking, we will 
propose extending the TWIC applicability to vessel pilots holding only 
state commissions or credentials. Similarly, MTSA required the TWIC to 
be applicable to ``an individual engaged on a towing vessel that 
pushes, pulls, or hauls alongside a tank vessel'' (46 U.S.C. 
70105(b)(2)(D)). While we have included individuals working on towing 
vessels subject to 33 CFR part 104 in the first TWIC Final Rule, we 
will propose extending TWIC applicability to those individuals who

[[Page 71177]]

work on towing vessels that push, pull, or haul alongside a tank 
vessel.


Another vital part of this rulemaking will be the vessel crew size 
limitations described in the SAFE Port Act. We are currently evaluating 
minimum crew size options as a component of proposed electronic reader 
requirements aboard vessels.


Finally, we will also revisit the concept of recurring unescorted 
access which was introduced in the first TWIC rule. As stated in the 
NPRM, published on May 22, 2006, ``As a result of this desire to 
provide flexibility, we propose the concept of `recurring unescorted 
access,' which is intended to allow an individual to enter on a 
continual basis, without repeating the personal identity verification 
piece.'' We will examine the risks and benefits of this provision and 
propose an appropriate solution for vessels and facilities with small 
contingents of regular employees.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
LCDR Jonathan H. Maiorine
Program Manager (CG-5442)
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone: 202 372-1133
Fax: 202 372-1906
Email: jonathan.h.maiorine@uscg.mil
Related RIN: Related to 1625-AB02, Related to 1652-AA41
RIN: 1625-AB21
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCG

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

53. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1995 AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL 
CONVENTION ON STANDARDS OF TRAINING, CERTIFICATION, AND WATCHKEEPING 
(STCW) FOR SEAFARERS, 1978 (USCG-2004-17914)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


46 USC 2103; 46 USC chapters 71 and 73; DHS Delegation 0170.1


CFR Citation:


46 CFR 10; 46 CFR 12; 46 CFR 15


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The International Maritime Organization (IMO) comprehensively amended 
the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, 
and Watchkeeping (STCW) for Seafarers, 1978, in 1995. The amendments 
came into force on February 1, 1997. This project implements those 
amendments by revising current rules to ensure that the United States 
complies with their requirements on: The training of merchant mariners, 
the documenting of their qualifications, and watch-standing and other 
arrangements aboard seagoing merchant ships of the United States. In 
addition, the Coast Guard has identified the need for additional 
changes to the interim rule issued in 1997. This rulemaking makes 
several minor editorial and clarification changes throughout title 46 
parts 10, 11, 12, and 15. This project supports the Coast Guard's 
strategic goal of maritime safety. It also supports the goal of the 
Prevention Directorate by reducing deaths and injuries of crew members 
on domestic merchant vessels and eliminating substandard vessels from 
the navigable waters of the United States.


Market or Regulatory Failure Analysis: The IMO adopted amendments to 
the international convention on STCW in 1995. In 1997, we modified the 
regulations to implement these amendments. Since then, however, we 
found that more specificity is needed in the STCW regulations. The need 
for additional clarification resulted in the issuance of several policy 
guidelines over the past 10 years detailing mariner and training 
provider compliance to the STCW regulations. This regulatory action 
proposes to add the specificity from these guidelines, to close other 
regulatory gaps, and to propose some additional changes to the STCW 
regulations.


Statement of Need:


The Coast Guard proposes to amend its regulations to implement changes 
to its interim rule published on June 26, 1997. These proposed 
amendments go beyond changes found in the interim rule and seek to more 
fully incorporate the requirements of the International Convention on 
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 
1978, as amended (STCW) in the requirements for the credentialing of 
United States merchant mariners. The new changes are primarily 
substantive and: (1) Are necessary to continue to give full and 
complete effect to the STCW Convention; (2) Incorporate lessons learned 
from implementation of the STCW through the interim rule and through 
policy letters and NVICs; and (3) Attempt to clarify regulations that 
have generated confusion among USCG offices and industry.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The authority for the Coast Guard to prescribe, change, revise, or 
amend these regulations is provided under 46 U.S.C. 2103 and 46 U.S.C. 
chapters 71 and 73; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 
0170.1


Alternatives:


For each proposed change, the Coast Guard has considered various 
alternatives. We considered using policy statements, but they are not 
enforceable. We also considered taking no action, but this does not 
support the Coast Guard's fundamental safety and security mission. 
Additionally, we considered comments made during our 1997 rulemaking to 
formulate our alternatives. When we analyzed issues, such as license 
progression and tonnage equivalency, the alternatives chosen were those 
that most closely met the requirements of STCW.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We estimate the non-discounted first-year and annual recurring costs of 
this proposed rule to be $14.6 million and $11.4 million, respectively. 
We estimate the annualized cost over a ten-year period to be at $11.9 
million per year

[[Page 71178]]

at either a seven percent or a three percent discount rate. We estimate 
the total discounted ten-year cost of this rulemaking to be $83.8 
million at a seven percent discount rate and $101.1 million at a three 
percent discount rate. The primary benefit of this rulemaking is to 
specify seafarer training.


Risks:


The ultimate goal of the regulation is to increase safety and 
facilitate consistency of the United States regulations with 
International Maritime Organization guidelines and requirements.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Meeting               08/02/95                    60 FR 39306
Supplemental NPRM Comment 
    Period End                  09/29/95
Notice of Inquiry               11/13/95                    60 FR 56970
Comment Period End              01/12/96
NPRM                            03/26/96                    61 FR 13284
Notice of Public Meetings       04/08/96                    61 FR 15438
NPRM Comment Period End         07/24/96
Notice of Intent                02/04/97                     62 FR 5197
Interim Final Rule              06/26/97                    62 FR 34505
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   07/28/97
Supplemental NPRM               01/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Old Docket Number CGD 95-062.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Mark Gould
Project Manager, CG-5221
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone: 202 372-1409
RIN: 1625-AA16
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCG
54. STANDARDS FOR LIVING ORGANISMS IN SHIPS' BALLAST WATER DISCHARGED 
IN U.S. WATERS (USCG-2001-10486)

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


16 USC 4711


CFR Citation:


33 CFR 151


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would add a performance standard to 33 CFR part 151, 
subpart D, for all ballast water management methods being used as 
alternatives to mid-ocean ballast water exchange. It supports the Coast 
Guard's strategic goals of marine safety and protection of natural 
resources. This project is significant due to high interest from 
Congress and several Federal and State agencies.


Market or Regulatory Failure Analysis: There exists the potential 
introduction of new viable invasive species populations into U.S. 
waters. Commercial users of U.S. waterways (i.e., owners and operators 
of vessels) will not voluntarily install costly ballast water treatment 
systems to reduce the introduction of invasive species. We anticipate 
affected owners and operators cannot internalize the benefits of 
developing and testing such systems (e.g., receive a positive return on 
investment or benefit by increasing profits). Without regulation, we do 
not expect industry to incur the costs to develop, install, and 
maintain approved technology that can achieve effective ballast water 
discharge standards.


Statement of Need:


The unintentional introductions of nonindigenous species into U.S. 
waters via the discharge of vessels' ballast water has had significant 
impacts to the nation's aquatic resources, biological diversity, and 
coastal infrastructures. This rulemaking would amend the ballast water 
management requirements (33 CFR part 151 subpart D) and establish a 
standard that specifies the level of biological treatment that must be 
achieved by a ballast water treatment system before ballast water can 
be discharged into U.S. waters. This would increase the Coast Guard's 
ability to protect U.S. waters against the introduction of 
nonindigenous species via ballast water discharges.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Congress has directed the Coast Guard to develop ballast water 
regulations to prevent the introduction of nonindigenous species into 
U.S. waters under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and 
Control Act of 1990 and reauthorized and amended it with the National 
Invasive Species Act of 1996. This is not a statutory rulemaking.


Alternatives:


We would use the standard rulemaking process to develop regulations for 
a ballast water discharge standard. Nonregulatory alternatives such as 
navigation and vessel inspection circulars and the Marine Safety Manual 
have been considered and may be used for the development of policy and 
directives to provide the maritime industry and our field offices 
guidelines for implementation of the regulations. Nonregulatory 
alternatives cannot be substituted for the standard we would develop 
with this rule.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We estimate the first-year (initial) cost of this rulemaking to be $241 
million based on a seven percent discount rate and $250 million based 
on a three percent discount rate. Over the 10-year period of analysis 
(2012-2021), the total cost for the U.S. vessels is approximately $1.37 
billion using the 3 percent discount rate and $1.19 billion using the 7 
percent discount rate. Our cost assessment includes existing and new 
vessels.


We anticipate damages avoided from nonindigenous invasive species are 
the benefits of this rulemaking. Based on preliminary analysis, our 
primary annualized estimate of damages avoided range from $165 million 
to $282 million at a seven percent interest rate or $194 million to 
$330 million at a three percent discount rate. Estimated mid-point 
total benefits over a ten-year period of analysis, adjusted for the 
phase-in schedule, range from $1,161 million to $2,813 million 
depending on effective factors and discount rates.


Risks:


The rate at which nonindigenous species are unintentionally introduced 
into U. S. waters via ballast water continues to increase, and is 
estimated to cost the United States $7.98 billion annually (source: 
2005 Pimental et al).

[[Page 71179]]

It is estimated that for areas such as the Great Lakes, San Francisco 
Bay, and Chesapeake Bay, one nonindigenous species becomes established 
per year. At this time, it is difficult to estimate the reduction of 
risk that would be accomplished by promulgating this rulemaking; 
however, it is expected a major reduction will occur.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           03/04/02                     67 FR 9632
ANPRM Comment Period End        06/03/02
NPRM                            03/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Bivan R. Patnaik
Project Manager, CG-5224
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone: 202 372-1435
Email: bivan.r.patnaik@uscg.mil
RIN: 1625-AA32
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCG
55. VESSEL REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTICES OF ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE, AND 
AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (USCG-2005-21869)

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1223; 33 USC 1225; 33 USC 1231; 46 USC 3716; 46 USC 8502 and ch 
701; sec 102 of PL 107-295


CFR Citation:


33 CFR 160; 33 CFR 161; 33 CFR 164; 33 CFR 165


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would expand the applicability for Notice of Arrival 
and Departure (NOAD) and Automatic Identification System (AIS) 
requirements. These expanded requirements would better enable the Coast 
Guard to correlate vessel AIS data with NOAD data, enhance our ability 
to identify and track vessels, detect anomalies, improve navigation 
safety, and heighten our overall maritime domain awareness.


The NOAD portion of this rulemaking would expand the applicability of 
the NOAD regulations by changing the minimum size of vessels covered 
below the current 300 gross tons, require that a notice of departure be 
submitted for all vessels required to submit a notice of arrival, and 
mandate electronic submission of NOAD notices to the National Vessel 
Movement Center. The AIS portion of this rulemaking will expand current 
AIS carriage requirements for the population identified in the Marine 
Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002.


Market or Regulatory Failure Analysis: The NOAD and AIS portions of the 
NPRM would attempt to close regulatory gaps by having smaller vessels 
submit Notices of Departure as well as Notices of Arrival and to do 
this electronically. AIS would help to track and identify the affected 
vessels (including enhancing situational awareness) and provide synergy 
with the NOAD portion of this rulemaking. The mandate for AIS is 
provided by the MTSA 2002.


Statement of Need:


We do not have a current mechanism in place to capture vessel, crew, 
passenger, or specific cargo information on vessels less than or equal 
to 300 gross tons (GT) intending to arrive at or depart from U.S. ports 
unless they are arriving with certain dangerous cargo (CDC) or are 
arriving at a port in the 7th Coast Guard District. The lack of NOA 
information on this large and diverse population of vessels represents 
a substantial gap in our maritime domain awareness (MDA). We can 
minimize this gap and enhance MDA by expanding the applicability of the 
NOAD regulation beyond vessels greater than 300 GT, cover all foreign 
commercial vessels and all U.S. commercial vessels coming from a 
foreign port; and enhance maritime domain awareness by tracking them 
(and others) with AIS. There is no current Coast Guard requirement for 
vessels to submit notification of departure information. This 
information is necessary in order to expand our MDA.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rulemaking is based on congressional authority provided in the 
Ports and Waterways Safety Act and the Maritime Transportation Security 
Act of 2002.


Alternatives:


Our goal is to increase MDA and to identify anomalies by correlating 
vessel AIS data with NOAD data. NOAD and AIS information from a greater 
number of vessels would provide even greater MDA than the proposed 
rule. We considered expanding NOAD and AIS to even more vessels, but we 
determined we needed additional legislative authority to expand AIS 
beyond what we propose in this rulemaking; and that it was best to 
combine additional NOAD expansion with future AIS expansion.


Although not in conjunction with a proposed rule, the Coast Guard 
sought comment regarding expansion of AIS carriage to other waters and 
other vessels not subject to the current requirements (68 FR 39355-56, 
and 39370, July 1, 2003; USCG 2003-14878). Those comments were reviewed 
and considered in drafting this rule and will become part of this 
docket.


To fulfill our agency obligations, the Coast Guard needs to receive AIS 
reports and NOADs from vessels identified in this rulemaking that 
currently are not required to provide this information. Policy or other 
non-binding statements by the Coast Guard addressed to the owners of 
these vessels would not produce the information required to 
sufficiently enhance our MDA to produce the information required to 
fulfill our Agency obligations.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We estimate the non-discounted first-year cost of this proposed rule to 
be about $94.4 million. We estimate the annualized cost over the 10-
year period of analysis to be about $28.0 million at either a seven or 
a three percent discount rate. We estimate the total discounted 10-year 
cost of this proposed rule to be about $199.6 million at a seven 
percent discount rate and about $235.9 million at a three percent 
discount rate. We estimate the annualized benefit to be about $3.8 
million at either a seven or a three percent discount rate. These 
estimates are based in part on available

[[Page 71180]]

technology. The primary benefit of this proposed rule is to enhance 
maritime security and safety through navigational and situational 
awareness. We also estimated there to be additional barrels of oil not 
spilled by this rulemaking. These estimates may change through further 
development of the rulemaking and after consideration of public 
comments.


Risks:


Considering the economic utility of U.S. ports, waterways, and coastal 
approaches, it is clear that a terrorist incident against our U.S. 
Maritime Transportation System (MTS) would have a disastrous impact on 
global shipping, international trade, and the world economy. By 
improving the ability of the Coast Guard both to identify potential 
terrorists coming to the United States while their vessel is far at sea 
and to coordinate appropriate responses and intercepts before the 
vessel reaches a U.S. port, this rulemaking would contribute 
significantly to the expansion of MDA, and consequently is instrumental 
in addressing the threat posed by terrorist actions against the MTS.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Legal Deadline: With regard to the legal deadline, we have indicated in 
past notices and rulemaking documents, and it remains the case, that we 
have worked to coordinate implementation of AIS MTSA requirements with 
the development of our ability to take advantage of AIS data (68 FR 
39355-56 and 39370, July 1, 2003).


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
LT Sharmine Jones
Program Manager, Office of Vessel Activities, Foreign and Offshore 
Vessel Activities Div. (CG-5432)
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593
Phone: 202 372-1234

Jorge Arroyo
Project Manager, Office of Navigation Systems CG-5413
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone: 202 372-1563
RIN: 1625-AA99
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCG
56. PASSENGER AND INSPECTED VESSEL STABILITY REQUIREMENTS (USCG-2007-
0030)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1321(j); 43 USC 1333; 46 USC 2103, 3205, 3306, 3307, 3703, 6101; 
49 USC App 1804; EO 11735; EO 12234; Dept of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1


CFR Citation:


46 CFR 115; 46 CFR 116; 46 CFR 122; 46 CFR 170; 46 CFR 171; 46 CFR 176; 
46 CFR 178; 46 CFR 185; 46 CFR 114; 46 CFR 175; 46 CFR 179


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Coast Guard proposes developing a rule that addresses both the 
stability calculations and the environmental operating requirements for 
certain domestic passenger vessels. The proposed rule would address the 
outdated per-person weight averages that are currently used in 
stability calculations for certain domestic passenger vessels. In 
addition, the proposed rule would add environmental operating 
requirements for domestic passenger vessels that could be adversely 
affected by sudden inclement weather. This rulemaking would increase 
passenger safety by significantly reducing the risk of certain types of 
passenger vessels capsizing due to either passenger overloading or 
operating these vessels in hazardous weather conditions.


Market or Regulatory Failure Analysis: These regulations need to be 
updated to reflect current passenger weights. Standards are often set 
because owners and operators cannot internalize the benefits of 
appropriate safety standards. The commercial passenger vessel industry 
is not capable of voluntarily establishing uniform, nationwide 
standards for passenger weight. Failure to update the standards to 
reflect accurate, current passenger weights places passenger vessels at 
greater risk of capsizing.


This NPRM would support the Coast Guard's strategic goal of maritime 
safety.


Statement of Need:


Coast Guard regulations use an assumed average weight per person to 
calculate the maximum number of passengers and crew permitted on each 
deck. This assumed weight was established in the 1960s and is 160 
pounds per person, except that vessels operating exclusively on 
protected waters carrying a mix of men, women, and children may use an 
average of 140 pounds. A recent report from the National Health and 
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) program of the National Center 
for Health Statistics shows that there has been a significant increase 
in the average weights of the U.S. population between 1960 and 2002. 
Accordingly, the Coast Guard is updating the average passenger weight 
used in stability tests and evaluations for those vessels that may be 
at risk of capsizing due to excessive passenger weight.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The authority for the Coast Guard to prescribe, change, revise, or 
amend these regulations is provided under 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 43 U.S.C. 
1333; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3205, 3306, 3307, 3703, and 6101; 49 U.S.C. App. 
1804; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971 to 1975 Comp., p. 743; E.O. 
12234; 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; and Department of 
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.


Alternatives:


The Coast Guard advised mariners through a Federal Register notice on 
April 26, 2006 (71 FR 24732) to voluntarily follow revised procedures 
to account for increased passenger weight when calculating the maximum 
number of persons permitted on board. The notice advised owners and 
operators of all pontoon vessels, and small passenger vessels not more 
than 65 feet in length, that met simplified

[[Page 71181]]

stability requirements using either 140 or 160 pounds, to voluntarily 
restrict the maximum number of passengers permitted on board by:


(1) Changing passenger capacity to a reduced number by dividing the 
total test weight by 185 pounds; or


(2) changing passenger capacity to a reduced number equal to 140 
divided by 185 times the current number of passengers permitted to be 
carried. If the total test weight was based on 160 pounds per person, 
the multiplier may be taken as 160 divided by 185; or


(3) weighing persons and effects at dockside prior to boarding and 
limiting the actual load to the total test weight used in the vessel's 
SST or PSST.


On November 2, 2006, the Coast Guard published a second notice in the 
Federal Register clarifying the environmental conditions appropriate 
for operation of small passenger vessels (71 FR 64546). Guidance, 
though, does not carry the force of law. A regulatory solution is 
necessary to enact changes to the mandatory passenger weight 
limitations.


The Coast Guard also considered the option of directing Officers in 
Charge, Marine Inspection, pursuant to 46 CFR 178.210(c), to use a 
current assumed average passenger weight in stability tests for vessels 
under 65 feet in length. As with guidance, though, a policy directive 
is not enforceable and a regulatory change is necessary.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We estimate the non-discounted first-year and recurring costs of this 
proposed rule to be about $10 million and $2.5 million, respectively. 
We estimate the annualized cost over the ten-year period at about $3.5 
million per year at either a seven percent or a three percent discount 
rate. We estimate the total discounted ten-year cost of this rulemking 
to be $24.6 million at a seven percent discount rate and $28.7 million 
at a three percent discount rate.


These cost estimates may change through further development of the 
rulemaking and after consideration of public comments. The anticipated 
benefit is aligning regulation with the actual average passenger 
weight. We anticipate the revised weight standards would improve 
stability and reduce the risk of capsizings due either to passenger 
overloading or operating certain vessels in hazardous weather 
conditions, but have not assessed the extent of the risk reduction.


Risks:


Passenger vessel capsizings can involve significant loss of life and 
property. This rulemaking would reduce the risk of such incidents by 
updating the average passenger weight used in stability tests and 
evaluations of certain vessels. Consequently, this rulemaking would 
increase passenger safety and supports the Coast Guard's strategic goal 
of maritime safety.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/20/08                    73 FR 49244
NPRM Comment Period End         11/18/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
William Peters
Program Manager, Office of Design & Engineering Standards, Systems 
Engineering Division (CG-5212)
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593
Phone: 202 372-1371
Email: william.s.peters@uscg.mil
RIN: 1625-AB20
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--U.S. Customs and Border Protection (USCBP)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

57. ADVANCE INFORMATION ON PRIVATE AIRCRAFT ARRIVING AND DEPARTING THE 
UNITED STATES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


5 USC 301; 19 USC 58b; 19 USC 66; 19 USC 1433; 19 USC 1436; 19 USC 
1448; 19 USC 1459; 19 USC 1590; 19 USC 1594; 19 USC 1623 to 1624; 19 
USC 1644 to 1644a


CFR Citation:


19 CFR 122


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule would amend Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations to 
require that the pilot of any private aircraft arriving in the United 
States from a foreign location or departing the United States for 
foreign provide an advance electronic transmission of information to 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regarding each individual traveling 
onboard the aircraft. In addition, the rule would add data elements to 
the existing notice of arrival requirements and proposes a new notice 
of departure requirement. The notice of arrival and notice of departure 
information would be required to be submitted to CBP via an approved 
electronic data interchange system in the same transmission as the 
corresponding arrival or departure manifest information. The means of 
transmission for these data elements must be via an electronic data 
interchange system approved by CBP. Under the proposed rule, the 
transmission of the data must be accomplished so that CBP receives the 
data prior to the private aircraft departing from a foreign airport, 
and prior to a private aircraft departing a United States airport for a 
foreign port or place.


Statement of Need:


Current regulations do not provide CBP the capability to assess 
potential threats posed by private aircraft entering and departing the 
United States. Private aircraft currently are not required to 
electronically transmit to CBP advance notice of arrival through an 
approved electronic data interchange system. In addition, private 
aircraft are not currently required to electronically transmit 
identifying information for all individuals onboard the aircraft 
(manifest data) before arriving in or departing from the United States. 
The existing regulations lack clarity in the procedures for requesting 
permission to land at landing rights airports. Private aircraft are 
also currently not required to obtain clearance or provide notice of 
departure prior to departing the United States.


To adequately and accurately assess potential threats posed by private 
aircraft entering and departing the United States, CBP needs sufficient 
and timely information about the impending arrival or departure of a

[[Page 71182]]

private aircraft, the passengers and crew onboard, and clear procedures 
regarding landing rights and departure clearance. Without these tools, 
CBP does not currently have the capability to perform risk assessments 
on passengers traveling on private aircraft.


Under this rule, CBP would receive advance electronic information of 
notice of arrival combined with passenger manifest data for those 
aboard private aircraft that arrive in and depart from the United 
States. This would provide critical information in a sufficient time to 
fully pre-screen information on all individuals intending to travel 
onboard private aircraft to or from the United States. Moreover, these 
changes would enable CBP to minimize potential threats posed by private 
aircraft by identifying high-risk individuals and aircraft and allowing 
CBP to coordinate with airport personnel and domestic or foreign 
government authorities to take appropriate action when warranted by a 
threat.


This rule serves to provide the nation, private aircraft operators, and 
the international traveling public, additional security from the threat 
of terrorism and enhance CBP's ability to carry out its border 
enforcement mission.


Alternatives:


This proposed rule is not economically significant under Executive 
Order 12866. Therefore, CBP did not consider regulatory alternatives.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Currently, pilots of private aircraft must submit information regarding 
themselves, their aircraft, and any passengers prior to arrival into 
the United States from a foreign airport. Depending on the location of 
the foreign airport, the pilot provides the arrival information 1 hour 
prior to crossing the U.S. coastline or border (areas south of the 
United States) or during the flight (other areas). The information that 
would now be required for the pilot is similar to what is already 
required; it would now need to be submitted earlier (60 minutes prior 
to departure). The information that would now be required for 
passengers is more extensive that what is currently required and would 
also have to be submitted earlier. No notice of departure information 
is currently required for private aircraft departing the United States 
for a foreign airport.


CBP estimates that 138,559 private aircraft landed in the United States 
in 2006 based on current notice of arrival data. These aircraft 
collectively carried 455,324 passengers; including the 138,559 pilots 
of the aircraft, this totals 593,883 individuals arriving in the United 
States aboard private aircraft. CBP estimates that approximately two-
thirds are U.S. citizens and the remaining one-third is comprosed of 
non-U.S. citizens.


CBP does not currently compile data for departures, as there are 
currently no requirements for private aircraft departing the United 
States. For this analysis, we assume that the number of departures is 
the same as the number of arrivals.


Thus, we estimate that 140,000 private aircraft arrivals and 140,000 
departures will be affected annually as a result of the rule. While the 
current data elements for pilots are very similar to the proposed 
requirements, the data elements for passengers are more extensive. 
Based on the current information collected and accounting for proposed 
changes in the data elements, CBP estimates that one submission, which 
includes the arrival information and the passenger manifest data, will 
require 15 minutes of time (0.25 hours) to complete.


Currently, private aircraft arriving from areas south of the United 
States must provide advance notice of arrival at least 1 hour before 
crossing the U.S. coastline or border. There are no such timing 
requirements for other areas. Thus, some pilots and their passengers 
may decide that in order to comply with the new requirements, including 
submitting information through eAPIS and waiting for a response from 
CBP, they must convene at the airport earlier than they customarily 
would.


To estimate the costs associated with the time required to input data 
into eAPIS, we use the value of an hour of time as reported in the 
Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) document on critical values, 
$28.60. This represents a weighted cost for business and leisure 
travelers in the air environment. The cost to submit advance notice of 
arrival data through eAPIS would be approximately $1 million (140,000 
arrivals * 0.25 hours * $28.60 per hour). Similarly, costs to submit 
advance notice of departure data would be $1 million, for a total cost 
to submit the required data elements of $2 million annually.


To estimate the costs of arriving earlier than customary, we again use 
the value of time of $28.60 per hour. As noted previously, we assume 
that 301,000 pilots and passengers may choose to arrive 0.25 hours 
earlier than customary. This would result in a cost of approximately $2 
million for arrivals and $2 million for departures, a total of $4 
million annually (301,000 individuals * 0.25 hours * $28.60 per hour * 
2).


Thus, the total annual cost of the proposed rule is expected to be $6 
million. Over 10 years, this would total a present value cost of $47 
million at a 7 percent discount rate ($55 million at a 3 percent 
discount rate).


As noted previously, the benefit of this proposed rule is enabling CBP 
to identify high-risk individuals and aircraft prior to their arrival 
in the United States, thus allowing CBP to coordinate with airport 
personnel and government authorities to take the action warranted by 
the threat. CBP would receive more information earlier to better assess 
risks of specific flights to national security and to take appropriate 
action in order to prevent security threats.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/18/07                    72 FR 53393
NPRM Comment Period End         11/19/07
Final Action                    01/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Transferred from RIN 1515-AD10


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

[[Page 71183]]

Agency Contact:
Barbara Connolly
Program Officer
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Office of Field Operations
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20229
Phone: 202 344-1694

Glen E. Vereb
Chief, Cargo Security, Carriers and Immigration Branch, Office of 
International Trade
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20229
Phone: 202 352-0212
RIN: 1651-AA41
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCBP
58. IMPORTER SECURITY FILING AND ADDITIONAL CARRIER REQUIREMENTS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Legal Authority:


PL 109-347, sec 203; 5 USC 301; 19 USC 66, 1431, 1433, 1434, 1624, 2071 
note; 46 USC 60105


CFR Citation:


19 CFR 4


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule would amend DHS regulations to provide that Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) must receive, by way of a CBP-approved 
electronic data interchange system, additional information from 
carriers and importers pertaining to cargo before the cargo is brought 
into the United States by vessel. The information required is that 
which is reasonably necessary to enable high-risk shipments to be 
identified so as to prevent smuggling and ensure cargo safety and 
security pursuant to the laws enforced and administered by CBP. The 
amendment is specifically intended to implement the provisions of 
section 203 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 
2006.


Statement of Need:


Vessel carriers are currently required to transmit certain manifest 
information by way of the CBP Vessel Automated Manifest System (AMS) 24 
hours prior to lading of containerized and non-exempt break bulk cargo 
at a foreign port. For the most part, this is the ocean carrier's or 
non-vessel operating common carrier (NVOCC)'s cargo declaration. CBP 
analyzes this information to generate its risk assessment for targeting 
purposes.


Internal and external government reviews have concluded that more 
complete advance shipment data would produce even more effective and 
more vigorous cargo risk assessments. In addition, pursuant to Section 
203 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (Pub. 
L. 109-347, 6 U.S.C. 943) (SAFE Port Act), the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, acting through the Commissioner of CBP, must promulgate 
regulations to require the electronic transmission of additional data 
elements for improved high-risk targeting, including appropriate 
security elements of entry data for cargo destined to the United States 
by vessel prior to loading of such cargo on vessels at foreign 
seaports.


Based upon its analysis, as well as the requirements under the SAFE 
Port Act, CBP is proposing to require the electronic transmission of 
additional data for improved high-risk targeting. Some of these data 
elements are being required from carriers (Container Status Messages 
and Vessel Stow Plan) and others are being required from ``importers,'' 
as that term is defined for purposes of the proposed regulations.


This rule will improve CBP's risk assessment and targeting 
capabilities, while at the same time, enabling the agency to facilitate 
the prompt release of legitimate cargo following its arrival in the 
United States. The information will assist CBP in increasing the 
security of the global trading system and, thereby, reducing the threat 
to the United States and world economy.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Pursuant to Section 203 of the Security and Accountability for Every 
Port Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-347, 6 U.S.C. 943) (SAFE Port Act), the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Commissioner of CBP, 
must promulgate regulations to require the electronic transmission of 
additional data elements for improved high-risk targeting, including 
appropriate security elements of entry data for cargo destined to the 
United States by vessel prior to loading of such cargo on vessels at 
foreign seaports.


Alternatives:


CBP considered requiring an importer security filing for bulk cargo as 
well as for containerized and break-bulk cargo. If bulk cargo were not 
exempt from an importer security filing, the annualized costs of the 
rule would be increased by approximately $10 million.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


When the NPRM was published, CBP estimated that approximately 11 
million import shipments conveyed by 1,200 different carrier companies 
operating 50,000 unique voyages or vessel-trips to the United States 
will be subject to the rule. Annualized costs range from $390 million 
to $630 million (7 percent discount rate over 10 years).


The annualized cost range results from varying assumptions about the 
estimated security filing transaction costs or fees charged to the 
importers by the filing parties, the potential for supply chain delays, 
and the estimated costs to carriers for transmitting additional data to 
CBP.


Ideally, the quantification and monetization of the benefits of this 
regulation would involve estimating the current level of risk of a 
successful terrorist attack, absent this regulation, and the 
incremental reduction in risk resulting from implementation of the 
regulation. CBP would then multiply the change by an estimate of the 
value individuals place on such a risk reduction to produce a monetary 
estimate of direct benefits. However, existing data limitations and a 
lack of complete understanding of the true risks posed by terrorists 
prevent us from establishing the incremental risk reduction 
attributable to this rule. As a result, CBP has undertaken a ``break-
even'' analysis to inform decision-makers of the necessary incremental 
change in the probability of such an event occurring that would result 
in direct benefits equal to the costs of the proposed rule.


CBP's analysis finds that the incremental costs of this regulation are 
relatively small compared to the median value of a shipment of goods 
despite the rather large absolute estimate of present value cost.


The proposed regulation may increase the time shipments are in transit, 
particularly for shipments consolidated in containers. For such 
shipments, the supply chain is generally more complex

[[Page 71184]]

and the importer has less control of the flow of goods and associated 
security filing information. Foreign cargo consolidators may be 
consolidating multiple shipments from one or more shippers in a 
container destined for one or more buyers or consignees. In order to 
ensure that the security filing data is provided by the shippers to the 
importers (or their designated agents) and is then transmitted to and 
accepted by CBP in advance of the 24-hour deadline, consolidators may 
advance their cut-off times for receipt of shipments and associated 
security filing data.


These advanced cut-off times would help prevent a consolidator or 
carrier from having to unpack or unload a container in the event the 
security filing for one of the shipments contained in the container is 
inadequate or not accepted by CBP. For example, consolidators may 
require shippers to submit, transmit, or obtain CBP approval of their 
security filing data before their shipments are stuffed in the 
container, before the container is sealed, or before the container is 
delivered to the port for lading. In such cases, importers would likely 
have to increase the times they hold their goods as inventory and thus 
incur additional inventory carrying costs to sufficiently meet these 
advanced cut-off times imposed by their foreign consolidators. The high 
end of the cost ranges presented assumes an initial supply chain delay 
of 1 day (24 hours) for the first year of implementation (2008) and a 
delay of 12 hours for years 2 through 10 (2009 to 2017).


The benefit of this rule is the improvement of CBP's risk assessment 
and targeting capabilities, while at the same time, enabling CBP to 
facilitate the prompt release of legitimate cargo following its arrival 
in the United States. The information will assist CBP in increasing the 
security of the global trading system, and thereby reducing the threat 
to the United States and the world economy.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/02/08                       73 FR 90
NPRM Comment Period End         03/03/08
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    02/01/08                     73 FR 6061
NPRM Comment Period End         03/18/08
Final Action                    01/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Richard DiNucci
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Office of Field Operations
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20229
Phone: 202 344-2513
Email: richard.dinucci@dhs.gov
RIN: 1651-AA70
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCBP
59. CHANGES TO THE VISA WAIVER PROGRAM TO IMPLEMENT THE ELECTRONIC 
SYSTEM FOR TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION (ESTA) PROGRAM

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1187; 8 CFR part 2


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 217.5


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This interim rule amends title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) on an interim basis to implement the Electronic System for Travel 
Authorization (ESTA) procedures for aliens who wish to travel to the 
United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) at air or sea ports 
of entry. Currently, aliens from VWP countries must provide certain 
biographical information to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
Officers at air and sea ports of entry on a paper form Nonimmigrant 
Alien Arrival/Departure (Form I-94W). Under this interim final rule, 
VWP travelers will provide the same information to CBP electronically 
before departing for the United States. By automating the I-94W process 
and establishing a system to provide VWP traveler data in advance of 
travel, CBP will be able to determine the eligibility of citizens and 
nationals from VWP countries to travel to the United States and whether 
such travel poses a law enforcement or security risk, before such 
individuals begin travel to the United States. ESTA will provide for 
greater efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by 
allowing CBP to identify subjects of potential interest before they 
depart for the United States, thereby increasing security and reducing 
traveler delays upon arrival at U.S. ports of entry. ESTA will be 
implemented as a mandatory program 60 days after publication of another 
notice in the Federal Register DHS. DHS anticipates the such notice 
will be issued in November 2008, for implementation of the mandatory 
ESTA requirements on or before January 12, 2009.


Statement of Need:


Currently, aliens from VWP countries must provide certain biographical 
information to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officers at air 
and sea ports of entry on a paper form Nonimmigrant Alien Arrival/
Departure (Form I-94W). Section 711 of the 9/11 Act requires the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of 
State, to develop and implement a fully automated electronic travel 
authorization system which will collect biographical and other 
information in advance of travel to determine the eligibility of the 
alien to travel to the United States and to determine whether such 
travel poses a law enforcement or security risk. ESTA is intended to 
fulfill these statutory requirements.


Under this interim final rule, VWP travelers will provide the same 
information to CBP electronically before departing for the United 
States. VWP travelers who receive travel authorization under ESTA will 
not be required to complete the paper Form I-94W when arriving on a 
carrier that is capable of receiving and validating messages pertaining 
to the traveler's ESTA status as part of the traveler's boarding 
status. By automating the I-94W process and establishing a system to 
provide VWP traveler data in advance of travel, CBP will be able to 
determine the eligibility of citizens and eligible nationals from VWP 
countries to travel to the United States and whether such travel poses 
a law

[[Page 71185]]

enforcement or security risk, before such individuals begin travel to 
the United States. ESTA will provide for greater efficiencies in the 
screening of international travelers by allowing CBP to identify 
subjects of potential interest before they depart for the United 
States, thereby increasing security and reducing traveler delays upon 
arrival at U.S. ports of entry.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The ESTA program is based on congressional authority provided under 
section 711 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 
Act of 2007 and section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(INA).


Alternatives:


CBP considered three alternatives to this rule:


1: The ESTA requirements in the rule, but with a $1.50 fee per each 
travel authorization (more costly)


2: The ESTA requirements in the rule, but with only the name of the 
passenger and the admissibility questions on the I-94W form (less 
burdensome)


3: The ESTA requirements in the rule, but only for the countries 
entering the VWP after 2009 (no new requirements for VWP, reduced 
burden for newly entering countries)


CBP determined that the rule provides the greatest level of enhanced 
security and efficiency at an acceptable cost to traveling public and 
potentially affected air carriers.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The purpose of ESTA is to allow DHS and CBP to establish the 
eligibility of certain foreign travelers to travel to the United States 
under the VWP, and whether the alien's proposed travel to the United 
States poses a law enforcement or security risk. Upon review of such 
information, DHS will determine whether the alien is eligible to travel 
to the United States under the VWP. Once ESTA is implemented as a 
mandatory program, citizens and eligible nationals of the 27 countries 
in the current VWP must comply with this rule.


Impacts to Air & Sea Carriers


CBP estimated that eight U.S.-based air carriers and eleven sea 
carriers will be affected by the rule. An additional 35 foreign-based 
air carriers and five sea carriers will be affected. CBP concluded that 
costs to air and sea carriers to support the requirements of the ESTA 
program could cost $137 million to $1.1 billion over the next 10 years 
depending on the level of effort required to integrate their systems 
with ESTA, how many passengers they need to assist in applying for 
travel authorizations, and the discount rate applied to annual costs.


Impacts to Travelers


ESTA will present new costs and burdens to travelers in VWP countries 
who were not previously required to submit any information to the U.S. 
Government in advance of travel to the United States. Travelers from 
Roadmap countries who become VWP countries will also incur costs and 
burdens, though these are much less than obtaining a nonimmigrant visa 
(category B1/B2), which is currently required for short-term pleasure 
or business to travel to the United States. CBP estimated that the 
total quantified costs to travelers will range from $1.1 billion to 
$3.5 billion depending on the number of travelers, the value of time, 
and the discount rate. Annualized costs are estimated to range from 
$133 million to $366 million.


Benefits


As set forth in section 711 of the 9/11 Act, it was the intent of 
Congress to modernize and strengthen the security of the Visa Waiver 
Program under section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, 
8 USC 1187) by simultaneously enhancing program security requirements 
and extending visa-free travel privileges to citizens and eligible 
nationals of eligible foreign countries that are partners in the war on 
terrorism.


By requiring passenger data in advance of travel, CBP may be able to 
determine, before the alien departs for the United States, the 
eligibility of citizens and eligible nationals from VWP countries to 
travel to the United States under the VWP, and whether such travel 
poses a law enforcement or security risk. In addition to fulfilling a 
statutory mandate, the rule serves the twin goals of promoting border 
security and legitimate travel to the United States. By modernizing the 
VWP, ESTA is intended to both increase national security and provide 
for greater efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by 
allowing for the screening of subjects of potential interest well 
before boarding, thereby reducing traveler delays based on potentially 
lengthy processes at U.S. ports of entry.


CBP concluded that the total benefits to travelers could total $1.1 
billion to $3.3 billion over the period of analysis. Annualized 
benefits could range from $134 million to $345 million.


In addition to these benefits to travelers, CBP and the carriers should 
also experience the benefit of not having to administer the I-94W. 
While CBP has not conducted an analysis of the potential savings, it 
should accrue benefits from not having to produce, ship, and store 
blank forms. CBP should also be able to accrue savings related to data 
entry and archiving. Carriers should realize some savings as well, 
though carriers will still have to administer the I-94 for those 
passengers not traveling under the VWP and the Customs Declaration 
forms for all passengers aboard the aircraft and vessel.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Action            06/09/08                    73 FR 32440
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   08/08/08
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          08/08/08
Final Rule                      06/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Beverly Good
Director, Electronic System Travel Authorization
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Suite 3.3C
Washington, DC 20229
Phone: 202 344-2433
Fax: 202-344-2747
Email: cbp.esta@dhs.gov
RIN: 1651-AA72
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCBP
60. <bullet> IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GUAM-CNMI VISA WAIVER PROGRAM

Priority:


Other Significant

[[Page 71186]]

Legal Authority:


PL 110-229, sec 702


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 100.4; 8 CFR 212.1; 8 CFR 233.5; 8 CFR 235.5; 19 CFR 4.7b; 19 CFR 
122.49a


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 4, 2008, PL 110-229.


Abstract:


This rule amends Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations to 
implement section 702 of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 
(CNRA). This law extends the immigration laws of the United States to 
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and provides 
for a joint visa waiver program for travel to Guam and the CNMI. This 
rule implements section 702 of the CNRA by amending the regulations to 
replace the current Guam Visa Waiver Program with a new Guam-CNMI Visa 
Waiver Program. The amended regulations set forth the requirements for 
nonimmigrant visitors who seek admission for business or pleasure and 
solely for entry into and stay on Guam or the CNMI without a visa. DHS 
is establishing six ports of entry in the CNMI for purposes of 
administering and enforcing the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program.


Statement of Need:


Currently, aliens who are citizens of eligible countries may apply for 
admission to Guam at a Guam port of entry as nonimmigrant visitors for 
a period of fifteen (15) days or less, for business or pleasure, 
without first obtaining a nonimmigrant visa, provided that they are 
otherwise eligible for admission. Section 702(b) of the Consolidated 
Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), supersedes the Guam visa waiver 
program by providing for a visa waiver program for Guam and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver 
Program). Section 702(b) requires DHS to promulgate regulations within 
180 days of enactment of the CNRA to allow nonimmigrant visitors from 
eligible countries to apply for admission into Guam and the CNMI, for 
business or pleasure, without a visa, for a period of authorized stay 
of no longer than forty-five (45) days.


Under this interim final rule, a visitor seeking admission under the 
Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program must be a national of an eligible country 
and must meet the requirements enumerated in the current Guam visa 
waiver program as well as additional requirements that bring the Guam-
CNMI Visa Waiver Program into soft alignment with the U.S. Visa Waiver 
Program provided for in 8 CFR 217. The country eligibility requirements 
established in this rule take into account the intent of the CNRA and 
ensure that the regulations meet current border security needs. The 
country eligibility requirements are designed to: (1) ensure effective 
border control procedures, (2) properly address national security and 
homeland security concerns in extending U.S. immigration law to the 
CNMI, and (3) maximize the CNMI's potential for future economic and 
business growth. This rule also provides that visitors from the 
People's Republic of China and Russia have provided a significant 
economic benefit to the CNMI. However, nationals from those countries 
can not, at this time, seek admission under the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver 
Program due to security concerns. Pursuant to section 702(a) of the 
CNRA, which extends the immigration laws of the United States to the 
CNMI, this rule also establishes six ports of entry in the CNMI to 
enable the Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary) to administer 
and enforce the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program is based on congressional authority 
provided under 702(b) of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 
(CNRA).


Alternatives:


None


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The most significant change for admission to the CNMI as a result of 
the rule will be for visitors from those countries who are not included 
in either the existing U.S. Visa Waiver Program or the Guam-CNMI Visa 
Waiver Program established by the rule. These visitors must apply for 
U.S. visas, which require in-person interviews at U.S. embassies or 
consulates and higher fees than the CNMI currently assesses for its 
visitor entry permits. CBP anticipates that the annual cost to the CNMI 
will be $6 million. These are losses associated with the reduced visits 
from foreign travelers who may no longer visit the CNMI upon 
implementation of this rule.


The anticipated benefits of the rule are enhanced security that will 
result from the federalization of the immigration functions in the 
CNMI.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              11/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Agency Contact:
Cheryl C. Peters
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20229
Phone: 202 344-1707
Email: cheryl.c.peters@dhs.gov
RIN: 1651-AA77
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

61. AIRCRAFT REPAIR STATION SECURITY

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; 49 USC 44924


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 1554


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, August 8, 2004, sec. 611 of Vision 100 requires TSA 
to issue a final rule within 240 days from date of enactment of Vision 
100.


Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, sec. 1616 of the 9/11 Commission Act 
requires that the final rule be issued within one year of the date of 
enactment.


Section 611(b)(1) of Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization 
Act (Pub. L. 108-176; Dec. 12, 2003; 117 Stat. 2490), codified at 49 
U.S.C.

[[Page 71187]]

44924, requires TSA to issue ``final regulations to ensure the security 
of foreign and domestic aircraft repair stations'' within 240 days from 
date of enactment of Vision 100.


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will propose to add a 
new regulation to improve the security of domestic and foreign aircraft 
repair stations, as required by the section 611 of Vision 100--Century 
of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The NPRM will propose general 
requirements for security programs to be adopted and implemented by 
repair stations certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 
Regulations originally were to be promulgated by August 8, 2004. A 
Report to Congress was sent August 24, 2004, explaining the delay.


Statement of Need:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is proposing 
regulations to improve the security of domestic and foreign aircraft 
repair stations. The proposed regulations will require repair stations 
that are certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration to adopt 
and carry out a security program. The proposal will codify the scope of 
TSA's existing inspection program. The proposal also will provide 
procedures for repair stations to seek review of any TSA determination 
that security measures are deficient.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Sec. 611(b)(1) of Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act 
(Pub. L. 108-176; 12/12/2003; 117 Stat. 2490), codified at 49 U.S.C. 
44924, requires TSA to issue ``final regulations to ensure the security 
of foreign and domestic aircraft repair stations'' within 240 days from 
date of enactment of Vision 100. Section 1616 of Public Law 110-53, 
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 
3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266) requires that the FAA may not certify any 
foreign repair stations if the regulations are not issued within one 
year after the date of enactment of the 9/11 Commission Act unless the 
repair station was previously certified or is in the process of 
certification.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The proposed rule would enhance aviation security by supplementing 
existing safety regulations with requirements for repair stations to 
implement specific security measures to protect aircraft from 
commandeering, tampering, or sabotage. The proposed security measures 
will mitigate the potential threat that an aircraft could be used as a 
weapon or be destroyed. Using a 7 percent discount rate, TSA estimated 
the 10-year cost impacts for the primary scenario of this rulemaking 
would total $242.4 million. This total is distributed among domestic 
repair stations, which would incur total costs of $119.7 million; 
foreign repair stations, which would incur costs of $68.9 million; and 
TSA-projected Federal Government costs, which would be $53.7 million. 
As of March 2007, the FAA reported that there are 4,227 domestic repair 
stations and 694 repair stations located outside the U.S. that have an 
FAA certificate under part 145 of the FAA's rules.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice--Public Meeting; 
    Request for Comments        02/24/04                     69 FR 8357
Report to Congress              08/24/04
NPRM                            12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
John Randol
Program Manager, Repair Stations
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Security Operations
TSA-29, HQ, E9
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-1796
Email: john.randol@dhs.gov

Dominick S. Caridi
Director, Regulatory Development and Business Analysis
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-410N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-2952
Fax: 703 603-0302
Email: dominick.caridi@dhs.gov

Linda L. Kent
Sr. Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-126S
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-2675
Fax: 571 227-1381
Email: linda.kent@dhs.gov
RIN: 1652-AA38
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--TSA
62. LARGE AIRCRAFT SECURITY PROGRAM, OTHER AIRCRAFT OPERATOR SECURITY 
PROGRAMS, AND AIRPORT OPERATOR SECURITY PROGRAM

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Legal Authority:


6 USC 469; 18 USC 842; 18 USC 845; 46 USC 70102 to 70106; 46 USC 70117; 
49 USC 114; 49 USC 5103; 49 USC 5103a; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 44901 to 
44907; 49 USC 44913 to 44914; 49 USC 44916 to 44918; 49 USC 44932; 49 
USC 44935 to 44936; 49 USC 44942; 49 USC 46105

[[Page 71188]]

CFR Citation:


49 CFR 1515; 49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1522; 49 CFR 1540; 49 CFR 1542; 49 CFR 
1544; 49 CFR 1550


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) proposes to amend 
current aviation transportation security regulations to enhance the 
security of general aviation by expanding the scope of current 
requirements, and by adding new requirements for certain large aircraft 
operators and airports serving those aircraft. TSA is proposing that 
all aircraft operations, including corporate and private charter 
operations, with aircraft having a maximum certificated takeoff weight 
(MTOW) above 12,500 pounds (``large aircraft'') be required to adopt a 
large aircraft security program. TSA also proposes to require certain 
airports that serve large aircraft to adopt security programs.


Statement of Need:


This NPRM would enhance current security measures, and would apply 
security measures currently in place for operators of certain types of 
aircraft, to operators of other aircraft. While the focus of TSA's 
existing aviation security programs has been on air carriers and 
commercial operators, TSA is aware that general aviation aircraft with 
a maximum certificated takeoff weight (MTOW) of over 12,500 pounds 
(``large aircraft'') may be vulnerable to terrorist activity. These 
aircraft are of sufficient size and weight to inflict significant 
damage and loss of lives if they are hijacked and used as missiles. TSA 
has current regulations that apply to large aircraft operated by air 
carriers and commercial operators, including the twelve five program, 
the partial program, and the private charter program. However, the 
current regulations do not cover all general aviation operations, such 
as those operated by corporations and individuals, and such operations 
do not have the features that are necessary to enhance security.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The proposed rule would yield benefits in the areas of security and 
quality governance. The security and governance benefits are four-fold. 
First, the rule would enhance security by expanding the mandatory use 
of security measures to certain operators of large aircraft that are 
not currently required to have a security plan. These measures would 
deter malicious individuals from perpetrating acts that might 
compromise transportation or national security by using large aircraft 
for these purposes. Second, it would harmonize, as appropriate, 
security measures used by a single operator in its various operations 
and between different operators. Third, the new periodic audits of 
security programs would augment TSA's efforts to ensure that large 
aircraft operators are in compliance with their security programs. 
Finally, it would consolidate the regulatory framework for large 
aircraft operators that currently operate under a variety of security 
programs, thus simplifying the regulations and allowing for better 
governance.


TSA estimated the total 10-year cost of the program would be $1.3 
billion, discounted at 7 percent. Aircraft operators, airport 
operators, and the Transportation Security Administration would incur 
costs to comply with the requirements of the proposed Large Aircraft 
Security Program rule. Aircraft operator costs comprise 85 percent of 
all estimated expenses. TSA estimated approximately 9,000 general 
aviation aircraft operators use aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight 
exceeding 12,500 pounds, and would be newly subjected to the proposed 
rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/30/08                    73 FR 64790
NPRM Comment Period End         12/29/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Local


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Michal C. Morgan
General Manager, General Aviation Security
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-353N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-2634
Fax: 571 227-2819
Email: michal.morgan@dhs.gov

Mai Dinh
Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-309N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-2725
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: mai.dinh@dhs.gov
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA03, Related to 1652-AA04
RIN: 1652-AA53
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--TSA
63. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION--SECURITY TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1408


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 3, 2007, Interim Rule is due 90 days after 
date of enactment.


Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule is due 1 year after date of 
enactment.


According to section 1408 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266), interim final regulations are due 90 days after the date of 
enactment (Nov. 3, 2007), and final regulations are due 1 year after 
the date of enactment of this Act.

[[Page 71189]]

Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will add a new 
regulation to improve the security of public transportation in 
accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 
Act of 2007.


This rulemaking will propose general requirements for a public 
transportation security training program to prepare public 
transportation employees, including frontline employees, for potential 
security threats and conditions.


Statement of Need:


A public transportation security training program is proposed to 
prepare public transportation employees, including frontline employees, 
for potential security threats and conditions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


49 U.S.C. 114; Sec. 1408 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266).


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Thomas L. Farmer
Deputy General Manager - Mass Transit
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, E10-219S
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-3552
Email: tom.farmer@dhs.gov

David Kasminoff
Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-3583
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: david.kasminoff@dhs.gov
RIN: 1652-AA55
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--TSA
64. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION--SECURITY PLAN

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1405


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will propose new 
regulations to enhance security in public transportation in accordance 
with section 1405 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission Act of 2007.


This rulemaking will propose general requirements to require public 
transportation agencies that the Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) has determined are at high risk for terrorism 
to develop comprehensive security plans. Technical assistance and 
guidance will be provided to these agencies in preparing and 
implementing the security plans.


Statement of Need:


The rulemaking will propose general requirements for the development of 
comprehensive security plans by high-risk public transportation 
agencies to deter security threats.


Summary of Legal Basis:


49 U.S.C. 114; section 1405 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266).


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Thomas L. Farmer
Deputy General Manager - Mass Transit
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, E10-219S
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-3552
Email: tom.farmer@dhs.gov

David Kasminoff
Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-3583
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: david.kasminoff@dhs.gov
RIN: 1652-AA56
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--TSA
65. RAILROADS--SECURITY TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined

[[Page 71190]]

Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1517


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, February 3, 2008, due 6 months after date of 
enactment.


According to section 1517 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266), TSA must issue a regulation no later than 6 months after 
the date of enactment of this Act.


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will add new 
regulations to improve the security of railroads in accordance with the 
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.


The rulemaking will propose general requirements for a security 
training program to prepare railroad frontline employees for potential 
security threats and conditions. The regulations will take into 
consideration any current security training requirements or best 
practices.


Statement of Need:


The rulemaking will propose general requirements for a security 
training program to prepare railroad frontline employees for potential 
security threats and conditions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


49 U.S.C. 114; section 1517 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266).


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Brian Lusty
Lead Program Analyst, Freight Rail Security
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, E10-332N
601 South 12th Street
Arlilngton, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-4998
Fax: 571 227-1923
Email: brian.lusty@dhs.gov

David Kasminoff
Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-3583
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: david.kasminoff@dhs.gov
RIN: 1652-AA57
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--TSA
66. RAILROADS--VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND SECURITY PLAN

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1512


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Due 12 months after date of enactment.


According to section 1512 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266), TSA must issue a regulation no later than 12 months after 
date of enactment of this Act.


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will add new 
regulations to improve the security of rail transportation in 
accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 
Act of 2007.


This rulemaking will propose general requirements for each railroad 
carrier assigned by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) to a high-risk tier to conduct a vulnerability 
assessment; implement a security plan that addresses security 
performance requirements; and establish standards and guidelines for 
developing and implementing these vulnerability assessments and 
security plans.


Statement of Need:


The rulemaking will propose general requirements for each high-risk 
railroad carrier to conduct a vulnerability assessment; implement a 
security plan that addresses security performance requirements; and 
establish standards and guidelines for developing and implementing 
these vulnerability assessments and security plans.


Summary of Legal Basis:


49 U.S.C. 114; section 1512 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266).


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined

[[Page 71191]]

Agency Contact:
Scott Gorton
Policy & Plans Branch Chief for Freight Rail
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-423N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-1251
Fax: 571 227-2930
Email: scott.gorton@dhs.gov

David Kasminoff
Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-3583
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: david.kasminoff@dhs.gov
RIN: 1652-AA58
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--TSA
67. OVER-THE-ROAD BUSES--SECURITY TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1534


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, February 3, 2008, Due 6 months after date of 
enactment.


According to section 1534 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007); 121 
Stat. 266), TSA must issue a regulation no later than 6 months after 
date of enactment of this Act.


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will add new 
regulations to improve the security of over-the-road buses in 
accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 
Act of 2007.


The rulemaking will propose an over-the-road bus security training 
program to prepare over-the-road bus frontline employees for potential 
security threats and conditions. The regulations will take into 
consideration any current security training requirements or best 
practices.


Statement of Need:


The rulemaking will propose an over-the-road bus security training 
program to prepare over-the-road bus frontline employees for potential 
security threats and conditions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


49 U.S.C. 114; section 1534 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266).


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
David Kasminoff
Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-3583
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: david.kasminoff@dhs.gov

Bud Hunt
Chief, Threats, Vulnerabilities, & Consequences Br; Highway & Motor 
Carrier Programs
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E4-415N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-2152
Fax: 571 227-2935
Email: bud.hunt@dhs.gov
RIN: 1652-AA59
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--TSA
68. OVER-THE-ROAD BUSES--VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND SECURITY PLAN

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1531


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, February 3, 2009, section 1531 directs TSA to issue a 
regulation no later than 18 months after date of enactment.


According to section 1531 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266), TSA must issue a regulation no later than 18 months after 
date of enactment (Feb. 3, 2009) of this Act.


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will add new 
regulations to improve the security of over-the-road bus operators in 
accordance with section 1531 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2007.


The rulemaking will propose general requirements for each over-the-road 
bus operator assigned by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) to a high-risk tier to conduct a vulnerability 
assessment and implement a security plan.


Statement of Need:


The rulemaking will propose general requirements for each high-risk 
over-the-road bus operator to conduct a vulnerability assessment and 
implement a security plan.


Summary of Legal Basis:


49 U.S.C. 114; section 1531 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266).


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Economic analysis under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/00/09

[[Page 71192]]

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
David Kasminoff
Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-3583
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: david.kasminoff@dhs.gov

Bud Hunt
Chief, Threats, Vulnerabilities, & Consequences Br; Highway & Motor 
Carrier Programs
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E4-415N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-2152
Fax: 571 227-2935
Email: bud.hunt@dhs.gov
RIN: 1652-AA60
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--TSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

69. SECURE FLIGHT PROGRAM

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Legal Authority:


49 USC 114; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 44901 to 44903


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 1560


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, September 2005.


Section 4012 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 
2004 (IRTPA) (Pub. L. 108-458; Dec. 17, 2004) requires that not later 
than January 1, 2005, TSA commence testing of an advanced passenger 
prescreening system; and that not later than 180 days after completion 
of testing, TSA begin to assume the performance of the passenger 
prescreening function.


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is issuing a rule to 
implement the requirement in section 4012 of the Intelligence Reform 
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) (Pub. L. 108-458; Dec. 17, 
2004) that TSA assume from aircraft operators the performance of the 
passenger screening function of comparing passenger information to 
appropriate records in the consolidated and integrated terrorist 
watchlist maintained by the Federal Government.


Statement of Need:


The Secure Flight program will fulfill the requirement of the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) (Pub. 
L. 108-458) that TSA begin to assume the pre-flight watch list matching 
function currently carried out by air carriers. The rule would 
establish the regulatory basis for initiation of the Secure Flight 
program.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Secure Flight operational testing would exercise and validate TSA's 
ability to connect with the aircraft operators and the Terrorist 
Screening Center, receive passenger and non-traveler information, 
conduct watch list matching, and transmit watch list results back to 
the aircraft operators using live passenger data. Once the testing 
results achieve the program's desired efficacy levels, Secure Flight 
would be implemented and TSA would receive the primary responsibility 
for airline passenger watch list matching. Benefits could include more 
accurate, timely, and comprehensive screening, and a reduction in false 
positives. This would occur because Secure Flight would have access to 
more data than airlines with which to distinguish passengers from 
records in the watch lists. Further, the airlines would be relieved of 
watch list matching responsibilities, and once the program is fully 
implemented, TSA would be relieved of distributing the watch lists. 
Other benefits would include increased security due to the watch list 
matching of non-traveling individuals who request access to a sterile 
area.


TSA estimated the discounted 10-year costs of this rulemaking 
discounted at 7 percent would total from $2.074 billion to $3.5281 
billion. Air carriers would incur total costs of $345.3 million to 
$1,422 million, and travel agents would incur costs of $170.8 to $256.6 
million. TSA projected Federal Government costs would be from $943.9 to 
$1,155.7 million. The total cost of outlays would be from $2,074.4 
billion to $3,581.1 billion. Additionally, the cost to individuals 
(value of time) would be between $602.1 and $726.3 million.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: Information 
    Collection; Emergency 
    Processing                  09/24/04                    69 FR 57342
Notice: Information 
    Collection; Emergency 
    Processing Comment 
    Period End                  10/25/04
Notice: Final Order for 
    Secure Flight Test 
    Phase; Response to 
    Public Comments             11/15/04                    69 FR 65619
NPRM                            08/23/07                    72 FR 48355
NPRM Comment Period End         10/22/07
Notice: Public Meeting; 
    Request for Comments        09/05/07                    72 FR 50916
Notice: Public Meeting; 
    Comment Period End          10/22/07
NPRM Extension of Comment 
    Period                      10/24/07                    72 FR 60307
NPRM Comment Period End         11/21/07
Final Rule (Part II)            10/28/08                    73 FR 64018
Final Rule Effective            12/29/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

[[Page 71193]]

Agency Contact:
Paul Leyh
Acting Program Director, Secure Flight Program
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Threat Assessment & Credentialing
Suite 6876
9800 Savage Road
Ft. Meade, MD 20755
Phone: 240 568-5410
Email: paul.leyh@dhs.gov

Mai Dinh
Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-309N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-2725
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: mai.dinh@dhs.gov

Courtney Smith
Attorney-Advisor
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
601 South 12th Street
TSA-2, E12-334N
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: 571 227-1951
Fax: 571 227-1380
Email: courtney.smith@dhs.gov
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA48
RIN: 1652-AA45
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--TSA
70. RAIL TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


46 USC 70102 to 70106; 46 USC 70117; 49 USC 114; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 
44901 to 44907; 49 USC 44913 and 44914; 49 USC 44916 to 44918; 49 USC 
44935 and 44936; 49 USC 44942; 49 USC 46105; PL 110-53, sec 1501; PL 
107-71; PL 107-296


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1580


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will issue 
requirements in this rulemaking to enhance the security of our Nation's 
rail transportation system. Regulated entities would include freight 
railroad carriers; intercity, commuter, and short-haul passenger train 
service providers; rail transit systems; and operators of certain 
fixed-site facilities that ship or receive specified categories and 
quantities of rail security-sensitive materials by rail.


This rulemaking will codify the scope of TSA's existing inspection 
program and require regulated parties to allow TSA and Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) officials to enter, inspect, and test property, 
facilities, conveyances, and records relevant to rail security. This 
action will also require that regulated parties designate rail security 
coordinators and report significant security concerns to DHS.


TSA further will identify a list of rail security-sensitive materials 
and require that freight rail carriers and certain facilities handling 
rail security-sensitive materials be equipped to report location and 
shipping information to TSA upon request and to implement chain of 
custody requirements to ensure a positive and secure exchange of 
specified hazardous materials. In this action, TSA will also clarify 
and extend the sensitive security information (SSI) protections to 
cover certain information associated with rail transportation.


Statement of Need:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will issue this final 
rule to establish security requirements for freight railroad carriers; 
intercity, commuter, and short-haul passenger train service providers; 
rail transit systems; and rail operations at certain fixed-site 
facilities that ship or receive specified hazardous materials by rail. 
This rule will enhance the security of our nation's rail transportation 
system.


Summary of Legal Basis:


TSA has the responsibility for enhancing security in all modes of 
transportation. Under ATSA, and delegated authority from the Secretary 
of Homeland Security, TSA has broad responsibility and authority for 
``security in all modes of transportation . . . including security 
responsibilities'' over modes of transportation that are exercised by 
the Department of Transportation. TSA's authority with respect to 
transportation security is comprehensive and supported with specific 
powers related to the development and enforcement of regulations, 
security directives, security plans, and other requirements. 
Accordingly, under this authority, TSA may assess a security risk for 
any mode of transportation, develop security measures for dealing with 
that risk, and enforce compliance with those measures.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The primary estimate of the total 10-year cost of the final rule 
discounted at 7 percent is from $153 million to $174 million. The main 
costs are from the chain of custody and location reporting 
requirements.


The final rule will enhance rail transportation security by imposing 
requirements to designate rail security coordinators, report 
significant security concerns, and implement location reporting and 
chain of custody requirements. In addition, the broad inspection 
authorities codified in the final rule may help identify 
vulnerabilities in rail transportation that should be addressed in 
future rulemakings or through other mechanisms. Finally, changes to the 
SSI provisions will allow access to information by State, local, and 
tribal authorities that may assist them in addressing security threats.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/21/06                    71 FR 76852
Notice--Public Meeting; 
    Request for Comments        01/19/07                     72 FR 2488
NPRM; Comment Period End        02/20/07
NPRM; Initial Regulatory 
    Flexibility Analysis 
    (IRFA)                      02/15/07                     72 FR 7376
NPRM; IRFA; Comment 
    Period End                  02/20/07
Final Action                    11/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Federalism:


 This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

[[Page 71194]]

Agency Contact:
Scott Gorton
Policy & Plans Branch Chief for Freight Rail
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-423N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-1251
Fax: 571 227-2930
Email: scott.gorton@dhs.gov

David Kasminoff
Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-3583
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: david.kasminoff@dhs.gov
RIN: 1652-AA51
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--TSA
71. AIR CARGO SCREENING

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


PL 110-53, sec 1602; 49 USC 114; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 44901 to 44905; 
49 USC 44913 to 44914; 49 USC 44916; 49 USC 44935 to 44936; 49 USC 
46105


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1522; 49 CFR 1540; 49 CFR 1544; 49 CFR 1548; 49 CFR 
1549


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, February 2009, 50 percent of cargo on passenger 
aircraft.


Final, Statutory, August 2010, 100 percent of cargo on passenger 
aircraft.


Sec 1602 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act 
of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266, 478, Aug. 3, 2007) requires 
that the Secretary of Homeland Security establish a system to screen 50 
percent of cargo on passenger aircraft not later than 18 months after 
the date of enactment and 100 percent of such cargo not later than 3 
years after the date of enactment.


Abstract:


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will establish the 
Certified Cargo Screening Program that will certify shippers, 
manufacturers, and other entities to screen air cargo intended for 
transport on a passenger aircraft. This will be the primary means 
through which TSA will meet the requirements of sec. 1602 of the 
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 that 
mandates that 100 percent of air cargo transported on passenger 
aircraft, operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air 
transportation or intrastate air transportation, must be screened by 
August 2010, to ensure the security of all such passenger aircraft 
carrying cargo.


Under this rulemaking, each certified cargo screening facility (CCSF) 
and their employees and authorized representatives that will be 
screening cargo must successfully complete a security threat 
assessment. The CCSF must also submit to an audit of their security 
measures by TSA-approved auditors, screen cargo using TSA-approved 
methods, and initiate strict chain of custody measures to ensure the 
security of the cargo throughout the supply chain prior to tendering it 
for transport on passenger aircraft.


Statement of Need:


TSA will establish a system to screen 100 percent of cargo transported 
on passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier 
in air transportation or intrastate air transportation to ensure the 
security of all such passenger aircraft carrying cargo.


The system shall require, at a minimum, that equipment, technology, 
procedures, personnel, or other methods approved by the Administrator 
of TSA, are used to screen cargo carried on passenger aircraft to 
provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for 
the screening of passenger checked baggage.


Summary of Legal Basis:


49 U.S.C. 114; sec 1602 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266, 478, 10/3/2007)


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


TSA estimates the cost of the rule will be $3.0 billion (discounted at 
seven percent) over ten years. TSA analyzed the alternative of not 
establishing the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP) and, instead, 
having aircraft operators and air carriers perform screening of all 
cargo transported on passenger aircraft. Absent the CCSP, the estimated 
cost to aircraft operators and air carriers is $8.5 billion (discounted 
at seven percent) over ten years. The bulk of the costs for both the 
CCSP and the alternative are attributed to personnel and the impact of 
cargo delays resulting from the addition of a new operational process.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Victor Parker
Branch Chief, Air Cargo Policy & Plans
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: 571 227-3664
Email: victor.parker@dhs.gov

Alice Crowe
Attorney, Regulations Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E-12-309N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Phone: 571 227-2652
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: alice.crowe@dhs.gov
RIN: 1652-AA64

[[Page 71195]]

_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

72. AMENDMENT OF FLIGHT TRAINING REGULATIONS FOR F AND M NONIMMIGRANTS 
AND TO TRANSITION J FLIGHT TRAINING PROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 
TO M FLIGHT PROGRAMS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


Not Yet Determined


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 214; 22 CFR 62


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This regulation will ensure that, in the interest of national security, 
DHS provides efficient and effective oversight for flight training 
programs. The eight Department of State (DOS) flight training programs 
that are validated to enroll J visa exchange visitors will, at DOS 
request, be incorporated into the DHS Student and Exchange Visitor 
Program (SEVP) flight training certification process no later than June 
1, 2010. This regulation will accomplish and facilitate this 
transition, modify existing M regulations to improve the tracking of 
flight training students in M classification and promote international 
flight safety by expanding practical training opportunities for this 
group.


Statement of Need:


On July 11, 2008, the Department of State published Public Notice 6284, 
73 FR 40008, Exchange Visitor Program--Termination of Flight Training 
Programs. The notice informs the public that the Department of State 
will cease sponsorship of their existing flight training programs on 
June 1, 2010. To avoid adverse consequences to these programs, DHS will 
need to implement this rule no later than December 31, 2009.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The benefits of the Amendment of Flight Training Regulations for F and 
M Nonimmigrants and to Transition J Flight Training Programs of the 
Department of State to M Flight Programs with the Department of 
Homeland Security are impossible to quantify or monetize using standard 
economic accounting techniques. The number of alien flight training 
students and the number of flight training programs and providers is in 
constant flux. There are immeasurable benefits for both national 
security and the economy to continued monitoring of flight training 
programs, improved tracking of alien flight training, and the promotion 
of international flight safety.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Louis Farrell
Director, Student and Exchange Visitor Program
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
425 I Street NW.
Suite 6034
Washington, DC 20536
Phone: 202 305-2346
RIN: 1653-AA43
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USICE
73. CLARIFICATION OF CRITERIA FOR CERTIFICATION, OVERSIGHT, AND 
RECERTIFICATION OF SCHOOLS BY THE STUDENT AND EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM 
(SEVP) TO ENROLL F OR M NONIMMIGRANT STUDENTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1356(m); PL 107-56; PL 107-173


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 214.3; 8 CFR 214.4


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule amends DHS regulations 8 CFR 214.3 and 214.4 governing 
certification, oversight, and recertification of schools certified by 
the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) for attendance by F 
and/or M nonimmigrant students. The rule clarifies the criteria for 
initial certification, compliance, and recertification of SEVP-
certified schools every two years.


Statement of Need:


SEVP recertification of schools will commence Apr 1, 2009. It is 
essential that this rule be implemented by that date to establish the 
standard for adjudications in the two-year recertification cycle that 
will commence on that date.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


It is extremely difficult to quantify monetarily the benefits of the 
Clarification of Criteria for Certification, Oversight and 
Recertification of Schools by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program 
(SEVP) To Enroll F or M Nonimmigrant Students regulation using standard 
economic accounting techniques. Nonimmigrant students, the schools that 
serve them, and the communities in which they live will benefit from 
the improvements and clarifications to the rules governing the 
certification, oversight, and recertification of schools certified by 
SEVP.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End         11/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Louis Farrell
Director, Student and Exchange Visitor Program
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
425 I Street NW.
Suite 6034
Washington, DC 20536
Phone: 202 305-2346
Related RIN: Related to 1653-AA42
RIN: 1653-AA44

[[Page 71196]]

_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

74. SPECIAL COMMUNITY DISASTER LOANS PROGRAM

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 5121 to 5207


CFR Citation:


44 CFR 206


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


FEMA would amend its regulations to implement loan cancellation 
provisions for Special Community Disaster Loans (Special CDLs) which 
were provided by FEMA to local governments in the Gulf region following 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This proposed rule would not automatically 
cancel all Special CDLs, but would propose the procedures and 
requirements for governments who received Special CDLs to apply for 
cancellation of loan obligations as authorized by the U.S. Troop 
Readiness Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability 
Appropriations Act, 2007 (Troop Act). With the passage of the Troop 
Act, FEMA has the discretionary ability to cancel Special CDLs subject 
to the limitations of section 417(c) of the Stafford Act. Under section 
417 of the Stafford Act, FEMA is authorized to cancel a loan if it 
determines that ``the revenues of the local government during the full 
three fiscal year period following the disaster are insufficient to 
meet the operating budget for the local government, including 
additional unreimbursed disaster-related expenses for a municipal 
operating character.'' Since the cancellation provisions of section 417 
of the Stafford Act already exist in the Traditional CDL Program 
regulations at 44 CFR 206.366, and section 417 of the Stafford Act 
provides the basis for cancellation of loans under both the Special CDL 
Program and the Traditional CDL Program, FEMA would propose to mirror 
the Traditional CDL cancellation provisions for Special CDLs. This rule 
would not affect the cancellation provisions for the Traditional CDL 
Program.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is needed to address the needs of the communities 
affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. The Community Disaster 
Loan Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-88) authorized FEMA to transfer $750 
million from the funds appropriated in the Second Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act To Meet Immediate Needs Arising From 
the Consequences of Hurricane Katrina, 2005, (Pub. L. 109-62), to 
provide up to $1 billion in loan authority. The Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane 
Recovery, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-234), authorized an additional $371,733,000 
in loans authorized under the Community Disaster Loan Act of 2005. The 
U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq 
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, (Pub. L. 110-28) removes the 
loan cancellation prohibitions contained in the 2005 and 2006 Acts.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rulemaking is authorized by the Community Disaster Loan Act of 
2005 (Pub. L. 109-88), the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 
for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006, 
(Pub. L. 109-234), and the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, 
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 
(Pub. L. 110-28).


Alternatives:


The alternative to this notice of proposed rulemaking would be to 
finalize the interim rule for the Community Disaster Loan Act of 2005 
without adding in a provision for cancellation of Special Community 
Disaster Loans. FEMA is not in favor of that alternative. The public 
will be afforded an opportunity to provide comments on the proposed 
loan cancellation provisions authorized in the U.S. Troop Readiness, 
Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability 
Appropriations Act, 2007 (Pub. L. 110-28) when FEMA publishes the 
rulemaking in the Federal Register.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The overall impact of this rule is, therefore, the cost to the 
applicant to apply for the cancellation, as well as the impact on the 
economy of potentially forgiving all Special Community Disaster Loans 
and any related interest and costs. The maximum total economic impact 
of this rule is approximately $1.3 billion. However, without knowing 
the dollar amount of the loans that may be cancelled, it is impossible 
to predict the amount of the economic impact of this rule with any 
precision. Although the impact of the rule could be spread over 
multiple years as applications are received, processed and loans 
cancelled, the total economic effect of a specific loan cancellation 
would only occur once, rather than annually.


Risks:


This action does not adversely affect public health, safety, or the 
environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              10/18/05                    70 FR 60443
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   10/18/05
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          12/19/05
NPRM                            02/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
James A. Walke
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street SW.
Washington, DC 20472
Phone: 202 646-2751
Fax: 202 646-3304
Email: james.walke@dhs.gov
RIN: 1660-AA44
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--FEMA
75. UPDATE OF FEMA'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 5121-5207


CFR Citation:


44 CFR 206

[[Page 71197]]

Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This proposed rule would revise the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency's Public Assistance Program regulations. Many of these changes 
reflect amendments made to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management 
Reform Act of 2006 and the Security and Accountability For Every Port 
Act of 2006. The proposed rule also proposes a few further substantive 
and nonsubstantive clarifications and corrections to the Public 
Assistance regulations. This proposed rule is intended to improve the 
efficiency and consistency of the Public Assistance Program, as well as 
implement new statutory authority


Statement of Need:


The proposed changes implement new statutory authorities and 
incorporate necessary clarifications and corrections to streamline and 
improve the Public Assistance Program. Portions of FEMA's Public 
Assistance regulations have become out-of-date and do not reflect 
current statutory requirements and authorities. These inconsistencies 
and deficiencies inhibit FEMA's ability to clearly articulate its 
regulatory requirements, and the Public Assistance applicants' 
understanding of the program. The proposed changes are intended to 
improve the efficiency and consistency of the Public Assistance 
Program.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The legal authority for the changes in this proposed rule is contained 
in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 
42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 as amended by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management 
Reform Act of 2006, 6 U.S.C. 701 et seq., the Security and 
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, 6 U.S.C. 901 note, the Local 
Community Recovery Act of 2006, Public Law 109-218, 120 Stat. 333, and 
the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006, Public 
Law 109-308, 120 Stat. 1725.


Alternatives:


The alternative would be to not implement the new authorities provided 
to FEMA through post-Katrina legislation, and not take independent 
steps to improve upon the Public Assistance Program. FEMA does not deem 
this an acceptable alternative.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FEMA is in the process of drafting a complete economic analysis for 
this proposed rulemaking. Although the economic analysis is not yet 
complete, the proposed rule is expected to have economic impacts on the 
public, Grantees, subgrantees, and FEMA. The expected benefits are a 
reduction in property damages, societal losses, and losses to local 
businesses, as well as improved efficiency and consistency of the 
Public Assistance Program. The expected cost impact of the proposed 
rule is mainly the costs to FEMA in administering the Public Assistance 
Program. The total economic impact of the proposed rule is estimated at 
approximately $100 million per year. These costs are expected to accrue 
from the inclusion of education to the list of eligible private 
nonprofit critical services; expansion of force account labor cost 
eligibility; the inclusion of durable medical equipment; the 
evacuation, care, and sheltering of pets; as well as precautionary 
evacuation measures; etc. However, most of the proposed changes are not 
expected to result in any additional cost to FEMA or any changes in the 
eligibility of assistance. For example, the proposed rule would provide 
for accelerated Federal assistance and expedited payment of Federal 
share for debris removal. These are expected to improve the agency's 
ability to quickly provide funding to Grantees and subgrantees without 
affecting Public Assistance funding amounts.


Risks:


This action does not adversely affect public health, safety, or the 
environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State


Agency Contact:
James A. Walke
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street SW.
Washington, DC 20472
Phone: 202 646-2751
Fax: 202 646-3304
Email: james.walke@dhs.gov
RIN: 1660-AA51
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--FEMA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

76. DISASTER ASSISTANCE; FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND 
HOUSEHOLDS

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 5174


CFR Citation:


44 CFR 206


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, October 15, 2002.


Abstract:


This rulemaking implements section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended. It would also 
make further revisions to 44 CFR part 206, subpart D (the Individuals 
and Households Program (IHP)) and remove subpart E (Individual and 
Family Grant Programs). Among other things, it would implement section 
686 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 
(PKEMRA) to remove the IHP subcaps; section 685 regarding semi-
permanent and permanent housing construction eligibility; revise FEMA's 
regulations related to individuals with disabilities pursuant to PKEMRA 
section 689; and revise FEMA's regulations to allow for the payment of 
security deposits and the costs of utilities, excluding telephone 
service, in accordance with section 689d of PKEMRA. This regulation 
also would implement section 689f of PKEMRA by authorizing assistance 
to relocate individuals displaced from their predisaster primary 
residence, to and from alternate locations for short-or long-term 
accommodations.

[[Page 71198]]

Statement of Need:


FEMA needs to revise its IHP regulations to update them based on 
lessons learned, comments from States about implementation of the 
regulations, and to implement recent legislative changes (i.e. Post-
Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006). These changes are 
intended to provide clear information to disaster assistance 
applicants, implement new authorites, and help ensure consistent 
administration of programs by FEMA.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rulemaking is authorized by Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act, as amended and the Post-Katrina Emergency 
Management Reform Act of 2006.


Alternatives:


The alternative would be to not implement the new authorities provided 
to FEMA through post-Katrina legislation, and not take independent 
steps to improve upon the Individuals and Households Program. FEMA does 
not deem this an acceptable alternative.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Annually, FEMA pays out in excess of $100 million through the 
Individuals and Households Program. The proposed and interim rules were 
deemed significant but not economically significant because they did 
not cause FEMA to pay out $100 million per year more than the agency 
paid through its previous regulations. Although this second interim 
rule is expected to alter eligibility requirements, and generally 
expand the assistance provided through this program, preliminary 
estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits are not available at 
this time.


Risks:


This action does not adversely affect public health, safety, or the 
environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/23/02                     67 FR 3412
NPRM Comment Period End         03/11/02
Interim Final Rule              09/30/02                    67 FR 61446
Corrections                     10/09/02                    67 FR 62896
Corrections Effective           10/09/02
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   10/15/02
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          04/15/03
Second Interim Final Rule       07/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Additional Information:


Transferred from RIN 3067-AD25


Agency Contact:
Julia Chiu
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street SW.
Washington, DC 20472
Phone: 202 212-1137
Fax: 202 212-1002
Email: julia.chiu@dhs.gov
RIN: 1660-AA18
BILLING CODE 4410-10-S

[[Page 71199]]

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
 The Regulatory Plan for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) for Fiscal Year 2009 highlights the Department's most 
significant regulations and policy initiatives that it seeks to 
complete during the upcoming fiscal year. As the federal agency 
responsible for national policy and programs that address the housing 
needs of Americans, encourages community development, and enforces fair 
housing laws, HUD plays a significant role in the lives of families and 
in communities throughout America. The Department's program and 
initiatives help to provide decent, safe and sanitary housing, and to 
create suitable living environments for all Americans. HUD expands 
housing opportunities for Americans by enforcing fair housing laws that 
operate to eliminate housing discrimination. HUD also provides housing 
and other essential support to a wide range of individuals and families 
with special needs, including homeless individuals, the elderly, and 
persons with disabilities.
 Secretary Preston has established a results-focused agenda for the 
Department that focuses on ways for HUD to support its constituents, 
provide transparency to major initiatives, and move the Department 
forward. The Secretary has charged HUD with completing certain 
strategic goals during his tenure, including promoting responsible, 
sustainable homeownership for all Americans, and maximizing options for 
safe and affordable housing so all Americans can embark on a path to 
self-sufficiency. The regulations highlighted in this Regulatory Plan 
and in the Semiannual Agenda of Regulations, published elsewhere in 
today's Federal Register, are directed toward achieving these goals.
Priority: Promoting Responsible and Sustainable Homeownership
One way that HUD can promote responsible and sustainable homeownership 
is to simplify and improve the disclosure requirements for mortgage 
settlement costs and to protect consumers from unnecessarily high 
settlement costs under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act 
(RESPA). The settlement costs associated with a mortgage loan are 
significant. In the case of purchase transactions these costs can 
become an impediment to homeownership, particularly for low- and 
moderate-income households. The purposes of RESPA include the provision 
of effective advance disclosure of settlement costs and elimination of 
practices that tend to unnecessarily increase the costs of settlement 
services.
Regulatory Action:  Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act -- 
Simplification and Improvement of the Process of Obtaining Home 
Mortgages and Reduce Consumer Settlement Costs
To improve the advance disclosure of settlement costs, this final rule 
amends HUD's RESPA regulations by improving and standardizing the Good 
Faith Estimate (GFE) form to make it easier to use for shopping among 
settlement providers, and modifies the HUD-1/1A to facilitate the 
comparison of the GFE and the HUD-1/HUD-1A Settlement Statements. The 
final rule follows publication of a March 14, 2008, proposed rule and 
takes into consideration the approximately 12,000 public comments 
received on the proposed rule. HUD believes that the result is a final 
rule that provides borrowers with additional and more reliable 
information about their mortgage loans and settlement costs earlier in 
the application process, and will better assure that the mortgage loans 
to which they commit at settlement will be the loans of their choice. 
The regulatory changes will not only improve advance disclosure of 
settlement costs, but will encourage shopping and competition to lower 
such costs. Moreover, the final rule updates the RESPA's regulations to 
better reflect changes to the mortgage industry since enactment of the 
statute in 1974.
Priority: Maximizing Options for Safe and Affordable Housing
 In furtherance of its goal to maximize safe and affordable housing 
options available to American families, HUD must ensure that rental 
assistance is being correctly calculated, so as to eliminate the 
misallocation of scarce financial resources and ensure that subsidies 
are being provided to those families truly in need of such aid. 
Sections 6 and 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
1437d and 1437f), section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 
1701q), sections 221(d)(3), 221(d)(5), and 236 of the National Housing 
Act (12 U.S.C. 1715l(d) and 1715z-1), section 811 of the Cranston-
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013), and section 
101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s) 
authorize HUD to provide financial assistance in the form of rent 
subsidies for participants in HUD's public and assisted housing 
programs. As part of the procedures for determining proper rent 
subsidies, PHAs and multifamily housing owners and management agents 
must conduct income verifications for applicants and participants in 
covered HUD programs. HUD requires the disclosure and verification of 
social security numbers, employer identification numbers, and 
citizenship or eligible immigration status.
Regulatory Action: Refinement of Income and Rent Determinations in 
Public and Assisted Housing Programs
This final rule amends HUD's regulations governing the verification of 
employment and income in the Department's public and assisted housing 
programs. The regulatory changes will help ensure that deficiencies in 
public and assisted housing rental determinations are identified and 
cured through quality control studies and internal audits. Most 
significantly, the final rule will require the use of upfront income 
verification (UIV) procedures, in lieu of the more time-consuming and 
less accurate third-party verification process. That process involves 
contacting individual employers identified by the family and reviewing 
handwritten documents reporting income.
The final rule follows publication of a June 9, 2007, proposed rule and 
takes into consideration the 34 public comments received on the 
proposed rule. HUD received public comments from a variety of sources, 
including: individuals; PHAs; national PHA and redevelopment 
organizations; affordable housing advocacy associations; and 
immigration policy groups. HUD is making several changes at this final 
rule stage, in response to the comments received on the proposed rule, 
and in further consideration of certain issues raised in the earlier 
proposed rule.
Aggregate Costs and Benefits
Executive Order 12866, as amended, requires the agency to provide its 
best estimate of the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all 
regulations included in the agency's Regulatory Plan that will be made 
effective in calendar year 2009. HUD anticipates that, over the next 
twelve months, the two rules included in its Regulatory Plan, Real 
Estate Settlement Procedures Act - Simplification and Improvement of 
the Process of Obtaining Home Mortgages and Reduce Consumer Settlement 
Costs

[[Page 71200]]

and Refinement of Income and Rent Determinations in Public and Assisted 
Housing Programs, will have a combined impact of $570 million of one-
time adjustment costs, $4.3 million of recurring costs, and $783 
million of transfers. The $570 million one-time adjustment costs result 
from RESPA. The recurring costs and transfers result from the 
Refinement of Income and Rent Determination rule. Once the RESPA rule 
is implemented, after twelve months, the expected annual impact of 
these two rules will be $922 million in annual recurring costs and 
$9,133 million in transfers.
The Priority Regulations That Comprise HUD's FY 2009 Regulatory Plan
 A more detailed description of the priority regulations that comprise 
HUD's FY 2009 Regulatory Plan follows.
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--Office of the Secretary (HUDSEC)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

77. REFINEMENT OF INCOME AND RENT DETERMINATIONS IN PUBLIC AND ASSISTED 
HOUSING PROGRAMS (FR-4998)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1437f; 42 USC 3535(d); 42 USC 3543; 42 USC 3544; 42 USC 3608


CFR Citation:


24 CFR 5; 24 CFR 92; 24 CFR 908


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This final rule revises HUD's public and assisted housing program 
regulations to implement the upfront income verification (UIV) process 
and to require the use of HUD's Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) 
system by public housing agencies (PHAs), and multifamily housing 
owners and management agents (O/As), when verifying the employment and 
income of program participants at the time of all reexaminations or 
recertifications. The rule will ensure that deficiencies in public and 
assisted housing rental determinations are identified and cured through 
quality control studies and internal audits. This final rule is 
consistent with HUD's comprehensive strategy under the Rental Housing 
Integrity Improvement Project initiative to reduce by half the number 
and dollar amount of errors in HUD's rental assistance programs. This 
final rule follows publication of a June 19, 2007, proposed rule and 
makes certain changes at this final rule stage in response to public 
comment and further consideration of certain issues by HUD.


Statement of Need:


This rule is needed to meet HUD's goal of reducing errors, including 
overpayment of subsidy, caused by incorrect income determinations and 
rent calculations in HUD's public and assisted housing programs. To do 
this, this rule would implement the upfront income verification (UIP) 
process and require the use of HUD's Enterprise Income Verification 
(EIV) systems. The use of UIV will allow entities to validate the 
accuracy of a family's self-reported household income and reduce the 
incidence of fraud, waste, and abuse in public and assisted housing 
programs. HUD also believes that the use of UIV is less time-consuming 
and more accurate than third-party verification.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Sections 6 and 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
1437d and 1437f), section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 
1701q), sections 221(d)(3), 221(d)(5), and 236 of the National Housing 
Act (12 U.S.C. 1715l(d) and 1715z-1), section 811 of the Cranston-
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013), and section 
101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s) 
authorize HUD to provide financial assistance in the form of rent 
subsidies for participants in HUD's public and assisted housing 
programs. These statutory provisions and HUD's general rulemaking 
authority under section 7(d) the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)) authorize HUD to establish 
regulatory policies and procedures governing such rental subsidies, 
including the verification of employment and income necessary to 
determine the subsidy amounts.


Alternatives:


The policies and procedures governing employment and income 
verification are codified in regulation. Accordingly, any revisions to 
the regulatory requirements must also be implemented through notice and 
comment rulemaking. Implementation of the changes necessary changes 
described above through other means, such as a handbook, would not be 
binding or enforceable.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Under the Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) of 2002 and Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) implementing guidance Circular No. A-
123, agencies are to assess all programs and activities they administer 
and identify those that may be susceptible to significant improper 
payments. Consistent with these directives, HUD initiated the Rental 
Housing Integrity Program (RHIP) in the spring of 2001with the goal of 
reducing improper payments in HUD's rental housing assistance programs. 
The recurring study cost is about $4.3 million annually. The findings 
of the latest Quality Control Study, implies that the gross transfer 
resulting from eliminating all the under- and over-payments of rents is 
approximately $783 million ($523.7 million in rent subsidy overpayment 
and $258.7 million in rent subsidy underpayment). The single major 
benefit of the initiative is an improvement on the integrity of HUD 
programs.


Risks:


This rule poses no risk to public health, safety or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/19/07                    72 FR 33844
NPRM Comment Period End         08/20/07
Final Action                    12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Nicole Faison
Director, Office of Public Housing Programs
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Phone: 202 708-0744
RIN: 2501-AD16

[[Page 71201]]

_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--Office of Housing (OH)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

78. REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT (RESPA): SIMPLIFICATION AND 
IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING HOME MORTGAGES AND REDUCING 
CONSUMER COSTS (FR-5180)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


12 USC 2601 et seq; 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


24 CFR 3500


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This final rule amends HUD's regulations to further RESPA's purposes by 
requiring more timely and effective disclosures related to mortgage 
settlement costs for federally related mortgage loans to consumers. The 
changes made by this final rule are designed to protect consumers from 
unnecessarily high settlement costs by taking steps to: (1) improve and 
standardize the Good Faith Estimate (GFE) form, to make it easier to 
use for shopping among settlement providers; (2) ensure that page one 
of the GFE provides a clear summary of the loan terms and total 
settlement charges, so that borrowers will be able to use the GFE to 
identify a particular loan product and then comparison-shop among loan 
originators; (3) provide more accurate estimates of costs of settlement 
services shown on the GFE; (4) improve disclosure of yield spread 
premiums, to help borrowers understand how they can affect their 
settlement charges; (5) facilitate comparison of the GFE and the HUD-1/
HUD-1A Settlement Statements; (6) ensure that at settlement, borrowers 
are aware of final costs as they relate to the particular mortgage loan 
and settlement transaction; (7) clarify HUD-1 instructions; (8) clarify 
HUD's current regulations concerning discounts; and (9) expressly state 
when RESPA permits certain pricing mechanisms that benefit consumers, 
including volume-based discounts. The final rule follows a March 14, 
2008, proposed rule and makes changes in response to public comment and 
further consideration of certain issues by HUD.


Statement of Need:


The rule is needed to simplify and improve the process of obtaining a 
home mortgage, to lower costs for consumers. The current disclosure 
requirements under RESPA have not been substantially revised in several 
years. The proposed rule was of significant public interest. By the end 
of an extended public comment period on June 12, 2008, HUD had received 
approximately 12,000 comments (although many were identical form 
letters submitted as part of letter writing campaigns). Many commenters 
on the March 14, 2008, proposed rule -- including consumers, industry 
representatives, and federal and state regulatory agencies -- supported 
the concept of better disclosures in general, and commended both HUD's 
efforts and particular provisions in the proposed rule. HUD also 
received a considerable number of comments about many aspects of the 
proposed rule from mortgage industry representatives, including 
requests that HUD withdraw its proposal entirely, or that HUD postpone 
its current efforts in order to work with the Federal Reserve Board to 
arrive at a joint regulatory approach. HUD takes these mortgage 
industry comments very seriously and appreciates the concerns raised by 
these commenters. HUD's strong view continues to be, however, that 
improvements in disclosures to consumers about critical information 
relating to the costs of obtaining a home mortgage, often the most 
significant financial transaction a consumer will enter into, are 
needed, and that such disclosures are a central purpose of RESPA. 
Moreover, given the current mortgage crisis, the foreclosure situation 
many homeowners are now facing because they entered into mortgage 
transactions that they did not fully understand, and the prospect that 
future homeowners may find themselves in this same situation, HUD 
believes that it is important that the improvements in mortgage 
disclosures made by this final rule move forward immediately.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations as 
may be necessary to achieve the purpose of the Real Estate Settlement 
Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2617).


Alternatives:


The Department considered and acted upon several non-regulatory 
alternatives prior to issuance of the March 14, 2008, proposed rule, 
but determined that the changes in the marketplace and recent judicial 
decisions called for new regulations on the part of HUD. As part of its 
review of the public comments on the proposed rule, HUD will consider, 
and possibly adopt, alternatives to the regulatory requirements 
contained in the proposed rule.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The nation's home mortgage market is a billion-dollar industry. 
Accordingly, as was the case with the preceding proposed rule, there 
are costs and benefits associated with this rule that will be addressed 
in the Economic Analysis that will accompany the final rule. The 
Economic Analysis has identified a wide range of benefits, costs, 
efficiencies, transfers and market impacts. It estimated that borrowers 
will save $8.35 billion in origination and settlement charges. The 
total one-time adjustment costs to the lending and settlement industry 
of the proposed GFE and HUD-1 are estimated to be $570 million. Total 
recurring costs are estimated to be $918 million annually. Because 
there is a twelve-month implementation period, only the one-time 
adjustment costs will be realized over the next year.


Risks:


This rule poses no threat to public safety, health, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/14/08                    73 FR 14030
NPRM Comment Period End         05/13/08
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    05/12/08                    73 FR 26953
Final Action                    12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None

[[Page 71202]]

Agency Contact:
Ivy Jackson
Director, Office of RESPA and Interstate Land Sales
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Housing
Phone: 202 708-0502
RIN: 2502-AI61
BILLING CODE 4210-67-S

[[Page 71203]]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of the Interior (DOI) is the principal Federal steward 
of our nation's public lands and resources, including many of our 
cultural treasures. We serve as trustee to Native Americans and Alaska 
natives and also are responsible for relations with the island 
territories under United States jurisdiction. We manage more than 500 
million acres of Federal lands, including 391 park units, 548 wildlife 
refuges, and approximately 1.7 billion of submerged offshore acres. The 
Department protects natural, historic, and cultural resources, recovers 
endangered species, manages water projects, manages forests and fights 
wildland fires, regulates surface coal mining operations, leases public 
lands for coal, oil, and gas production to meet the Nation's energy 
needs, educates children in Indian schools, and provides recreational 
opportunities for over 400 million visitors annually in our national 
parks, Bureau of Land Management public lands, national wildlife 
refuges, and Bureau of Reclamation recreation areas. To fulfill these 
responsibilities, the Department generates scientific and other 
information relating to land and resource management.
The Department is committed to achieving its stewardship objectives in 
partnership with States, communities, landowners, and others through 
consultation, cooperation, and communication.
We will review and update the Department's regulations and policies to 
ensure that they are effective, efficient, and promote accountability. 
Special emphasis will be given to regulations and policies that:
<bullet> Adopt performance approaches focused on achieving cost-
            effective, timely results;
<bullet> Incorporate the best available science and utilize peer review 
            where appropriate;
<bullet> Promote partnerships with States, tribes, local governments, 
            other groups, and individuals;
<bullet> Provide incentives for private landowners to achieve 
            conservation goals; and
<bullet> Minimize regulatory and procedural burdens, promoting 
            fairness, transparency, and accountability by agency 
            regulators while maintaining performance goals.
Major Regulatory Areas
DOI bureaus rely on regulations to implement legislatively mandated 
programs that focus on the management of natural resources and public 
or trust lands. Some of these regulatory activities include:
<bullet> Management of migratory birds and preservation of certain 
            marine mammals and endangered species;
<bullet> Management of dedicated lands, such as national parks, 
            wildlife refuges, and American Indian trust lands;
<bullet> Management of public lands open to multiple use;
<bullet> Leasing and development oversight of Federal energy, minerals, 
            and renewable resources;
<bullet> Management of revenues from American Indian and Federal 
            minerals;
<bullet> Fulfillment of trust and other responsibilities pertaining to 
            American Indians;
<bullet> Natural resource damage assessments; and
<bullet> Management of financial and nonfinancial assistance programs.
Regulatory Policy
How DOI Regulatory Procedures Relate to the Administration's Regulatory 
Policies
Within the requirements and guidance in Executive Orders 12866, 12630, 
13132, 13175, 13211, and 12988, DOI's regulatory programs seek to:
<bullet> Fulfill all legal requirements as specified by statutes or 
            court orders;
<bullet> Perform essential functions that cannot be handled by non-
            Federal entities;
<bullet> Minimize regulatory costs to society while maximizing societal 
            benefits; and
<bullet> Operate programs openly, efficiently, and in cooperation with 
            Federal and non-Federal entities.
DOI bureaus work with other Federal agencies, non-Federal government 
agencies, and public entities to make our regulations easier to comply 
with and understand. Regulatory improvement is a continuing process 
that requires the participation of all affected parties. We strive to 
include all affected entities in the decision-making process and to 
issue rules efficiently. To better manage and review the regulatory 
process, we have revised our internal rulemaking and information 
quality guidance. Our regulatory process ensures that bureaus share 
ideas on how to reduce regulatory burdens while meeting the 
requirements of the laws they enforce and improving their stewardship 
of the environment and resources under their purview. Results include:
<bullet> Increased bureau awareness of and responsiveness to the needs 
            of small businesses and better compliance with the Small 
            Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA);
<bullet> A departmental effort to evaluate the economic effects of 
            planned rules and regulations;
<bullet> Issuance of guidance in the Departmental Manual to ensure we 
            use plain language in our regulations and guidance 
            documents;
<bullet> Issuance of new guidance in the Departmental Manual to ensure 
            that National Environmental Policy Act policies that 
            streamline decision making and enhance citizen 
            participation are institutionalized;
<bullet> Issuance of revised procedures in the Departmental Manual to 
            clarify our responsibility to offer cooperating agency 
            status to qualified agencies and governments, and to make 
            clear the role of cooperating agencies in the 
            implementation of the Department's NEPA compliance process;
<bullet> Increased outreach to involved parties in the Natural 
            Resources Damage Assessment Program, stressing cooperation 
            and restoration of affected sites;
<bullet> Streamlined decision-making pertaining to fuels-reduction 
            projects under the Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy 
            Forests Restoration Act; and
<bullet> A joint effort with the Departments of Agriculture and 
            Commerce, in consultation with FERC, to streamline the 
            licensing and appeals process in hydropower licensing, as 
            called for in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. A final rule 
            is expected to publish before January of 2009.
Implementing the President's National Energy Policy and the Energy 
Policy Act
The President's National Energy Policy promotes ``dependable, 
affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of 
energy for the future.'' The Department of the Interior plays a vital 
role in implementing the President's energy policy goals. The lands, 
waters, and facilities managed by the Department account for nearly 30 
percent of all the energy produced in the United States.

[[Page 71204]]

Through over 100 actions from 2005-2008, the Department has been 
implementing the President's energy policy and the Energy Policy Act of 
2005, including numerous regulatory actions. These actions will 
encourage development of dependable, affordable, and environmentally 
sound domestic sources of energy, including alternative sources of 
energy such as wind, geothermal, hydropower, and alternative fuels.
The Bureau of Land Management and the Minerals Management Service have 
completed several regulations that implement provisions of the Energy 
Policy Act and are continuing to develop additional regulations 
required by the Act. A key component of our energy efforts is the BLM's 
issuance of oil shale regulations. Oil shale regulations would provide 
critical ``rules of the road'' for private investors. Oil shale is a 
strategically important domestic energy resource, with a potential of 
800 billion barrels of recoverable oil- enough to meet U.S. demand for 
oil at current levels for 110 years. The BLM has issued proposed 
regulations that set out the policies and procedures of a commercial 
program for oil shale resources on Federal lands, in keeping with the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. The BLM 
expects to finalize those regulations in 2008.
The Office of Surface Mining has developed regulations that will 
promote better mining and reclamation practices while maintaining a 
stable regulatory framework conducive to coal production. As a result, 
concern for the environment during mining and reclamation afterwards 
are now well established components of energy production through coal 
mining operations. OSM continues to refine its program as science, 
circumstances or legislation require. OSM recently issued regulations 
that encourage the reforestation of reclaimed coal mine sites by 
revising vegetative ground cover standards that required excessive 
levels of ground cover vegetation which interfere with tree survival 
and growth. OSM also issued regulations on financial assurances in the 
form of trust funds and annuities to fund the treatment of long-term 
post-mining pollution discharges from surface coal mining operations.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed Interior to promulgate 
regulations regarding geothermal leasing, National Petroleum Reserve 
Alaska, tar sands leasing, oil and gas lease acreages and lease 
reinstatement, APD processing procedures, right-of-way rental fees, oil 
shale leasing, and coal lease provisions, alternative energy on the 
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), royalty relief for ultra-deep wells on 
the OCS, and discretionary relief for OCS leases offshore Alaska. The 
MMS has issued proposed regulations for the OCS-related issues and 
plans to issue final regulations before the end of 2008. These will 
provide the regulatory framework for expanding the development of 
alternative energy to the nation's OCS, provide royalty relief with 
well-defined price thresholds, encouraging production of clean-burning 
natural gas at ultra-deep depths, and provide revenue sharing to Gulf-
producing states for critical projects ranging from conservation and 
coastal restoration, to hurricane protection, and the mitigation of the 
impacts of OCS activities. Other energy-related regulations have also 
been promulgated. The Minerals Management Service, for example, 
published a final regulation addressing technical issues pertaining to 
valuation of oil on Indian lands, a regulation on open and 
nondiscriminatory access to OCS pipelines and electronic payment of 
fees.
The BLM has issued final regulations for most of the requirements of 
the Energy Policy Act, but continues work on the oil shale leasing 
regulations and the coal lease regulations. In particular, the BLM has 
issued proposed regulations to set out the policies and procedures of a 
commercial program for oil shale resources on Federal lands, in keeping 
with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. 
The Energy Policy Act authorizes the BLM to allow the exploration, 
development, and utilization of oil shale resources on BLM-managed 
lands. The goal of the BLM oil shale program is to promote economically 
viable and environmentally sound oil shale production that augments 
current domestic oil production while accounting for the potential 
effects of development on states and local communities. The BLM's oil 
shale program could result in the addition of up to 800 billion barrels 
of recoverable oil from lands in the Western United States.
The BLM has seen a sharp and sustained increase in the submission of 
oil and natural gas drilling permit applications. BLM met the challenge 
by initiating numerous innovative streamlining strategies to reduce the 
backlog of pending drilling permits. As BLM continues to make steady 
progress in reducing the backlog, it must work even more aggressively 
in the face of rising energy prices and increased demand for drilling 
permits. To aid in this effort, new process improvement tools have 
become available with the passage of the Energy Policy Act that will 
help reduce the backlog of pending permits while allowing the 
development of energy resources in an environmentally responsible 
manner.
The BLM is continuing its program of environmental Best Management 
Practices (BMPs) to help ensure the continued development of energy 
resources in an environmentally responsible manner. BMPs are 
innovative, dynamic, and improved environmental protection practices 
aimed at reducing impacts to the many natural resources BLM manages on 
behalf of the public. The BLM requires that appropriate environmental 
BMPs be considered for use in all new oil and gas drilling and 
production operations on the public lands administered by the BLM. A 
full discussion and many examples of BMPs can be found at BLM's BMP 
website: www.blm.gov/bmp
The BLM is revising and updating numerous land-use plans, including 
those in Utah (for example, public land under the management of the 
BLM's Vernal and Kanab Field Offices), western Oregon, and New Mexico, 
that would incorporate the land restoration and rehabilitation 
objectives of the Healthy Lands Initiative. This initiative, launched 
by Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne in Fiscal Year 2007, is a 
visionary landscape-scale effort aimed at improving the health and 
productivity of the public lands in today's fast-growing West, where 
demand for public land uses and products is at an all-time high. 
Focused on areas where energy development intersects with world-class 
wildlife habitat, the Healthy Lands Initiative takes a comprehensive, 
ridge-to-ridge approach to land management, one that involves Federal 
agencies, state and local governments, private organizations, and 
private industry working across jurisdictional lines to implement 
conservation and restoration projects that make a difference on the 
land. The Healthy Lands Initiative responds to a multitude of pressures 
on the public lands, including more intense urban-suburban development, 
increased outdoor recreational activity, rising demands for energy, 
impacts from large-scale wildfires, and the effects of an ongoing weed 
invasion.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs finalized regulations implementing 
provisions of

[[Page 71205]]

the Energy Policy Act concerning tribal energy resource development on 
tribal lands (73 FR 12808; March 10, 2008). Specifically, the Indian 
Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act of 2005, Title 
XXVI, Section 2604 of the Energy Policy Act, as amended, authorizes 
tribes, at their discretion, to apply for and enter into Tribal Energy 
Resource Agreements (TERAs) with the Secretary. Upon Secretarial 
approval of TERAs, tribes may enter into energy-related business 
agreements and leases, and grant rights-of-way for pipelines and 
electric transmission and distribution lines, on tribal lands without 
the Secretary's review and approval. The final regulations provide the 
process by which a tribe may apply for, and the Secretary may grant, 
authority for the tribe to review and approve business agreements and 
leases. The final regulations also provide the process for 
implementation of TERAs, including periodic review and evaluation of a 
tribe's activities under a TERA, enforcement of TERA provisions, 
administrative appeals, and voluntary rescission of a TERA. 
Implementation of the final regulations providing for TERAs furthers 
the Federal Government's policy of providing enhanced self-
determination and economic development opportunities for Indian tribes 
by promoting tribal oversight and management of energy resource 
development on tribal lands. The Act and the regulations provide 
another process, in addition to the Indian Minerals Development Act and 
the Indian Mineral Leasing Act, under which tribes may develop their 
mineral resources. Implementation of these regulations also supports 
the national energy policy of increasing utilization of domestic energy 
resources.
Encouraging Responsible Management of the Nation's Resources
The Department's mission includes protecting and providing access to 
our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honoring our trust 
responsibilities to tribes. We are committed to this mission and to 
applying laws and regulations fairly and effectively. The Department's 
priorities include protecting public health and safety, restoring and 
maintaining public lands, protecting threatened and endangered species, 
ameliorating land and resource-management problems on public lands, and 
ensuring accountability and compliance with Federal laws and 
regulations.
Consistent with the President's Executive Order on Cooperative 
Conservation, the Department is continuing to work with State and local 
governments, tribes, landowners, conservation groups, and the business 
community to conserve species and habitat. Building on successful 
approaches such as habitat conservation plans, safe harbor agreements, 
and candidate conservation agreements, the Department is reviewing its 
policies and regulations to identify opportunities to streamline the 
regulatory process where possible, consistent with protection of 
wildlife, and to enhance incentive-based programs to encourage 
landowners and others to implement voluntary conservation measures. For 
example, the Fish and Wildlife Service has issued guidance to promote 
the establishment of conservation banks as a tool to offset adverse 
impacts to species listed under the Endangered Species Act and restore 
habitat. The Service has developed guidance for expanding the use of 
the Recovery Credit System that was crafted in collaboration with 
partners at Fort Hood, Texas.
Under President Bush's leadership, the Department has emphasized 
partnership with landowners and local communities. These partnerships 
have benefited many species through improved habitat and have improved 
forest and rangeland. Information on our cooperative agreements policy 
and examples of successful partnerships are available on the Internet 
at http://www.doi.gov/news/CoopConserv--PRINT.pdf.
The BLM Wildlife Program continues to focus on the maintenance and 
management of wildlife habitat to help ensure self-sustaining 
populations and a natural abundance and diversity of wildlife resources 
on public lands. In partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey and the 
Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM is developing a landscape-scale approach 
to public lands management under the Department's Healthy Lands 
Initiative. BLM-managed terrestrial lands are vital to big game, upland 
game, waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds, raptors and hundreds of species 
of non-game mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. In order to provide for 
the long-term protection of these wildlife resources, especially given 
other mandated land use requirements, the Wildlife Program supports 
aggressive habitat conservation and restoration activities, many funded 
by partnerships with Federal, state, and non-governmental 
organizations. For instance, the Wildlife Program continues the 
implementation of a suite of complementary wildlife habitat restoration 
efforts across a multi-state region in support of sagebrush vegetation 
community dependent wildlife species. Projects are tailored to address 
regionally specific issues such as fire (as in the western portion of 
the sagebrush biome) or habitat degradation and loss (as in the eastern 
portion of the sagebrush biome). Additionally, the BLM undertakes 
habitat improvement projects in partnership with a variety of 
stakeholders and consistent with State (Fish and Game) Wildlife Action 
Plans and Local Working Group Plans.
The Department is improving incentives through administrative 
flexibility under the Endangered Species Act. Released in April 2004 
was a rule change intended to provide greater clarity as to what is 
allowable under incidental take permits and to provide greater private 
landowner protections under safe harbor agreements. On August 15, 2008, 
the Department published a proposed rule that would clarify when 
consultation required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 
1973 is applicable and the correct standards for effects analysis, and 
would establish timeframes for the informal consultation process.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has developed a policy and procedures 
for reporting, investigating, and adjudicating allegations of 
scientific misconduct by USGS employees and volunteers in accordance 
with the Federal policy on research misconduct. All covered employees 
and volunteers must follow this policy and are required to sign a 
statement indicating they have received, read, and understand the 
policy. These efforts will help to protect the public from the effects 
of inaccurate or misleading information produced through scientific 
activities and help to ensure scientific integrity in the conduct of 
scientific activities.
In 2006, the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture, Western 
Governors, county commissioners, and other affected parties completed a 
revision of the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan, a 
collaborative national effort to reduce the risk wildland fire poses to 
people, communities, and the environment. The revision incorporates new 
understanding and lessons learned over the last five years. It draws 
upon new tools like LANDFIRE (an advanced natural resource geographic 
information system), National Fire Plan Operating and Reporting System 
(NFPORS) (a comprehensive interagency fuels treatment, community 
assistance, and post-fire rehabilitation tracking system),

[[Page 71206]]

and the emergence of Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) called 
for in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act signed by the President in 
December 2003. The revision contains new performance measures and 
implementation tasks covering collaboration, fire prevention and 
suppression, hazardous fuels reduction, pre- and post-fire landscape 
restoration, and community assistance.
Since the President announced the Healthy Forests Initiative in 2002, 
the Department has made extensive progress in reducing hazardous fuels. 
From 2003 to 2006, the bureaus treated an average of over 1,260,000 
acres annually compared to 728,000 acres in 2001. The Department 
shifted emphasis toward the wildland urban interface (WUI), each year 
treating three times as many WUI acres as were reached in 2001. In 
2007, the Department treated 1.787 million acres of wildland urban 
interface and non-wildland urban interface lands. The Department has 
rapidly inculcated the new tools provided by the Healthy Forests 
Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act into its work. The 
Department now uses the streamlined NEPA-compliance on some 80 percent 
of new hazardous fuels NEPA work while, in 2006, over 45 percent of all 
fuels treatments accomplished where associated with either a 
streamlined NEPA tool or a CWPP.
The National Park Service developed a new winter use plan and EIS for 
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National parks and the John D. Rockefeller, 
Jr. Memorial Parkway. These park areas operated for three winters under 
a Temporary Winter Use Plan that expired at the end of the 2006-2007 
winter season. The regulation published late in 2007 provided for an 
average daily entrance of 540 snowmobiles (compared to 720 under the 
interim plan), continued requirements for guided tours and group size 
not to exceed 10 snowmobiles, and established daily limits on snowcoach 
entrances to the park. The rule also proposed closing the Sylvan Pass 
area to snowmobile and snowcoach travel during the winter, but 
committed NPS to participating with the town of Cody in a facilitated 
conflict resolution process. That process resulted in a decision to 
retain over-snow travel and a revised rule was developed in the summer 
of 2008.
The National Park Service completed a nearly 10-year public process to 
develop a management plan for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon 
National Park with the signing of a Record of Decision on the 
Environmental Impact Statement in November, 2006. Conforming 
regulations consistent with the management directions outlined in the 
plan are now necessary. These include changes affecting: permit 
requirements for commercial river trips below a specified location in 
the canyon; updating visitor use restrictions (i.e. beach uses, trip 
requirements) and camping closures; and eliminating unnecessary 
provisions in the current regulation. The National Park Service intends 
to publish proposed regulations in 2008.
The National Park Service is working with the BLM and FWS to finalize 
rulemaking to implement Public Law 106-206, which directs the Secretary 
to establish a reasonable fee system (location fees) for commercial 
filming and still photography activities on public lands. Commercial 
filming and still photography are activities generally allowed on 
Federal lands. In many circumstances, it is in the government's 
interest to manage the activity through a permitting process to 
minimize the possibility of damage to the cultural or natural resources 
or interference with other visitors to the area. This regulation would 
standardize the collection of location fee by DOI agencies.
The BLM published final grazing regulations in June of 2006. The new 
regulations sought to: (1) improve the Bureau's working relationships 
with those holding the nearly 18,000 leases and permits that authorize 
grazing on BLM-managed land; (2) advance the BLM's efforts in assessing 
and protecting rangelands; and (3) enhance the agency's administrative 
efficiency. However, litigation resulted in a ruling against the 
regulations on February 28, 2008, by the U.S. District Court for Idaho, 
which blocked the BLM from implementing the regulations. On April 25, 
2008, the Department of Justice, on behalf of all Federal defendants, 
filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the 
February 28, 2008, ruling. The issues proposed to be raised on appeal 
include: (1) whether the District Court properly denied Federal 
defendants' motion to dismiss the Endangered Species Act claim for lack 
of jurisdiction and (2) whether the District Court properly held that 
BLM's promulgation of the final grazing regulations violated the 
National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act, and the Endangered Species Act. In a related matter, 
the BLM has been working to update and refine its grazing policies, 
although these changes would not be regulatory in nature. This effort 
is expected to result in the revision during 2008 of two rangeland 
manuals and five handbooks that have not been updated since the late 
1980s. There are more manuals and handbook updates proposed for fiscal 
year 2009.
In December 2004, President Bush issued the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, in 
response to the US Commission on Ocean Policy Report. The Action Plan 
includes a series of proposals from across the Government that included 
policy proposals, legislative recommendations, and regulatory 
initiatives. DOI has a number of responsibilities under the Action plan 
including: implementation of interim regulations and joint permits to 
support the President's Proclamation establishing the Papahanaumokuakea 
National Marine Monument in the northwest Hawaiian islands; development 
of a seamless network to protect and conserve the nations ocean and 
coastal refuges, reserves, parks and sanctuaries; and creation of a 
National Water Quality Network. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 
cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
the State of Hawaii's Department of Land and Natural Resources and 
Office of Hawaiian Affairs, made available a draft monument management 
plan on Earth Day, April 22, 2008. The draft management plan and 
associated environmental assessment were available for a 90-day public 
comment period from April 23, 2008 through July 23, 2008.
Minimizing Regulatory Burdens
We are using the regulatory process to improve results while easing 
regulatory burdens. For instance, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
allows for the delisting of threatened and endangered species if they 
no longer need the protection of the ESA. We have identified 
approximately 12 species for which delisting or downlisting 
(reclassification from endangered to threatened) has been or may be 
appropriate. Since January 1, 2008, we have delisted one species, the 
Virginia northern flying squirrel (8/26/08), and proposed delisting for 
four other species: brown pelican (2/20/08), Maguire daisy (5/16/08), 
concho water snake (7/08/08), and the Hawaiian hawk (8/06/08). By the 
end of this calendar year, we expect to propose delisting for five 
additional species: valley elderberry longhorn beetle, Eureka Valley 
evening-primrose, Eureka Valley dunegrass, Utah valvata snail, and 
Tennessee

[[Page 71207]]

purple coneflower. We also expect to propose downlisting for two 
species: Okaloosa darter and tulotoma snail.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has found that making listing decisions 
under the Endangered Species Act on candidate species in Hawaii on a 
traditional, species-by-species basis is inefficient in both cost and 
time, since very similar information and analysis would be repeated in 
each rule. To improve regulatory efficiency while using the best 
science available, the Fish and Wildlife Service has taken an approach 
that includes consideration of 48 species in one regulatory package. 
This allows us to address the existing backlog of candidate species 
more quickly. Most candidate species on the Hawaiian Islands face 
nearly identical threats and are only found in the few remaining 
native-dominated ecological communities. The impacts of these threats 
are well understood at the community level, while their impacts to the 
individual candidate species relatively less studied. Because a 
significant focus under this approach is on the conservation of the key 
physical and biological components of these native communities and 
ecosystems (and not just the individual listed species found there), 
this approach may preclude the need to list additional species found in 
the same ecological communities. Recovery plans developed in response 
to the Kauai listing package will focus conservation efforts on the 
protection and restoration of ecosystem processes, allowing us to more 
efficiently address common threats in the most important areas.
The Department has submitted over a dozen proposed categorical 
exclusions provided for under NEPA to expedite a range of activities 
that the agencies routinely conduct. These range from periodic road 
closures over dams to activities related to improving Forest Health and 
energy related activities.
The Federal Power Act authorizes the Department to include in 
hydropower licenses issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
conditions and prescriptions necessary to protect Federal and tribal 
lands and resources and to provide fishways when navigable waterways or 
Federal reservations are used for hydropower generation. The Department 
of the Interior developed a joint rule with the Departments of 
Agriculture and Commerce that establishes a trial-type hearing for a 
review of disputes over ``material facts'' included in hydropower 
licenses, as required by section 241 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 
The Department expects to publish a final rule in 2008.
The Department of the Interior has proposed a regulatory change 
affecting the firearms regulations of the National Park Service and the 
Fish and Wildlife Service. The proposed regulatory change would update 
the current regulations to reflect current state laws authorizing the 
possession of concealed firearms. The Department proposes to amend 
existing regulations to allow individuals to carry concealed weapons in 
park units and refuges to the extent that they could lawfully do so on 
analogous state-administered lands. The proposed rule was published on 
April 30, 2008. The comment period was re-opened in the summer, and 
closed August 8. Analysis of comments is underway. DOI expects to 
publish a final rule in 2008.
The National Park Service published a proposed rule regarding permits 
for inaugural events on August 8, 2008. The comment period closes 
September 22, 2008. This rule was needed to respond to legal decisions 
that would affect the upcoming inaugural, regardless of the election 
results. The proposed rule changes are intended to protect the planning 
prerogatives of future presidential inaugural committees. The NPS 
proposed regulation would expressly authorize the NPS to apply for 
permits on behalf of a Presidential Inaugural Committee so that the 
Inaugural Committee can continue its traditional functions along 
Pennsylvania Avenue. The permits would include the time to set-up and 
take-down structures. The regulation would establish a priority for PIC 
activities in designated areas. The regulation would also establish 
set-up and take-down times for Inaugural-related construction 
activities on parkland directly in front of the White House.
Encouraging Public Participation and Involvement in the Regulatory 
Process
The Department is encouraging increased public participation in the 
regulatory process to improve results by ensuring that regulatory 
policies take into account the knowledge and ideas of our customers, 
regulated community, and other interested participants. The Department 
is reaching out to communities to seek public input on a variety of 
regulatory issues. For example, every year FWS establishes migratory 
bird hunting seasons in partnership with ``flyway councils,'' which are 
made up of State fish and wildlife agencies. As the process evolves 
each year, FWS holds a series of public meetings to give other 
interested parties, including hunters and other groups, opportunities 
to participate in establishing the upcoming season's regulations.
Similarly, BLM uses Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) made up of 
affected parties to help prepare land management plans and regulations 
that it issues under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and 
other statutes.
The Department reviewed and reformed its NEPA compliance program and in 
2004 implemented new procedures to improve public participation and 
reduce paperwork and redundancy of effort in the field. The reforms 
include: consensus-based management, public participation, community-
based training, use of integrated analysis, adaptive management, and 
tiered and transferred analysis. To promote greater transparency and 
public accountability, the Department is promulgating regulations to 
codify these policies in the Code of Federal Regulations. These 
regulations will supplement the CEQ regulations and must be used in 
conjunction with them. The regulations will ensure that field staffs 
have the tools to tailor their implementation of the NEPA process to 
local needs and interests.
The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA; PL 108-447), enacted 
in December 2004, required the Forest Service and BLM to establish 
Recreation Resource Advisory Committees (RRACs), or use existing BLM 
RACs to perform the duties of RRACs. These committees make recreation 
fee program recommendations to the two agencies on agency proposals to 
implement or eliminate certain recreation fees; to expand or limit 
their fee programs; and to implement fee level changes. The Department 
of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture signed an Interagency 
Agreement establishing the framework, processes, and collaborative RRAC 
approach the two agencies are using to comply with the REA's public 
participation requirements. The RRACs began reviewing agency fee 
proposals in 2007.
We encourage public consultation during the regulatory process. For 
example:
<bullet> OSM is continuing its outreach to interested groups to improve 
            the substance and quality of rules and, to the greatest 
            extent possible, achieve consensus on regulatory issues. As 
            part of this process, OSM meets on a

[[Page 71208]]

            regular basis with organizations that represent coal-
            producing states such as the Interstate Mining Compact 
            Commission and the National Association of Abandoned Mine 
            Land Programs. OSM also meets on a regular basis with 
            Indian tribes regarding coal mining activity on their 
            tribal lands.
<bullet> The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) engaged in a comprehensive 
            approach to public consultation while developing 
            regulations related to Indian probate and other areas of 
            Indian trust management reform. BIA held five tribal 
            consultation sessions in different regions of the country, 
            presented the regulatory changes at several conferences, 
            provided Continuing Legal Education (CLE) training at a 
            symposium sponsored by the Institute of Indian Estate 
            Planning and Probate, held workshops, and made available 
            public outreach materials describing the regulatory 
            changes.
<bullet> The Golden Gate National Recreation Area, a unit of the 
            National Park System, has engaged in negotiated rulemaking 
            to resolve an issue regarding walking dogs off-leash in the 
            park and their impacts to endangered species. Existing NPS 
            regulations require all dogs to be on a leash while in 
            Golden Gate NRA, and the park has asked interested parties 
            on both sides of the issue to help draft a proposed 
            regulation. NPS published a final rule to provide temporary 
            protection on 9/19/2008 (73 FR 54317). NPS expects to 
            publish special rules on dog management by winter 2010.
Rules of Particular Interest to Small Businesses
FWS is making critical habitat designations more site-specific and is 
using the ESA section 4(b) exclusion process to reduce regulatory costs 
on small businesses.
BLM has developed Stewardship Contracting Guidance that provides a 
framework for the preparation, implementation, and tracking of BLM 
stewardship projects, in accordance with Section 323 of Public Law 108-
7, the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, which authorizes 
BLM to enter into stewardship projects with private persons or public 
or private entities, by contract or by agreement, to perform services 
to achieve land management goals for the national forests or public 
lands that meet local and rural community needs. The legislation also 
authorizes the value of timber or other forest products removed to be 
applied as an offset against the cost of services received.
The Future of DOI
Interior updated its 2003-2008 strategic plan in accordance with the 
Government Performance and Results Act requirement to update such plans 
every three years. Employee teams from bureaus and offices across 
Interior engaged in the revision process. Senior Departmental 
leadership was involved in reviews and approval of recommended changes 
before releasing the draft plan for public comment. The draft GPRA 
Strategic Plan: 2007-12 was the subject of a number of public meetings, 
tribal government to government consultations, and employee focus 
groups during August and September 2006. Modifications based on 
analysis of the comments received were completed and the final plan was 
published on December 28, 2006.
The Department has established cooperative conservation principles as a 
central organizing theme for enhancing resource management and reducing 
conflict relating to public lands decisions. The Department can best 
achieve conservation by leveraging its resources through successful 
partnerships, cooperative agreements and participation from farmers, 
ranchers, hunters, anglers, landowners, and others who are interested 
in conservation. As we empower people as stewards of the land, we 
become more effective in our conservation mission. President Bush has 
emphasized the value of cooperative conservation through Executive 
Order 13352. The Executive Order defines cooperative conservation as 
``actions that relate to use, enhancement, and enjoyment of natural 
resources, protection of the environment, or both, and that involve 
collaborative activity among Federal, State, local, and Tribal 
governments, private for-profit and non-profit institutions, other 
nongovernmental entities and individuals.'' The DOI has aligned 
budgets, administrative tools, and policies to strengthen its capacity 
to encourage cooperative conservation and fulfill its potential to 
achieve on-the-ground conservation results. Below are only a few of 
many examples of actions the Department has taken to maximize 
conservation through cooperation:
<bullet> We increased programs and grants designed to facilitate 
            cooperative conservation from $217.1 million in 2001 to 
            $311.3 million in 2008, a 43 percent increase.
<bullet> We incorporated cooperative conservation goals into employee 
            performance plans;
<bullet> We established a permanent Office of Conservation, 
            Partnerships and Management Policy within the Office of the 
            Secretary that works with an intradepartmental team to 
            strengthen capacity for collaboration, mediation, and 
            partnering.
<bullet> We revised our Departmental Manual chapter on donations to 
            improve our ability to partner effectively with the public. 
            The revised policy encourages partnerships while upholding 
            the principles that the integrity and impartiality of the 
            Department and public confidence in the Department are key 
            considerations in any acceptance of donations.
<bullet> The National Park Service adopted a Building Better 
            Partnership Projects (BBPP) process to help ensure that 
            partnership-assisted construction projects in National 
            Parks are properly designed, vetted and managed and that 
            the fundraising campaign is slated for success. The BBPP 
            process is intended to help ensure that:
1) the project is appropriately designed and sized for the park
2) the capital campaign will succeed in raising all the needed funds 
            without having to turn to Congress to make up any 
            difference the campaign cannot raise
3) the project can be staffed and maintained over time
4) there is proper compliance with and oversight of design and 
            construction
5) all appropriate parties, including the Department and Congress, are 
            aware and supportive of the projects.
Recent examples of successful projects include the $18.5 million Craig 
Thomas Discovery and Visitor Center at Grand Teton National Park, 
funded in part by the Grand Teton National Park Foundation and the 
Grand Teton Natural History Association; the $14 million Lower Yosemite 
Falls Trail Improvement Project, funded primarily by the Yosemite Fund; 
and the new museum and visitor center at Gettysburg National Military 
Park funded principally through the $125 million Campaign to Preserve 
Gettysburg by the Gettysburg Foundation.
<bullet> We revised the Departmental Manual chapter on contracts, 
            grants and cooperative agreements to address single source 
            awards while continuing to uphold the

[[Page 71209]]

            Department's policy that the bureaus must use appropriate 
            instruments for federal financial assistance transactions, 
            provide appropriate justifications and documentation for 
            files and conduct periodic compliance reviews.
The revised GPRA Strategic Plan:
<bullet> Incorporates key Administration and Secretarial priorities 
            into Interior's goals and performance measures
<bullet> Provides for more ``results-oriented'' goals for Interior 
            programs
<bullet> Provides the basis for the Departmental Annual Performance 
            Plan
Interior bureaus will continue to prepare internal plans to support 
their budget initiatives and to meet management excellence and 
accountability needs.
Bureaus and Offices Within DOI
The following brief descriptions summarize the regulatory functions of 
DOI's major regulatory bureaus and offices.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is responsible for the 
administration and management of 66 million acres of land held in trust 
by the United States for Indians and Indian tribes, providing services 
to approximately 1.7 million Indians and Alaska Natives, and 
maintaining a government-to-government relationship with the 562 
federally recognized Indian tribes. BIA's mission is to ``... enhance 
the quality of life, to promote economic opportunity, and to carry out 
the responsibility to protect and improve the trust assets of American 
Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives'' as well as to provide 
quality education opportunities to students in Indian schools.
In fiscal year 2008, BIA has two primary areas of regulatory focus:
1) improved management of trust responsibilities and
2) promotion of economic development in Indian communities.
The focus on Indian trust management reform originated with Congress's 
enactment of the Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994. Since that 
time, BIA, with the input of tribal leaders, individual Indian 
beneficiaries, and other subject matter experts, has been examining 
ways to better serve its beneficiaries. The American Indian Probate 
Reform Act of 2004 (AIPRA) amendments to the Indian Land Consolidation 
Act (ILCA) made clear that regulatory changes were necessary to update 
the manner in which BIA meets its trust management responsibilities. 
The focus on promoting economic development in Indian communities is a 
core component of BIA's mission and furthers the Secretary's Safe 
Indian Communities initiative by preventing crime through economic 
development opportunities.
BIA's regulatory priorities are to:
<bullet> Meet the Indian trust reform goals for land consolidation and 
            improve service to individual Indian and tribal 
            beneficiaries. BIA and the Office of the Secretary plan to 
            finalize in late 2008 several regulations related to Indian 
            trust management to meet the policies articulated by 
            Congress in ILCA, as amended by AIPRA. These regulations 
            address Indian trust management issues in the areas of 
            probate; probate hearings and appeals; tribal probate 
            codes; life estates and future interest in Indian land; and 
            conveyances of trust or restricted land. These amendments 
            to 25 CFR parts 15, 18, 152, 179, and 43 CFR Parts 4, 30 
            form an integrated approach to Indian trust management 
            related to probate and conveyances that allows the 
            Department to better meet the needs of its beneficiaries. 
            (See proposed rule at 71 FR 45174; August 6, 2006). BIA is 
            also developing amendments to regulations in the areas of 
            land title and records; leasing; grazing; minerals and 
            energy; rights-of-way; and trust fund accounting and 
            appeals. Together, these regulatory changes, to be proposed 
            in 2009, will provide the Department with the tools it 
            needs to better serve beneficiaries and will standardize 
            procedures for consistent execution of fiduciary 
            responsibilities across the BIA.
<bullet> Promote economic development through regulated gaming 
            activities. Congress identified gaming as a means of 
            promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency and 
            strong tribal governments. See, e.g., the Indian Gaming 
            Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. In fiscal 
            year 2008, BIA established a process for Indian tribes to 
            take advantage of this important means of economic 
            development on lands acquired after October 17, 1988. 
            Specifically, BIA finalized a new rule that establishes the 
            process for Indian tribes to submit applications and 
            demonstrate that they meet the statutory requirements 
            allowing them to conduct class II or class III gaming 
            activities on those lands (73 FR 12808; May 20, 2008). This 
            year, BIA also proposed, and plans to finalize, a rule that 
            clarifies the process for Indian tribes to submit their 
            Tribal-State Gaming Compacts for review and approval by the 
            Secretary (73 FR 37907; July 2, 2008). Tribal-State Gaming 
            Compacts govern the conduct of class III gaming activities 
            on the tribe's Indian lands located within that State.
The Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages about 258 million acres of 
land surface, including 15 National Monuments, and about 700 million 
acres of Federal mineral estate. These lands consist of extensive 
grasslands, forests, mountains, arctic tundra, and deserts. Resources 
on the lands include energy and minerals, timber, forage, wild horse 
and burro populations, habitat for fish and wildlife, wilderness areas, 
and archaeological and cultural sites. The BLM manages these lands and 
resources for multiple purposes and the sustained yield of renewable 
resources. Primary statutes under which the BLM operates include: the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976; the General Mining Law 
of 1872; the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended; the Recreation 
and Public Purposes Act; the Taylor Grazing Act; the Wilderness Act; 
and the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act.
The BLM regulatory focus is directed primarily by priorities of the 
President and Congress. For example, many regulatory efforts support 
the objectives of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These objectives 
include those that facilitate the domestic production of various 
sources of energy, including biomass, wind, solar, and other 
alternative sources of energy, including oil shale. Other statutory 
objectives include providing for a wide variety of public uses while 
maintaining the long-term health and diversity of the land and 
preserving significant natural, cultural, and historic resource values; 
understanding the arid, semi-arid, arctic, and other ecosystems we 
manage and committing ourselves to using the best scientific and 
technical information to make resource management decisions; 
understanding the needs of the people who use the BLM-managed public 
lands and providing them with quality service; securing the recovery of 
a fair return for using publicly owned resources and avoiding the 
creation of long-term liabilities for American taxpayers; and resolving 
problems and implementing decisions in cooperation with other agencies, 
States, tribal governments, and the public.

[[Page 71210]]

During the development of regulations, the BLM recognizes the need to 
ensure communication, coordination, and consultation with all affected 
interests and the public and that the regulations are easy for the 
public to understand, especially those who would be most affected by 
them.
The BLM's regulatory priorities include:
<bullet> Finalizing oil shale regulations to provide critical ``rules 
            of the road'' essential to oil shale development. The BLM 
            has issued proposed regulations (73 FR 42926; July 23, 
            2008) that set out the policies and procedures of a 
            commercial program for oil shale resources on Federal 
            lands, in keeping with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and 
            the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. It expects to finalize 
            these regulations in 2008. Finalizing these regulations is 
            a key component of our effort to promote America's energy 
            security. Oil shale is a strategically important domestic 
            energy resource, with a potential of 800 billion barrels of 
            recoverable oil- enough to meet U.S. demand for oil at 
            current levels for 110 years.
Other regulatory and planning efforts seek to improve the agency's 
management of public rangelands and other land resources, such as land-
use plan revisions that incorporate the objectives of the Healthy Lands 
Initiative. Through these actions, the BLM is working to ensure that 
America's public lands stay healthy and productive for multiple uses, 
both now and in the years to come.
Minerals Management Service
Minerals Management Service (MMS) has two major responsibilities. The 
first is timely and accurate collection, distribution, and accounting 
for revenues associated with mineral production from leased Federal and 
Indian lands. The second is management of the resources of the Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS) in a manner that provides for safety, 
protection of the environment, and conservation of natural resources. 
Both of these responsibilities are carried out under the provisions of 
the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act, the Federal minerals 
leasing acts, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Indian mineral 
leasing acts, and other related statutes.
Our regulatory focus in fiscal year 2008 is directed primarily by 
priorities of the President and Congress. Legislation enacted by 
Congress and signed by the President emphasizes contributing to our 
nation's energy supply, developing new energy sources and sharing OCS 
revenues with coastal states affected by offshore oil and gas 
exploration. Through the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) and the Gulf 
of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA), Congress directed MMS 
to:
1) develop regulations to encourage development of alternative energy 
            and alternate uses of facilities on the OCS, and
2) distribute a fair share of Federal royalty revenue to States and 
            political subdivisions affected by offshore oil and gas 
            exploration in the Gulf of Mexico.
Our regulatory priorities are to:
<bullet> Meet our Indian trust responsibilities. We have an ongoing 
            trust responsibility to collect and disburse oil and gas 
            royalties on Indian lands. The Minerals Management Service 
            announced its intent to establish an Indian Oil Valuation 
            negotiated rulemaking committee by Federal Register notice 
            (73 FR 22970), published on April 28, 2008. This effort 
            will address issues pertaining to the valuation of oil 
            produced from Indian lands and add more certainty to oil 
            valuation for royalty purposes. The negotiated rulemaking 
            process will involve stakeholders in the rulemaking process 
            and address some of the unique terms contained in Indian 
            tribal and allotted leases - in particular, the major 
            portion provision to ensure consistent, fair and proper 
            calculation of oil value from Indian lands.
<bullet> Encourage development of alternative energy and alternate uses 
            for existing facilities. In responding to the mandates of 
            the EPAct, MMS has moved forward in developing and 
            codifying the regulatory framework for alternative energy 
            projects on the OCS. We published a proposed rule (RIN 
            1010-AD30) in July, 2008, and expect to publish the final 
            regulations by the end of the year. The regulations will 
            provide a mechanism for developing the nations' offshore 
            wind, wave and ocean current resources in a safe and 
            environmentally sound manner.
<bullet> Promote Gulf of Mexico coastal restoration through revenue 
            sharing with affected States. We published a proposed rule 
            (RIN 1010-AD46) in May, 2008, and expect to publish a final 
            rule before the end of 2008 that would establish a formula 
            and provide a process for allocating a portion of OCS 
            revenues (royalties, rents and bonuses) from leases in 
            specified areas of the Gulf of Mexico to the States of 
            Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas and their coastal 
            political jurisdictions. The funds provided would be used 
            for the purposes of coastal protection, including 
            conservation, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, 
            mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife or natural 
            resources, and the mitigation of the impacts of OCS 
            activities.
<bullet> Royalty Relief for Ultra-Deep gas wells and Deep Gas wells 
            pursuant to the EPAct. We are promulgating a final rule 
            (RIN 1010-AD33) to reflect the statutory changes enacted in 
            the EPAct to provide royalty relief, with price thresholds, 
            for certain ultra-deep wells on OCS leases in shallow water 
            in the Gulf of Mexico. The rule would provide relief under 
            certain circumstances and could foster increased production 
            of clean burning natural gas for the nation.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) was 
created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
(SMCRA) to ``strike a balance between protection of the environment and 
agricultural productivity and the Nation's need for coal as an 
essential source of energy.'' The principal regulatory provisions 
contained in Title V of SMCRA set minimum requirements for obtaining a 
permit for surface coal mining operations, set standards for those 
operations, require land reclamation once mining ends, and require 
rules and enforcement procedures to ensure that the standards are met. 
Under SMCRA, as amended by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 
Act Amendments of 2006, OSM is the primary enforcer of SMCRA's 
provisions until a State or Indian tribe achieves ``primacy;'' that is, 
until it demonstrates that its regulatory program meets all of the 
specifications in SMCRA and has regulations consistent with those 
issued by OSM. When a primacy State or Indian tribe takes over the 
permitting, inspection, and enforcement activities of the Federal 
Government, OSM changes its role from regulating mining activities 
directly to overseeing and evaluating State and Indian programs. Today, 
24 of the 26 coal-producing States have primacy. In return for assuming 
primacy, States are entitled to regulatory grants and to grants for 
reclaiming abandoned mine lands. In addition,

[[Page 71211]]

under cooperative agreements, some primacy States have agreed to 
regulate mining on Federal lands within their borders. At present, none 
of the Indian tribes with coal resources has primacy. Tribal primacy 
was not authorized until passage of the 2006 amendments to SMCRA. Since 
passage of the 2006 amendments, three tribes have expressed an interest 
in submitting a tribal program. In summary, OSM regulates mining 
directly only in nonprimacy States, on Federal lands in States where no 
cooperative agreements are in effect, and on Indian lands when the 
tribe does not have primacy.
OSM has sought to develop and maintain a stable regulatory program for 
surface coal mining hat is safe, cost-effective, and environmentally 
sound. A stable regulatory program provides regulatory certainty so 
that coal companies know what is expected of them and citizens know 
what is intended and how they can participate. During the development 
and maintenance of its program, OSM has recognized the need to (a) 
respond to local conditions, (b) provide flexibility to react to 
technological change, (c) be sensitive to geographic diversity, and (d) 
eliminate burdensome recordkeeping and reporting requirements that over 
time have proved unnecessary to ensure an effective regulatory program.
OSM's major regulatory priorities are to:
<bullet> Revise Our Abandoned Mine Land Program Regulations To Be 
            Consistent With the Surface Mining Control Act Amendments 
            of 2006. We published a proposed rule (RIN 1029-AC56) on 
            June 20, 2008, that aligns our existing regulations to be 
            consistent with the 2006 amendments to SMCRA which extended 
            the AML fee through 2021 with several substantive changes. 
            The rule also uses plain English to make the regulations 
            easier to understand where no substantive change is 
            intended and provides further guidance and clarification on 
            implementation of the 2006 amendments where appropriate or 
            needed. The primary benefits of the rule will be to insure 
            the stable and efficient administration of these 
            significant changes to the abandoned mine land program 
            through the fee extension provided by the new legislation.
<bullet> Issue Regulations for Stream Buffer Zones and Excess Spoil 
            Placement. We published a proposed rule (RIN 1029-AC04) on 
            August 24, 2007, concerning stream buffer zones, stream-
            channel diversions, siltation structures, impoundments, 
            excess spoil, and coal mine waste. Among other things, the 
            rule would require that surface coal mining operations be 
            designed to minimize the creation of excess spoil and the 
            adverse environmental impacts of fills constructed to 
            dispose of excess spoil and coal mine waste. The primary 
            benefits of the rule will be (1) minimization of adverse 
            environmental impacts from construction of excess spoil 
            fills and (2) regulatory clarity and stability with respect 
            to buffer zones for intermittent and perennial streams.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service is, working with others, 
to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their 
habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The 
Service's vision is to be a leader and trusted partner in fish and 
wildlife conservation, known for its scientific excellence, stewardship 
of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals, and commitment 
to public service.
The Service has six priorities:
1) National Wildlife Refuge System - conserving our lands and 
            resources;
2) Landscape Conservation - working with others;
3) Migratory Birds - conservation and management;
4) Threatened and Endangered Species - achieving recovery and 
            preventing extinction;
5) Aquatic Species - National Fish Habitat Action Plan and trust 
            species; and
6) Connecting People with Nature - ensuring the future of conservation.
Our regulatory focus through fiscal year 2008 is on four of those 
priorities - National Wildlife Refuges, Connecting People with Nature, 
Migratory Birds, and Threatened and Endangered Species.
The regulatory priority for the National Wildlife Refuge System and 
Connecting People with Nature is to meet our responsibilities to 
provide quality hunting and fishing opportunities for the American 
people.
<bullet> We published a final rule (1018-AU61) on June 11, 2008, that 
            opens select National Wildlife Refuges to hunting and sport 
            fishing. The National Wildlife System Administration Act of 
            1966 closes all national wildlife refuges in all states, 
            except Alaska, unless opened. This final rule added one 
            refuge to the list of refuges open for sport fishing and 
            amends certain other regulations pertaining to hunting and 
            sport fishing for the 2008-2009 season.
<bullet> We published a proposed rule (1018-AV20) on June 11, 2008, 
            that proposed to add one refuge to the list of refuges open 
            to hunting and/or sport fishing and that would increase 
            activities available on six other refuges for the 2008-2009 
            season. The comment period for this rule closed on July 11, 
            2008. The final rule published on August 29, 2008.
Our regulatory priorities for Migratory Birds are to provide assurances 
and/or permits for entities covered under ESA Section 7 or Section 10 
permits prior to the delisting of the bald eagle and to finalize 
regulations proposed in 2007 to establish two new permits under the 
Eagle Act.
<bullet> On May 20, 2008, we published a final rule to extend Eagle Act 
            authorizations to holders of existing ESA authorizations.
1) We provide take authorization to ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permittees 
            where the bald eagle is covered in a Habitat Conservation 
            Plan (HCP) or the golden eagle is covered as a non-listed 
            species.
2) We established a new permit category to provide expedited Eagle Act 
            permits to entities authorized to take bald eagles through 
            section 7 incidental take statements.
<bullet> On August 14, 2008, we published a Draft Environmental 
            Assessment on issuance of permits under the Act. We also 
            reopened the comment period on the rule proposed in 2007.
1) We plan to issue regulations for permits take of eagles and nests 
            where necessary for the safety of humans or the eagles, and 
            to allow disturbance of eagles where the disturbance is 
            associated with otherwise-lawful activities.
2) These regulations will establish a priority for Native American take 
            of eagles for religious purposes.
3) We plan to complete and implement these regulations in fall 2008.
Our regulatory priorities for Threatened and Endangered Species are as 
follows.
<bullet> Facilitate implementation of conservation provisions for the 
            polar bear by harmonizing Endangered Species Act and Marine 
            Mammal

[[Page 71212]]

            Protection Act provisions. We published a proposed section 
            4(d) rule (1018-AV79) on May 15, 2008 and the comment 
            period closed on July 14, 2008. We are in the process of 
            gathering and analyzing all comments received. We expect to 
            publish a final rule by the end of this year.
<bullet> Take the following actions to list the polar bear:
1) We published a final rule (1018-AV19) listing the polar bear as a 
            threatened species on May 15, 2008. The rule affords the 
            polar bear the protections of the provisions of the 
            Endangered Species Act.
2) We also published a special rule (1018-AV79) under the authority of 
            section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
            amended, to provide customized measures that are necessary 
            and advisable for the conservation of the polar bear.
<bullet> Improve Interagency Consultation Regulations. Targeted 
            revisions to Section 7 interagency consultation regulations 
            were proposed on August 15 (1018-AT50) to increase 
            efficiencies and enable Fish and Wildlife Service 
            biologists to devote more time to assessing the status of 
            potential species at risk.
National Park Service
The National Park Service is dedicated to conserving the natural and 
cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the 
enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. 
The Service is also responsible for managing a great variety of 
national and international programs designed to help extend the 
benefits of natural and cultural resources conservation and outdoor 
recreation throughout this country and the world.
There are 391 units in the National Park System, including national 
parks and monuments; scenic parkways, preserves, trails, riverways, 
seashores, lakeshores, and recreation areas; and historic sites 
associated with important movements, events, and personalities of the 
American past.
The National Park Service develops and implements park management plans 
and staffs the areas under its administration. It relates the natural 
values and historical significance of these areas to the public through 
talks, tours, films, exhibits, and other interpretive media. It 
operates campgrounds and other visitor facilities and provides, usually 
through concessions, lodging, food, and transportation services in many 
areas. The National Park Service also administers the following 
programs:
<bullet> The State portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
<bullet> Nationwide Outdoor Recreation coordination and information and 
            State comprehensive outdoor recreation planning
<bullet> Planning and technical assistance for the National Wild and 
            Scenic Rivers System and the National Trails System
<bullet> Natural area programs
<bullet> Preserve America grant program
<bullet> National Register of Historic Places
<bullet> National historic landmarks
<bullet> Historic preservation
<bullet> Technical preservation services
<bullet> Historic American Buildings survey
<bullet> Historic American Engineering Record
<bullet> Interagency archeological services
The National Park Service maintains regulations that help manage public 
use, access, and recreation in units of the National Park System. The 
Service provides visitor and resource protection to ensure public 
safety and prevent derogation of resources. The regulatory program 
develops and reviews regulations, maintaining consistency with State 
and local laws, to allow these uses only if they are compatible with 
the purpose for which each area was established. The regulatory 
priorities to be accomplished through the balance of this 
Administration include:
<bullet> Providing consistency between NPS and state parks or other 
            analogous lands with regarded to allowing the carrying of 
            concealed firearms (RIN1024-AD70)(public comment period 
            closed 8/8/08);
<bullet> Assuring consistency between regulations and management 
            actions associated with the presidential inaugural every 
            four years (RIN 1024-AD71) (proposed rule published 8/8/08; 
            comment period closes 9/22/08);
<bullet> Implementing the Colorado River Management Plan through 
            conforming regulations (RIN 1024-AD50); and
<bullet> Addressing the challenges of managing off-leash dogs and 
            protecting endangered species habitat at Golden Gate 
            National Recreation Area (RIN 1024-AD71).
Bureau of Reclamation
The Bureau of Reclamation's mission is to manage, develop, and protect 
water and related resources in an environmentally and economically 
sound manner in the interest of the American public. To accomplish this 
mission, Reclamation applies management, engineering, and scientific 
skills that result in effective and environmentally sensitive 
solutions.
Reclamation projects provide for some or all of the following 
concurrent purposes: Irrigation water service, municipal and industrial 
water supply, hydroelectric power generation, water quality 
improvement, groundwater management, fish and wildlife enhancement, 
outdoor recreation, flood control, navigation, river regulation and 
control, system optimization, and related uses. Reclamation has 
increased security at its facilities and is implementing its law 
enforcement authorization received in November 2001.
Reclamation's regulatory program focus in fiscal year 2008 is to ensure 
that its mission and newly adopted laws that require regulatory actions 
are carried out expeditiously, efficiently, and with an emphasis on 
cooperative problem solving by:
<bullet> Implementing a Collaborative Agreement on Water Management. 
            After decades of dispute over the ownership and use of 
            water and water rights in the Truckee and Carson River 
            basins, the Secretary successfully negotiated the Truckee 
            River Operating Agreement (TROA), an agreement for the 
            major Federal and private reservoirs on the Truckee River 
            upstream from Reno. This agreement was formally signed on 
            September 6, 2008. TROA, which satisfies requirements of 
            the 1990 Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights 
            Settlement Act, is intended to increase the operational 
            flexibility, efficiency, and coordination of reservoirs in 
            the Lake Tahoe and Truckee River basins to provide multiple 
            environmental benefits while protecting existing water 
            rights. Reclamation published a proposed rule on September 
            15, 2008 and expects to publish a final rule codifying the 
            TROA in January of 2009 (RIN 1006-AA48).
<bullet> Efficiently Managing Water and Lands Associated with 
            Reclamation Projects.
1) In support of the Secretary's role as water master for the Colorado 
            River, Reclamation has negotiated a set of procedures to 
            identify water that is

[[Page 71213]]

            being pumped from the Colorado River without a valid 
            entitlement. It also establishes a set of procedures to 
            deal with those who are taking water unlawfully. Developed 
            in concert with the Colorado River Basin States and with 
            water users, these procedures are consistent with state 
            procedures for other river systems. Reclamation published a 
            proposed rule on July 16, 2008 and expects to publish a 
            final rule in 2008 (RIN 1006-AA50).
2) Reclamation has published a proposed revised rule addressing public 
            uses of lands, facilities, and water bodies associated with 
            Reclamation projects. The rule establishes procedures for 
            obtaining authorization for uses other than individual, 
            non-commercial use for occasional activities such as 
            hiking, picnicking, swimming, or boating, to ensure that 
            water management goals as authorized by Congress can 
            continue to be effectively accomplished. Reclamation 
            published a proposed rule on July 18, 2008 and expects to 
            publish a final rule in 2008 (RIN 1006-AA51).
3) Reclamation is finalizing a rule to clarify how and where seaplanes 
            can land on Reclamation reservoirs. This rule will balance 
            the need to ensure the safety and security of vital dams 
            and reservoirs with the need for seaplane access to 
            reservoirs. Reclamation expects to publish a final rule in 
            2008 (RIN 1006-AA55).
<bullet> Implementing New Statutorily Authorized Programs.
1) Public Law 109-451 (Title I) authorized the establishment of a rural 
            water supply program to enable the Bureau of Reclamation to 
            coordinate with rural communities throughout the Western 
            United States to identify their potable water supply needs 
            and evaluate options for meeting that need. Pursuant to the 
            Act, Reclamation is finalizing a rule to establish 
            programmatic criteria to define how it will identify and 
            work with eligible rural communities. Reclamation expects 
            to publish a final rule in 2008 (RIN 1006-AA554).
2) Public Law 109-451 (Title II) authorizes the Secretary, through the 
            Bureau of Reclamation, to issue loan guarantees to assist 
            in financing (a) rural water supply projects, (b) 
            extraordinary maintenance and rehabilitation of Bureau of 
            Reclamation project facilities, and (c) improvements to 
            infrastructure directly related to a Reclamation project. 
            This new program will provide an additional funding option 
            to help western communities and water managers to cost 
            effectively meet their water supply and maintenance needs. 
            Pursuant to the Act, Reclamation is working with the Office 
            of Management and Budget to publish a Rule that will 
            establish programmatic criteria and define how the loan 
            guarantee program will be administered. Reclamation 
            published a proposed rule on October 6, 2008 and expects to 
            publish a final rule in 2008.
Office of the Secretary, Natural Resource Damage Assessment and 
Restoration Program
The regulatory functions of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and 
Restoration Program (Restoration Program) stem from requirements under 
section 301(c)) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA). Section 
301(c)) requires the development of natural resource damage assessment 
rules and the biennial review and revisions, as appropriate, of these 
rules. Rules have been promulgated for the optional use by natural 
resource trustees to assess appropriate restoration for injury to 
natural resources caused by hazardous substances. The Restoration 
Program established the Natural Resources Damage Assessment and 
Restoration Program Advisory Committee that has provided advice and 
recommendations on DOI's authorities and responsibilities, including 
its responsibility to promulgate regulations in the implementation of 
the National Resource Damage provisions of CERCLA. The proposed change 
to the NRDAR regulations is a targeted regulatory revision to clarify 
the appropriateness of a restoration-based approach for all natural 
resource damages. The revised language responds simultaneously to one 
of the Advisory Committee's recommendations and to a Court remand [see 
Kennecott v. DOI, 88 F. 3rd 1191 (D.C. Cir. 1996)]. These regulatory 
changes will provide flexibility to use simpler, more cost effective, 
and more transparent methods to relate natural resource damage claims 
to restoration, rather than monetary damages, and promote an early 
focus on restoration actions.
Costs and Benefits of Department of the Interior Regulations
As required by Executive Order 12866, the Department attempts to 
estimate the costs and benefits associated with each of our significant 
regulations. Where costs can be calculated, our figures can at best 
represent only an order of magnitude estimate. This is because each 
estimate can vary based upon the assumptions made about baselines, 
different time periods, different discount rates, and other variables 
that can result in widely varying cost estimates.
In attempting to estimate benefits, the same variability exists due to 
potentially different baselines, different time periods, different 
discount rates, different underlying behavioral assumptions, and 
different treatment of risk and uncertainty that may not result in a 
meaningful estimate of net benefits. Furthermore, the treatment of 
environmental goods and services, which are not typically bought and 
sold in markets, presents additional problems. The Office of Management 
and Budget recognizes these difficulties in Circular A-4, which states 
that benefits may in many cases be unquantifiable. This is the case 
with most of the Department's regulations.
For the foregoing reasons, it is impossible for the Department to 
quantify in any meaningful way the aggregate costs of its regulatory 
program, even though we have attempted to quantify costs where possible 
in individual cases. Aggregate figures for the benefits of the 
Department's regulatory program are not possible to calculate, since we 
have been able to quantify the approximate benefits in only a very 
small percentage of cases.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOI--Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

79. PLACEMENT OF EXCESS SPOIL

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


30 USC 1201 et seq


CFR Citation:


30 CFR 780; 30 CFR 784; 30 CFR 816; 30 CFR 817


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will establish permit application requirements and review

[[Page 71214]]

procedures for applications that propose to place excess spoil or coal 
mine waste from surface coal mining operations into waters of the 
United States. Among other things, it will require that mine operators 
minimize the creation of excess spoil and the adverse environmental 
impacts resulting from the construction of excess spoil fills. In 
addition, it will clearly specify the activities to which that 
requirement does and does not apply, and revise the findings required 
for a variance from the buffer requirement to more closely track the 
underlying statutory provisions.


Statement of Need:


This rule will provide long-term regulatory stability by clearly 
specifying the activities to which the buffer requirement does and does 
not apply and describing the relationship between our rules and the 
Clean Water Act. It also will promote environmental protection by 
requiring that mining operations be designed to minimize both the 
creation of excess spoil and adverse environmental impacts resulting 
from the disposal of excess spoil and coal mine waste.


Summary of Legal Basis:


General rulemaking authority: Section 201(c)(2) of the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. 1211(c)(2), 
directs the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary), acting through 
OSM, to publish and promulgate such rules and regulations as may be 
necessary to carry out the purposes and provisions of SMCRA.


Legal basis under SMCRA: Sections 515(b)(10)(B)(i) and 516(b)(9)(B) of 
SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1265(b)(10)(B)(i) and 1266(b)(9)(B), require that 
surface coal mining operations be conducted so as to prevent the 
contribution of additional suspended solids to streamflow or runoff 
outside the permit area to the extent possible using the best 
technology currently available. Sections 515(b)(24) and 516(b)(11) of 
SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1265(b)(24) and 1266(b)(11), require that surface coal 
mining and reclamation operations be conducted to minimize disturbances 
to and adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, and related environmental 
values ``to the extent possible using the best technology currently 
available.'' These statutory provisions form the basis for the new 
rules concerning excess spoil, coal mine waste, and buffer zones for 
waters of the United States.


Alternatives:


Alternatives considered in the Environmental Impact Statement include:


A. Alternative 1 -- Changing the Excess Spoil and Stream Buffer Zone 
Regulations (OSM's Preferred Alternative and Most Environmentally 
Protective Alternative):


OSM would revise the regulations applicable to excess spoil generation 
and placement to further lessen the adverse environmental effects 
stemming from excess spoil fill construction. OSM would require the 
applicant for a surface coal mining permit to demonstrate that (1) the 
operation has been designed to minimize the creation of excess spoil 
and (2) excess spoil fills have been designed to be no larger than 
needed to accommodate the anticipated volume of excess spoil that the 
operation will generate. Finally, OSM would require the applicant to 
consider various alternative spoil disposal plans in which the size, 
numbers, and locations of the excess spoil fills vary, and to submit an 
analysis showing that the preferred excess spoil disposal plan would 
result in the least adverse environmental impact.


Similarly, OSM would revise its coal mine waste disposal regulations to 
require permit applicants to describe the steps to be taken to minimize 
adverse environmental impacts and identify and analyze the 
environmental impacts associated with alternative disposal methods and 
potential locations.


OSM would revise the stream buffer zone regulation to clarify which 
kinds of coal mining activities are subject to the rule. Surface mining 
and reclamation activities occurring adjacent to, but not in, waters of 
the United States would be subject to the rule. Stream crossings, 
sedimentation ponds, excess spoil fills, mining through waters of the 
United States, and coal mine waste disposal facilities would not be 
subject to the prohibition on disturbance of the buffer zone.


OSM would also revise the criteria for authorizing variances from the 
100-foot buffer zone to more accurately reflect the statutory basis for 
the rule. The stream buffer zone is principally based on two SMCRA 
provisions: Sections 515(b)(10)(B)(i) and 515(b)(24). The first 
provision requires, among other things, that surface coal mining 
operations be conducted so as to prevent, to the extent possible using 
the best technology currently available, additional contributions of 
suspended solids to streamflow or runoff outside the permit area. The 
second provision, Section 515(b)(24), requires that to the extent 
possible using the best technology currently available, surface coal 
mining and reclamation operations must minimize disturbances and 
adverse impacts of the operation on fish, wildlife, and related 
environmental values, and achieve enhancement of such resources where 
practicable. Variances to use of a 100-foot buffer as BTCA could be 
authorized if equally or more effective alternative means to achieve 
the performance standards of sections 515(b)(10)(B)(i) and (24) would 
be used.


Finally, OSM would also extend the requirement of a 100-foot buffer 
zone to other water bodies in addition to streams, so as to apply the 
rule to lakes, ponds, and adjacent wetlands (to the extent those water 
bodies constitute ``waters of the United States'' under the Clean Water 
Act).


As a variant of this alternative, OSM is also considering largely 
retaining the existing buffer zone rule language at 30 CFR 816.57(a) 
and 817.57(a), but modifying the criteria for allowing a variance from 
the 100-foot buffer requirement: The first modification would retain 
the current criterion that requires that the regulatory authority find 
that the ``mining activities will not cause or contribute to the 
violation of applicable State or Federal water quality standards, and 
will not adversely affect the water quantity and quality or other 
environmental resources of the stream.'' This variant would explicitly 
note that the appropriate Federal and State Clean Water Act agencies in 
accordance with sections 401, 402, or 404 would make this 
determination. The second modification would replace the phrase 
``adversely affect'' with ``significantly degrade.''


B. Alternative 2 -- January 7, 2004 Proposed Rule


OSM would change the excess spoil regulations essentially as described 
in Alternative 1 but would change the stream buffer zone regulations at 
30 CFR 816.56 and 817.57 as described in the January 7, 2004 Federal 
Register notice of the previous proposed stream buffer zone rule [69 FR 
1036].


OSM would retain the prohibition on disturbance of land within 100 feet 
of a perennial or intermittent stream for surface coal mining 
operations but allow the regulatory authority to grant a variance to 
this requirement if the regulatory authority finds in writing

[[Page 71215]]

that the activities would, to the extent possible, use the best 
technology currently available:


(1) Prevent additional contributions of suspended solids to the section 
of stream within 100 feet downstream of the mining activities, and 
outside the area affected by mining activities; and


(2) Minimize disturbances and adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, and 
other related environmental values of the stream.


C. Alternative 3 -- Change Only the Excess Spoil Regulations


OSM would change the excess spoil regulations as described in 
Alternative 1. No changes would be made to the stream buffer zone 
regulations.


D. Alternative 4 -- Change Only the Stream Buffer Zone Regulations


OSM would change the stream buffer zone regulations as described in 
Alternative 1. No changes would be made to the excess spoil 
regulations.


E. Alternative 5 -- No Action Alternative:


OSM would not adopt any new rules. The current regulations applicable 
to excess spoil generation and fill construction and the stream buffer 
zone would remain unchanged.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


It is anticipated that some of the regulatory changes will result in an 
increase in the costs and burdens placed on coal operators and on some 
primacy States. We estimate that the total annual increase for 
operators would be approximately $240,500, and for the primacy States 
the total annual increase is estimated at approximately $24,200. These 
increases are a result of the requirement to document the analyses and 
findings required by the regulatory changes. This estimated increase in 
costs would likely only affect those coal operators and States 
(Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia) located in the steep slope 
terrain of the central Appalachian coalfields, where the bulk of excess 
spoil is generated. Because all of the regulatory agencies in the 
Appalachian coalfields have implemented policies to minimize the volume 
of excess spoil, no significant additional costs of implementing these 
regulatory changes are anticipated other than those required to 
document the strengthened requirements to consider all alternative 
excess spoil construction and disposal sites.


One of the primary benefits of the rule is an expected reduction in the 
placement of excess spoil with resulting positive environmental 
consequences. The rule is also expected to clarify mining requirements 
for steep slope and mountaintop mining operations in Appalachia and 
thereby establish regulatory certainty for the coal industry, which has 
been hesitant to expend large sums of money on this type of mining 
operations because of legal uncertainty.


Risks:


If the proposed rule is not adopted, the controversy and uncertainty 
concerning the meaning of the existing stream buffer zone rule may 
continue to exist. That uncertainty creates the risk of additional 
litigation concerning the existing rule, which could result in 
regulatory instability and a reluctance on the part of coal mining 
companies to invest in new mining projects. There is also the risk that 
not all of the environmental benefits of the excess spoil minimization 
rules would be achieved. Finally, failure to adopt this rule would 
result in the retention of legally and technically obsolete provisions 
of the existing rules.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/07/04                     69 FR 1036
NPRM Comment Period End         03/08/04
Second NPRM                     08/24/07                    72 FR 48890
Other/Second NPRM Comment 
    Period End                  11/23/07
Final Action                    11/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Agency Contact:
Dennis Rice
Regulatory Analyst
Department of the Interior
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
1951 Constitution Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20240
Phone: 202 208-2829
Email: drice@osmre.gov
RIN: 1029-AC04
_______________________________________________________________________
DOI--Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

80. OIL SHALE LEASING AND OPERATIONS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


Sec. 369(d) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005


CFR Citation:


43 CFR 3900


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Energy Policy Act of 2005 envisions a 3-step approach to the 
development of oil shale resources. The first step is the creation of a 
limited Research, Development, and Demonstration (RDD) Leasing Program 
designed to evaluate and test promising oil shale technology. Step two 
in the process is the completion of a Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement for leasing of Oil Shale and Tar Sands on public lands, with 
an emphasis on the most geologically prospective lands within the 
States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The third step in the process is 
the creation of rules regulating the leasing and development of the oil 
shale. This rule would create the regulations necessary to develop 
converted RDD leases and make commercial exploration, leasing, and 
development possible.


Statement of Need:


Currently there are no regulations in place that allow leasing and 
development of oil shale resources. The rule would establish the 
regulatory framework allowing commercial leasing and development of oil 
shale.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Sec. 369(d) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires that the 
Secretary of the Interior publish final regulations establishing a 
commercial leasing program for Oil Shale and Tar Sands.


Alternatives:


There is no alternative to creation of the regulations. Creation of the 
regulations is mandated by sec. 369(d) of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005.

[[Page 71216]]

Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


BLM anticipates the following benefit: Increased Federal revenue and 
domestic fuel production, decreased dependency on energy imports, and 
the expansion of local economies through employment and taxes.


The major categories of costs include: BLM administrative costs, 
including enforcement and monitoring, and compliance costs for lessees.


Risks:


Development of the oil shale resources will place additional demands on 
the lands and localities containing the oil shale resources. These 
demands will result in increased resource conflicts (i.e., oil and gas, 
nahcolite, and wildlife) and pressure on local governments/
infrastructure (i.e., law enforcement, schools, hospitals and roads).


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           08/25/06                    71 FR 50378
ANPRM Comment Period End        09/25/06
Comment Period Extended         09/26/06                    71 FR 56085
ANPRM Comment Period End        10/25/06
NPRM                            07/23/08                    73 FR 42926
NPRM Comment Period End         09/22/08
Final Action                    11/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Mitchell Leverette
Deputy Division Chief, Solid Minerals
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
1849 C Street NW.
Washington, DC 20240
Phone: 202 452-5088
Fax: 202 653-7397
Email: mitchell--leverette@blm.gov
RIN: 1004-AD90
BILLING CODE 4310-10-S

[[Page 71217]]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
 The first and overriding priority of the Department of Justice is to 
prevent, detect, disrupt, and dismantle terrorism while preserving 
constitutional liberties. To fulfill this mission, the Department is 
devoting all the resources necessary and utilizing all legal 
authorities to eliminate terrorist networks, to prevent terrorist 
attacks, and to bring to justice those who kill Americans in the name 
of murderous ideologies. It is engaged in an aggressive arrest and 
detention campaign of lawbreakers with a single objective: To get 
terrorists off the street before they can harm more Americans. In 
addition to using investigative, prosecutorial, and other law 
enforcement activities, the Department is also using the regulatory 
process to enhance its ability to prevent future terrorist acts and 
safeguard our borders while ensuring that America remains a place of 
welcome to foreigners who come here to visit, work, or live peacefully. 
The Department also has important and wide-ranging responsibilities for 
criminal investigations, law enforcement, and prosecutions and, in 
certain specific areas, makes use of the regulatory process to better 
carry out the Department's law enforcement missions.
 The Department of Justice's regulatory priorities focus in particular 
on a major regulatory initiative in the area of civil rights. 
Specifically, the Department is planning to revise its regulations 
implementing titles II and III of the Americans With Disabilities Act 
(ADA). However, in addition to this specific initiative, several other 
components of the Department carry out important responsibilities 
through the regulatory process. Although their regulatory efforts are 
not singled out for specific attention in this regulatory plan, those 
components carry out key roles in implementing the Department's anti-
terrorism and law enforcement priorities.
Civil Rights
 The Department has published proposed rules to revise its regulations 
implementing titles II and III of the ADA to amend the ADA Standards 
for Accessible Design (28 CFR part 36, appendix A) to be consistent 
with the revised ADA accessibility guidelines published by the U.S. 
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access 
Board) in final form on July 23, 2004. (The Access Board had issued the 
guidelines in proposed form in November 1999 and in final draft form in 
April 2002.) Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis 
of disability by public entities, and title III prohibits such 
discrimination by places of public accommodation and requires 
accessible design and construction of places of public accommodation 
and commercial facilities. In implementing these provisions, the 
Department of Justice is required by statute to publish regulations 
that include design standards that are consistent with the guidelines 
developed by the Access Board. The Access Board was engaged in a 
multiyear effort to revise and amend its accessibility guidelines. The 
goals of this project were: 1) To address issues such as unique State 
and local facilities (e.g., prisons, courthouses), recreation 
facilities, play areas, and building elements specifically designed for 
children's use that were not addressed in the initial guidelines; 2) to 
promote greater consistency between the Federal accessibility 
requirements and the model codes; and 3) to provide greater consistency 
between the ADA guidelines and the guidelines that implement the 
Architectural Barriers Act. The Access Board issued guidelines that 
address all of these issues. Therefore, to comply with the ADA 
requirement that the ADA standards remain consistent with the Access 
Board's guidelines, the Department proposed to adopt revised ADA 
Standards for Accessible Design that are consistent with the revised 
ADA Accessibility Guidelines.
 The Department's proposed rules also revise its regulations 
implementing title II and title III (28 CFR parts 35 and 36) to ensure 
that the requirements applicable to new construction and alterations 
under title II are consistent with those applicable under title III, to 
update the regulations to reflect the current state of law, and to 
ensure the Department's compliance with section 610 of the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA).
 The Department's proposed rules were the second step in a three-step 
process to adopt and interpret the Access Board's revised and amended 
guidelines in three steps. The first step of the rulemaking process was 
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, published in the Federal 
Register on September 30, 2004, at 69 FR 58768, which the Department 
believes simplified and clarified the preparation of the proposed rule. 
In addition to giving notice of the proposed rule that will adopt 
revised ADA accessibility standards, the advance notice raised two sets 
of questions for public comment, and proposed a framework for the 
regulatory analysis that will accompany the proposed rule. One set of 
questions addresses interpretive matters related to adopting revised 
ADA accessibility standards, such as what should be the effective date 
of the revised standards and how best to apply the revised standards to 
existing facilities that have already complied with the current ADA 
standards. Another set of questions was directed to collecting data 
about the benefits and costs of applying the new standards to existing 
facilities. The second step of the rulemaking process was a proposed 
rule proposing to adopt revised ADA accessibility standards consistent 
with the Access Board's revised and amended guidelines that will, in 
addition to revising the current ADA Standards for Accessible Design, 
supplement the standards with specifications for prisons, jails, court 
houses, legislative facilities, building elements designed for use by 
children, play areas, and recreation facilities. The proposed rule also 
offered proposed answers to the interpretive questions raised in the 
advance notice and presented an initial regulatory assessment; it will 
be followed by a final rule, the third step of the process.
 The Department's revised and supplemented regulations under the ADA 
will affect small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and 
other small organizations (together, small entities). The Access Board 
has prepared regulatory assessments (including cost impact analyses) to 
accompany its new guidelines, which estimate the annual compliance 
costs that will be incurred by covered entities with regard to 
construction of new facilities. These assessments include the effect on 
small entities and will apply to new construction under the 
Department's revised and supplemented regulations. With respect to 
existing facilities, the Department has prepared an additional 
regulatory assessment of the estimated annual cost of compliance. In 
this process, the Department has given careful consideration to the 
cost effects on small entities, including the solicitation of comments 
specifically designed to obtain compliance data relating to small 
entities.
Other Department Initiatives
1. DNA Sample Collection
The Department will publish a final rule to implement legislative 
amendments that authorize the Attorney General to expand the categories 
of

[[Page 71218]]

persons from whom DNA samples are collected in the Federal system 
beyond convicts, to also include arrestees and non-U.S. persons 
detained under Federal authority. The effect will be to equate DNA 
sample collection by Federal agencies to fingerprinting as a routine 
justice system identification measure, thereby maximizing the 
capability of the DNA identification technology to solve rapes, 
murders, and other serious crimes.
2. Protecting Children From Exploitation in Pornography
 The Department will publish a combined rule finalizing 1) a proposed 
rule published on July 12, 2007 (72 FR 38033) to implement the changes 
made by the Adam Walsh Act to 18 U.S.C. Sec.  2257, most importantly, 
including graphic nude photos not involving sexual intercourse in the 
scope of the requirements; and 2) a proposed rule implementing the 
recordkeeping and inspection requirements to title 28 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations to implement 18 U.S.C. Sec.  2257A, enacted as 
section 503 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 
which requires a producer of depictions of simulated sexually explicit 
conduct to maintain records of the identities and ages of performers in 
those depictions. This rule will implement changes to the statute that 
will strengthen the record-keeping regime to protect children from 
exploitation in pornography.
3. Criminal Law Enforcement
 In large part, the Department's criminal law enforcement components do 
not rely on the rulemaking process to carry out their assigned 
missions. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), for example, is 
responsible for protecting and defending the United States against 
terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, upholding and enforcing the 
criminal laws of the United States, and providing leadership and 
criminal justice services to Federal, State, municipal, and 
international agencies and partners. Only in very limited contexts does 
the FBI rely on rulemaking. For example, the FBI is currently updating 
its National Instant Criminal Background Check System regulations to 
allow criminal justice agencies to conduct background checks prior to 
the return of firearms.
 The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issues 
regulations to enforce the Federal laws relating to the manufacture and 
commerce of firearms and explosives. ATF's mission and regulations are 
designed to:
<bullet> Curb illegal traffic in, and criminal use of, firearms, and to 
            assist State, local, and other Federal law enforcement 
            agencies in reducing crime and violence;
<bullet> Facilitate investigations of violations of Federal explosives 
            laws and arson-for-profit schemes;
<bullet> Regulate the firearms and explosives industries, including 
            systems for licenses and permits;
<bullet> Assure the collection of all National Firearms Act (NFA) 
            firearms taxes and obtain a high level of voluntary 
            compliance with all laws governing the firearms industry; 
            and
<bullet> Assist the States in their efforts to eliminate interstate 
            trafficking in, and the sale and distribution of, 
            cigarettes and alcohol in avoidance of Federal and State 
            taxes.
 ATF will continue, as a priority during fiscal year 2009, to seek 
modifications to its regulations governing commerce in firearms and 
explosives. ATF plans to issue final regulations implementing the 
provisions of the Safe Explosives Act, title XI, subtitle C, of Public 
Law 107-296, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (enacted November 25, 
2002).
 Combating the proliferation of methamphetamine and preventing the 
diversion of prescription drugs for illicit purposes are among the 
Attorney General's top drug enforcement priorities. The Drug 
Enforcement Administration (DEA) is responsible for enforcing the 
Controlled Substances Act and its implementing regulations to prevent 
the diversion of controlled substances, while ensuring adequate 
supplies for legitimate medical, scientific, and industrial purposes. 
DEA accomplishes its objectives through coordination with State, local, 
and other Federal officials in drug enforcement activities, development 
and maintenance of drug intelligence systems, regulation of legitimate 
controlled substances, and enforcement coordination and intelligence-
gathering activities with foreign government agencies. DEA continues to 
develop and enhance regulatory controls relating to the diversion 
control requirements for controlled substances.
 One of DEA's key regulatory initiatives is its Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking ``Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled Substances'' [RIN 
1117-AA61]. This regulation would provide practitioners with the option 
of writing prescriptions for controlled substances electronically and 
permit pharmacies to receive, dispense, and archive electronic 
prescriptions for controlled substances. This regulation would provide 
pharmacies, hospitals, and practitioners with the ability to use modern 
technology for controlled substance prescriptions while maintaining the 
closed system of controls on controlled substances.
 In the past, drug traffickers have been able to easily obtain large 
quantities of the List I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and 
phenylpropanolamine, and others used in the clandestine production of 
methamphetamine from both foreign and domestic sources. One of DEA's 
key regulatory initiatives has been implementation of the Combat 
Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 (CMEA), which further regulates 
the importation, manufacture, and retail sale of ephedrine, 
pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine and drug products containing 
these three chemicals. CMEA imposes sales and purchase limits for over-
the-counter ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine 
products at the retail level; provides for the establishment of 
aggregate and individual company import and manufacturing quotas; and 
limits importation to that which is necessary to provide for medical, 
scientific, and other legitimate purposes. CMEA also provides 
investigators with necessary identifying information regarding 
manufacturers and importers of these chemicals. Regulations pertaining 
to implementation of CMEA include, but are not limited to:
<bullet> ``Retail Sales of Scheduled Listed Chemical Products; Self-
            Certification of Regulated Sellers of Scheduled Listed 
            Chemical Products'' [RIN 1117-AB05]
<bullet> ``Implementation of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 
            2005; Notice of Transfers Following Importation or 
            Exportation'' [RIN 1117-AB06]
<bullet> ``Import and Production Quotas for Certain List I Chemicals'' 
            [RIN 1117-AB08]
<bullet> ``Elimination of Exemptions for Chemical Mixtures Containing 
            the List I Chemicals Ephedrine and/or Pseudoephedrine'' 
            [RIN 1117-AB11]
<bullet> ``Registration Requirements for Importers and Manufacturers of 
            Prescription Drug Products Containing Ephedrine, 
            Pseudoephedrine, or Phenylpropanolamine'' [RIN 1117-AB09]

[[Page 71219]]

<bullet> ``Removal of Thresholds for the List I Chemicals 
            Pseudoephedrine and Phenylpropanolamine'' [RIN 1117-AB10]
 The Federal Bureau of Prisons issues regulations to enforce the 
Federal laws relating to its mission: To protect society by confining 
offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based 
facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately 
secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities 
to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. During the next 
12 months, in addition to other regulatory objectives aimed at 
accomplishing its mission, the Bureau will continue its ongoing efforts 
to: improve drug abuse treatment services and early release 
consideration; improve disciplinary procedures; and reduce the 
introduction of contraband through various means (such as clarifying 
drug and alcohol surveillance testing programs). In addition, the 
Bureau will finalize regulations relating to the civil commitment of 
sexually dangerous persons.
4. Immigration Matters
 On March 1, 2003, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), 
the responsibility for immigration enforcement and for providing 
immigration-related services and benefits such as naturalization and 
work authorization was transferred from the Justice Department's 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS). However, the immigration judges and the Board 
of Immigration Appeals in the Executive Office for Immigration Review 
(EOIR)) remain part of the Department of Justice; the immigration 
judges adjudicate approximately 300,000 cases each year to determine 
whether the aliens should be ordered removed or should be granted some 
form of relief from removal, and the Board has jurisdiction over 
appeals from those decisions, as well as other matters. Accordingly, 
the Attorney General has a continuing role in the conduct of removal 
hearings, the granting of relief from removal, and the detention or 
release of aliens pending completion of removal proceedings. The 
Attorney General also is responsible for civil litigation and criminal 
prosecutions relating to the immigration laws.
 In several pending rulemaking actions, the Department is working to 
revise and update the regulations relating to removal proceedings in 
order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the hearings in 
resolving issues relating to removal of aliens and the granting of 
relief from removal.
 On August 9, 2006, the Attorney General announced a series of 
initiatives to improve the quality of adjudications before immigration 
judges, in response to the review of the Immigration Courts and the 
Board of Immigration Appeals which he ordered. Several regulations 
proposed in FY 2008, once finalized, will implement different aspects 
of the Attorney General's initiatives. In addition, other regulations 
are currently being drafted to further those initiatives, such as 
expanding the role of pro bono organizations to provide free or low 
cost legal services to aliens in immigration proceedings, and enhancing 
the ability of the Executive Office for Immigration Review to impose 
discipline for misconduct on practitioners in those proceedings.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOJ--Civil Rights Division (CRT)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

81. NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN PUBLIC 
ACCOMMODATIONS AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES (SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


5 USC 301; 28 USC 509; 28 USC 510; 42 USC 12186(b)


CFR Citation:


28 CFR 36


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In 1991, the Department of Justice published regulations to implement 
title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Those 
regulations include the ADA Standards for Accessible Design, which 
establish requirements for the design and construction of accessible 
facilities that are consistent with the ADA Accessibility Guidelines 
(ADAAG) published by the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
Compliance Board (Access Board). In the time since the regulations 
became effective, the Department of Justice and the Access Board have 
each gathered a great deal of information regarding the implementation 
of the Standards. The Access Board began the process of revising ADAAG 
a number of years ago. It published new ADAAG in final form on July 23, 
2004, after having published guidelines in proposed form in November 
1999 and in draft final form in April 2002. In order to maintain 
consistency between ADAAG and the ADA Standards, the Department is 
reviewing its title III regulations and expects to propose, in one or 
more stages, to adopt revised ADA Standards consistent with the final 
revised ADAAG and to make related revisions to the Department's title 
III regulations. In addition to maintaining consistency between ADAAG 
and the Standards, the purpose of this review and these revisions is to 
more closely coordinate with voluntary standards; to clarify areas 
which, through inquiries and comments to the Department's technical 
assistance phone lines, have been shown to cause confusion; to reflect 
evolving technologies in areas affected by the Standards; and to comply 
with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which requires 
agencies once every 10 years to review rules that have a significant 
economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.


The first step in adopting revised Standards was an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking that was published in the Federal Register on 
September 30, 2004, at 69 FR 58768, issued under both title II and 
title III. The Department believes that the advance notice simplified 
and clarified the preparation of the proposed rule. In addition to 
giving notice that the proposed rule will adopt revised ADA 
accessibility standards, the advance notice raised questions for public 
comment and proposed a framework for the regulatory analysis that 
accompanied the proposed rule.


The adoption of revised ADAAG will also serve to address changes to the 
ADA Standards previously proposed in RIN 1190-AA26, RIN 1190-AA38, RIN 
1190-AA47, and RIN 1190-AA50, all of which have now been withdrawn from 
the Unified Agenda. These changes include technical specifications for 
facilities designed for use by children, accessibility standards for 
State and local government facilities, play areas, and recreation 
facilities, all of which had previously been published by the Access 
Board.


The timetable set forth below refers to the notice of proposed 
rulemaking that the Department issued as the second

[[Page 71220]]

step of the above described title III rulemaking. This notice proposed 
to adopt revised ADA Standards for Accessible Design consistent with 
the minimum guidelines of the revised ADAAG, and initiated the review 
of the regulation in accordance with the requirements of section 610 of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).


Statement of Need:


Section 504 of the ADA requires the Access Board to issue supplemental 
minimum guidelines and requirements for accessible design of buildings 
and facilities subject to the ADA, including title III. Section 306(c) 
of the ADA requires the Attorney General to promulgate regulations 
implementing title III that are consistent with the Access Board's ADA 
guidelines. Because this rule will adopt standards that are consistent 
with the minimum guidelines issued by the Access Board, this rule is 
required by statute. Similarly, the Department's review of its title 
III regulation is being undertaken to comply with the requirements of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by SBREFA.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The summary of the legal basis of authority for this regulation is set 
forth above under Legal Authority and Statement of Need.


Alternatives:


The Department is required by the ADA to issue this regulation. 
Pursuant to SBREFA, the Department's title III regulation will consider 
whether alternatives to the currently published requirements are 
appropriate.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Access Board has analyzed the effect of applying its proposed 
amendments to ADAAG to entities covered by titles II and III of the ADA 
and has determined that they constitute a significant regulatory action 
for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Access Board's determination 
will apply as well to the revised ADA standards published by the 
Department.


As part of its revised ADAAG, the Access Board made available in 
summary form an updated regulatory assessment to accompany the final 
revised ADAAG. The Department prepared an initial Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (RIA), pursuant to E.O. 12866, of the combined economic impact 
of changes contained in this proposed rule and in the companion NPRM to 
amend the Department's Title II regulation (RIN 1190-AA46). The RIA 
incorporates the elements required for the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
as amended. A summary of this RIA was published in the Federal Register 
at 73 FR 37009, 37042 (June 30, 2008). The full analysis is available 
for public review on www.regulations.gov and on the Department's ADA 
Home Page, www.ada.gov. A revised RIA will be made available to the 
public when the final rules are published.


The preliminary RIA indicates that the proposed rules will have a net 
positive public benefit, i.e., the benefits will exceed the costs over 
the life of the rule. This concept is expressed as the discounted net 
present value (NPV) The RIA projects that the NPV will be between $7.5 
billion (at a 7% discount rate) and $ 31.1 billion (at a 3% discount 
rate). The RIA also concludes that the combined effect of the proposed 
rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.


Section 4(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 
1503(2), excludes from coverage under that Act any proposed or final 
Federal regulation that ``establishes or enforces any statutory rights 
that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, 
sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability.'' Accordingly, this 
rulemaking is not subject to the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act.


Risks:


Without the proposed changes to the Department's title III regulation, 
the ADA Standards will fail to be consistent with the ADAAG.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           09/30/04                    69 FR 58768
ANPRM Comment Period End        01/28/05
ANPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    01/19/05                     70 FR 2992
ANPRM Comment Period End        05/31/05
NPRM                            06/17/08                    73 FR 34508
NPRM Comment Period End         08/18/08
NPRM Correction                 06/30/08                    73 FR 37009
Final Action                    01/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


RIN 1190-AA44, which will effect changes to 28 CFR 36 (the Department's 
regulation implementing title III of the ADA), is related to another 
rulemaking of the Civil Rights Division, RIN 1190-AA46, which will 
effect changes to 28 CFR 35 (the Department's regulation implementing 
title II of the ADA).


Agency Contact:
John L. Wodatch
Chief, Disability Rights Section
Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
P.O. Box 66738
Washington, DC 20035
Phone: 800 514-0301
TDD Phone: 800 514-0383
Fax: 202 307-1198
RIN: 1190-AA44
_______________________________________________________________________
DOJ--CRT
82. NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN STATE AND LOCAL 
GOVERNMENT SERVICES (SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


5 USC 301; 28 USC 509 to 510; 42 USC 12134; PL 101-336


CFR Citation:


28 CFR 35


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On July 26, 1991, the Department published its final rule implementing 
title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). On November 16, 
1999, the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 
Board (Access Board) issued its first comprehensive review of the ADA 
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), which form the basis of the 
Department's ADA Standards for Accessible Design. The Access Board 
published an Availability of Draft Final Guidelines on April 2, 2002, 
and published the ADA Accessibility Guidelines in final form on July 
23, 2004. The ADA (section 204(c))

[[Page 71221]]

requires the Department's standards to be consistent with the Access 
Board's guidelines. In order to maintain consistency between ADAAG and 
the Standards, the Department is reviewing its title II regulations and 
expects to propose, in one or more stages, to adopt revised standards 
consistent with new ADAAG. The Department will also, in one or more 
stages, review its title II regulations for purposes of section 610 of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and make related changes to its title II 
regulations.


In addition to the statutory requirement for the rule, the social and 
economic realities faced by Americans with disabilities dictate the 
need for the rule. Individuals with disabilities cannot participate in 
the social and economic activities of the Nation without being able to 
access the programs and services of State and local governments. 
Further, amending the Department's ADA regulations will improve the 
format and usability of the ADA Standards for Accessible Design; 
harmonize the differences between the ADA Standards and national 
consensus standards and model codes; update the ADA Standards to 
reflect technological developments that meet the needs of persons with 
disabilities; and coordinate future ADA Standards revisions with 
national standards and model code organizations. As a result, the 
overarching goal of improving access for persons with disabilities so 
that they can benefit from the goods, services, and activities provided 
to the public by covered entities will be met.


The first part of the rulemaking process was an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking, published in the Federal Register on September 30, 
2004, at 69 FR 58768, issued under both title II and title III. The 
Department believes the advance notice simplified and clarified the 
preparation of the proposed rule to follow. In addition to giving 
notice of the proposed rule that will adopt revised ADA accessibility 
standards, the advance notice raised questions for public comment and 
proposed a framework for the regulatory analysis that accompanied the 
proposed rule.


The adoption of revised ADA Standards consistent with revised ADAAG 
will also serve to address changes to the ADA Standards previously 
proposed under RIN 1190-AA26, RIN 1190-AA38, RIN 1190-AA47, and RIN 
1190-AA50, all of which have now been withdrawn from the Unified 
Agenda. These changes include technical specifications for facilities 
designed for use by children, accessibility standards for State and 
local government facilities, play areas, and recreation facilities, all 
of which had previously been published by the Access Board.


The timetable set forth below refers to the notice of proposed 
rulemaking that the Department issued as the second step of the above-
described title III rulemaking. This notice also proposed to eliminate 
the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) as an alternative to 
the ADA Standards for Accessible Design.


Statement of Need:


Section 504 of the ADA requires the Access Board to issue supplemental 
minimum guidelines and requirements for accessible design of buildings 
and facilities subject to the ADA, including title II. Section 204(c) 
of the ADA requires the Attorney General to promulgate regulations 
implementing title II that are consistent with the Access Board's ADA 
guidelines. Because this rule will adopt standards that are consistent 
with the minimum guidelines issued by the Access Board, this rule is 
required by statute. Similarly, the Department's review of its title II 
regulations is being undertaken to comply with the requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA).


Summary of Legal Basis:


The summary of the legal basis of authority for this regulation is set 
forth above under Legal Authority and Statement of Need.


Alternatives:


The Department is required by the ADA to issue this regulation as 
described in the Statement of Need above. Pursuant to SBREFA, the 
Department's title II regulation will consider whether alternatives to 
the currently published requirements are appropriate.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Administration is deeply committed to ensuring that the goals of 
the ADA are met. Promulgating this amendment to the Department's ADA 
regulations will ensure that entities subject to the ADA will have one 
comprehensive design standard to follow. Currently, entities subject to 
title II of the ADA (State and local governments) have a choice between 
following the Department's ADA Standards for title III, which were 
adopted for places of public accommodation and commercial facilities 
and which do not contain standards for common State and local 
government buildings (such as courthouses and prisons), or the Uniform 
Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS). By developing one comprehensive 
standard, the Department will eliminate the confusion that arises when 
governments try to mesh two different standards. As a result, the 
overarching goal of improving access to persons with disabilities will 
be better served.


The Access Board has analyzed the effect of applying its proposed 
amendments to ADAAG to entities covered by titles II and III of the ADA 
and has determined that they constitute a significant regulatory action 
for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Access Board's determination 
will apply as well to the revised ADA Standards published by the 
Department.


As part of its revised ADAAG, the Access Board made available in 
summary form an updated regulatory assessment to accompany the final 
revised ADAAG. The Department prepared an initial Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (RIA), pursuant to E.O. 12866, of the combined economic impact 
of changes contained in this proposed rule and in the companion NPRM to 
amend the Department's Title III regulation (RIN 1190-AA44). The RIA 
incorporates the elements required for the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
as amended. A summary of this RIA was published in the Federal Register 
at 73 FR 36964, 36996 (June 30, 2008). The full analysis is available 
for public review on www.regulations.gov and on the Department's ADA 
Home Page, www.ada.gov. A revised RIA will be made available to the 
public when the final rules are published.


The preliminary RIA indicates that the proposed rules will have a net 
positive public benefit, i.e., the benefits will exceed the costs over 
the life of the rule. This concept is expressed as the discounted net 
present value (NPV) The RIA projects that the NPV will be between $ 7.5 
billion (at a 7% discount rate) and $ 31.1 billion (at a 3% discount 
rate). The RIA also concludes that the combined effect of the proposed 
rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.


The Access Board has made every effort to lessen the impact of its 
proposed guidelines on State and local governments but recognizes that 
the guidelines will have some federalism

[[Page 71222]]

effects. These effects are discussed in the Access Board's regulatory 
assessment, which also applies to the Department's proposed rule. 
Section 4(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 
1503(2), excludes from coverage under that Act any proposed or final 
Federal regulation that ``establishes or enforces any statutory rights 
that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, 
sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability.'' Accordingly, this 
rulemaking is not subject to the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act.


Risks:


Without this amendment to the Department's ADA regulations, regulated 
entities will be subject to confusion and delay as they attempt to sort 
out the requirements of conflicting design standards. This amendment 
should eliminate the costs and risks associated with that process.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           09/30/04                    69 FR 58768
ANPRM Comment Period End        01/28/05
ANPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    01/19/05                     70 FR 2992
ANPRM Comment Period End        05/31/05
NPRM                            06/17/08                    73 FR 34466
NPRM Comment Period End         08/18/08
NPRM Correction                 06/30/08                    73 FR 36964
Final Action                    01/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Federalism:


 This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.


Additional Information:


RIN 1190-AA46, which will effect changes to 28 CFR 35 (the Department's 
regulation implementing title II of the ADA), is related to another 
rulemaking of the Civil Rights Division, RIN 1190-AA44, which will 
effect changes to 28 CFR 36 (the Department's regulation implementing 
title III of the ADA). By adopting revised ADAAG, this rulemaking will, 
among other things, address changes to the ADA Standards previously 
proposed in RINs 1190-AA26, 1190-AA36, and 1190-AA38, which have been 
withdrawn and merged into this rulemaking. These changes include 
accessibility standards for State and local government facilities that 
had been previously published by the Access Board (RIN 1190-AA26) and 
the timing for the compliance of State and local governments with the 
curb-cut requirements of the title II regulation (RIN 1190-AA36). In 
order to consolidate regulatory actions implementing title II of the 
ADA, on February 15, 2000, RINs 1190-AA26 and 1190-AA38 were merged 
into this rulemaking and on March 5, 2002, RIN 1190-AA36 was merged 
into this rulemaking.


Agency Contact:
John L. Wodatch
Chief, Disability Rights Section
Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
P.O. Box 66738
Washington, DC 20035
Phone: 800 514-0301
TDD Phone: 800 514-0383
Fax: 202 307-1198
RIN: 1190-AA46
BILLING CODE 4410-BP-S

[[Page 71223]]

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL)
2008 Regulatory Plan
Executive Summary: Protecting America's Employees
Since its creation in 1913, the Department of Labor has been guided by 
the idea that employees deserve safe and healthy workplaces, as well as 
protection of their wages and pensions. The Secretary of Labor has made 
protecting America's employees a top priority, and has combined tough 
enforcement with compliance assistance to ensure the health, safety and 
economic security of the American workforce. While the vast majority of 
employers work hard to keep their employees and workplaces safe and 
secure, strong enforcement is needed to protect employees whose 
employers otherwise would not comply with safety and health, wage, and 
pension laws and regulations.
The Secretary's compliance assistance initiative provides employers 
with the knowledge and tools they need to carry out their legal 
obligations, and is based on the proven success that comes when 
government, employers, unions and employees work together. Educating 
and encouraging employers helps employees far more than enforcement 
alone, since no enforcement process can possibly identify every 
violation of the law, and fines and penalties can never fully redress 
losses of life, health, and economic well-being.
The Department is committed to aggressively enforcing the laws that 
protect employees, including the rights of employees returning to their 
jobs after military service. Workers also need information about 
protection of their health insurance and pension benefits. In addition, 
DOL has responsibilities beyond worker protection. The Department 
recognizes that employees need constant updating of skills to compete 
in a changing marketplace. DOL helps employers and employees bridge the 
gap between the requirements of new high-technology jobs and the skills 
of the workers who are needed to fill them.
The Secretary of Labor's Regulatory Plan for Accomplishing These 
Objectives
In general, DOL tries to help employees and employers meet their needs 
in a cooperative fashion. DOL will maintain health and safety standards 
and protect employees by working with the regulated community.
DOL considers the following proposals to be proactive, common sense 
approaches to the issues most clearly needing regulatory attention.
The Department's Regulatory Priorities
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) oversees a 
wide range of measures in the public and private sectors. OSHA is 
committed to establishing clear and sensible priorities, and to 
continuing to reduce occupational deaths, injuries, and illnesses.
OSHA's first initiative in the area of health standards addresses 
worker exposures to crystalline silica (RIN 1218-AB70). This substance 
is one of the most widely found in workplaces, and data indicate that 
silica exposure causes silicosis, a debilitating respiratory disease, 
and perhaps cancer as well. OSHA has obtained input from small 
businesses about regulatory approaches through a Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel, and the Panel 
report was submitted to the Assistant Secretary of OSHA on December 19, 
2003. OSHA plans to complete an external peer review of the health 
effects and risk assessment by January 2009.
OSHA has initiated rulemaking to revise its Hazard Communication 
Standard (HCS) (RIN 1218-AC20) to adopt provisions to make it 
consistent with a globally harmonized approach to hazard communication. 
First promulgated in 1983, the HCS requires chemical manufacturers and 
importers of chemicals to evaluate the hazards of the chemicals they 
produce or import, and prepare labels and safety data sheets to 
communicate the hazards and protective measures to users of their 
products. All employers with hazardous chemicals in their workplaces 
are required to have a hazard communication program, including labels 
on containers, safety data sheets, and employee training. OSHA 
estimates that the HCS covers over 945,000 hazardous chemical products 
in 7 million American workplaces. OSHA and other Federal agencies have 
participated in long-term international negotiations to develop the 
Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals 
(GHS). Adopted by the United Nations in 2003, the GHS includes 
harmonized criteria for health, physical and environmental hazards, as 
well as specifications for container labels and safety data sheets. 
There is an international goal to have as many countries as possible 
implement the GHS by 2008. Revising the HCS to be consistent with the 
GHS is expected to improve the communication of hazards in American 
workplaces, as well as facilitate international trade in chemicals.
OSHA is continuing work on its rulemaking to update the 1971 Cranes and 
Derricks Standards (RIN 1218-AC01) using the recommendations of a 
negotiated rulemaking committee. The committee submitted its 
recommendations in July 2004. A Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act panel was convened in August 2006 to obtain input from 
small businesses; a report summarizing the panel's findings was issued 
in October 2006. The Agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in 
September 2008.
Protection of pension and health benefits continues to be a priority of 
the Secretary of Labor. Consistent with the Secretary's priorities for 
FY 2008, the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) will 
focus on compliance assistance for pension and group health plans 
through issuance of guidance. Specific initiatives for group health 
plans include guidance on the application of the Genetic Information 
Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) health coverage provisions of the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) (RIN 1210-AB27). With respect to 
pension plans, the Department will be establishing standards to improve 
the disclosure of information concerning plan service provider fees and 
potential conflicts of interest to assist fiduciaries and participants 
in making informed decisions about their plans (RIN 1210-AB07 and 1210-
AB08). In addition, the Department is developing guidance on several 
initiatives relating to the implementation of the Pension Protection 
Act of 2006, including investment advice guidance (RIN 1210-AB13). 
ERISA's requirements affect private sector employee benefit plans 
including an estimated 679,000 pension benefit plans, covering 
approximately 117 million participants; an estimated 2.5 million group 
health benefit plans, covering 137 million participants and dependents; 
and similar numbers of other welfare benefits plans and participants.
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) has one priority 
regulatory initiative that reflects the Secretary's emphasis on meeting 
the needs of the 21st century workforce. The Senior Community Service 
Employment Program (SCSEP) regulations (RIN 1205-AB48 and 1205-AB47), 
due to the issuance of the Older

[[Page 71224]]

Americans Act Amendments of 2006, enacted October 2006, make 
substantial changes to the current SCSEP.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Employment and Training Administration (ETA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

83. SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 3056 et seq


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 641


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006, Pub. L. 109-365, enacted on 
October 17, 2006, contain provisions amending title V of that Act, 
which authorizes the Senior Community Service Employment program 
(SCSEP). The Amendments, effective July 1, 2007, made substantial 
changes to the SCSEP provisions in the Older Americans Act, including 
new requirements relating to performance accountability, income 
eligibility for program participation, competition of national grants, 
and services to participants.


This NPRM consists of 8 subparts: subpart A--Purpose and Definitions; 
Subpart B--Coordination with the Workforce Investment Act; subpart C--
the State Plan; subpart D--Grant Application and Responsibility Review 
Requirements for State and National Grants, Subpart E--Services to 
Participants; subpart F--Pilots, Demonstration, and Evaluation 
Projects, subpart H--Administrative Requirements; and subpart I--
Grievance Procedures and Appeals Process. The performance 
accountability requirements (subpart G) were implemented through a 
separate Interim Final Rule (IFR).


Statement of Need:


The 2006 Amendments to the Older Americans Act (OAA-2006) were enacted 
on October 17, 2006. The amendment instituted a number of significant 
changes to the SCSEP, including time limits on the participation of 
eligible individuals, new enrollment priorities, streamlined and 
strengthened performance measures, more training options for 
participants, new limits on participant fringe benefits, and required 
open competition of national grants every 4 years.


The Department was required to implement the new performance measures 
by July 1, 2007, and published an IFR on these requirements in the 
Federal Register on June 29, 2007, (72 FR 35832). However, SCSEP 
grantees were advised that they were responsible for complying with all 
the OAA-2006 changes as of July 1, 2007, as communicated in 
administrative guidance issued on June 11, 2007. Since OAA-2006 
instituted so many significant changes in addition to those relating to 
performance accountability, it is important that regulations 
implementing the full requirements of the Amendments be issued 
consistent with the identified timetable.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These regulations are authorized by 42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq to implement 
amendments to Title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965.


Alternatives:


The public will be afforded an opportunity to provide comments on the 
SCSEP program changes when the Department publishes the NPRM in the 
Federal Register. A Final Rule will be issued after analysis and 
incorporation of public comments to the NPRM, and IFR (1205-AB47).


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs of this regulatory 
action have not been determined at this time and will be determined at 
a later date.


Risks:


This action does not affect public health, safety, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/14/08                    73 FR 47770
NPRM Comment Period End         10/14/08
Final Rule                      01/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Tribal


Agency Contact:
Gay Gilbert
Administrator, Office of Workforce Investment
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room S4231
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-3428
Email: gilbert.gay@dol.gov
Related RIN: Related to 1205-AB47
RIN: 1205-AB48
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ETA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

84. SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM; PERFORMANCE 
ACCOUNTABILITY

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 3056 et seq


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 641


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, June 30, 2007, Interim Final Rule.


Abstract:


The Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006, Pub. L. 109-365, enacted on 
October 17, 2006, contains provisions amending title V of that Act, 
which authorizes the Senior Community Service Employment Program 
(SCSEP). The Amendments, effective July 1, 2007, make substantial 
changes to the current SCSEP provisions in the Older Americans Act 
relating to performance accountability.


Section 513(2) of title V requires that the Agency establish and 
implement new measures of performance by July 1, 2007. Section 
513(b)(3) requires that the Secretary issue definitions of indicators 
of performance through regulation after consultation with stakeholders. 
Therefore, this Interim Final Rule (IFR) is intended to implement 
changes to the SCSEP program performance accountability regulations 
found at 20 CFR 641 in subpart G. Changes to other subparts

[[Page 71225]]

of part 641 will be implemented through a separate Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.


Statement of Need:


The 2006 Amendments to the Older Americans Act (OAA-2006) were enacted 
on October 17, 2006. The Amendments instituted a number of significant 
changes to the SCSEP, including time limits on the participation of 
eligible individuals, new enrollment priorities, streamlined and 
strengthened performance measures, more training options for 
participants, new limits on participant benefits, and required open 
competition of national grants every four years.


The Department was required to implement the new performance measures 
by July 1, 2007, and published an Interim Final Rule on these 
requirements in the Federal Register on June 29, 2007 (72 FR 35832). 
However, SCSEP grantees were advised that they were responsible for 
complying with all the OAA-2006 changes as of July 1, 2007, as 
communicated in administrative guidance issued on June 11, 2007. Since 
OAA-2006 instituted so many significant changes in addition to those 
relating to performance accountability, it is important that 
regulations implementing the full requirements of the Amendments be 
issued consistent with the identified timetable.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These regulations are authorized by 42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq. to implement 
amendments to title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965.


Alternatives:


The public was afforded an opportunity to provide comments on the SCSEP 
performance measurement system changes when the Department published 
the IFR in the Federal Register. Comments on the IFR and a proposed 
rule for the SCSEP (RIN 1205-AB48) will be incorporated into one final 
rule.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs of this regulatory 
action have not been determined at this time and will be determined at 
a later date.


Risks:


This action does not affect public health, safety, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              06/29/07                    72 FR 35832
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          08/28/07
Final Action                    01/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Tribal


Agency Contact:
Gay Gilbert
Administrator, Office of Workforce Investment
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room S4231
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-3428
Email: gilbert.gay@dol.gov
Related RIN: Related to 1205-AB48
RIN: 1205-AB47
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

85. FIDUCIARY REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLOSURE IN PARTICIPANT-DIRECTED 
INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT PLANS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


29 USC 1104; 29 USC 1135


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 2550


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking will ensure that the participants and beneficiaries in 
participant-directed individual account plans are provided the 
information they need, including information about fees and expenses, 
to make informed investment decisions. The rulemaking may include 
amendments to the regulation governing ERISA section 404(c) plans (29 
CFR 2550.404c-1). The rulemaking is needed to clarify and improve the 
information currently required to be furnished to participants and 
beneficiaries.


Statement of Need:


Given the potentially significant impact fees and expenses can have on 
retirement savings, understanding what and how fees and expenses are 
charged to 401(k) plans is essential to plan participants and 
beneficiaries in making informed investment decisions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 505 of ERISA provides that the Secretary may prescribe such 
regulations as she considers necessary and appropriate to carry out the 
provisions of title I of the Act, including section 404 of ERISA.


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be considered following a determination of the scope 
and nature of the regulatory guidance needed by the public.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits will be 
developed, as appropriate, following a determination regarding the 
alternatives to be considered.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Request for Information         04/25/07                    72 FR 20457
Comment Period End              07/24/07
NPRM                            07/23/08                    73 FR 43014
NPRM Comment Period End         09/08/08
Final Action                    11/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Katherine D. Lewis
Senior, Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room N-5655
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8500
RIN: 1210-AB07

[[Page 71226]]

_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--EBSA
86. PROHIBITED TRANSACTION EXEMPTION FOR PROVISION OF INVESTMENT ADVICE 
TO PARTICIPANTS IN INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT PLANS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


29 USC 1108(g); 29 USC 1135; PL 109-280, sec 601(a), Pension Protection 
Act of 2006; ERISA sec 408(g); ERISA sec 505


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 2550


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 601 of the Pension Protection Act (Pub. L. 109-280) amended 
ERISA by adding new sections 408(b)(14) and 408(g). Section 408(b)(14) 
is a prohibited transaction exemption that permits the provision of 
investment advice to participants or beneficiaries of certain 
individual account plans if the investment advice is provided under an 
``eligible investment advice arrangement,'' as defined in section 
408(g). In order to qualify as an ``eligible investment advice 
arrangement,'' the arrangement must either provide that any fees 
received by the adviser do not vary depending on the basis of any 
investment options selected, or use a computer model under an 
investment advice program that meets the criteria set forth in section 
408(g) in connection with the provision of investment advice. Further, 
with respect to both types of advice arrangements, the investment 
adviser must disclose to advice recipients all fees that the adviser or 
any affiliate is to receive in connection with the advice. Section 
408(g) requires that the computer model which serves as the basis for 
an eligible investment advice arrangement be certified by an ``eligible 
investment expert'' in accordance with rules prescribed by the 
Secretary of Labor. Section 408(g) also directs the Secretary of Labor 
to issue a model form for the required disclosure of fees. EBSA 
published a Request for Information that invited interested persons to 
submit written comments and suggestions concerning the expertise and 
procedures that may be needed to certify that a computer model meets 
the statutory criteria, and the content, types, and designs of fee 
disclosure materials currently used and their usefulness to plan 
participants.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is necessary to fully implement the new exemption under 
section 408(b)(14) of ERISA pursuant to section 601 of the PPA.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 505 of ERISA provides that the Secretary may prescribe such 
regulations as she finds necessary and appropriate to carry out the 
provisions of title I of the Act. In addition, section 408(g)(3) of 
ERISA provides the Secretary with authority to establish rules 
governing the computer model certification process.


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be considered following a determination of the scope 
and nature of the regulatory guidance needed by the public.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits will be 
developed, as appropriate, following a determination regarding the 
alternatives to be considered.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Request for Information         12/04/06                    71 FR 70429
Request for Information 
    Comment Period End          01/30/07
NPRM                            08/22/08                    73 FR 49896
NPRM Comment Period End         10/06/08
Notice of Hearing To Be 
    Held--October 21, 
    2008                        10/14/08                    73 FR 60657
Final Action                    11/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Fred Wong
Senior Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room N5655
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8500
Fax: 202 219-7291
RIN: 1210-AB13
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

87. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO CRYSTALLINE SILICA

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1917; 29 CFR 1918; 29 CFR 1926


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Crystalline silica is a significant component of the earth's crust, and 
many workers in a wide range of industries are exposed to it, usually 
in the form of respirable quartz or, less frequently, cristobalite. 
Chronic silicosis is a uniquely occupational disease resulting from 
exposure of employees over long periods of time (10 years or more). 
Exposure to high levels of respirable crystalline silica causes acute 
or accelerated forms of silicosis that are ultimately fatal. The 
current OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) for general industry is 
based on a formula recommended by the American Conference of 
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in 1971 (PEL=10mg/cubic 
meter/(% silica + 2), as respirable dust). The current PEL for 
construction and maritime (derived from ACGIH's 1962 Threshold Limit 
Value) is based on particle counting technology, which is considered 
obsolete. NIOSH and ACGIH recommend 50[micro]g/m3 and 25[micro]g/m3 
exposure limits, respectively, for respirable crystalline silica.


Both industry and worker groups have recognized that a comprehensive 
standard for crystalline silica is needed to provide for exposure 
monitoring, medical surveillance, and worker training. The American 
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has published a recommended 
standard for addressing the hazards of crystalline silica. The Building 
Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO has also developed a 
recommended

[[Page 71227]]

comprehensive program standard. These standards include provisions for 
methods of compliance, exposure monitoring, training, and medical 
surveillance.


Statement of Need:


Over 2 million workers are exposed to crystalline silica dust in 
general industry, construction, and maritime industries. Industries 
that could be particularly affected by a standard for crystalline 
silica include: Foundries, industries that have abrasive blasting 
operations, paint manufacture, glass and concrete product manufacture, 
brick making, china and pottery manufacture, manufacture of plumbing 
fixtures, and many construction activities including highway repair, 
masonry, concrete work, rock drilling, and tuckpointing. The 
seriousness of the health hazards associated with silica exposure is 
demonstrated by the fatalities and disabling illnesses that continue to 
occur; between 1990 and 1996, 200 to 300 deaths per year are known to 
have occurred where silicosis was identified on death certificates as 
an underlying or contributing cause of death. It is likely that many 
more cases have occurred where silicosis went undetected. In addition, 
the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has designated 
crystalline silica as a known human carcinogen. Exposure to crystalline 
silica has also been associated with an increased risk of developing 
tuberculosis and other nonmalignant respiratory diseases, as well as 
renal and autoimmune respiratory diseases. Exposure studies and OSHA 
enforcement data indicate that some workers continue to be exposed to 
levels of crystalline silica far in excess of current exposure limits. 
Congress has included compensation of silicosis victims on Federal 
nuclear testing sites in the Energy Employees' Occupational Illness 
Compensation Program Act of 2000. There is a particular need for the 
Agency to modernize its exposure limits for construction and maritime 
workers, and to address some specific issues that will need to be 
resolved to propose a comprehensive standard.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary determination 
that workers are exposed to a significant risk of silicosis and other 
serious disease and that rulemaking is needed to substantially reduce 
the risk. In addition, the proposed rule will recognize that the PELs 
for construction and maritime are outdated and need to be revised to 
reflect current sampling and analytical technologies.


Alternatives:


Over the past several years, the Agency has attempted to address this 
problem through a variety of non-regulatory approaches, including 
initiation of a Special Emphasis Program on silica in October 1997, 
sponsorship with NIOSH and MSHA of the National Conference to Eliminate 
Silicosis, and dissemination of guidance information on its Web site. 
The Agency is currently evaluating several options for the scope of the 
rulemaking.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The scope of the proposed rulemaking and estimates of the costs and 
benefits are still under development.


Risks:


A detailed risk analysis is under way.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Completed SBREFA Report         12/19/03
Complete Peer Review of 
    Health Effects and 
    Risk Assessment             02/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Dorothy Dougherty
Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room N3718
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov
RIN: 1218-AB70
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

88. CRANES AND DERRICKS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


29 USC 651(b); 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 1926


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


A number of industry stakeholders asked OSHA to update the cranes and 
derricks portion of subpart N (29 CFR 1926.550), specifically 
requesting that negotiated rulemaking be used.


In 2002 OSHA published a notice of intent to establish a negotiated 
rulemaking committee. A year later, in 2003, committee members were 
announced and the Cranes and Derricks Negotiated Rulemaking Committee 
was established and held its first meeting. In July 2004, the committee 
reached consensus on all issues resulting in a final consensus 
document.


Statement of Need:


There have been considerable technological changes since the consensus 
standards upon which the 1971 OSHA standard is based were developed. In 
addition, industry consensus standards for derricks and crawler, truck 
and locomotive cranes were updated as recently as 2004.


The industry indicated that over the past 30 years, considerable 
changes in both work processes and crane technology have occurred. 
There are estimated to be 64 to 82 fatalities associated with cranes 
each year in construction, and a more up-to-date standard would help 
prevent them.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 authorizes the Secretary 
of Labor to set mandatory occupational safety and health standards to 
assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women 
(29 USC 651).

[[Page 71228]]

Alternatives:


The alternative to the proposed rulemaking would be to take no 
regulatory action and not update the standards in 29 CFR 1926.550 
pertaining to cranes and derricks.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The estimates of the costs and benefits are still under development.


Risks:


OSHA's risk analysis is under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Intent To 
    Establish Negotiated 
    Rulemaking                  07/16/02                    67 FR 46612
Comment Period End              09/16/02
Request for Comments on 
    Proposed Committee 
    Members                     02/27/03                     68 FR 9036
Request for Comments 
    Period End                  03/31/03                     68 FR 9036
Established Negotiated 
    Rulemaking Committee        06/12/03                    68 FR 35172
Rulemaking Negotiations 
    Completed                   07/30/04
SBREFA Report                   10/17/06
NPRM                            10/09/08                    73 FR 59714
NPRM Comment Period End         12/08/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Noah Connell
Acting Director, Directorate of Construction
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room North 3467
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2020
Fax: 202 693-1689
RIN: 1218-AC01
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
89. HAZARD COMMUNICATION

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 1910.1200; 29 CFR 1915.1200; 29 CFR 1917.28; 29 CFR 1918.90; 29 
CFR 1926.59; 29 CFR 1928.21


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) requires chemical 
manufacturers and importers to evaluate the hazards of the chemicals 
they produce or import, and prepare labels and material safety data 
sheets to convey the hazards and associated protective measures to 
users of the chemicals. All employers with hazardous chemicals in their 
workplaces are required to have a hazard communication program, 
including labels on containers, material safety data sheets (MSDS), and 
training for employees. Within the United States (U.S.), there are 
other Federal agencies that also have requirements for classification 
and labeling of chemicals at different stages of the life cycle. 
Internationally, there are a number of countries that have developed 
similar laws that require information about chemicals to be prepared 
and transmitted to affected parties. These laws vary with regard to the 
scope of substances covered, definitions of hazards, the specificity of 
requirements (e.g., specification of a format for MSDSs), and the use 
of symbols and pictograms. The inconsistencies between the various laws 
are substantial enough that different labels and safety data sheets 
must often be used for the same product when it is marketed in 
different nations.


The diverse and sometimes conflicting national and international 
requirements can create confusion among those who seek to use hazard 
information. Labels and safety data sheets may include symbols and 
hazard statements that are unfamiliar to readers or not well 
understood. Containers may be labeled with such a large volume of 
information that important statements are not easily recognized. 
Development of multiple sets of labels and safety data sheets is a 
major compliance burden for chemical manufacturers, distributors, and 
transporters involved in international trade. Small businesses may have 
particular difficulty in coping with the complexities and costs 
involved.


As a result of this situation, and in recognition of the extensive 
international trade in chemicals, there has been a longstanding effort 
to harmonize these requirements and develop a system that can be used 
around the world. In 2003, the United Nations adopted the Globally 
Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). 
Countries are now considering adoption of the GHS into their national 
regulatory systems. There is an international goal to have as many 
countries as possible implement the GHS by 2008. OSHA is considering 
modifying its HCS to make it consistent with the GHS. This would 
involve changing the criteria for classifying health and physical 
hazards, adopting standardized labeling requirements, and requiring a 
standardized order of information for safety data sheets.


Statement of Need:


Multiple sets of requirements for labels and safety data sheets present 
a compliance burden for U.S. manufacturers, distributors, and 
transports involved in international trade. Adoption of the GHS would 
facilitate international trade in chemicals, reduce the burdens caused 
by having to comply with differing requirements for the same product, 
and allow companies that have not had the resources to deal with those 
burdens to be involved in international trade. This is particularly 
important for small producers who may be precluded currently from 
international trade because of the compliance resources required to 
address the extensive regulatory requirements for classification and 
labeling of chemicals. Thus every producer is likely to experience some 
benefits from domestic harmonization, in addition to the benefits that 
will accrue to producers involved in international trade.


Additionally, comprehensibility of hazard information will be enhanced 
as the GHS will: (1) Provide consistent information and definitions for 
hazardous chemicals; (2) address stakeholder concerns regarding the 
need for a standardized format for material safety data sheets; and (3) 
increase understanding by using standardized pictograms and harmonized 
hazard statements.

[[Page 71229]]

Several nations, as well as the European Union, are preparing proposals 
for adoption of the GHS. U.S. manufacturers, employers, and employees 
will be at a disadvantage in the event that our system of hazard 
communication is not compliant with the GHS.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 authorizes the Secretary 
of Labor to set mandatory occupational safety and health standards to 
assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women 
(29 U.S.C. 651).


Alternatives:


The alternative to the proposed rulemaking would be to take no 
regulatory action.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The estimates of the costs and benefits are still under development.


Risks:


OSHA's risk analysis is under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           09/12/06                    71 FR 53617
ANPRM Comment Period End        11/13/06
Complete Peer Review of 
    Economic Analysis           11/19/07
NPRM                            12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Dorothy Dougherty
Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room N3718
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov
RIN: 1218-AC20
BILLING CODE 4510-23-S

[[Page 71230]]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Transportation (DOT) consists of ten operating 
administrations and the Office of the Secretary, each of which has 
statutory responsibility for a wide range of regulations. For example, 
DOT regulates safety in the aviation, motor carrier, railroad, public 
transportation, motor vehicle, commercial space, and pipeline 
transportation areas. DOT regulates aviation consumer and economic 
issues and provides financial assistance and writes the necessary 
implementing rules for programs involving highways, airports, public 
transportation, the maritime industry, railroads, and motor vehicle 
safety. It writes regulations carrying out such varied statutes as the 
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Uniform Time Act. Finally, DOT 
has responsibility for developing policies that implement a wide range 
of regulations that govern internal programs such as acquisitions and 
grants, access for the disabled, environmental protection, energy 
conservation, information technology, occupational safety and health, 
property asset management, seismic safety, and the use of aircraft and 
vehicles.
The Department has adopted a regulatory philosophy that applies to all 
its rulemaking activities. This philosophy is articulated as follows: 
DOT regulations must be clear, simple, timely, fair, reasonable, and 
necessary. They will be issued only after an appropriate opportunity 
for public comment, which must provide an equal chance for all affected 
interests to participate, and after appropriate consultation with other 
governmental entities. The Department will fully consider the comments 
received. It will assess the risks addressed by the rules and their 
costs and benefits, including the cumulative effects. The Department 
will consider appropriate alternatives, including nonregulatory 
approaches. It will also make every effort to ensure that legislation 
does not impose unreasonable mandates.
In establishing its regulatory priorities--in identifying rulemaking 
actions that deserve special attention--the Department has focused on a 
number of factors, including the following:
<bullet> The relative risk being addressed
<bullet> Requirements imposed by statute or other law
<bullet> Actions on the National Transportation Safety Board ``Most 
            Wanted List''
<bullet> The costs and benefits of regulations
<bullet> The advantages to non-regulatory alternatives
<bullet> Opportunities for deregulatory action
<bullet> The enforceability of any rule, including the effect on agency 
            resources
An important initiative of the Department has been to conduct high 
quality rulemakings in a timely manner and to reduce the number of old 
rulemakings. To implement this, the following actions have been 
required: (1) Regular meetings of senior DOT officials to ensure 
effective policy leadership and timely decisions, (2) better tracking 
and coordination of rulemakings, (3) regular reporting, (4) early 
briefings of interested officials, (5) better training of staff, and 
(6) necessary resource allocations. The Department has achieved 
significant success as a result of this initiative with the number of 
old rulemakings as well as the average time to complete rulemakings 
decreasing. This is also allowing the Department to use its resources 
more effectively and efficiently.
The Department's regulatory policies and procedures provide a 
comprehensive internal management and review process for new and 
existing regulations and ensure that the Secretary and other 
appropriate appointed officials review and concur in all significant 
DOT rules. DOT continually seeks to improve its regulatory process. A 
few examples include: the Department's development of regulatory 
process and related training courses for its employees; creation of an 
electronic, Internet-accessible docket that can also be used to submit 
comments electronically; a ``list serve'' that allows the public to 
sign up for e-mail notification when the Department issues a rulemaking 
document; creation of an electronic rulemaking tracking and 
coordination system; the use of direct final rulemaking; and the use of 
regulatory negotiation.
In addition, the Department continues to engage in a wide variety of 
activities to help cement the partnerships between its agencies and its 
customers that will produce good results for transportation programs 
and safety. The Department's agencies also have established a number of 
continuing partnership mechanisms in the form of rulemaking advisory 
committees.
The Department is also actively engaged in the review of existing rules 
to determine whether they need to be revised or revoked. These reviews 
are in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
the Department's regulatory policies and procedures, and Executive 
Order 12866. This includes determining whether the rules would be more 
understandable if they are written using a plain language approach. 
Appendix D to our Regulatory Agenda highlights our efforts in this 
area.
The Department will also continue its efforts to use advances in 
technology to improve its rulemaking management process. For example, 
the Department created an effective tracking system for significant 
rulemakings to ensure that either rules are completed in a timely 
manner or delays are identified and fixed. Through this tracking 
system, a monthly report is generated. To make its efforts more 
transparent, the Department has made this report Internet-accessible. 
By doing this, the Department is providing valuable information 
concerning our rulemaking activity and is providing information 
necessary for the public to evaluate the Department's progress in 
meeting its commitment to completing rulemakings in a timely manner.
The Department will continue to place great emphasis on the need to 
complete high quality rulemakings by involving senior Departmental 
officials in regular meetings to resolve issues expeditiously.
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST)
The Office of the Secretary (OST) oversees the regulatory process for 
the Department. OST implements the Department's regulatory policies and 
procedures and is responsible for ensuring the involvement of top 
management in regulatory decisionmaking. Through the General Counsel's 
office, OST is also responsible for ensuring that the Department 
complies with Executive Order 12866 and other legal and policy 
requirements affecting rulemaking, including new statutes and Executive 
orders. Although OST's principal role concerns the review of the 
Department's significant rulemakings, this office has the lead role in 
the substance of projects concerning aviation economic rules and those 
affecting the various elements of the Department.
OST provides guidance and training regarding compliance with regulatory 
requirements and process for use by

[[Page 71231]]

personnel throughout the Department. OST also plays an instrumental 
role in the Department's efforts to improve our economic analyses; risk 
assessments; regulatory flexibility analyses; other related analyses; 
and data quality, including peer reviews.
 OST also leads and coordinates the Department's response to 
Administration and congressional proposals that concern the regulatory 
process. The General Counsel's Office works closely with 
representatives of other agencies, the Office of Management and Budget, 
the White House, and congressional staff to provide information on how 
various proposals would affect the ability of the Department to perform 
its safety, infrastructure, and other missions.
 OST amended its Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) rules to apply to 
foreign carriers (2105-AC97). The final rule also added new provisions 
concerning passengers who use medical oxygen and passengers who are 
deaf or hard-of-hearing. The rule also reorganized and updated the 
entire ACAA rule.
 During fiscal year 2009, OST will continue to focus its efforts on 
enhancing airline passenger protections by requiring carriers to adopt 
various consumer service practices (2105-AB72).
 OST will also continue its efforts to help coordinate the activities 
of several operating administrations that advance the Department's 
congestion initiative. Specific rulemakings concerning congestion 
relief can be found under the headings of the operating 
administrations.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
The Federal Aviation Administration is charged with safely and 
efficiently operating and maintaining the most complex aviation system 
in the world. It is guided by its Flight Plan goals--Increased Safety, 
Greater Capacity, International Leadership, and Organizational 
Excellence. It issues regulations to provide a safe and efficient 
global aviation system for civil aircraft, while being sensitive to not 
imposing undue regulatory burdens and costs on small businesses. 
Activities that may lead to rulemaking include:
<bullet> Promotion and expansion of safety information sharing efforts 
            such as FAA-industry partnerships and data-driven safety 
            programs that prioritize and address risks before they lead 
            to accidents. Specifically, FAA will continue implementing 
            Commercial Aviation Safety Team projects related to 
            controlled flight into terrain, loss of control of an 
            aircraft, uncontained engine failures, runway incursions, 
            weather, pilot decision making, and cabin safety. Some of 
            these projects may result in rulemaking and guidance 
            materials.
<bullet> Continuing to work cooperatively to harmonize the U.S. 
            aviation regulations with those of other countries, without 
            compromising rigorous safety standards. The differences 
            worldwide in certification standards, practice and 
            procedures, and operating rules must be identified and 
            minimized to reduce the regulatory burden on the 
            international aviation system. The differences between the 
            FAA regulations and the requirements of other nations 
            impose a heavy burden on U.S. aircraft manufacturers and 
            operators. Standardization should help the U.S. aerospace 
            industry remain internationally competitive. The FAA 
            continues to publish regulations based on recommendations 
            of Aviation Rulemaking Committees that are the result of 
            cooperative rulemaking between the U.S. and other 
            countries.
Top regulatory priorities for 2008-2009 include:
<bullet> Automatic Dependent Surveillance -- Broadcast (ADS-B) Out 
            equipment (2120-AI92)
The FAA is pursuing an ADS-B rulemaking to:
1. Accommodate the expected increase in demand for air transportation, 
            as described in the Next Generation Air Transportation 
            System Integrated Plan;
2. Provide the Federal Aviation Administration with a comprehensive 
            surveillance system that accommodates the anticipated 
            increase in operations; and
3. Provide a platform for additional flight applications and services 
            in the future.
Lastly, the FAA also is continuing actions to advance the Department's 
congestion initiative to provide a long-term solution to increased 
congestion and delay in New York.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) carries out the Federal 
highway program in partnership with State and local agencies to meet 
the Nation's transportation needs. The FHWA's mission is to improve 
continually the quality and performance of our Nation's highway system 
and its intermodal connectors.
Consistent with this mission, the FHWA will continue:
<bullet> With ongoing regulatory initiatives in support of its surface 
            transportation programs;
<bullet> To implement legislation in the least burdensome and 
            restrictive way possible; and
<bullet> To pursue regulatory reform in areas where project development 
            can be streamlined or accelerated, duplicative requirements 
            can be consolidated, recordkeeping requirements can be 
            reduced or simplified, and the decisionmaking authority of 
            our State and local partners can be increased.
On August 10, 2005, President George W. Bush signed the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). SAFETEA-LU authorizes the Federal 
surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and 
transit for the five-year period from 2005-2009. The FHWA has analyzed 
SAFETEA-LU and identified a number of congressionally directed 
rulemakings. These rulemakings include:
1. Express Lane Demonstration Project (2125-AF07);
2. Projects of National and Regional Significance (2125-AF08); and
3. Environmental Review of Activities that Support the Deployment of 
            ITS Projects (2125-AF15).
These rulemakings are the FHWA's top regulatory priorities. 
Additionally, the FHWA is in the process of reviewing all FHWA 
regulations to ensure that they are consistent with SAFETEA-LU and will 
update those regulations that are not consistent with this legislation.
In addition, the FHWA is updating the Department's regulation for 
Credit Assistance for Surface Transportation Projects at 49 CFR Part 80 
to incorporate changes to the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 
Innovation Act (TIFIA) program made by SAFETEA-LU, and to incorporate a 
number of programmatic features which the U.S. DOT believes will 
improve the administration of the TIFIA progam.
Finally, the FHWA has completed the rulemaking that amends the Manual 
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to include a standard for 
minimum maintained levels of traffic sign retroreflectivity and methods 
to

[[Page 71232]]

maintain traffic sign retroreflectivity at or above these levels. This 
rulemaking (2125-AE98) addresses comments received in response to the 
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) request for regulatory reform 
nominations from the public. The OMB is required to submit an annual 
report to Congress on the costs and benefits of Federal regulations. 
The 2002 report included recommendations for regulatory reform that OMB 
requested from the public. One recommendation was that the FHWA should 
establish standards for minimum levels of brightness of traffic signs. 
The FHWA has identified this rulemaking as responsive to that 
recommendation.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
The mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 
is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving commercial 
trucks and buses. A strong regulatory program is a cornerstone of 
FMCSA's compliance and enforcement efforts to advance this safety 
mission. Developing new and more effective safety regulations is key to 
increasing safety on our Nation's highways. FMCSA regulations establish 
standards for motor carriers, drivers, vehicles, and States agencies 
receiving certain motor carrier safety grants and issuing commercial 
drivers' licenses.
FMCSA continues to develop regulations both mandated by Congress and 
initiated by the Agency to increase safety. With the anticipated 
publication in 2009 of the final rule to merge the medical certificate 
and CDL issuance and renewal processes, FMCSA has completed all 
rulemakings required under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 
1999. Additionally, FMCSA continues to address a significant number of 
rules required by its most recent reauthorization legislation, Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The Agency is committed to promulgating 
the SAFETEA-LU mandated rules while continuing to make progress on a 
large and challenging rulemaking agenda.
In 2008, FMCSA anticipates completion of several significant 
rulemakings including Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers 
and Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal Equipment, Hours of 
Service of Drivers, New Entrant Safety Assurance Process, and 
Electronic On-Board Recorders. FMCSA has also published notices of 
proposed rulemaking on Consumer Complaint Information for Household 
Goods Shipments, Entry Level Driver Training, CDL Learner's Permits, 
and the Agency anticipates publishing NPRMs on National Registry of 
Certified Medical Examiners and Railroad Grade Crossing.
FMCSA's implementation of Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 (CSA 2010) 
commences with the rulemaking Carrier Safety Fitness Determination (RIN 
2126-AB11). The Agency continues work on its CSA 2010 initiative, which 
will improve the way FMCSA conducts compliance and enforcement 
operations over the coming years. CSA 2010's goal is to improve large 
truck and bus safety by assessing a wider range of safety performance 
data of a larger segment of the motor carrier industry through an array 
of progressive compliance interventions. FMCSA is targeting 2010 for 
deployment of this new operational model. The Agency anticipates that 
the impacts of CSA 2010 and its associated rulemakings will contribute 
further to the Agency's overall goal of decreasing CMV-related 
fatalities and injuries.
FMCSA's Regulatory Plan includes a number of rules that are high 
priorities for the Agency because they would have a positive impact on 
safety. Among the rulemakings included in the plan are: (1) Carrier 
Safety Fitness Determination (RIN 2126-AB11), (2) National Registry of 
Certified Medical Examiners (RIN 2126-AA97), and (3) Commercial 
Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standard (RIN 
2126-AB02).
Together these priority rules will help to substantially improve 
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety on our nation's highways by 
improving FMCSA's ability to provide safety oversight of motor carriers 
and drivers. For example, the Commercial Driver's License Testing and 
Learner's Permit rulemaking (RIN 2126-AB02) would revise commercial 
driver's license testing and require new minimum Federal standards for 
States to issue commercial learner's permits. The National Registry of 
Certified Medical Examiners rulemaking (RIN 2126-AA97) would establish 
training and testing requirements for healthcare professionals who 
issue medical certificates to truck and bus drivers.
In order to manage its rulemaking agenda, FMCSA continues to involve 
senior agency leaders at the earliest stages of its rulemakings, and 
continues to refine its regulatory development process. The Agency also 
holds senior executives accountable for meeting deadlines for 
completing rulemakings.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
The statutory responsibilities of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) relating to motor vehicles include reducing the 
number of, and mitigating the effects of, motor vehicle crashes and 
related fatalities and injuries; providing safety performance 
information to aid prospective purchasers of vehicles, child 
restraints, and tires; and improving automotive fuel efficiency. NHTSA 
pursues policies that encourage the development of non-regulatory 
approaches when feasible in meeting its statutory mandates. It issues 
new standards and regulations or amendments to existing standards and 
regulations when appropriate. It ensures that regulatory alternatives 
reflect a careful assessment of the problem and a comprehensive 
analysis of the benefits, costs, and other impacts associated with the 
proposed regulatory action. Finally, it considers alternatives 
consistent with the Administration's regulatory principles.
NHTSA continues to pursue the high priority vehicle safety area of 
occupant protection in rollover events. The Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (SAFETEA-LU) 
calls for a final rule that establishes a new performance standard to 
reduce complete and partial ejections of vehicle occupants from 
outboard seating positions during FY 2009.
NHTSA will also continue its efforts to publish a final rule setting 
corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for Model Years 2011-
2015 for both cars and light trucks.
 In addition to numerous programs that focus on the safe performance of 
motor vehicles, the agency is engaged in a variety of programs to 
improve driver and occupant behavior. These programs emphasize the 
human aspects of motor vehicle safety and recognize the important role 
of the States in this common pursuit. NHTSA has identified two high 
priority areas: safety belt use and impaired driving. To address these 
issue areas, the agency is focusing especially on three strategies--
conducting highly visible, well publicized enforcement; supporting 
prosecutors who handle impaired driving cases and expanding the use of 
DWI/Drug Courts, which hold offenders accountable for receiving and 
completing treatment for alcohol abuse and dependency; and the adoption 
of alcohol screening and brief intervention by medical and health care 
professionals. Other behavioral efforts

[[Page 71233]]

encourage child safety-seat use; combat excessive speed and aggressive 
driving; improve motorcycle, bicycle, and pedestrian safety; and 
provide consumer information to the public.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) exercises regulatory 
authority over all areas of railroad safety, fashioning regulations 
that have favorable benefit-to-cost ratios and that, where feasible, 
incorporate flexible performance standards and require cooperative 
action by all affected parties. In order to foster an environment for 
collaborative rulemaking, FRA established the Railroad Safety Advisory 
Committee (RSAC). The purpose of the RSAC is to develop consensus 
recommendations for regulatory action on issues referred to it by FRA. 
Where consensus is achieved, and FRA believes the consensus 
recommendations serve the public interest, the resulting rule is very 
likely to be better understood, more widely accepted, more cost-
beneficial, and more correctly applied. Where consensus cannot be 
achieved, however, FRA will fulfill its regulatory role without the 
benefit of the RSAC's recommendations. The RSAC meets regularly, and 
its working groups are actively addressing the following tasks: (1) the 
development of safety standards for handling railroad equipment to 
reduce the number of human factor caused accidents; (2) revisions to 
the locomotive safety standards; (3) the development of passenger train 
emergency systems; (4) establishing medical standards for railroad 
personnel in safety critical functions.
 On Oct. 16, 2008, FRA provided regulatory relief by adopting a rule 
regarding Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brake System 
Implementation (2130-AB84). This rulemaking established criteria for 
operating trains equipped with Electronically Controlled Pneumatic 
Brake System technology.
Lastly, FRA will continue its work to ensure the long-term 
sustainability of the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 
(RRIF) Program. This would be accomplished by amending the eligibility 
and application form and content criteria in the regulations to promote 
competition in the railroad industry, and reduce the risk of default 
for applicants and the Government (2130-AB91).
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
 The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides financial assistance 
to State and local governments for public transportation purposes. The 
regulatory activity of FTA focuses on establishing the terms and 
conditions of Federal financial assistance available under the Federal 
transit laws.
FTA's policy regarding regulations is to:
<bullet> Implement statutory authorities in ways that provide the 
            maximum net benefits to society;
<bullet> Keep paperwork requirements to a minimum;
<bullet> Allow for as much local flexibility and discretion as is 
            possible within the law;
<bullet> Ensure the most productive use of limited Federal resources;
<bullet> Protect the Federal interest in local investments; and
<bullet> Incorporate good management principles into the grant 
            management process.
As public transportation needs have changed over the years, so have the 
requirements for Federal financial assistance under the Federal transit 
laws and related statutes. As a result of the reauthorization 
legislation, the FTA's regulatory activity includes a number of 
substantive rulemakings. A few of those rulemakings are explicitly 
mandated by the statute. Others will become necessary simply to make 
amendments to current regulations to make them consistent with the 
statute. FTA's regulatory priorities for the coming year will be 
reflective of the directives and the programmatic priorities 
established by the statute.
Although FTA has been directed by Congress to delay its initiatives 
with the New Starts/Small Starts (2132-AA81) project, during FY 2009, 
FTA will continue to assess how the agency can effectively support the 
Department's congestion initiatives by continuing its focus on methods 
that would encourage increased ridership.
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) administers Federal laws and 
programs designed to promote and maintain a U.S. merchant marine 
capable of meeting the Nation's shipping needs for both national 
security and domestic and foreign commerce.
MARAD administers the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended (DWPA, 33 
U.S.C. Sec.  1501 et seq.), which established a licensing system for 
ownership, construction, and operation of oil and natural gas deepwater 
port (DWP) structures located seaward of U.S. territorial waters. The 
DWPA authorizes the Secretary of Transportation, and by delegation the 
Maritime Administration, to issue licenses for deepwater ports.
By its delegated authority, MARAD is responsible for determining the 
financial capability of potential licensees, rendering citizenship 
determinations for ownership, and securing operational and 
decommissioning guarantees for deepwater port projects. In concert with 
the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and other cooperating federal agencies, 
MARAD prepares a Record of Decision (ROD) for each application. Through 
the administration of the DWPA, the Maritime Administration plays a 
vital role in meeting Presidential energy directives, protecting the 
environment, building local economies, and improving mobility, safety, 
and security in our Nation's oceans and ports.
MARAD's other regulatory objectives and priorities reflect the Agency's 
responsibility of ensuring the availability of adequate and efficient 
water transportation services for American shippers and consumers. To 
advance these objectives, MARAD issues regulations, which are 
principally administrative and interpretive in nature.
MARAD's regulatory priorities are to update existing regulations and to 
reduce unnecessary burden on the public. This fall, the Agency will 
implement its new America's Marine Highway regulation in response to 
the enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. 
L. 110-140) which directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish 
a short sea transportation program and designate short sea 
transportation projects to mitigate landside congestion. Finally, 
during FY 2009, MARAD will focus on revising its cargo preference 
regulations.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
 The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has 
responsibility for rulemaking under two programs. Through the Associate 
Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, PHMSA administers 
regulatory programs under Federal hazardous materials transportation 
law and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Oil 
Pollution Act of

[[Page 71234]]

1990. Through the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA 
administers regulatory programs under the Federal pipeline safety laws 
and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990.
PHMSA will continue to work toward the elimination of deaths and 
injuries associated with the transportation of hazardous materials by 
all transportation modes, including pipeline. We will use data to focus 
our efforts on the prevention of high-risk incidents, particularly 
those of high consequence to people and the environment. PHMSA will use 
all available agency tools to assess data; evaluate alternative safety 
strategies, including regulatory strategies as necessary and 
appropriate; target enforcement efforts; and enhance outreach, public 
education, and training to promote safety outcomes. For maximum 
effectiveness, we will work closely with other DOT safety agencies and 
other federal, State and local agencies to bring together stakeholders 
who can contribute to safety solutions.
PHMSA will continue to focus its safety efforts on the resolution of 
highest priority risks, including those posed by the air transportation 
of hazardous materials and bulk transportation of high hazard 
materials. In addition, PHMSA is working with FAA to assess safety 
risks associated with the transportation by aircraft of hazardous 
materials in non-bulk packagings. To enhance aviation safety, the two 
agencies are seeking to identify cost-effective solutions that can be 
implemented to reduce incident rates and potentially detrimental 
consequences without placing unnecessary burdens on the regulated 
community. To address the risks posed by the bulk transportation of 
high-risk hazardous materials, PHMSA in conjunction with FRA plans to 
issue a final rule incorporating effective strategies for maintaining 
tank car integrity during rail incidents, with a particular focus on 
the containment of lethal compressed gases in high pressure tank cars. 
Additionally, to address the need for an overall national program to 
enhance rail security, PHMSA is working with FRA and TSA to issue a 
final rule addressing the safe and secure transportation of hazardous 
materials transported in commerce by rail. In addition, we would adopt 
a new requirement for rail carriers to inspect placarded hazardous 
materials rail cars for signs of tampering or suspicious items, 
including improvised explosive devices (2137-AE02).
PHMSA will continue to look for ways to reduce the regulatory burden on 
hazardous materials shippers and carriers, consistent with our overall 
safety goals. For example, PHMSA is conducting a comprehensive review 
of special permits to identify those with demonstrated safety records 
that should be adopted as regulations of general applicability. We will 
continue to review regulatory standards to ensure they are necessary, 
easy to understand, contemporary and enforceable.
Over the next year, PHMSA expects to complete its integrity management 
initiative by adding integrity management regulations applicable to gas 
distribution pipelines. Integrity management regulations require 
pipeline operators to establish risk-based programs that focus 
increased safety attention on portions of pipeline posing the highest 
risk (2137-AE15).
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)
The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) seeks to 
identify and facilitate solutions to the challenges and opportunities 
facing America's transportation system through:
<bullet> Coordination, facilitation, and review of the Department's 
            research and development programs and activities;
<bullet> Providing multi-modal expertise in transportation and 
            logistics research, analysis, strategic planning, systems 
            engineering and training;
<bullet> Advancement, and research and development, of innovative 
            technologies, including intelligent transportation systems;
<bullet> Comprehensive transportation statistics research, analysis, 
            and reporting;
<bullet> Education and training in transportation and transportation-
            related fields; and
<bullet> Managing the activities of the John A. Volpe National 
            Transportation Systems Center.
Through its Bureau of Transportation Statistics, RITA collects, 
compiles, analyzes, and makes accessible information on the Nation's 
transportation system. RITA collects airline financial, traffic, and 
operating statistical data, including on-time flight performance data. 
This information gives the Government consistent and comprehensive 
economic and market data on airline operations and is used in 
supporting policy initiatives, negotiating international bilateral 
aviation agreements, awarding international route authorities, and 
meeting international treaty obligations.
Through its Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office 
(ITS/JPO), RITA develops new regulations as appropriate, in 
coordination with OST and other DOT operating administrations, to 
enable deployment of ITS research and technology results.
Through its Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, RITA provides 
a comprehensive range of engineering expertise, and qualitative and 
quantitative assessment services, focused on applying, maintaining and 
increasing the technical body of knowledge to support DOT operating 
administration regulatory activities.
Through its Transportation Safety Institute, RITA designs, develops, 
conducts and evaluates training and technical assistance programs in 
transportation safety and security to support DOT operating 
administration regulatory implementation and enforcement activities.
RITA's regulatory priorities are to assist OST and all DOT operating 
administrations in updating existing regulations by applying research, 
technology and analytical results; to provide reliable information to 
transportation system decision makers; and to provide safety regulation 
implementation and enforcement training.

[[Page 71235]]



             QUANTIFIABLE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF RULEMAKINGS
                  ON THE 2008-2009 DOT REGULATORY PLAN

  This chart does not account for non-quantifiable benefits, which are
                            often substantial



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Quantifiable     Quantifiable
Agency/RIN  Number                                                                   Costs           Benefits
                                    Title                         Stage         Discounted 2007  Discounted 2007
                                                                                 $  (Millions)     $ (Millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              OST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2105-AD72   Enhancing Airline Passenger                    NPRM 11/08              TBD              TBD
                     Protections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Total for OST                                               0                0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              FAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2120-AI92   Automatic Dependent Surveillance -                     ARC Recommenda3,010            2,660
                     Broadcast (ADS-B) Out                              11/08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Total for FAA                                          3,010            2,660
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               FMCSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2126-AA97   National Registry of Certified                 NPRM 12/08              658            1,014
                     Medical Examiners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2126-AB02   Commercial Driver's Licenses and                 FR 09/09               30               71
                     Learner's Permit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2126-AB11   Carrier Safety Fitness Determination           NPRM 12/08              TBD              TBD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Total for FMCSA                                            688            1,085
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            NHTSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2127-AK23   Ejection Mitigation                            NPRM 04/09              TBD              TBD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Total for NHTSA                                              0                0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            PHMSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2137-AE15   Pipeline Safety: Distribution                    FR 06/09            1,484            2,691
                     Integrity Management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Total for PHMSA                                          1,484            2,691
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 TOTAL FOR DOT                                           5,182            6,436

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Estimated values are shown after rounding to the nearest $1 million and represent discounted present values
  assuming a discount rate of 7 percent.
Costs and benefits of rulemakings may be forecast over varying periods. Although the forecast periods will be
  the same for any given rulemaking, comparisons between proceedings should be made cautiously.
The Department of Transportation generally assumes that there are economic benefits to avoiding a fatality of
  $5.8 million. That economic value is included as part of the benefits estimates shown in the chart. As noted
  above, we have made no effort to include the non-quantifiable benefits.


_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Office of the Secretary (OST)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

90. [rplus]ENHANCING AIRLINE PASSENGER PROTECTIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 40101; 49 USC 41702; 49 USC 41712


CFR Citation:


14 CFR 234; 14 CFR 253; 14 CFR 259; 14 CFR 399


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would propose to enhance airline passenger protections 
in the following ways: (1) require carriers to adopt contingency plans 
for lengthy tarmac delays and to incorporate these plans in their 
contracts of carriage, (2) require carriers to respond to consumer 
problems, (3) declare the operation of flights that remain chronically 
delayed to be an unfair and deceptive practice and an unfair method of 
competition, (4) require carriers to publish delay data on their 
websites, and (5) require carriers to adopt customer service plans, 
incorporate these in their contracts of carriage, and audit their 
adherence to their plans.


Statement of Need:


This rule is needed to provide consumers with more information and 
protections to minimize the adverse consequences of air travel delays 
and cancellations. The Department's Office of the Inspector General has 
recommended that the Department take specific action to improve the air 
travel environment for passengers and Congress has proposed legislation 
to improve airline passenger protections.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Department has authority and responsibility under 49 USC 41712, in 
concert with 49 USC 40101(a)(4) and 40101(a)(9) and 49 USC 41702, to 
protect consumer from unfair and deceptive practices and to ensure safe

[[Page 71236]]

and adequate service in air transportation.


Alternatives:


The main alternative would be to take no regulatory action to address 
the increasing number of passengers who are dissatisfied with airline 
service as a result of recent marathon tarmac waits and the epidemic of 
flight delays, and to rely on the airlines to regulate themselves.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The rule is estimated to cost $5.6 million and result in benefits of 
$14.1 million per year (at a 7 percent discount rate).


Risks:


The risk of not taking regulatory action would be a continuation of the 
dissatisfaction and frustration passengers have with the air travel 
environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           11/20/07                    72 FR 65233
ANPRM Comment Period End        01/22/08
Clarification Concerning 
    ANPRM                       03/05/08                    73 FR 11843
NPRM                            11/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Blaine A. Workie
Attorney
Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-9342
TDD Phone: 202-755-7687
Fax: 202 366-7152
Email: blane.workie@ost.dot.gov
RIN: 2105-AD72
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

91. [rplus]AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE--BROADCAST (ADS-B) EQUIPAGE 
MANDATE TO SUPPORT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


49 USC 1155; 49 USC 40103; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 40120; 49 USC 44101; 49 
USC 44111; 49 USC 44701; 49 USC 44709; 49 USC 44711; 49 USC 44712; 49 
USC 44715; 49 USC 44716; 49 USC 44717; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 46306; 49 
USC 46315; 49 USC 46316; 49 USC 46504; 49 USC 46506 to 46507; 49 USC 
47122; 49 USC 47508; 49 USC 47528 to 47531; 49 USC 106(g); Articles 12 
and 29 of 61 Stat. 1180


CFR Citation:


14 CFR 91


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would require Automatic Dependent Surveillance--
Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment on aircraft to operate in certain 
classes of airspace within the United States National Airspace System. 
The rulemaking is necessary to accommodate the expected increase in 
demand for air transportation, as described in the Next Generation Air 
Transportation System Integrated Plan. The intended effect of this rule 
is to provide the Federal Aviation Administration with a comprehensive 
surveillance system that accommodates the anticipated increase in 
operations and would provide a platform for additional flight 
applications and services.


Statement of Need:


Congress has tasked the FAA with creating the Next Generation Air 
Transportation System (NextGen) to accommodate the projected increase 
in demand for air traffic services. The current FAA surveillance system 
will not be able to maintain the same level of service as operations 
continue to grow.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 USC 
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103, Sovereignty and use of 
airspace, and subpart III, section 44701, General requirements. Under 
section 40103, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations on the 
flight of aircraft, including regulations on safe altitudes, 
navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft, and the safe and 
efficient use of the navigable airspace. Under section 44701, the FAA 
is charged with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce 
by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the 
Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce.


Alternatives:


The FAA considered the following alternatives before proceeding with 
this rulemaking:


1. Status quo. The FAA rejected the status quo alternative because the 
ground based radars tracking congested flyways and passing information 
among the control centers for the duration of the flights is becoming 
operationally obsolete. The current system is not efficient enough to 
accommodate the estimated increases in air traffic, which would result 
in mounting delays or limitations in service for many areas.


2. Multilateration. Multilateration is a separate type of secondary 
surveillance system that is not radar and has limited deployment in the 
U.S. At a minimum, multilateration requires upwards of four ground 
stations to deliver the same volume of coverage and integrity of 
information as ADS-B, due to the need to ``triangulate'' the aircraft's 
position. Multilateration meets the need for accurate surveillance but 
the total life cycle system costs is very high.


3. Exemption to small air carriers. This alternative would mean that 
small air carriers would rely on the status quo ground based radars 
tracking their flights and passing information among the control 
centers for the duration of the flights. This alternative would require 
compliance costs to continue for the commissioning of radar sites. Air 
traffic controller workload and training costs would increase having to 
employ two systems in tracking aircraft. Small entities may request ATC 
deviations prior to operating in the airspace affected by this 
proposal. It would also be contrary to our policy for one level of 
safety in part 121 operations to exclude certain operators simply 
because they are small entities.

[[Page 71237]]

Thus, this alternative is not considered to be acceptable.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The estimated cost of this proposed rule ranges from a low of $1.31 
billion to a high of $7.51 billion. The estimated quantified potential 
benefits of the proposed rule are $8.11 billion and primarily result 
from fuel, operating cost and time savings from more efficient flights. 
On a present value basis costs range from $1.0 billion to $3.95 
billion, with benefits estimated at $2.02 billion (using a 7% discount 
rate).


Risks:


The demand for air travel is expected to double within the next 20 
years. Current FAA projections are that by 2025, operations will grow 
to more than half a million departures and arrivals per year at 
approximately 16 additional airports. The present air traffic control 
system will be unable to handle this level of growth. Not only will the 
current method of handling traffic flow not be able to adapt to the 
highest volume and density for future operations, but the nature of the 
new growth may be problematic, as future aviation activity will be much 
more diverse than it is today. A shift of 2 percent of today's 
commercial passengers to very light jets that seat 4-6 passengers would 
result in triple the number of flights necessary to carry the same 
number of passengers. Furthermore, the challenges grow with the advent 
of other non-conventional aircraft, such as the UAS.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/05/07                    72 FR 56947
NPRM Extension of Comment 
    Period End                  11/19/07                    72 FR 64966
NPRM Comment Period End         01/03/08
Extended Comment Period 
    End                         03/03/08
NPRM Comment Period 
    Reopened                    10/02/08                    73 FR 57270
Comment Period End              11/03/08

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:


Project number ATO-06-552-R.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Vincent Capezzuto
Terminal Program Operations
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591
Phone: 202 385-8637
Email: vincent.capezzuto@faa.gov
RIN: 2120-AI92
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

92. [rplus]NATIONAL REGISTRY OF CERTIFIED MEDICAL EXAMINERS

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Legal Authority:


Sec. 4116 of PL 109-59 (2005); 49 USC 31136(a); 49 USC 31149(d)


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 390; 49 CFR 391


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, August 10, 2006, Final Rule.


Abstract:


This rulemaking would establish training, testing and certification 
standards for medical examiners responsible for certifying that 
interstate commercial motor vehicle drivers meet established physical 
qualifications standards; provide a database (or National Registry) of 
medical examiners that meet the prescribed standards for use by motor 
carriers, drivers, and Federal and State enforcement personnel in 
determining whether a medical examiner is qualified to conduct 
examinations of interstate truck and bus drivers; and require medical 
examiners to transmit electronically to FMCSA the name of the driver 
and a numerical identifier for each driver that is examined. The 
rulemaking would also establish the process by which medical examiners 
that fail to meet or maintain the minimum standards would be removed 
from the National Registry. This action is in response to section 4116 
of Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users.


Statement of Need:


In enacting the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) [Pub. L. 109-59, August 10, 
2005], Congress recognized the need to improve the quality of the 
medical certification of drivers. SAFETEA-LU addresses the requirement 
for medical examiners to receive training in physical examination 
standards and be listed on a national registry of medical examiners as 
one step toward improving the quality of the commercial motor vehicle 
(CMV) driver physical examination process and the medical fitness of 
CMV drivers to operate CMVs. The safety impact will result from 
ensuring that medical examiners have completed training and testing to 
demonstrate that they fully understand FMCSA's physical qualifications 
standards and are capable of applying those standards consistently, 
thereby decreasing the likelihood that a medically unqualified driver 
may obtain a medical certificate.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The fundamental legal basis for the NRCME program comes from 49 U.S.C. 
31149(d), which requires FMCSA to establish and maintain a current 
national registry of medical examiners that are qualified to perform 
examinations of CMV drivers and to issue medical certificates. FMCSA is 
required to remove from the registry any medical examiner who fails to 
meet or maintain qualifications established by FMCSA. In addition, in 
developing its regulations, FMCSA must consider both the effect of 
driver health on the safety of CMV operations and the effect of such 
operations on driver health, 49 U.S.C. 31136(a).

[[Page 71238]]

Alternatives:


The rulemaking is statutorily mandated. Thus, the Agency must establish 
the National Registry.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We estimated 10 year costs (discounted at 7 percent) at $586,969,000, 
total benefits at $662,130,000, and net benefits over 10 years at 
$75,161,000.


Risks:


FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the risks that might be associated 
with this activity.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Dr. Mary D. Gunnels
Director, Office of Medical Programs
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4001
Email: maggi.gunnels@dot.gov
RIN: 2126-AA97
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FMCSA
93. [rplus]CARRIER SAFETY FITNESS DETERMINATION

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


Section 4009 of TEA-21; 49 USC 31133; 49 USC 31144


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 385


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would revise 49 CFR Part 385, Safety Fitness 
Procedures, in accordance with the Agency's major new initiative, 
Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010. CSA 2010 is a new operational 
model FMCSA plans to implement that is designed to help the Agency 
carry out its compliance and enforcement programs more efficiently and 
effectively. Currently, the safety fitness rating of a motor carrier is 
determined based on the results of a very labor intensive compliance 
review conducted at the carrier's place of business. Aside from 
roadside inspections and new audits, the compliance review is the 
Agency's primary intervention. Under CSA 2010, FMCSA would propose to 
implement a broader array of progressive interventions, some of which 
allow FMCSA to make contact with more carriers. Through this rulemaking 
FMCSA would establish safety fitness determinations based on safety 
data consisting of crashes, inspections, and violation history rather 
than the standard compliance review. This will enable the Agency to 
assess the safety performance of a greater segment of the motor carrier 
industry with the goal of further reducing large truck and bus crashes 
and fatalities.


Statement of Need:


Because of the time and expense associated with the on-site compliance 
review, only a small fraction of carriers (approximately 12,000) 
receive a safety fitness determination (SFD) each year. Since the 
current SFD process is based exclusively on the results of an on site 
compliance review, the great majority of carriers subject to FMCSA 
jurisdiction do not receive a timely determination of their safety 
fitness.


The proposed methodology for determining motor carrier safety fitness 
should correct the deficiencies of the current process. In correcting 
these deficiencies, FMCSA has made a concerted effort to develop a 
``transparent'' method for the SFD that would allow each motor carrier 
to understand fully how FMCSA established that carrier's specific SFD.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rule is based primarily on the authority of 49 U.S.C. 31144, which 
directs the Secretary of Transportation to ``determine whether an owner 
or operator is fit to operate a commercial motor vehicle'' and to 
``maintain by regulation a procedure for determining the safety fitness 
of an owner or operator.'' This statute was first enacted as part of 
the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, Sec.  215, Pub. L. 98-554, 98 
Stat. 2844 (Oct. 30, 1984).


The proposed rule also relies on the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 31133, 
which gives the Secretary ``broad administrative powers to assist in 
the implementation'' of the provisions of the Motor Carrier Safety Act 
now found in chapter 311 of title 49, U.S.C. These powers include, 
among others, authority to conduct inspections and investigations, 
compile statistics, require production of records and property, 
prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements and to perform other 
acts considered appropriate. These powers are used to obtain the data 
used by the Safety Management System and by the proposed new 
methodology for safety fitness determinations.


Under 49 CFR 1.73(g), the Secretary has delegated the authority to 
carry out the functions in subchapters I, III, and IV of chapter 311, 
title 49, U.S.C., to the FMCSA Administrator. Sections 31133 and 31144 
are part of subchapter III of chapter 311.


Alternatives:


The Agency has been considering only two alternatives: the no-action 
alternative and the proposal.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the costs and benefits at this time.


Risks:


FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the risks that might be associated 
with this activity.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

[[Page 71239]]

Agency Contact:
David Miller
Regulatory Development Division
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-5011
Email: david.miller@dot.gov
RIN: 2126-AB11
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FMCSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

94. [rplus]COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE TESTING AND COMMERCIAL LEARNER'S 
PERMIT STANDARDS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


Sec. 703 of PL 109-347; 49 USC 31102 and 31136; PL 105-178, 112 Stat. 
414 (1998); PL 99-570, title XII, 100 Stat. 3207 (1086); Sec. 
4007(a)(1) of PL 102-240, Stat. 1914, 2151; Sec. 4122 of PL 109-59 
(2005)


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 380; 49 CFR 383; 49 CFR 384; 49 CFR 385


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, April 13, 2008, Publish Final Rule by April 13, 2008.


The statutory deadline results from section 703 of the SAFE Port Act 
(enacted October 13, 2006). The Act requires the Agency to implement 
certain statutory provisions within 18 months of enactment.


Abstract:


This rulemaking would establish revisions to the commercial driver's 
license knowledge and skills testing standards as required by section 
4019 of TEA-21, implement fraud detection and prevention initiatives at 
the State driver licensing agencies as required by the SAFE Port Act of 
2006, and establish new minimum Federal standards for States to issue 
commercial learner's permits (CLPs), based in part on the requirements 
of section 4122 of SAFETEA-LU. In addition to ensuring the applicant 
has the appropriate knowledge and skills to operate a commercial motor 
vehicle, this rule would establish the minimum information that must be 
on the CLP document and the electronic driver's record. The rule would 
also establish maximum issuance and renewal periods, establish a 
minimum age limit, address issues related to a driver's State of 
Domicile, and incorporate previous regulatory guidance into the Federal 
regulations. This rule would also address issues raised in the SAFE 
Port Act.


Statement of Need:


This proposed rule would create a Federal requirement for a commercial 
learner's permit (CLP) as a pre-condition for a commercial driver's 
license (CDL) and make a variety of other changes to enhance the CDL 
program. This would help to ensure that drivers who operate CMVs are 
legally licensed to do so and that they do not operate CMVs without 
having passed the requisite tests.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (Pub. L. 99-
570, title XII, 100 Stat. 3207-170; 49 U.S.C. chapter 313); section 
4122 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 
1144, at 1734; 49 U.S.C. 31302, 31308, and 31309); and section 703 of 
the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port 
Act) (Pub. L. 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884, at 1944). It is also based in 
part on the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (MCSA) (Pub. L. 98-554, 
title II, 98 Stat. 2832; 49 U.S.C. 31136, and the safety provisions of 
the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (MCA) (ch. 498, 49 Stat. 543, codified at 
49 U.S.C. 31502).


Alternatives:


There are 17 issues described in this rulemaking document and several 
alternatives were considered for each.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We estimate 10-year costs (discounted at 7%) at $25,836,000, total 
benefits at $95,913,000, and net benefits over 10 years at $70,076,000.


Risks:


FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the risks that might be associated 
with this activity.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/09/08                    73 FR 19282
NPRM Comment Period End         06/09/08
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    06/09/08                    73 FR 32520
Second NPRM Comment 
    Period End                  07/09/08
Final Rule                      09/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State


Federalism:


 This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.


Additional Information:


Docket ID FMCSA-2007-27659


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Robert Redmond
Senior Transportation Specialist
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202-366-5014
Email: robert.redmond@dot.gov
Related RIN: Related to 2126-AB00
RIN: 2126-AB02
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

95. [rplus]EJECTION MITIGATION

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Legal Authority:


49 USC 30111; 49 USC 30115; 49 USC 30117; 49 USC 30166; 49 USC 322; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined

[[Page 71240]]

Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, October 1, 2009, Final Rule.


Abstract:


This rulemaking would create a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) for reducing occupant ejection. Currently, there are 
over 52,000 annual ejections in motor vehicle crashes, and over 10,000 
ejected fatalities per year. This rulemaking would propose new 
requirements for reducing occupant ejection through passenger vehicle 
side widows. The requirement would be an occupant containment 
requirement on the amount of allowable excursion through passenger 
vehicle side windows. The SAFETEA-LU legislation requires that: ``[t]he 
Secretary shall also initiate a rulemaking proceeding to establish 
performance standards to reduce complete and partial ejections of 
vehicle occupants from outboard seating positions. In formulating the 
standards the Secretary shall consider various ejection mitigation 
systems. The Secretary shall issue a final rule under this paragraph no 
later than October 1, 2009.''


Statement of Need:


The agency's annualized injury data from 1997 to 2005 show that there 
are 6,174 fatalities and 5,271 Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) 
3+ non-fatal serious injuries for occupants partially and completely 
ejected through side windows in vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 
rating (GVWR) less than 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.). Sixty-five percent of 
the fatalities and 78 percent of the serious injuries are from 
ejections that involve a rollover as part of the crash event.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 30111, Title 49 of the USC, states that the Secretary shall 
prescribe motor vehicle safety standards. Section 10301 of the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 
for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires the Secretary to issue by October 1, 
2009, an ejection mitigation final rule reducing complete and partial 
ejections of occupants from outboard seating positions.


Alternatives:


The agency is not pursuing any alternatives to reduce side window 
ejections of light vehicle occupants other than establishing FMVSS No. 
226.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The agency is reducing the population of partial and complete side 
window ejections through a series of rulemaking actions. These actions 
included adding a pole impact upgrade to FMVSS No. 214 -- Side Impact 
Protection (72 FR 51908) and promulgating FMVSS No. 126 -- Electronic 
Stability Control Systems (72 FR 17236). We estimate that promulgating 
FMVSS No. 226 will reduce the remaining population of ejection 
fatalities and serious injuries by 406 and 318, respectively. The cost 
per equivalent fatality at a seven percent discount rate is estimated 
to be $2.0 million.


Risks:


The agency believes there are no substantial risks to this rulemaking, 
and that only beneficial outcomes will occur as the industry moves to 
reduce side window ejections of light vehicle occupants.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/09

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.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Louis Molino
Safety Standards Engineer
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202-366-1833
Fax: 202-366-4329
Email: louis.molino@dot.gov
RIN: 2127-AK23
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

96. [rplus]PIPELINE SAFETY: DISTRIBUTION INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


49 USC 5103; 49 USC 60102; 49 USC 60104; 49 USC 60108 to 60110; 49 USC 
60113; 49 USC 60118; 49 CFR 1.53


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 192


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would establish integrity management program 
requirements appropriate for gas distribution pipeline operators. This 
rulemaking would require gas distribution pipeline operators to develop 
and implement programs to better assure the integrity of their pipeline 
systems.


Statement of Need:


This rule is necessary to comply with a Congressional mandate and to 
enhance safety by managing and reducing risks associated with gas 
distribution pipeline systems.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement and Safety Act of 2006 
(Public Law No. 109-468), requires PHMSA to prescribe minimum standards 
for integrity management programs for gas distribution pipelines.


Alternatives:


PHMSA considered the following alternatives:


--No Action: No new requirements would be levied.


--Apply existing gas transmission pipeline IMP regulations to gas 
distribution pipelines.


--Model State legislation by imposing requirements on excavators and 
others outside the regulatory jurisdiction of pipeline safety 
authorities.

[[Page 71241]]

--Develop guidance documents for adoption by states with the intent of 
states mandating use of the guidance.


--Implement prescriptive Federal regulations, specifying in detail, 
actions that must be taken to assure distribution pipeline integrity.


--Implement risk-based, flexible, performance-oriented Federal 
regulations, establishing high-level elements that must be included in 
integrity management programs--the alternative selected.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The monetized benefits resulting from the rulemaking are estimated to 
be $214 million per year. The costs of the rulemaking are estimated to 
be $155.1 million in the first year and $104.1 million in each 
subsequent year.


Risks:


These regulations will require operators to analyze their pipelines, 
including unique situations; identify the factors that affect risk, 
both risk to the pipeline and the risks posed by the pipeline; and 
manage those factors.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/25/08                    73 FR 36015
NPRM Comment Period End         09/23/08
NPRM Extension of Comment 
    Period                      09/12/08                    73 FR 52938
NPRM Extended Comment 
    Period End                  10/23/08
Final Rule                      06/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Docket Nos. PHMSA-04-18938 and PHMSA-04-19854.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Mike Israni
General Engineer
Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4571
Email: mike.israni@dot.gov
RIN: 2137-AE15
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-S

[[Page 71242]]

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (TREAS)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
 The primary missions of the Department of the Treasury are:
<bullet> To promote prosperous and stable American and world economies, 
            including promoting domestic economic growth and 
            maintaining our Nation's leadership in global economic 
            issues, supervising national banks and thrift institutions, 
            and helping to bring residents of distressed communities 
            into the economic mainstream.
<bullet> To manage the Government's finances by protecting the revenue 
            and collecting the correct amount of revenue under the 
            Internal Revenue Code, overseeing customs revenue 
            functions, financing the Federal Government and managing 
            its fiscal operations, and producing our Nation's coins and 
            currency.
<bullet> To safeguard the U.S. and international financial systems from 
            those who would use these systems for illegal purposes or 
            to compromise U.S. national security interests, while 
            keeping them free and open to legitimate users.
 Consistent with these missions, most regulations of the Department and 
its constituent bureaus are promulgated to interpret and implement the 
laws as enacted by the Congress and signed by the President. It is the 
policy of the Department to comply with the requirement to issue a 
notice of proposed rulemaking and carefully consider public comments 
before adopting a final rule. Also, in particular cases, the Department 
invites interested parties to submit views on rulemaking projects while 
a proposed rule is being developed.
 In response to the events of September 11, 2001, the President signed 
the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 into law on October 26, 2001. Since then, 
the Department has accorded the highest priority to developing and 
issuing regulations to implement the provisions in this historic 
legislation that target money laundering and terrorist financing. These 
efforts, which will continue during the coming year, are reflected in 
the regulatory priorities of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 
(FinCEN).
 To the extent permitted by law, it is the policy of the Department to 
adhere to the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in 
Executive Order 12866, and to develop regulations that maximize 
aggregate net benefits to society while minimizing the economic and 
paperwork burdens imposed on persons and businesses subject to those 
regulations.
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
 On October 3, 2008, the President signed the Emergency Economic 
Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) (Pub. L. 110-334). Section 101(a) of 
EESA authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a Troubled 
Assets Relief Program (TARP) to ``purchase, and to make and fund 
commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial 
institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the 
Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and policies and procedures 
developed and published by the Secretary.''
 EESA provides authority to issue regulations and guidance to implement 
the program. Regulations and guidance required by EESA include 
conflicts of interest, executive compensation, and tax guidance. The 
Secretary is also charged with establishing a program that will 
guarantee principal of, and interest on, troubled assets originated or 
issued prior to March 14, 2008.
To date, the Department has issued guidance and regulations and will 
continue to provide program information through the next year. In 
October 2008, the Department issued an interim final rule that set 
forth executive compensation guidelines for the TARP Capital Purchase 
Program (73 FR 62205). Related tax guidance on executive compensation 
was announced in IRS Notice 2008-94. In addition, among other EESA tax 
guidance, the IRS issued interim guidance regarding loss corporation 
and ownership changes in Notice 2008-100, providing that any shares of 
stock owned by the Department of the Treasury under the Capital 
Purchase Program will not be considered to cause Treasury's ownership 
in such corporation to increase. On October 14, 2008, the Department 
released a request for public input on an insurance program for 
troubled assets.
During the remainder of Fiscal Year 2009, the Department will continue 
implementing the EESA authorities to restore capital flows to the 
consumers and businesses that form the core of the nation's economy.
Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Office
 On November 26, 2002, the President signed into law the Terrorism Risk 
Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA). The new law, which was enacted as a 
consequence of the events of September 11, 2001, established a 
temporary Federal reinsurance program under which the Federal 
Government shares the risk of losses associated with certain types of 
terrorist acts with commercial property and casualty insurers. The Act, 
originally scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005, was extended to 
December 31, 2007 by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 
(TRIEA). The Act has since been extended to December 31, 2014, by the 
Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (TRIPRA).
 The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions is 
responsible for developing and promulgating regulations implementing 
TRIA, as extended and amended by TRIEA and TRIPRA. The Terrorism Risk 
Insurance Program Office, which is part of the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Financial Institutions, is responsible for operational 
implementation of TRIA. The purposes of this legislation are to address 
market disruptions, ensure the continued widespread availability and 
affordability of commercial property and casualty insurance for 
terrorism risk, and to allow for a transition period for the private 
markets to stabilize and build capacity while preserving State 
insurance regulation and consumer protections.
 Over the past year, the Office of the Assistant Secretary has issued 
guidance implementing changes authorized by TRIPRA. In addition, the 
following priority regulation projects should be published by December 
31, 2008:
<bullet> Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act 
            Implementation. This interim rule will implement certain 
            aspects of TRIPRA (the Reauthorization Act) including 
            mandatory availability, disclosure requirements, and 
            conforming changes.
<bullet> Recoupments of Federal Share of Compensation for Insured 
            Losses. This proposed rule would implement and establish 
            requirements for determining amounts to be recouped and for 
            procedures insurers are to use for collecting terrorism 
            policy surcharges and remitting them to the Treasury.
<bullet> Cap on Annual Liability and Pro Rata Share of Insured Losses. 
            This

[[Page 71243]]

            proposed rule would establish, for purposes of the $100 
            billion cap on annual liability, how Treasury will 
            determine whether aggregate insured losses will exceed $100 
            billion and, if so, how Treasury will determine the pro 
            rata share of insured losses to be paid by each insurer 
            that incurs insured losses under the Program.
 During 2009, Treasury will continue the ongoing work of implementing 
TRIA and revising operations as a result of the TRIPRA related 
regulation changes.
Customs Revenue Functions
 On November 25, 2002, the President signed the Homeland Security Act 
of 2002 (the Act), establishing the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS). The Act transferred the United States Customs Service from the 
Department of the Treasury to the DHS, where it is was known as the 
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Effective March 31, 
2007, DHS changed the name of the Bureau of Customs and Border 
Protection to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) pursuant to 
section 872(a)(2) of the Act (6 USC 452(a)(2)) in a Federal Register 
notice (72 FR 20131) published on April 23, 2007. Notwithstanding the 
transfer of the Customs Service to DHS, the Act provides that the 
Secretary of the Treasury retains sole legal authority over the customs 
revenue functions. The Act also authorizes the Secretary of the 
Treasury to delegate any of the retained authority over customs revenue 
functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security. By Treasury Department 
Order No. 100-16, the Secretary of the Treasury delegated to the 
Secretary of Homeland Security authority to prescribe regulations 
pertaining to the customs revenue functions. This Order further 
provided that the Secretary of the Treasury retained the sole authority 
to approve any such regulations concerning import quotas or trade bans, 
user fees, marking, labeling, copyright and trademark enforcement, and 
the completion of entry or substance of entry summary including duty 
assessment and collection, classification, valuation, application of 
the U.S. Harmonized Schedules, eligibility or requirements for 
preferential trade programs and the establishment of recordkeeping 
requirements relating thereto.
 During the past fiscal year, among the Treasury- retained CBP customs-
revenue function regulations issued were final rules adopting the 
interim regulations which implemented the preferential trade benefit 
provisions of the United States - Jordan Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act, the United States - Bahrain Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act and the United States - Morocco Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act. CBP also published an interim rule regarding the 
implementation of the preferential tariff treatment and other customs-
related provisions of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United 
States Free Trade Agreement (also known as ``CAFTA-DR''). In addition, 
during the past fiscal year, CBP amended the regulations on an interim 
basis to implement the duty-free provisions of the Haitian Hemispheric 
Opportunity Through Partnership Encouragement Act of 2006 (the ``HOPE 
I'') Act of 2006 which concerned the extension of certain trade 
benefits to Haiti in the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. As a 
result of the changes necessitated by enactment of the Haitian 
Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement (``HOPE II'') 
Act of 2008 which is contained in the recent Food, Conservation and 
Energy Act of 2008 (commonly referred to as the ``Farm Bill'' 
legislation), CBP published in one final rule both the HOPE I Act and 
the HOPE II Act on September 30, 2008, the statutory deadline.
 During this past year, CBP also finalized its interim regulations, 
which established special entry requirements applicable to shipments of 
softwood lumber products from Canada for purposes of monitoring the 
2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement between the Governments of Canada and 
the United States. As a result of the Softwood Lumber Act of 2008, 
which is also part of the recent ``Farm Bill'' legislation, CBP 
published implementing interim regulations which prescribe special 
entry requirements as well as an importer declaration program 
applicable to certain softwood lumber (SWL) and SWL products exported 
from any country into the United States.
During fiscal year 2009, CBP and Treasury plan to give priority to the 
following regulatory matters involving the customs revenue functions 
not delegated to DHS:
<bullet> Trade Act of 2002. Treasury and CBP plan to finalize several 
            interim regulations that implement the trade benefit 
            provisions of the Trade Act of 2002 including the Caribbean 
            Basin Economic Recovery Act and the African Growth and 
            Opportunity Act.
<bullet> Preferential trade benefit provisions. Treasury and CBP also 
            plan to finalize interim regulations this fiscal year to 
            implement the preferential trade benefit provisions of the 
            United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation 
            Act and the Dominican Republic -- Central America -- United 
            States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) Implementation Act.
<bullet> United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Treasury and CBP 
            expect to issue interim regulations implementing the United 
            States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
<bullet> Country of Origin of Textile and Apparel Products. Treasury 
            and CBP also plan to publish a final rule adopting an 
            interim rule that was published on the Country of Origin of 
            Textile and Apparel Products, which implemented the changes 
            brought about, in part, by the expiration of the Agreement 
            on Textile and Clothing and the resulting elimination of 
            quotas on the entry of textile and apparel products from 
            World Trade Organizations (WTO) members.
<bullet> North American Free Trade Agreement country of origin rules. 
            Treasury and CBP plan to finalize a proposal, which was 
            published in July 2008 seeking public comment regarding 
            uniform rules governing the determination of the country of 
            origin of imported merchandise. These uniform rules would 
            extend the application of the North American Free Trade 
            Agreement country of origin rules to all trade if this 
            proposal is finalized.
<bullet> Customs Modernization provisions of the North American Free 
            Trade Implementation Act (Customs Mod Act). Treasury and 
            CBP also plan to continue moving forward with amendments to 
            improve its regulatory procedures began under the authority 
            granted by the Customs Mod Act. These efforts, in 
            accordance with the principles of Executive Order 12866, 
            have involved and will continue to involve significant 
            input from the importing public. CBP will also continue to 
            test new programs to see if they work before proceeding 
            with proposed rulemaking to establish permanently the 
            programs. Consistent with this practice, we expect to 
            finalize a proposal to establish permanently the remote 
            location filing program, which has been a test program 
            under the Customs Mod Act. This rule would allow remote 
            location filing of electronic entries of merchandise from a 
            location other

[[Page 71244]]

            than where the merchandise will arrive.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
 The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (Fund) was 
established by the Community Development Banking and Financial 
Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.). The primary purpose 
of the Fund is to promote economic revitalization and community 
development through the following programs: the Community Development 
Financial Institutions (CDFI) Program, the Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) 
Program, the Native American CDFI Assistance (NACA) Program, and the 
New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) Program.
 In fiscal year (FY) 2009, subject to funding availability, the Fund 
will provide the following financial assistance awards and technical 
assistance grants through the CDFI Program.
<bullet> Native American CDFI Assistance (NACA) Program. Through the 
            NACA Program, subject to funding availability, the Fund 
            will provide technical assistance grants and financial 
            assistance awards to promote the development of CDFIs that 
            serve Native American, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian 
            communities. In FY 2009, the Fund expects to revise the 
            CDFI Program regulations to include certain programmatic 
            policy changes and application processing streamlining 
            efforts.
<bullet> Bank Enterprise Award (BEA). Subject to funding availability 
            for the BEA Program, the Fund will provide financial 
            incentives to encourage insured depository institutions to 
            engage in eligible development activities and to make 
            equity investments in CDFIs. In FY 2009, the Fund expects 
            to revise the BEA Program regulations to include certain 
            new programmatic policy changes and application processing 
            streamlining efforts.
<bullet> New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC). Through the NMTC Program, the 
            CDFI Fund will provide allocations of tax credits to 
            qualified community development entities (CDEs). The CDEs 
            in turn provide tax credits to private sector investors in 
            exchange for their investment dollars; investment proceeds 
            received by the CDEs are be used to make loans and equity 
            investments in low-income communities. The Fund administers 
            the NMTC Program in coordination with the Office of Tax 
            Policy and the Internal Revenue Service.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
As chief administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), FinCEN's 
regulations constitute the core of the Department's anti-money 
laundering and counter terrorism financing programmatic efforts. 
FinCEN's responsibilities and objectives are linked to, and flow from, 
that role. In fulfilling this role, FinCEN seeks to enhance U.S. 
national security by making the financial system increasingly resistant 
to abuse by money launderers, terrorists and their financial 
supporters, and other perpetrators of crime.
 The Secretary of the Treasury, through FinCEN, is authorized by the 
BSA to issue regulations requiring financial institutions to file 
reports and keep records that are determined to have a high degree of 
usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters, or in the conduct 
of intelligence or counter-intelligence activities to protect against 
international terrorism. Those regulations also require designated 
financial institutions to establish anti-money laundering programs and 
compliance procedures. To implement and realize its mission, FinCEN has 
established regulatory objectives and priorities to safeguard the 
financial system from the abuses of financial crime, including 
terrorist financing, money laundering, and other illicit activity. 
These objectives and priorities include: (1) issuing, interpreting, and 
enforcing compliance with regulations implementing the BSA; (2) 
supporting, working with, and, as appropriate, overseeing compliance 
examination functions delegated to other Federal regulators; (3) 
managing the collection, processing, storage, and dissemination of data 
related to the BSA; (4) maintaining a Government-wide access service to 
that same data, and for network users with overlapping interests; (5) 
conducting analysis in support of policymakers, law enforcement, 
regulatory and intelligence agencies, and the financial sector; and (6) 
coordinating with and collaborating on anti-terrorism and anti-money 
laundering initiatives with domestic law enforcement and intelligence 
agencies, as well as foreign financial intelligence units.
 During fiscal year 2008, FinCEN issued the following final rules: a 
final rule updating the list of financial institutions exempt from 
establishing anti-money laundering programs to reflect previous actions 
with regard to mutual funds and insurance companies; withdrawals of the 
proposed rulemakings against one jurisdiction and one foreign financial 
institution deemed to be of primary money laundering concern pursuant 
to section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act; and a renewal of a rule without 
change imposing special measures against a foreign financial 
institution deemed to be of primary money laundering concern pursuant 
to section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act. FinCEN issued 10 Administrative 
Rulings and 10 written guidance pieces (as of August 2008) interpreting 
the BSA and providing clarity to regulated industries.
In addition, FinCEN has been working on the following initiatives that 
should be issued in September 2008, or (if not) prior to December 31, 
2008:
<bullet> Currency Transaction Reporting Exemptions. FinCEN published a 
            notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register on 
            April 23, 2008 that would simplify the existing currency 
            transaction reporting exemption regulatory requirements. 
            The amendments were recommended by the Government 
            Accountability Office in GAO-08-355. By simplifying the 
            regulatory requirements regarding CTR exemptions, FinCEN 
            believes that more depository institutions will avail 
            themselves of the exemptions. FinCEN intends to finalize 
            the notice of proposed rulemaking prior to September 30, 
            2008.
<bullet> Reorganization of BSA Rules. As part of Secretary Paulson's 
            BSA Effectiveness and Efficiency initiative, FinCEN is 
            proposing to re-designate and reorganize the BSA 
            regulations in a new chapter within the Code of Federal 
            Regulations. The re-designation and reorganization of the 
            regulations in a new chapter is not intended to alter 
            regulatory requirements. The regulations will be organized 
            in a more consistent and intuitive structure that more 
            easily allows financial institutions to identify their 
            specific regulatory requirements under the BSA. The new 
            chapter will replace 31 CFR Part 103. FinCEN intends to 
            issue the proposal prior to December 31, 2008.
<bullet> Money Services Businesses. Also as part of Secretary Paulson's 
            BSA Effectiveness and Efficiency initiative, FinCEN intends 
            to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking addressing 
            definitional thresholds for Money

[[Page 71245]]

            Services Businesses (MSBs), incorporating previously issued 
            Administrative Rules and guidance with regard to MSBs, and 
            addressing the issue of foreign-located MSBs. In addition, 
            FinCEN intends to issue an advance notice of proposed 
            rulemaking concerning MSB agents. FinCEN intends to issue 
            the proposal and advance notice prior to December 31, 2008.
<bullet> Confidentiality of Suspicious Activity Reports. FinCEN intends 
            to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking clarifying the 
            non-disclosure provisions with respect to the existing 
            regulations pertaining to the confidentiality of suspicious 
            activity reports. FinCEN intends to issue the proposal 
            prior to December 31, 2008.
<bullet> Mutual Funds. FinCEN intends to issue a notice of proposed 
            rulemaking addressing the definition of financial 
            institution in the BSA's implementing regulations to 
            include open-end investment companies (mutual funds). 
            Despite the fact that mutual funds are already required to 
            comply with anti-money laundering and customer 
            identification program requirements, file Suspicious 
            Activity Reports, comply with due diligence obligations 
            pursuant to rules implementing section 312 of the USA 
            PATRIOT Act, and perform other BSA compliance functions, a 
            mutual fund is not designated as a `financial institution' 
            under the BSA implementing regulations. The proposed rule 
            would address obligations to file Currency Transaction 
            Reports for cash transactions over $10,000 vis-[agrave]-vis 
            obligations to file Form 8300s. FinCEN intends to issue the 
            proposal prior to December 31, 2008.
<bullet> Withdrawal of Proposed Rules. FinCEN plans to withdraw the 
            proposed rules (issued in 2002 and 2003) for investment 
            advisers, commodity trading advisors, and unregistered 
            investment companies. Withdrawing the proposed rules will 
            eliminate uncertainty associated with the existence of out-
            of-date proposed rules. It will also allow FinCEN to issue 
            new notices of proposed rulemaking at a later date that 
            take into account industry regulatory developments with 
            respect to investment advisers, commodity trading advisors, 
            and unregistered investment companies since 2003. FinCEN 
            intends to withdraw the proposals prior to December 31, 
            2008.
 FinCEN's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2009 include concluding 
any of the initiatives mentioned above that are not concluded as of 
September 30, 2008, as well as the following projects:
<bullet> Anti-Money Laundering Programs. Pursuant to section 352 of the 
            USA PATRIOT Act, certain financial institutions are 
            required to establish anti-money laundering programs. 
            FinCEN will propose rulemaking to require state-chartered 
            credit unions and other depository institutions without a 
            federal functional regulator to implement anti-money 
            laundering programs. FinCEN expects to finalize the anti-
            money laundering program rule for dealers in precious 
            metals, precious stones, or jewels. FinCEN will continue to 
            research and analyze issues regarding potential regulation 
            of the loan and finance industry (including pawnbrokers). 
            Finally, FinCEN also will continue to consider regulatory 
            options regarding certain corporate and trust service 
            providers.
<bullet> Regulatory Framework for Stored Value. FinCEN will evaluate 
            the current regulatory framework for stored value to take 
            into consideration the development and use of these 
            products, which has grown significantly over the last 10 
            years. Currently, issuers, sellers, and redeemers of stored 
            value are subject to a less comprehensive BSA/AML regime 
            than are other actors falling within the scope of FinCEN's 
            regulations. Suspicious activity is not reported and the 
            lack of transparency inherent in many products makes it 
            difficult to assess the money laundering risks and abuses. 
            FinCEN will explore options to address the existing 
            vulnerabilities without impeding continued development of 
            the industry and without imposing competitive 
            disadvantages.
 Other Requirements. FinCEN will consider the need for regulatory 
action in conjunction with the feasibility study prepared pursuant to 
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 concerning 
the issue of obtaining information about certain cross-border funds 
transfers and transmittals of funds. FinCEN also will continue to issue 
proposed and final rules pursuant to Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT 
Act, as appropriate. Finally, FinCEN expects to propose various 
technical and other regulatory amendments in conjunction with its 
ongoing, comprehensive review of existing regulations to enhance 
regulatory efficiency.
Internal Revenue Service
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), working with the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary (Tax Policy), promulgates regulations that 
interpret and implement the Internal Revenue Code and related tax 
statutes. The purpose of these regulations is to carry out the tax 
policy determined by Congress in a fair, impartial, and reasonable 
manner, taking into account the intent of Congress, the realities of 
relevant transactions, the need for the Government to administer the 
rules and monitor compliance, and the overall integrity of the Federal 
tax system. The goal is to make the regulations practical and as clear 
and simple as possible.
 Most Internal Revenue Service regulations interpret tax statutes to 
resolve ambiguities or fill gaps in the tax statutes. This includes 
interpreting particular words, applying rules to broad classes of 
circumstances, and resolving apparent and potential conflicts between 
various statutory provisions.
 During fiscal year 2009, the Internal Revenue Service will accord 
priority to the following regulatory projects:
<bullet> Unified Rule for Loss on Subsidiary Stock. Prior to the 
            opinion in Rite Aid Corp. v. United States, 255 F.3d 1357 
            (2001), Treas. Reg. Sec.  1.1502-20 (the loss disallowance 
            rule or LDR) addressed both noneconomic and duplicated loss 
            on subsidiary stock by members of consolidated groups. In 
            Rite Aid, the Federal Circuit rejected the validity of the 
            duplicated loss component of the LDR. Following Rite Aid, 
            the IRS and Treasury issued temporary regulations, Treas. 
            Reg. Sec. Sec.  1.337(d)-2T (to address noneconomic loss on 
            subsidiary stock) and 1.1502-35T (to address loss 
            duplication within consolidated groups). The regulations 
            were promulgated as an interim measure to address both 
            concerns while a broader study of the issues was conducted. 
            Both regulations were finalized, but the preamble to each 
            regulation alerted taxpayers of the ongoing nature of the 
            study and the intent to propose a new approach to both 
            issues. In January 2007, the IRS and Treasury proposed 
            regulations that addressed noneconomic and duplicated stock 
            loss, as well as certain related issues presented by the 
            investment adjustment system. During fiscal year 2009, the 
            IRS and Treasury intend to finalize those regulations.
<bullet> Issue Price and Treatment of Qualified Hedges for a Tax-Exempt

[[Page 71246]]

            Bond Issue. The arbitrage rules under section 148 generally 
            prohibit issuers of tax-exempt bonds from investing the 
            proceeds of those bonds in investments with a yield that is 
            materially higher than the bond yield. The yield on the 
            bonds is calculated using the issue price of the bonds, 
            which, in the case of publicly offered bonds, is based upon 
            the amount received from the sale of the bonds to the 
            public. Questions have arisen regarding the definition of 
            issue price, including whether sales to certain parties are 
            sales to the public for this purpose. The issue price 
            definition broadly affects all issuers of tax-exempt bonds. 
            Further, issuers often enter into qualified hedges, the 
            payments for and receipts from which are integrated with 
            the payments for and receipts from the bonds in calculating 
            the bond yield. Due to the restructuring or refunding of 
            auction rate bonds, many of these hedges have been 
            terminated or deemed to be terminated. The industry is 
            uncertain as to how the arbitrage rules under section 148 
            apply to these terminations. During fiscal year 2009, the 
            IRS and Treasury intend to issue proposed regulations to 
            clarify the definition of issue price, to clarify the 
            treatment of hedge terminations under the qualified hedging 
            rules, and to clarify and simplify selected other aspects 
            of the arbitrage regulations.
<bullet> Financial Instruments and Products. In February 2004, the IRS 
            and Treasury issued proposed regulations regarding (i) the 
            timing of income or deduction of contingent nonperiodic 
            payments on notional principal contracts, and (ii) the 
            character of payments made pursuant to notional principal 
            contracts and other financial transactions. In July 2004, 
            the IRS and Treasury released Notice 2004-52, requesting 
            comments and information with respect to transactions 
            frequently referred to as credit default swaps. On December 
            7, 2007, the IRS and Treasury released Notice 2008-2, 
            requesting comments and information with respect to 
            transactions frequently referred to as prepaid forward 
            contracts. The IRS and Treasury intend to finalize the 
            regulations proposed in 2004 and issue other guidance 
            relating to credit default swaps and prepaid forward 
            contracts, in light of comments received.
<bullet> Deduction and Capitalization of Costs for Tangible Assets. 
            Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code allows a current 
            deduction for ordinary and necessary expenses paid or 
            incurred in carrying on any trade or business. Under 
            section 263(a) of the Code, no immediate deduction is 
            allowed for amounts paid out for new buildings or for 
            permanent improvements or betterments made to increase the 
            value of any property or estate. Those expenditures are 
            capital expenditures that generally may be recovered only 
            in future taxable years, as the property is used in the 
            taxpayer's trade or business. It often is not clear whether 
            an amount paid to acquire, produce, or improve property is 
            a deductible expense or a capital expenditure. Although 
            existing regulations provide that a deductible repair 
            expense is an expenditure that does not materially add to 
            the value of the property or appreciably prolong its life, 
            the IRS and Treasury believe that additional clarification 
            is needed to reduce uncertainty and controversy in this 
            area. In August 2006, the IRS and Treasury issued proposed 
            regulations in this area and received numerous comments. In 
            March 2008, the IRS and Treasury withdrew the 2006 proposed 
            regulations and issued new proposed regulations, which have 
            generated relatively few comments. In fiscal year 2009, the 
            IRS and Treasury intend to finalize those regulations.
<bullet> Transfer Pricing Initiatives. In August 2005, the IRS and 
            Treasury issued proposed regulations providing guidance on 
            ``cost sharing arrangements,'' where related parties agree 
            to share the costs and risks of intangible development in 
            proportion to their reasonable expectations of their share 
            of anticipated benefits from their separate exploitation of 
            the developed intangibles. The proposed regulations are 
            designed to prevent abuses possible under the existing 
            rules, and to ensure that Congressional intent underlying 
            section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code is fulfilled by 
            requiring that cost sharing arrangements between controlled 
            taxpayers produce results consistent with the arm's length 
            standard. In August 2006, the IRS and Treasury issued 
            temporary regulations that provide guidance regarding the 
            treatment of controlled services transactions under section 
            482 and the allocation of income from intangibles, in 
            particular with respect to contributions by a controlled 
            party to the value of an intangible owned by another 
            controlled party. The regulations provide much-needed 
            guidance on the transfer pricing methods to determine the 
            arm's length price in a services transaction, including a 
            new method that allows routine back-office services to be 
            charged at cost with no markup. As part of a continuing 
            effort to modernize the transfer pricing rules to keep them 
            current with changing business practices, the IRS and 
            Treasury intend to finalize both the cost-sharing and 
            services regulations during fiscal year 2009. The IRS and 
            Treasury also intend to issue proposed regulations 
            addressing the source and allocation of income and expense 
            related to the operation of a global dealing operation.
<bullet> Foreign Tax Credit. In April 2006, the IRS and Treasury issued 
            temporary regulations addressing the elimination of the 
            separate foreign tax credit category for so-called 10-50 
            companies. In August 2006, the IRS and Treasury issued 
            proposed regulations to clarify who is considered to pay 
            foreign tax for purposes of determining the foreign tax 
            credit. On July 16, 2008, the IRS and Treasury issued 
            temporary regulations relating to the determination of the 
            amount of taxes paid for purposes of the foreign tax 
            credit. The IRS and Treasury intend to finalize all of 
            these regulations during fiscal year 2009. In addition, the 
            IRS and Treasury intend to continue issuing regulations and 
            other guidance implementing provisions of the American Jobs 
            Creation Act, including section 901(l), which relates to 
            minimum withholding taxes on gain and income other than 
            dividends.
<bullet> Subpart F Anti-deferral Regime Initiatives. On February 27, 
            2008, the IRS and Treasury issued proposed regulations that 
            addressed the use of contract manufacturing arrangements 
            under the foreign base company sales income rules. The 
            proposed regulations would update regulations that have 
            been in effect since 1964, a time when the subpart F issues 
            raised by cross-border manufacturing were significantly 
            different than they are today. The IRS and Treasury intend 
            to finalize these regulations during fiscal year 2009. In 
            January 2007, the IRS and Treasury issued Notice 2007-13, 
            which announced that the IRS and Treasury will amend the 
            foreign base company services rules to limit the definition 
            of substantial assistance. During fiscal year 2009, the IRS 
            and Treasury intend to issue proposed regulations that will 
            limit the definition of substantial assistance, and 
            therefore limit the instances in

[[Page 71247]]

            which foreign base company services income may result.
<bullet> Classification of Series LLCs and Cell Companies. Series LLCs 
            were first introduced in Delaware in 1996, and since then, 
            series LLC statutes have been adopted in several other 
            states. In the insurance and foreign arena, similar 
            entities are sometimes referred to as cell companies. In 
            Notice 2008-19, the Service requested comments on when a 
            cell of a protected cell company should be treated as an 
            insurance company for federal income tax purposes. The 
            Service also requested comments on similar segregated 
            arrangements, such as series LLCs, that do not involve 
            insurance. It is likely that, over time, the use of series 
            LLCs and cell companies will increase. Accordingly, it is 
            important to provide timely guidance to clarify the 
            classification and other tax treatment of this new form of 
            organization. The use of series LLCs and cell companies may 
            facilitate the capital markets by providing more efficient 
            methods of formation and operation. The industry has 
            requested guidance on the federal tax classification of 
            these domestic and foreign entities. During fiscal year 
            2009, the IRS and Treasury intend to issue regulations 
            under section 7701 that will address whether these domestic 
            and foreign entities are single or multiple entities for 
            federal tax purposes.
<bullet> Understatement of Taxpayer's Liability by Tax Return Preparer. 
            The Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act of 2007 
            amended the tax return preparer penalty under section 6694 
            of the Internal Revenue Code to include preparers of estate 
            and gift tax returns, employment tax returns, excise tax 
            returns, and returns of exempt organizations. The standard 
            of conduct under section 6694(a) for underpayments due to 
            unreasonable positions taken on tax returns was also 
            amended in two ways. First, for undisclosed positions, the 
            realistic possibility standard was replaced with a 
            requirement that there be a reasonable belief that the tax 
            treatment of a position taken on a tax return would more 
            likely than not be sustained on its merits. Second, for 
            disclosed positions, the not frivolous standard was 
            replaced with a requirement that there be a reasonable 
            basis for the tax treatment of a position taken on a tax 
            return. Finally, the penalty amounts under both section 
            6694(a) and 6694(b), relating to understatements due to 
            willful or reckless conduct, were increased. The amendments 
            to section 6694 were effective for tax returns prepared 
            after May 25, 2007. In June 2007, the IRS and Treasury 
            issued Notice 2007-54, which provided transitional relief 
            relating to the standard of conduct under section 6694(a). 
            Additional guidance relating to the tax return preparer 
            penalty, as amended, was provided in Notice 2008-11, Notice 
            2008-13 and Notice 2008-46. Proposed regulations were 
            published in June 2008. During fiscal year 2009, the IRS 
            and Treasury intend to finalize those regulations.
<bullet> Withholding on Government Payments for Property and Services. 
            Section 3402(t) was added to the Internal Revenue Code by 
            the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 
            (TIPRA). Section 3402(t) requires all Federal, State and 
            local Government entities (except for certain small State 
            entities) to deduct and withhold an income tax equal to 3 
            percent from all payments (with certain enumerated 
            exceptions) the Government entity makes for property or 
            services. Section 3402(t) is effective for payments made 
            after December 31, 2010. On March 11, 2008, the Service 
            issued Notice 2008-38 soliciting public comments regarding 
            guidance to be provided to Federal, State and local 
            governments required to withhold under section 3402(t). 
            Many entities and vendors impacted by this provision 
            requested guidance on the scope of the provision both as to 
            the types of payments on which withholding is required and 
            as to the impact on payees. Many governmental entities 
            requested guidance describing the measures they must take 
            to comply with the requirements for withholding and 
            reporting. During fiscal year 2009, the IRS and Treasury 
            Department intend to issue proposed regulations under 
            section 3402(t) describing the scope of the provision and 
            steps required for compliance, as well as the method of 
            depositing the withheld tax and reporting the amount of the 
            payments and withheld tax to the IRS and to the payees.
<bullet> Rules under the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Significant 
            new rules regarding the funding of qualified defined 
            benefit pension plans were enacted as part of the Pension 
            Protection Act of 2006 (PPA). The IRS and Treasury 
            Department prioritized the various pieces of guidance 
            required to comply with those rules and issued several 
            proposed regulations during fiscal year 2008. During fiscal 
            year 2009, the IRS and Treasury Department intend to 
            finalize those proposed regulations. Specifically, these 
            final regulations will include rules related to the 
            measurement of assets and liabilities and the determination 
            of the minimum required contributions under new section 430 
            of the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS and Treasury 
            Department also intend to issue final regulations on the 
            provisions of the PPA related to automatic enrollment in 
            salary deferral plans.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) was created by 
Congress to charter national banks, to oversee a nationwide system of 
banking institutions, and to assure that national banks are safe and 
sound, competitive and profitable, and capable of serving in the best 
possible manner the banking needs of their customers.
 The OCC seeks to assure a banking system in which national banks 
soundly manage their risks, maintain the ability to compete effectively 
with other providers of financial services, meet the needs of their 
communities for credit and financial services, comply with laws and 
regulations, and provide fair access to financial services and fair 
treatment of their customers.
 The OCC's regulatory program furthers these goals. For example, 
pursuant to the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1996 (EGRPRA), the OCC, together with the Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the 
Office of Thrift Supervision, and the National Credit Union 
Administration (the agencies), conducted a review of its regulations to 
identify opportunities to streamline regulations and reduce unnecessary 
regulatory burden. The agencies' review included: (1) issuing six 
notices, published in the Federal Register, that solicit comment from 
the industries they regulate and the public on ways to reduce 
regulatory burden with respect to specific categories of regulations; 
and (2) conducting outreach meetings with bankers and consumer groups 
in cities across the country for the same purpose. The agencies have 
fulfilled the statutory requirement to publish all categories of their 
regulations for public comment. They also completed the summary of the 
comments and recommendations

[[Page 71248]]

received, as the statute requires. The final report was published in 
the Federal Register and submitted it to Congress on November 1, 2007. 
62 FR 62036 (November 1, 2007).
 Significant rules issued during fiscal year 2008 include:
<bullet> Risk-Based Capital Guidelines: Implementation of New Basel 
            Capital Accord (Basel II) (12 CFR Part 3). The OCC, the 
            Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the 
            Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of 
            Thrift Supervision (the banking agencies) issued a final 
            rule based on the International Convergence of Capital 
            Measurement and Capital Standards: A Revised Framework. The 
            new capital adequacy standards, commonly known as Basel II, 
            were published on December 7, 2007 at 72 FR 69288. In 
            particular, the rule described significant elements of the 
            Advanced Internal Ratings-Based approach for credit risk 
            and the Advanced Measurement Approaches for operational 
            risk (together, the advanced approaches). The rule 
            specified criteria that a banking organization must meet to 
            use the advanced approaches. Under the advanced approaches, 
            a banking organization would use internal estimates of 
            certain risk components as key inputs in the determination 
            of its regulatory capital requirements.
<bullet> Risk-Based Capital Guidelines; Capital Adequacy Guidelines; 
            Capital Maintenance: Basel II Standardized Approach (12 CFR 
            Part 3). As part of the banking agencies' ongoing efforts 
            to develop and refine the capital standards to enhance 
            their risk sensitivity and ensure the safety and soundness 
            of the banking system, they issued a notice of proposed 
            rulemaking to amend various provisions of the capital rules 
            on July 29, 2008, at 73 FR 43982. The changes involve 
            amending the current capital rules for those banks that 
            will not be subject to the advanced internal ratings-based 
            approaches. The OCC has included this rulemaking project in 
            the Regulatory Plan (1557-AD07).
<bullet> Lending Limits (12 CFR Part 32). In FY 2008, the OCC issued an 
            interim final rule with request for comment on March 20, 
            2008 (73 FR 14922), providing that, with the written 
            approval of the OCC, a national bank may make loans and 
            extensions of credit pursuant to a special temporary 
            lending limit established by the OCC. Use of such a lending 
            limit will be approved only when the OCC determines that it 
            is necessary to address an emergency situation, such as 
            critical financial markets stability, and where the loans 
            and extensions of credit will be of short duration, will be 
            reduced in amount in a timeframe and manner acceptable to 
            the OCC, and will not present unacceptable risk to the 
            lending national bank. In connection with the establishment 
            of a special temporary lending limit, the OCC will impose 
            supervisory oversight and reporting conditions that it 
            determines are appropriate to monitor compliance with the 
            standards contained in the interim final rule.
<bullet> Identity Theft Red Flags and Address Discrepancies (12 CFR 
            Parts 30 and 41). The agencies and Federal Trade Commission 
            issued final rules and guidelines to implement section 114 
            and final rules to implement 315 of the Fair and Accurate 
            Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act). The final rules 
            implementing section 114 require financial institutions and 
            creditors to develop and implement a written Identity Theft 
            Prevention Program to detect, prevent, and mitigate 
            identity theft in connection with the opening of certain 
            accounts and certain existing accounts. The rules contain a 
            separate provision for issuers of credit and debit cards 
            requiring that they develop and implement policies and 
            procedures to validate address changes when card holders 
            request an additional or replacement card shortly after 
            sending the issuer a notice of change of address. 
            Guidelines were also issued elaborating on these rules that 
            financial institutions and creditors must consider and 
            adopt if appropriate. The guidelines include a list of 26 
            examples of patterns, practices, and forms of activity that 
            indicate the possible existence of identity theft (``red 
            flags''). Rules were also issued implementing section 315 
            regarding reasonable policies and procedures that a user of 
            consumer reports must employ when the user receives a 
            notice of address discrepancy from a consumer reporting 
            agency informing the user of a substantial discrepancy 
            between the address for the consumer that the user provided 
            to request the consumer report and the address(es) in the 
            file for the consumer. The rules and guidelines were issued 
            on November 9, 2007 (72 FR 63718).
<bullet> Fair Credit Reporting; Affiliate Marketing Regulations (12 CFR 
            Part 41). On November 7, 2007 (72 FR 62910), the agencies 
            issued a final rule to implement the affiliate marketing 
            provisions of section 214 of the FACT Act. The final rule 
            implements the consumer notice and opt-out provisions of 
            the FACT Act regarding the sharing of consumer information 
            among affiliates for making solicitations for marketing 
            purposes.
<bullet> Regulatory Burden Reduction and Technical Amendments (12 CFR 
            Chapter I). The OCC issued a final rule to further the goal 
            of reducing regulatory burden for national banks. (73 FR 
            22216). The changes relieve burden by eliminating or 
            streamlining existing requirements or procedures, enhancing 
            national banks' flexibility in conducting authorized 
            activities, eliminating uncertainty by harmonizing a rule 
            with other OCC regulations or with the rules of another 
            agency, or by making technical revisions to update OCC 
            rules to reflect changes in the law or in other 
            regulations. In a few cases, revisions also add or enhance 
            requirements for safety and soundness reasons.
 The OCC's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2009 include the 
following:
<bullet> Fair Credit Reporting, Accuracy and Integrity of Information 
            Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies (12 CFR Part 41). 
            The agencies and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC) plan 
            to issue a joint final rule to implement section 312 of the 
            FACT Act. Section 312 requires the issuance of guidelines 
            regarding the accuracy and integrity of information 
            entities furnish to a consumer reporting agency. Section 
            312 also requires the agencies and the FTC to issue 
            regulations requiring entities that furnish information to 
            a consumer reporting agency to establish reasonable 
            policies and procedures for the implementation of the 
            guidelines. In addition, section 312 requires the agencies 
            and the FTC to jointly prescribe regulations that identify 
            the circumstances under which a furnisher of information to 
            a consumer reporting agency shall be required to 
            investigate a dispute concerning the accuracy of 
            information contained in a consumer report on the consumer 
            based on the consumer's direct request to the furnisher. A 
            notice of proposed rulemaking was issued on December 13, 
            2007 (72 FR 70944).

[[Page 71249]]

<bullet> Risk-Based Capital Standards: Market Risk (12 CFR Part 3). The 
            banking agencies plan to issue a second notice of proposed 
            rulemaking to amend the market risk capital requirements 
            for national banks. The banking agencies issued a notice of 
            proposed rulemaking on September 25, 2006 (71 FR 55958). 
            The rule would make the current market risk capital 
            requirements generally more risk sensitive with respect to 
            the capital treatment of trading activities in banks and 
            bank holding companies.
<bullet> Interagency Proposal for Model Privacy Form under Gramm-Leach-
            Bliley Act (GLB Act) (12 CFR Part 40). The agencies, along 
            with the Federal Trade Commission, the Commodity Futures 
            Trading Commission, and the Securities and Exchange 
            Commission, issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking 
            pursuant to section 728 of the Financial Services 
            Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-351) on March 
            29, 2007 (72 FR 14940). Specifically, a safe harbor model 
            privacy form was proposed that financial institutions may 
            use to provide the disclosures under the privacy rules. 
            Work on a final rule is now underway.
<bullet> Recordkeeping Requirements for Bank Exceptions from Securities 
            Broker or Dealer Registration. The banking agencies plan to 
            issue this rulemaking to implement section 204 of the GLB 
            Act. Section 204 directs the banking agencies to establish 
            recordkeeping requirements for banks relying on exceptions 
            to the definitions of ``broker'' and ``dealer'' contained 
            in paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 3(a) of the Securities 
            Exchange Act of 1934. Pursuant to section 101 of the 
            Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006, the SEC 
            and the FRB jointly published final rules to implement the 
            ``broker'' provisions of the GLB Act on October 3, 2007. 
            The rulemaking to implement section 204 of the GLB Act 
            commenced upon the adoption of a final rule by the SEC and 
            the FRB.
Office of Thrift Supervision
 As the primary Federal regulator of the thrift industry, the Office of 
Thrift Supervision (OTS) has established regulatory objectives and 
priorities to supervise thrift institutions effectively and 
efficiently. These objectives include maintaining and enhancing the 
safety and soundness of the thrift industry; a flexible, responsive 
regulatory structure that enables savings associations to provide 
credit and other financial services to their communities, particularly 
housing mortgage credit; and a risk-focused, timely approach to 
supervision.
 OTS, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), and the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (collectively, the banking agencies) 
continue to work together on regulations where they share the 
responsibility to implement statutory requirements. For example, the 
banking agencies are working jointly on several rules to update capital 
standards to maintain and improve consistency in agency rules. These 
rules implement revisions to the International Convergence of Capital 
Management and Capital Standards: A Revised Framework (Basel II 
Framework) and include:
<bullet> Risk-Based Capital Guidelines: Implementation of Revised Basel 
            Capital Accord. The final Basel II rule was published by 
            the U.S. Banking Agencies on December 7, 2007 and effective 
            April 1, 2008. The OTS, in conjunction with the other 
            federal banking agencies, is working on implementing issues 
            supporting this extremely complex risk-based capital rule. 
            The banking agencies issued related proposed guidance on 
            credit risk and operation risk (72 FR 9084; Feb. 2, 2007). 
            The banking agencies will issue final guidance in fiscal 
            year (FY) 2009.
<bullet> Risk-Based Capital Standards: Market Risk. On September 25, 
            2006, the Agencies issued an NPRM on Market Risk. In this 
            rule, OTS proposed to require savings associations to 
            measure and hold capital to cover their exposure to market 
            risk. The other banking agencies proposed to revise their 
            existing market risk capital rules to implement changes to 
            the market risk treatment contained in Basel II Framework. 
            These changes would enhance risk sensitivity of the 
            existing market risk capital rules and introduce 
            requirements for public disclosure of certain information 
            about market risk (71 FR 55958; Sept. 25, 2006). The 
            banking agencies will issue final market risk rules in FY 
            2009.
<bullet> Risk-Based Capital Standards: Standardized Approach. The 
            banking agencies issued an NPRM implementing the 
            Standardized Approach to credit risk and approaches to 
            operational risk that are contained in the Basel II 
            Framework. 73 FR 43982 (July 29, 2008). Banking 
            organizations would be able to elect to adopt these 
            proposed revisions or remain subject to the agencies' 
            existing risk-based capital rules, unless the banking 
            organization uses the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework 
            described above. This NPRM replaces the NPRM on Domestic 
            Capital Modifications, which was published at 71 FR 77446 
            on Dec. 26, 2006.
 Significant final rules issued during fiscal year 2008 include:
<bullet> Prohibited Service at Savings and Loan Holding Companies. This 
            interim final rule implemented new section 19(e) of the 
            Federal Deposit Insurance Act, which prohibits any person 
            who has been convicted of a criminal offense involving 
            dishonesty, breach of trust, or money laundering (or has 
            agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar 
            program in connection with a prosecution for such an 
            offense) from holding certain positions with respect to a 
            savings and loan holding company. The interim final rule 
            incorporated the statutory restrictions, prescribed 
            procedures for applying for an OTS order granting case-by-
            case exemptions from the restrictions, and included two 
            regulatory exemptions from the restrictions (72 FR 29548; 
            May 8, 2007). OTS expects to finalize the interim rule in 
            FY 2009.
 OTS anticipates implementing the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions 
Act of 2003 (FACT Act) as follows:
<bullet> Fair Credit Reporting -- Accuracy & Integrity of Information 
            Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies. The banking 
            agencies, NCUA, and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) plan to 
            issue a joint proposed rule and joint final rule to 
            implement section 312 of the FACT Act. Section 312 requires 
            the agencies to consult and coordinate with each other in 
            order to issue consistent and comparable regulations 
            requiring persons that furnish information to a consumer 
            reporting agency to establish reasonable policies and 
            procedures for the implementation of the agencies' 
            guidelines regarding the accuracy and integrity of 
            information relating to consumers. In addition, the 
            agencies are to jointly prescribe regulations that identify 
            the circumstances under which a furnisher of information to 
            a consumer reporting agency shall be required to 
            reinvestigate a dispute the accuracy of information 
            contained in a consumer report based on the consumer's 
            direct request to the

[[Page 71250]]

            furnisher. The agencies published an Advance Notice of 
            Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on March 22, 2006, at 71 FR 
            14419.
Under the authority of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act:
<bullet> OTS, FRB and NCUA proposed to prohibit certain unfair or 
            deceptive acts or practices in the areas of credit cards 
            and overdrafts at 73 FR 28904 (May 19, 2008).
OTS anticipates implementing section 728 of the Financial Services 
Regulatory Relief Act by amending its privacy rules under the Gramm-
Leach-Bliley Act to include a safe harbor model privacy form. The 
banking agencies, NCUA, FTC, Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
(FTC), and SEC published a proposed rule on March 29, 2007.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issues regulations 
to enforce the Federal laws relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and 
ammunition taxes and relating to commerce involving alcohol beverages. 
TTB's mission and regulations are designed to:
1) Regulate with regard to permits to operate in the alcohol and 
            tobacco industries;
2) Assure the collection of all alcohol, tobacco, and firearms and 
            ammunition taxes, and obtain a high level of voluntary 
            compliance with all laws governing those industries; and
3) Suppress commercial bribery, consumer deception, and other 
            prohibited practices in the alcohol beverage industry.
In fiscal year 2009, the Bureau plans to give priority to the following 
regulatory matters:
<bullet> Modernization of title 27, Code of Federal Regulations. TTB 
            will continue to pursue its multi-year program of 
            modernizing its regulations in title 27 of the Code of 
            Federal Regulations. This program involves updating and 
            revising the regulations to be more clear, current, and 
            concise, with an emphasis on the application of plain 
            language principles. TTB laid the groundwork for this 
            program in 2002 when it started to recodify its regulations 
            in order to present them in a more logical sequence. In FY 
            2005, TTB evaluated all of the 36 CFR parts in title 27 and 
            prioritized them as ``high,'' ``medium,'' or ``low'' in 
            terms of the need for complete revision or regulation 
            modernization. TTB determined importance based on industry 
            member numbers, revenue collected, and enforcement and 
            compliance issues identified through field audits and 
            permit qualifications, statutory changes, significant 
            industry innovations, and other factors. The 10 CFR parts 
            that TTB ranked as ``high'' include the five parts 
            directing operation of the major taxpayers under the 
            Internal Revenue Code of 1986: Part 19 - Distilled Spirits 
            Plants; Part 24 - Wine; Part 25 - Beer; Part 40 - 
            Manufacture of Tobacco Products and Cigarette Papers and 
            Tubes; and Part 53 - Manufacturers Excise Taxes - Firearms 
            and Ammunition. These five CFR parts represent nearly all 
            the tax revenue that TTB collects, or $14.7 billion in FY 
            2007. The remaining five parts rated ``high'' consist of 
            regulations covering imports and exports (Part 27 - 
            Importation of Distilled Spirits, Wine and Beer; Part 28 - 
            Exportation of Alcohol; and Part 41 - Importation of 
            Tobacco Products and Cigarette Papers and Tubes), the 
            American Viticultural Area program (Part 9), and TTB 
            procedures (Part 70).
To date, related to the modernization plan, the Department of the 
Treasury has published notices of proposed rulemaking on parts 9 and 
19. The Bureau plans to review the comments received regarding these 
notices and publish final rules on them. In addition, the Bureau will 
put forward for Department of the Treasury publication an advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking on part 25. In FY 2009, TTB plans to 
review the comments received on this modernization document and to move 
forward as appropriate. In FY 2009, TTB also plans to draft a 
modernization notice of proposed rulemaking for part 28.
<bullet> Serving Facts. In 2007, the Department published a notice of 
            proposed rulemaking soliciting comments on a proposal to 
            require a serving facts statement on alcohol beverage 
            labels. The proposed statement would include information 
            about the serving size, the number of servings per 
            container, and per-serving information on calories and 
            grams of carbohydrates, fat, and protein. The proposed rule 
            would also require information about alcohol content. TTB 
            plans to put forward for Department publication a final 
            rule on this matter.
<bullet> Allergen Labeling. On July 26, 2006, TTB published interim 
            regulations setting forth standards for voluntary allergen 
            labeling of alcohol beverages. These regulatory changes 
            were an outgrowth of changes made to the Food, Drug and 
            Cosmetic Act by the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer 
            Protection Act of 2004. At the same time, TTB published a 
            proposal to make those interim requirements mandatory. TTB 
            intends to put forward for Department publication a final 
            rule in this matter in 2009.
<bullet> Multi-Region Appellations for Imported Wine. TTB will put 
            forward for Department publication a proposal to amend its 
            wine labeling regulations to allow the labeling of imported 
            wines with multi-region appellations of origin. The 
            proposed regulatory change would provide labeling treatment 
            for imported wines that is similar to what is currently 
            available for domestic wines, which may be labeled with a 
            multi-state or multi-county appellation of origin.
<bullet> Specially Denatured and Completely Denatured Alcohol Formulas. 
            TTB will submit for publication by the Department a 
            proposal to reclassify some specially denatured alcohol 
            (SDA) formulas as completely denatured alcohol (CDA) for 
            which formula submission to TTB is not required. The 
            proposed regulatory changes would also allow other SDA 
            formulas to be used without the submission of article 
            formulas. These changes would allow TTB to shift its SDA-
            dedicated resources from the current front-end pre-market 
            formula control approach to a post-market assessment of 
            actual compliance with SDA regulations.
<bullet> Alcohol Fuel Plants. TTB intends to put forward for Department 
            publication proposed amendments to the alcohol fuel plant 
            regulations, in recognition of the significant growth in 
            this industry segment. The proposed changes would include 
            updated procedures for producers of distilled spirits 
            intended for fuel use that will enhance their operations 
            consistent with TTB's responsibility to protect the 
            revenue.
<bullet> Special (Occupational) Tax Repeal. TTB will submit for 
            publication by the Department amendments to conform the TTB 
            regulations to the statutory repeal of the special 
            (occupational) taxes on producers and marketers of 
            alcoholic beverages. The regulatory changes will reflect 
            the replacement of tax payment by a registration procedure.

[[Page 71251]]

Bureau of the Public Debt
The Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD) has responsibility for borrowing 
the money needed to operate the Federal Government and accounting for 
the resulting debt, regulating the primary and secondary Treasury 
securities markets, and ensuring that reliable systems and processes 
are in place for buying and transferring Treasury securities.
BPD administers regulations: (1) Governing transactions in Government 
securities by Government securities brokers and dealers under the 
Government Securities Act of 1986 (GSA), as amended; (2) Implementing 
Treasury's borrowing authority, including rules governing the sale and 
issue of savings bonds, marketable Treasury securities, and State and 
local Government securities; (3) Setting out the terms and conditions 
by which Treasury may redeem (buy back) outstanding, unmatured 
marketable Treasury securities through debt buyback operations; (4) 
Governing securities held in Treasury's retail systems; and (5) 
Governing the acceptability and valuation of all collateral pledged to 
secure deposits of public monies and other financial interests of the 
Federal Government.
Treasury's GSA rules govern financial responsibility, the protection of 
customer funds and securities, record keeping, reporting, audit, and 
large position reporting for all government securities brokers and 
dealers, including financial institutions.
Treasury maintains regulations governing two retail systems for 
purchasing and holding Treasury securities: Legacy Treasury Direct, in 
which investors can purchase, manage, and hold marketable Treasury 
securities in book-entry form, and TreasuryDirect, in which investors 
may purchase, manage, and hold savings bonds, marketable Treasury 
securities, and certificates of indebtedness in an Internet-based 
system.
During fiscal year 2009, BPD will accord priority to the following 
regulatory projects:
<bullet> TreasuryDirect. To date, only individuals have been able to 
            open accounts in TreasuryDirect. BPD plans to issue a final 
            rule to permit a trustee of a trust, corporation, limited 
            liability company, partnership, sole proprietorship, legal 
            representative of a decedent's estate, and legal guardian 
            of the estate of an incompetent person or minor to open 
            accounts in TreasuryDirect and conduct transactions in 
            eligible Treasury securities. BPD will also take the 
            opportunity to make non-substantive technical corrections 
            to the regulations.
<bullet> Series I Savings Bonds. BPD plans to issue a final rule 
            amending the regulations for Series I savings bonds to 
            clarify that the fixed rate of return and the composite 
            rate will always be greater than or equal to zero percent. 
            The amendment makes no substantive change to the 
            regulations but will benefit investors by clarifying that 
            the fixed rate and the composite rate will not be negative 
            under any market conditions.
Financial Management Service
The Financial Management Service (FMS) issues regulations to improve 
the quality of Government financial management and to administer its 
payments, collections, debt collection, and Government-wide accounting 
programs. For fiscal year 2009, FMS's regulatory plan includes the 
following priority:
<bullet> Management of Federal Agency Disbursements. FMS is amending 31 
            CFR part 208 to increase the use of agency electronic 
            payments. Currently, 31 CFR - 208.6 requires that Federal 
            electronic payments other than vendor payments be directed 
            to a deposit account at the financial institution ``in the 
            name of'' the individual. Treasury waived this requirement 
            for Federal agencies issuing part or all of an employee's 
            travel reimbursement to the travel card issuing bank for 
            crediting to the employee's travel card account. In fiscal 
            year 2009, a proposed rule will codify the terms of the 
            waiver. In addition, the proposed rule would prohibit a 
            Federal agency from making a check payment to another 
            Federal agency, and would instead require that all agency-
            to-agency payments be made through the Intra-Governmental 
            Payment and Collection System.
Domestic Finance - Office of the Fiscal Assistant Secretary (OFAS)
The Office of the Fiscal Assistant Secretary develops policy for and 
oversees the operations of the financial infrastructure of the federal 
government; including payments, collections, cash management, 
financing, central accounting, and delinquent debt collection.
Treasury strongly encourages electronic payment of Federal benefits, 
but electronic payments may cause problems in certain instances. 
Specifically, individuals who have bank accounts and are subject to 
garnishment actions may find direct deposit unattractive. Financial 
institutions may freeze accounts that receive federal benefits as they 
perform due diligence in complying with State garnishment orders, even 
though Federal statues exempt most Federal benefits from garnishment.
In FY 2009, Treasury plans to promulgate a joint rule, with federal 
benefit agencies, to address the practice of account freezes and holds 
to ensure that benefit recipients have access to a certain amount of 
lifeline funds while garnishment orders or other legal processes are 
adjudicated.
The regulation will provide financial institutions with specific 
instructions on the manner and extent to which accounts with exempt 
funds can be frozen in the face of a garnishment order. It may also 
include some provisions aimed at Federal benefit agencies necessary to 
help financial institutions comply with the instructions. We do not 
expect the policy to have specific provisions for consumers, States, 
debt collectors, or banking regulators. However, the banking regulators 
would enforce the policy in cases of non-compliance by means of their 
general authorities.
The regulation will not specifically address the process for 
adjudicating garnishment orders, State debt collection or claims laws 
in a broader sense, or other banking practices and procedures. This 
proposed regulation will be a new part in Title 31.
_______________________________________________________________________
TREAS--Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

97. BASEL II STANDARDIZED APPROACH

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Legal Authority:


12 USC 93a; 12 USC 3907; 12 USC 3909


CFR Citation:


12 CFR 3

[[Page 71252]]

Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The OCC, FRB, FDIC, and OTS have decided to withdraw the proposed 
revisions to the existing domestic risk-based capital framework known 
as Basel 1A. Instead, the Federal banking agencies proposed a new risk-
based capital framework based on the Standardized Approach for credit 
risk and the Basic Indicator approach for operational risk described in 
the capital adequacy framework titled ``International Convergence of 
Capital Measures and Capital Standards: A Revised Framework,'' 
published by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is necessary to enhance the risk-sensitivity of the 
risk-based capital rules for those banks that will not be subject to 
the New Basel Capital Accord (Basel II) capital framework.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The OCC is implementing the Basel II Standardized Approach capital 
framework for domestic financial institutions that choose to adopt it. 
This initiative is based on the OCC's general rulemaking authority in 
12 U.S.C. 93a and its specific authority under 12 U.S.C. 3907 and 3909. 
12 U.S.C. 3907(a)(2) specifically authorizes the OCC to establish 
minimum capital levels for financial institutions that the OCC, in its 
discretion, deems necessary or appropriate.


Alternatives:


Please see the OCC's regulatory impact analysis, which can be found in 
its entirety at http://www.occ.treas.gov/law/basel.htm under the link 
of ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for Risk-Based Capital Guidelines; 
Capital Adequacy Guidelines; Capital Maintenance: Standardized Risk-
Based Capital Rules (Basel II: Standardized Option), Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency, International and Economic Affairs 
(2008).''


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Not yet determined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/29/08                    73 FR 43982
NPRM Comment Period End         10/27/08
Final Action                    09/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Carl Kaminski
Attorney
Department of the Treasury
Comptroller of the Currency
Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division
250 E Street SW.
Washington, DC 20219
Phone: 202 874-5090
Fax: 202 874-4889
Email: carl.kaminski@occ.treas.gov
RIN: 1557-AD07
BILLING CODE 4810-25-S

[[Page 71253]]

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers benefit programs 
that recognize the important public obligations to those who served 
this Nation. VA's regulatory responsibility is almost solely confined 
to carrying out mandates of the laws enacted by Congress relating to 
programs for veterans and their beneficiaries. VA's major regulatory 
objective is to implement these laws with fairness, justice, and 
efficiency.
Most of the regulations issued by VA involve at least one of three VA 
components: The Veterans Benefits Administration, the Veterans Health 
Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration. The primary 
mission of the Veterans Benefits Administration is to provide high-
quality and timely nonmedical benefits to eligible veterans and their 
beneficiaries. The primary mission of the Veterans Health 
Administration is to provide high-quality health care on a timely basis 
to eligible veterans through its system of medical centers, nursing 
homes, domiciliaries, and outpatient medical and dental facilities. The 
primary mission of the National Cemetery Administration is to bury 
eligible veterans, members of the Reserve components, and their 
dependents in VA National Cemeteries and to maintain those cemeteries 
as national shrines in perpetuity as a final tribute of a grateful 
Nation to honor the memory and service of those who served in the Armed 
Forces.
VA's regulatory priorities include a special project to undertake a 
comprehensive review and improvement of its existing regulations. The 
first portion of this project is devoted to reviewing, reorganizing, 
and rewriting the VA's compensation and pension regulations found in 38 
CFR part 3. The goal of the Regulation Rewrite Project is to improve 
the clarity and logical consistency of these regulations in order to 
better inform veterans and their family members of their entitlements.
BILLING CODE 8320-01-S

[[Page 71254]]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
Statement of Priorities
OVERVIEW
The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to protect 
and safeguard human health and the environment. Since 1970, EPA, 
together with its partners and stakeholders, has been delivering a 
cleaner, healthier environment to the public. EPA's achievements, from 
regulating auto emissions to banning the use of DDT, from cleaning up 
toxic waste to protecting the ozone layer, and from increasing 
recycling to revitalizing inner-city brownfields, have resulted in 
cleaner air, purer water, and better protected land. Our air is 
cleaner, our water is purer, and our land is healthier than just a 
generation ago.
Between 1970 and 2004, total emissions of the six major air pollutants 
dropped by 54 percent. This is particularly impressive when noted that 
the gross domestic product increased 187 percent, energy consumption 
increased 47 percent, and U.S. population grew by 40 percent during the 
same time. Through land restoration efforts, 600,000 acres of 
contaminated land now provide ecological, economic, and recreational 
benefits. In 2004, EPA and its partners took action to restore, 
enhance, and protect nearly 830,000 acres of wetlands. EPA continues to 
build on its past success by using regulatory and innovative approaches 
to achieve effective results. In doing so, the Agency uses three 
guiding principles to govern its work to maintain the strongest level 
of environmental protection.
The Agency uses three guiding principles to govern its work to maintain 
the strongest level of environmental protection:
<bullet> Results and Accountability. EPA is committed to being a good 
            steward of our environment and a good steward of America's 
            tax dollars. To provide the public with the environmental 
            results it expects and deserves, we must operate as 
            efficiently and effectively as possible. Accountability for 
            results is a key component of the President's Management 
            Agenda, designed to make government citizen-centered, 
            results-oriented, and market-based.
<bullet> Innovation and Collaboration. Our progress depends both on our 
            ability and continued commitment to identify and use 
            innovative tools, approaches, and solutions to address 
            environmental problems and to engage extensively with our 
            partners, stakeholders, and the public. Under each of our 
            goals, we are working to promote a sense of environmental 
            stewardship and a shared responsibility for addressing 
            today's challenges.
<bullet> Best Available Science. EPA needs the best scientific 
            information available to anticipate potential environmental 
            threats, evaluate risks, identify solutions, and develop 
            protective standards. Sound science helps us ask the right 
            questions, assess information, and characterize problems 
            clearly to inform Agency decision makers.
Science guides EPA's identification and treatment of emerging issues 
and advances our understanding of long-standing human health and 
environmental challenges. EPA's research is typically crosscutting, 
multidisciplinary, and at the cutting edge of environmental science; 
reflects the dynamic nature of science; and brings scientific rigor to 
the characterization of uncertainty and risk.
EPA applies these principles as it works with its Federal, State, 
tribal, and local government partners to advance the mission of 
protecting human health and the environment. As a result of these 
collaborations, tremendous progress has been made in protecting and 
restoring the Nation's air, water, and land:
<bullet> EPA has strengthened the Nation's air quality standards for 
            ground-level ozone, revising the standards for the first 
            time since 1997. Ozone levels have dropped 21 percent 
            nationwide since 1980 as EPA, States, and local governments 
            have worked together to continue to improve the Nation's 
            air.
<bullet> In FY 2007, 91.5 percent of the population served by community 
            water systems received drinking water that met all 
            applicable health-based drinking water standards.
<bullet> EPA issued four national drinking water regulations to boost 
            public health and reduce risks from pathogens and other 
            contaminants: the Cryptosporidium Rule, the Disinfection 
            Byproducts Rule, the Ground Water Rule, and the Lead in 
            Drinking Water Rule.
<bullet> EPA assessed over 8,000 properties while creating 28,500 new 
            jobs through the Brownfields and Land Revitalization 
            program since 2002.
<bullet> EPA established a permanent National Homeland Security 
            Research Center in 2004 to provide scientific expertise, 
            advice and guidance on homeland security issues, including 
            how to respond to chemical and biological attacks.
<bullet> EPA established the U.S. as the first country in the world to 
            reassess all pesticides used in food, removing unsafe 
            products from the marketplace and bringing about stronger 
            and more effective health protections for consumers.
<bullet> EPA's ocean survey vessel, the BOLD, has conducted scientific 
            surveys from the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, to the 
            waters of New England since 2005. The BOLD has researched 
            red tide, monitored coral reefs and most notably, assisted 
            in the Federal response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita -- 
            testing the coastal impact of those storms and analyzing 
            the health of marine life. In 2007, the BOLD completed 40 
            oceanographic surveys while spending over 270 days at sea.
<bullet> EPA released the first-ever, national Report on the 
            Environment in 2003 to educate the American people about 
            environmental trends in the condition of the air, water, 
            and land and related trends in human health and ecological 
            condition in the United States.
<bullet> Over the past 6 years, EPA's climate change partnership 
            programs have prevented an estimated 500 million metric 
            tons of greenhouse gas emissions. That is equivalent to 
            taking 55 million cars off the road.
<bullet> EPA also promotes international partnerships to reduce 
            greenhouse gasses and deploy clean technologies. Through 
            the Methane to Markets Partnership, we work with other 
            countries and the U.S. private sector to reduce global 
            methane emissions, enhance economic growth, promote energy 
            security, and improve the environment by using cost-
            effective methane recovery technologies. In addition, the 
            United States has joined Australia, China, India, Japan, 
            and South Korea in the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean 
            Development and Climate), which will advance the 
            President's goal for cleaner and more efficient 
            technologies and practices.
EPA continues to accelerate its pace of environmental protection while 
maintaining the Nation's economic competitiveness. To that end, the 
Agency has a number of regulatory goals in order to meet the challenge 
while demonstrating progress consistent with its principles of results 
and accountability, innovation and collaboration, and the use of the 
best

[[Page 71255]]

available science. Using these three principles as the foundation of 
its activity, EPA is sharpening focus on achieving measurable 
environmental results on the following five strategic goals:
Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Among the high-priority issues for EPA over the next year and beyond 
are climate change, energy efficiency, and energy security. These 
issues are closely related, and this Regulatory Plan describes current 
efforts to address them.
EPA also continues to advance its efforts to control the more familiar 
air pollutants, such as smog, soot, and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. 
While EPA has made tremendous progress toward achieving clean, healthy 
air that is safe to breathe, air pollution continues to be a great 
problem. The average adult breathes more than 3000 gallons of air every 
day, and children breathe more air per pound of body weight. Air 
pollutants, such as those that form urban smog can remain in the 
environment for long periods of time and can be carried by the wind 
hundreds of miles from their origin. This year's Regulatory Plan 
describes efforts to review standards for oxides of nitrogen and oxides 
of sulfur.
EPA's programs will allow the Nation to make substantial progress in 
protecting human health and ecosystems from air pollution. For example, 
by 2011, new motor vehicles, including trucks and buses, will emit 75 
to 95 percent less particulate matter and nitrogen oxides than they did 
in 2003. These programs, when fully implemented, may prevent tens of 
thousands of premature deaths and hospitalizations, and may prevent 
millions of lost work and school days each year. These national 
programs will be supplemented by local control strategies designed to 
ensure that the air quality standards are achieved and maintained.
EPA also works to address climate change. Since the beginning of the 
industrial revolution, concentrations of several greenhouse gases 
(particularly carbon dioxide) have increased substantially. EPA is 
currently working with other Federal Agencies to implement the 
President's 20 in 10 program, to reduce gasoline consumption up to 20% 
in the next ten years.
Clean and Safe Water
EPA's ``Clean and Safe Water'' goal defines the improvements that EPA 
expects to see in the quality of the Nation's drinking water and of 
surface waters over the next 4 years. These goals include improving 
compliance with drinking water standards, maintaining safe water 
quality at public beaches, restoring more than 2,000 polluted 
waterbodies, and improving the health of coastal waters.
In an effort to address the Nation's aging water infrastructure system, 
EPA is developing and implementing more innovative, market-based 
infrastructure financing tools for States, tribes, and communities. 
These initiatives will increase and accelerate investment in water 
infrastructure and offer greater flexibility and cost-effectiveness to 
provide clean and safe water for every American. Through technology, 
innovation, and collaboration, EPA makes better use of its resources to 
help the Nation's water and wastewater systems be highly efficient and 
to move infrastructure toward greater sustainability for many years to 
come.
Land Preservation and Restoration
EPA's land preservation and restoration goal addresses the need for 
managing waste, conserving and recovering the value of wastes, 
preventing releases, responding to emergencies, and cleaning up 
contaminated land. Uncontrolled wastes can cause acute illness or 
chronic disease and can threaten healthy ecosystems.
Over the next 4 years, EPA will establish or update approved controls 
to prevent dangerous releases at approximately 500 hazardous waste 
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and also will address 2 
long-standing tribal waste management concerns: increasing the number 
of tribes covered by integrated waste management plans and cleaning up 
open dumps.
To reduce and control the risks posed by accidental and intentional 
releases of harmful substances, EPA plans to maintain a high level of 
readiness to respond to emergencies, lead or oversee the response at 
more than 1,600 hazardous waste removals and reduce by 25 percent the 
number of gallons of oil spilled by facilities subject to Facility 
Response Plan regulations relative to previous levels. EPA and its 
partners, and responsible parties will remediate contaminated land, 
reduce risk to the public, and enable communities to return properties 
to beneficial reuse. We will also apply leading-edge scientific 
research to improve our capability to assess conditions and determine 
relative risks posed by contamination at hazardous waste sites.
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
With a mix of regulatory programs and partnership approaches the Agency 
achieves results in ways that are efficient, innovative and 
sustainable. EPA continues to work collaboratively with other nations 
and international organizations to identify, develop, and implement 
policy options to address global environmental issues of mutual 
concern. Following this, EPA strives to build a community's capability 
to make decisions that affect the environment.
EPA's efforts to share information and provide assistance offers the 
tools needed to effectively address the myriad aspects of planned 
development or redevelopment. These contributions are tailored to 
circumstances spanning the issues of sensitive communities and 
international cooperation. In a similar manner, EPA's ecosystem 
protection programs encompass a wide range of approaches that address 
specific at-risk regional areas, such as large waterbodies. EPA also 
works with partners to protect larger categories of threatened systems, 
such as estuaries and wetlands. In cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers, EPA will assure ``no net loss'' of wetlands.
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
EPA ensures that government, business, and the public comply with 
Federal laws and regulations by monitoring compliance and taking 
enforcement actions that result in reduced pollution and improved 
environmental management practices. To accelerate the Nation's 
environmental protection efforts, EPA works to prevent pollution at the 
source, to advance other forms of environmental stewardship, and to 
employ the tools of innovation and collaboration.
Effective compliance assistance and strong, consistent enforcement are 
critical to achieving the human health and environmental benefits 
expected from the country's environmental laws. EPA monitors compliance 
patterns and trends and focuses on priority problem areas identified in 
consultation with States, tribes, and other partners. The Agency 
supports the regulated community by assisting regulated entities in 
understanding environmental requirements, helping them identify cost-
effective compliance options and strategies, and providing incentives 
for compliance.

[[Page 71256]]

EPA promotes the principles of responsible environmental stewardship, 
sustainability, and accountability to achieve its strategic goals. 
Collaborating closely with other Federal agencies, States, and tribes, 
the Agency identifies and promotes innovations that assist businesses 
and communities in improving their environmental performance. EPA works 
to improve and encourage pollution prevention and sustainable 
practices, helping businesses and communities move beyond compliance 
and become partners in protecting our national resources and improving 
the environment and our citizens' health.
Performance Management
In 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was awarded the 
President's Quality Award for Overall Management for operating a 
results-oriented, data-driven, performance management system. In 2008, 
EPA's management achievements included: EPA receiving ``all greens'' in 
the five government-wide management initiatives under the President's 
Management Agenda; the Government Accountability Office acknowledging 
EPA as a positive ``outlier'' among Federal Agencies and Departments in 
its use of performance management data; EPA leading development of 
improved efficiency measures for research projects across government; 
working with our State partners to align performance measures; creating 
the Performance Management Council to provide guidance on incorporating 
performance management into the Agency; establishing a division devoted 
to improving Agency outcomes; and EPA's launch of the first Federal 
`stat' program, EPAStat, to provide frequent information about how the 
Agency performs and how our operations can be improved. As a result, 
EPA is increasingly viewed not only as a well-managed organization, but 
also as a model for making the government more effective and efficient. 
You can find additional information on performance management and 
indicators, as well as the EPA's Quarterly Management Report at http://
www.epa.gov/ocfo/qmr/index.htm
Timeliness and Transparency of Regulatory Actions
Completing actions on time or ahead of schedule means EPA keeps its 
commitments, improves the quality of decisions, and the public and 
environment benefit from EPA's key actions sooner. As part of EPAStat, 
the Agency is focusing management attention on several dozen key 
actions and tracking their adherence to an agreed-to schedule for the 
completion of a standard set of development milestones leading to 
promulgation of rules or finalization of other types of actions. 
Actions that are completed on time or early are used by EPA as 
potential exemplars of best practices; program offices that achieve 
timely completion of actions are encouraged to share their success 
stories and lessons learned. Actions that are off-track are identified 
early and corrective steps are taken to expedite their completion.
The following shows the results of EPA's effort to track the timeliness 
of the Deputy Administrator's priority actions since January 2007:

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

Of the 26 actions being tracked against internal milestones, 15 actions 
accounted for the days behind schedule as of 10/24/08.
EPA is also making Federal environmental regulation more transparent by 
providing on-line information as soon as the agency begins the 
development of a new rule. EPA is using Action Initiation Lists (AILs) 
to notify the public about new rules and other regulatory actions. AILs 
will be posted on the EPA Web site at roughly the end of each month; 
they will describe those actions that were approved for commencement 
during the given month. Formerly, the public had to wait for EPA's 
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, which is updated only every six months, 
to learn about new regulatory actions. Visit the AIL at http://
www.epa.gov/lawsregs/search/ail.html
Aggregate Costs and Benefits
Per the amendments to E.O. 12866, we are providing a combined aggregate 
estimate of costs and benefits of regulations included in the 
Regulatory Plan. Any aggregate estimate of total costs and benefits 
must be highly qualified. Problems with aggregation arise due to 
differing baselines, data gaps, and inconsistencies in methodology and 
type of regulatory costs and benefits considered. The aggregate 
estimates presented combine

[[Page 71257]]

annualized and annual numbers. Cost savings are treated as benefits. 
Dollars were converted to 2001 using the GDP deflator. The ranges 
presented below do not reflect the full range of uncertainty in the 
benefit and cost estimates for these rules.
It is critical to note that the aggregate estimates omit important 
benefits and costs that cannot be monetized. For example, the estimates 
leave out many health and welfare benefits, such as ecosystem 
functions, visibility, avoided cases of chronic respiratory damage, 
hypertension, and coronary heart disease, among many others. In 
addition, for many of the rules in the Plan, we were unable to estimate 
costs and benefits at this time because the range of policy options 
under consideration is wide and varied.
The monetized aggregate estimates provided below reflect the following 
rules in the Regulatory Plan: (1) Monetized cost and benefit 
information was provided for: Hazardous Waste Manifest Revisions -- 
Standards for Electronic Manifests Final Rule; and Expanding the 
Comparable Fuels Exclusion under RCRA; (2) Monetized cost information 
(but no monetized benefits) was provided for: Test Rule -- Certain High 
Production Volume (HPV) Chemicals; (3) Monetized benefit information 
(but no monetized costs) was provided for: Spill Prevention, Control 
and Countermeasure (SPCC).
Aggregate annual monetized benefits range from $329 million to $422 
million per year. Aggregate annual monetized costs are estimated to 
range from $144 million to $153 million per year.
Rules Expected to Affect Small Entities
By better coordinating small business activities, EPA aims to improve 
its technical assistance and outreach efforts, minimize burdens to 
small businesses in its regulations, and simplify small businesses' 
participation in its voluntary programs. A number of rules included in 
this Plan might be of particular interest to small businesses 
including:
<bullet> Control of Emissions from Spark-Ignition Engines and Fuel 
            Systems from Marine Vessels and Small Equipment (2060-
            AM34);
<bullet> Renewable Fuel Standard Program (2060-AO810); and
<bullet> Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the 
            Construction and Development Point Source Category (2040-
            AE91).
Reducing States' Reporting Burden
In an effort to address State concerns over escalating reporting 
requirements, EPA and the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) 
launched a joint Burden Reduction Initiative in October 2006. This 
Initiative aimed to reduce States' low-value, high-burden reporting 
requirements, thus conserving both States' and EPA's valuable resources 
while maintaining a commitment to protecting human health and the 
environment.
Each of the 50 States was asked to identify their top five reporting 
requirements for potential streamlining or elimination. Thirty-eight 
States responded, recommending more than 200 ways to reduce reporting 
frequency and level of detail. States also recommended that EPA enable 
States to submit more data electronically and, to the extent possible, 
standardize regional differences in reporting requirements.
EPA has been steadily working to address the States' recommendations 
since the Initiative began. In 2008, EPA has focused on:
1. Addressing priority areas identified by the States in summer 2007;
2. Improving the Initiative's transparency and accuracy; and
3. Creating tools for incorporating burden reduction into EPA's 
            standard operating procedures.
Examples of the priority areas include:
a. Integrated Compliance Information System for the National Pollutant 
            Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES) - States 
            recommended that EPA harmonize and reduce reporting 
            requirements.
b. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) - States recommended that 
            EPA reduce DBE utilization reporting frequency.
c. National Emissions Inventory (NEI) - States recommended that EPA 
            streamline NEI reporting requirements.
More information about the Burden Reduction Initiative is available at 
http://www.epa.gov/burdenreduction/.
Trade and Environment Policy
EPA is committed to encouraging the development of environmentally 
sound international policy. In part, EPA pursues this goal by advancing 
environmental objectives in international trade agreements, investment 
projects, and financial ventures. In so doing, EPA supports the 
realization of two of the three critical elements of sustainable 
development: environmental and economic progress.
Recognizing that the relationship between trade and environmental 
policy is complex, EPA helps ensure that trade agreements balance both 
economic and environmental interests. EPA encourages the development of 
agreements that: 1) encourage high levels of environmental protection; 
2) include commitments to effective enforcement of environmental laws 
and regulations; 3) provide capacity building in response to relevant 
environmental needs and issues in the developing world; and, 4) do not 
undercut domestic health, safety and environmental measures.
EPA promoted the development of environmental reviews of trade 
agreements and that these reviews follow specific guidelines. EPA plays 
a lead role in negotiating the environmental provisions of a number of 
bilateral and regional trade agreements (e.g., with Jordan, Chile, 
Singapore and Central America, among others).
EPA's Regulatory Plan
EPA's Regulatory Plan is an important element of the Agency's strategy 
for achieving environmental results within the framework described 
above. The Agency's regulatory program includes several efforts that 
will reduce the burden placed on small businesses while ensuring the 
integrity of the environment. Many of these have been nominated for 
Agency action through the public nomination process initiated by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2001, 2002, and 2004 and many 
of these have been completed. Taken as a whole, the Agency's Regulatory 
Plan will ensure that the Nation continues to achieve improvements in 
environmental quality while minimizing burden to States and the 
regulated community.
HIGHLIGHTS OF EPA'S REGULATORY PLAN
Office of Air and Radiation
This year EPA plans to take initial steps to address the interconnected 
issues of climate change, energy efficiency, and energy security. In 
taking these steps, EPA is carrying out two Congressional mandates. 
Title II of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act amended 
Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act, directing EPA to set a modified 
standard that will increase the quantities of renewable fuels available 
to consumers. EPA is implementing this

[[Page 71258]]

mandate by developing the Renewable Fuels Standard Program outlined in 
this Regulatory Plan. Moreover, in the FY 2008 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, Congress directed EPA to develop a rule to 
establish monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements on 
facilities that produce, import or emit greenhouse gases above a 
specific threshold in order to inform future regulatory policy options 
related to greenhouse gases. EPA is fulfilling this mandate through the 
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule currently under development and 
summarized below in this Regulatory Plan.
Another important and ongoing OAR regulatory priority is to protect 
public health and the environment from exposure to harmful pollutants. 
In the coming year, EPA will reach important milestones in the 
development of two rules that address the harmful effects of Oxides of 
Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur. The first of these two efforts is a 
review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for 
Nitrogen Dioxide, which can constrict the body's air passages and 
impair pulmonary function, and also increase respiratory illness in 
children. The second effort is a review of the Secondary National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of 
Sulfur. Reviews of these two pollutants are being combined due to the 
fact that these two pollutants and their associated transformation 
products are linked from an atmospheric chemistry perspective, as well 
as from an environmental effects perspective, most notably through 
aerosol formation and acidification in ecosystems. Both of these review 
efforts are summarized below in this Regulatory Plan.
EPA continues to address toxic air pollution under authority of the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The largest part of this effort is 
the ``Maximum Achievable Control Technology'' (MACT) program, which is 
now well into its second phase consisting of evaluation of the 
effectiveness of work done so far, assessment of the need for 
additional controls, and assessment of advances in control technology. 
These evaluations and assessments are grouped into rulemakings called 
``Risk and Technology Reviews.'' The remaining MACT source categories 
requiring Risk and Technology Reviews are being combined into several 
groups to help meet statutory dates, raise and resolve programmatic 
issues more effectively, minimize resources by using available data and 
focusing on high risk sources, and provide consistent review and 
analysis. One example of the rulemakings currently underway is 
summarized in this Regulatory Plan. The example, called ``Risk and 
Technology Review Phase II Group 2a,'' covers nine source categories 
including rubber production, mineral wool production, pharmaceuticals 
production, printing and publishing, and marine vessel loading 
operations.
Since many air quality programs are administered through permitting and 
monitoring programs, OAR continues to work toward improving these 
programs to increase efficiency and reduce regulatory burden. OAR is 
continuing to develop rulemakings to streamline and improve its New 
Source Review (NSR) permitting program. This effort will clarify the 
circumstances under which companies must obtain construction permits 
before building new facilities or significantly modifying existing 
facilities. These revisions will provide more regulatory certainty by 
clarifying compliance requirements, and will also make the program 
easier to administer while maintaining its environmental benefits. In 
developing these NSR rule revisions, OAR is drawing upon many years of 
intense involvement with major stakeholders, who have helped shape a 
suite of reforms that are expected to both improve the environmental 
effectiveness of these programs and make them easier to comply with. 
One example of this effort is included in this Regulatory Plan, 
entitled ``NSR: Electric Generating Units,'' addressing issues in 
emission measurement.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) contributes to 
the Agency's overall mission of protecting public health and the 
environment by focusing on preparing for, preventing and responding to 
chemical and oil spills, accidents, and emergencies; enhancing homeland 
security; increasing the beneficial use and recycling of secondary 
materials, the safe management of wastes and cleaning up contaminated 
property and making it available for reuse. EPA carries out these 
missions in partnership with other Federal agencies, States, tribes, 
local governments, communities, nongovernmental organizations, and the 
private sector. To further these missions, OSWER has identified several 
regulatory priorities for the upcoming fiscal year that will promote 
stewardship and resource conservation and focus regulatory efforts on 
risk reduction and statutory compliance.
Consistent with the Agency's goal to reduce unnecessary reports where 
there would be no likely Federal, State or local emergency response to 
such notice(s), the Agency is considering an administrative reporting 
exemption from particular notification requirements under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
of 1980, as amended. The exemption being considered is for releases of 
hazardous substances to the air where the source of those hazardous 
substances is animal waste at farms. If finalized, it is estimated that 
the rule will reduce burden on farms associated with making 
notifications under CERCLA section 103 by approximately 3,408,000 hours 
over the ten year period beginning in 2009 and associated costs by 
approximately $155,313,000 over the same period.
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA applies different standards to the 
combustion of waste materials than to the combustion of fuels or 
feedstocks which are not solid wastes. The definition of non-hazardous 
solid waste can have a significant impact on whether certain materials 
(including biomass, tires, etc.) are used as a fuel or feedstock or are 
disposed. In this rulemaking, EPA will look to define which secondary 
materials are fuels or feedstocks, and not considered ``solid wastes'' 
under RCRA subtitle D. Allowing for the legitimate use of secondary 
materials as a fuel or feedstock can preserve natural resources, 
conserve energy, reduce greenhouse emissions, as well as save money by 
reducing costs for raw materials and disposal that would otherwise be 
necessary.
EPA is continuing its pursuit to improve and modernize the hazardous 
waste tracking system by developing an ``E-manifest.'' This system will 
allow electronic processing of hazardous waste transactions that will 
greatly enhance tracking capabilities, while significantly reducing 
administrative burden and costs for governments and the regulated 
community. The E-manifest will build on the new standardized manifest 
form that took effect in September 2006, and will ensure the continued 
safe management of hazardous waste. However, such regulations cannot be 
promulgated until legislative authority is provided to implement such a 
system.

[[Page 71259]]

Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
The primary goal of EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic 
Substances (OPPTS) is to prevent and reduce pesticide and industrial 
and commercial chemical risks to humans, communities and ecosystems. 
OPPTS employs a mix of regulatory and non-regulatory methods to achieve 
this goal. For more information about OPPTS's regulatory actions, as 
well as information about our other programs and activities, please 
visit our Web site at www.epa.gov/oppts.
In Spring of 2008, EPA received a section 21 petition to use section 6 
of TSCA to adopt a recently promulgated California State regulation 
concerning emissions of formaldehyde from certain composite wood 
products. OPPTS has responded to the petition and has initiated the 
development of an advanced notice of proposed rule-making (ANPRM) to 
investigate whether and what type of regulatory or other action might 
be appropriate to protect against risks posed by formaldehyde emitted 
from pressed wood products. OPPTS is working to publish the ANPR and 
plans to hold five stakeholder meetings to solicit comments by the end 
of 2008. OPPTS is also working with ORD to develop a hazard 
characterization for formaldehyde and to initiate peer review early in 
2009. In addition, OPPTS has embarked on a study of substitutes to 
formaldehyde used in pressed wood, and plans to initiate an industry 
survey to better understand the use of formaldehyde within the pressed 
wood market. OPPTS plans to determine the appropriate course of 
regulatory action in 2009 based on the ANPRM and supporting work.
Office of Water
Among EPA's Office of Water's primary goals are to ensure that drinking 
water is safe; to restore and maintain oceans, watersheds, and their 
aquatic ecosystems; to protect human health; to support economic and 
recreational activities; and to provide healthy habitat for fish, 
plants, and wildlife. OW 's regulatory priority for the coming year is 
a proposed rulemaking that will address erosion and sediment discharges 
associated with construction and development activities. This 
rulemaking and its schedule respond to a court order that requires the 
Agency to promulgate final regulations by December of 2009.
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

98. REVIEW OF THE PRIMARY NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD FOR 
NITROGEN DIOXIDE

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7408; 42 USC 7409


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 50


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 require EPA to review and, if 
appropriate, revise the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-
based) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) periodically. On 
October 11, 1995, the EPA published a final rule not to revise either 
the primary or secondary NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (NO2). That action 
provided the Administrator's final determination, after careful 
evaluation of comments received on the October 1995 proposal, that 
revisions to neither the primary nor the secondary NAAQS for NO2 were 
appropriate at that time. On December 9, 2005, the EPA/ORD initiated 
the current periodic review of NO2 air quality criteria, the scientific 
basis for the NAAQS, with a call for information in the Federal 
Register. This regulatory action is for the Agency's review of the 
primary NO2 NAAQS. Review of the secondary NO2 NAAQS will be part of a 
separate regulatory action combined with review of the sulfur dioxide 
NAAQS. As part of the review process, the Agency will prepare an 
Integrated Review Plan, an Integrated Science Assessment, and a Risk/
Exposure Assessment. These documents will be reviewed by the public and 
by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), an independent 
science advisory committee established to review the scientific and 
technical basis of the NAAQS. The final documents will reflect the 
input received through these reviews. An Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) reflecting Agency views will then be published. This 
ANPRM will also be reviewed by the public and by CASAC during a public 
comment period. Input received through these reviews will inform the 
development of a proposed rulemaking. The Administrator's proposal to 
retain or revise the NO2 NAAQS will be published with a request for 
public comment. Input received during the public comment period will be 
considered in the Administrator's final decision.


Statement of Need:


As established in the Clean Air Act, the national ambient air quality 
standards for NO2 are to be reviewed every five years.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7409) directs the 
Administrator to propose and promulgate ``primary'' and ``secondary'' 
national ambient air quality standards for pollutants identified under 
section 108 (the ``criteria'' pollutants). The ``primary'' standards 
are established for the protection of public health, while 
``secondary'' standards are to protect against public welfare or 
ecosystem effects.


Alternatives:


The main alternatives for the Administrator's decision on the review of 
the national ambient air quality standards for NO2 are whether to 
reaffirm or revise the existing standards.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Clean Air Act makes clear that the economic and technical 
feasibility of attaining standards are not to be considered in setting 
or revising the NAAQS, although such factors may be considered in the 
development of State plans to implement the standards. Accordingly, the 
Agency prepares cost and benefit information in order to provide States 
and Regional Planning Organizations information that may be useful in 
considering different implementation strategies for meeting proposed or 
final standards. Cost and benefit information is not developed to 
support a NAAQS rulemaking until sufficient policy and scientific 
information is available to narrow potential options for the form and 
level associated with any potential revisions to the standard. 
Typically, an analysis plan for preparing a regulatory impact plan for 
a NAAQS proposed rulemaking will begin after CASAC has reviewed two 
drafts of the Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) as well as the 1st 
draft of the Agency's Risk/Exposure Assessment. Therefore, work on the

[[Page 71260]]

developing the plan for conducting the cost and benefit analysis will 
generally start 1 1/2 to 2 years following the start of a NAAQS review.


Risks:


During the course of this review, risk assessments will be conducted to 
evaluate health risks associated with retention or revision of the NO2 
standards


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           12/00/08
NPRM                            05/00/09
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5111; EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0922


Agency Contact:
Scott Jenkins
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C445-01
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-1167
Email: jenkins.scott@epa.gov

Karen Martin
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-06
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5274
Fax: 919 541-0237
Email: martin.karen@epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AO19
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
99. REVIEW OF THE SECONDARY NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 
OXIDES OF NITROGEN AND OXIDES OF SULFUR

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7408; 42 USC 7409


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 50


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Judicial, February 12, 2010, No court schedule has been ordered 
for this review as of yet. This date represents the date submitted by 
EPA to the court.


Final, Judicial, October 19, 2010, No court schedule has been ordered 
for this review as of yet. This date represents the date submitted by 
EPA to the court.


Abstract:


The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 require EPA to review and, if 
appropriate, revise air quality criteria, primary (health-based), and 
secondary (welfare-based) national ambient air quality standards 
(NAAQS) every five years. On October 11, 1995, the EPA published a 
final rule not to revise either the primary or secondary NAAQS for 
nitrogen dioxide (NO2). That action provided the Administrator's final 
determination, after careful evaluation of comments, that revisions to 
neither the primary nor the secondary NAAQS for NO2 were appropriate at 
that time. On May 22, 1996, the EPA published a final decision that 
revisions of the primary and secondary NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
were not appropriate at that time, aside from several minor technical 
changes. That action provided the Administrator's final determination, 
after careful evaluation of comments, that signficant revisions to the 
primary and the secondary NAAQS for SO2 would not be made at that time. 
On December 9, 2005, the EPA/ORD initiated the current periodic review 
of NO2 air quality criteria with a call for information in the Federal 
Register. On May 3, 2006, the EPA/ORD initiated the current periodic 
review of SO2 air quality criteria with a call for information in the 
Federal Register. The decision was made to review the oxides of 
nitrogen and the oxides of sulfur together, rather than individually, 
as has been done in the past. This decision derives from the fact that 
NOx, SOx, and their associated transformation products are linked from 
an atmospheric chemistry perspective, as well as from an environmental 
effects perspective (most notably in the case of secondary aerosol 
formation and acidification in ecosystems).


A workshop was held in July 2007 to discuss key policy-relevant issues 
around which EPA would structure the review and to provide an 
opportunity for peer review of draft chapters of the Integrated Science 
Assessment being prepared by ORD. In addition to providing input into 
the Science Assessment, the workshop also provided important input as 
OAR and ORD consider the appropriate design and scope of the major 
elements that inform the Agency's Policy Assessment under the new NAAQS 
process: an integrated plan highlighting the key policy-relevant issues 
prepared by OAR and ORD, an Integrated Science Assessment prepared by 
ORD, and a Risk/Exposure Assessment prepared by OAR.


The Policy Assessment prepared by OAR will evaluate the policy 
implications of key information contained in the Integrated Science 
Assessment and Risk/Exposure Assessment, as well as any appropriate 
technical analyses. The Policy Assessment will be published as an ANPRM 
that reflects Agency views regarding options to retain or revise the 
NO2 and/or SO2 NAAQS. EPA will solicit comments from the Clean Air 
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), an independent science advisory 
committee established to review the scientific and technical basis of 
the NAAQS, and the public several times during the development of the 
critical documents identified above, including the ANPRM. A Scope and 
Methods Plan for the review was developed and released to CASAC and the 
public for comment. CASAC provided comment on both the ISA (developed 
by ORD) and the Scope and Methods Plan on April 2-3 2008. The second 
draft ISA and first draft risk and exposure assessment will be released 
to CASAC and the public in August, 2008 for a public meeting on October 
1-2, 2008. Upon the completion of the risk assessments and the 
development of the ANPR, the Administrator will propose to retain or 
revise the secondary NO2 and/or SO2 NAAQS, as appropriate,taking into 
consideration CASAC and public commenton the ANPR. Input received 
during the public comment period for the proposed decision will be 
considered in the Adminstrator's final decision.


Statement of Need:


As established in the Clean Air Act, the national ambient air quality 
standards for oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur are to be 
reviewed every five years.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7409) directs the 
Administrator to propose and promulgate ``primary'' and ``secondary'' 
national ambient air quality standards for pollutants

[[Page 71261]]

identified under section 108 (the ``criteria'' pollutants). The 
``primary'' standards are established for the protection of public 
health, while ``secondary'' standards are to protect against public 
welfare or ecosystem effects.


Alternatives:


The main alternatives for the Administrator's decision on the review of 
the national ambient air quality standards for oxides of nitrogen and 
oxides of sulfur are whether to reaffirm or revise the existing 
standards.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Clean Air Act makes clear that the economic and technical 
feasibility of attaining standards are not to be considered in setting 
or revising the NAAQS, although such factors may be considered in the 
development of State plans to implement the standards. Accordingly, the 
Agency prepares cost and benefit information in order to provide States 
and Regional Planning Organizations information that may be useful in 
considering different implementation strategies for meeting proposed or 
final standards. Cost and benefit information is not developed to 
support a NAAQS rulemaking until sufficient policy and scientific 
information is available to narrow potential options for the form and 
level associated with any potential revisions to the standard. 
Typically, an analysis plan for preparing a regulatory impact plan for 
a NAAQS proposed rulemaking will begin after CASAC has reviewed two 
drafts of the Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) as well as the 1st 
draft of the Agency's Risk/Exposure Assessment. Therefore, work on the 
developing the plan for conducting the cost and benefit analysis will 
generally start 1 1/2 to 2 years following the start of a NAAQS review.


Risks:


During the course of this review, risk assessments may be conducted to 
evaluate public welfare risks associated with retention or revision of 
the standards.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           08/00/09
NPRM                            02/00/10
Final Action                    11/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5170; EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1145


Agency Contact:
Anne Rea
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C539-02
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-0053
Fax: 919 541-0905
Email: rea.anne@epa.gov

Ginger Tennant
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-06
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-4072
Fax: 919 541-0237
Email: tennant.ginger@epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AO72
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
100. <bullet> FORMALDEHYDE EMISSIONS FROM PRESSED WOOD PRODUCTS

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


15 USC 2605 ``TSCA 6''


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In response to a petition filed under TSCA section 21, EPA has 
initiated a proceeding to investigate risks posed by formaldehyde 
emitted from pressed wood products. As indicated in that response, EPA 
plans to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in the 
Fall of 2008. As part of the ANPRM process, EPA will engage 
stakeholders to contribute to obtaining a better understanding of the 
available control technologies and approaches, industry practices, and 
the implementation of California's regulations. Concurrently, EPA plans 
to develop and conduct an industry survey and initiate development of 
an exposure assessment and a hazard characterization that could be used 
for evaluating emissions standards or other approaches. Subsequently, 
EPA plans to develop an irritation risk assessment and quantify costs 
and benefits. At the conclusion of this work, OPPTS anticipates 
determining whether it should take action, which may include action 
under TSCA, or via the development of a voluntary consensus standard or 
other approaches. As OPPTS evaluates risks and options under TSCA, 
OPPTS intends to coordinate its efforts with other interested EPA 
offices and agencies, as well as engage the public and stakeholders.


Statement of Need:


On March 24, 2008, 25 organizations/5,000 individuals petitioned EPA to 
use TSCA Sec.  6 to adopt a California Air Resources Board regulation 
as a national standard for formaldehyde emissions from composite wood 
products. In response, EPA committed to initiate a proceeding to 
investigate whether and what type of regulatory or other action might 
be appropriate to protect against risks posed by formaldehyde emitted 
from pressed wood products. This decision was based on the hazards of 
formaldehyde, in combination with the potential for prolonged exposure 
to potentially problematic levels of formaldehyde for occupants of 
newly constructed housing.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Agency has not decided to take any rulemaking action, but it is 
evaluating potential actions under TSCA sections 6(a) and 6(b).


Alternatives:


The Agency has not yet determined that any action is necessary, but it 
is evaluating potential actions under TSCA sections 6(a) and 6(b) as 
well as voluntary action.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Agency has not determined that any action is necessary or evaluated 
the costs and benefits of any possible actions.


Risks:


Formaldehyde is an eye, nose, throat, and skin irritant. At this time, 
the Agency is primarily concerned with the irritation risks posed by 
formaldehyde emissions from pressed wood products.

[[Page 71262]]

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           11/00/08
NPRM                               To Be                     Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5287


Agency Contact:
Cindy Wheeler
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-0484
Fax: 202 566-0470
Email: wheeler.cindy@epamail.epa.gov

Lynn Vendinello
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-0514
RIN: 2070-AJ44
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
101. <bullet> DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE FOR NON-HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Priority:


Other Significant


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7429(a)(1)


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The DC Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded two EPA rules 
promulgated under the Clean Air Act (CAA) - the Commercial and 
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) definitions rule, issued 
under section 129 of the CAA, and the Boiler MACT, issued under section 
112. The court concluded that EPA erred by excluding units that combust 
solid waste for the purpose of energy recovery from the CISWI rule and 
including such units in the Boilers rule. In response to the court's 
decision, EPA is now preparing to establish new standards under 
sections 112 and 129 for the various units subject to each section.


Section 129 regulates solid waste incineration units, defining them as 
units that combust ``any'' solid waste. It further defines ``solid 
waste'' as having the meaning established by the Administrator pursuant 
to the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA). Thus, if a material is not a 
solid waste as established by the Administrator pursuant to the SWDA, 
the unit in which it is burned would not be covered under section 129.


Statement of Need:


The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) needs to 
determine which non-hazardous materials are ``solid wastes'' under SWDA 
so that the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) can conduct appropriate 
sampling and determine MACT standards.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 129 of the CAA directs EPA to promulgate emission standards for 
``solid waste incineration units'' under the Act. 42 U.S.C. Section 
7429(a)(1). Previous rulemaking was vacated by the Court, therefore it 
is critical for OSWER to determine what constitutes a solid waste for 
purposes of section 129 of the CAA.


Alternatives:


No alternatives exist at this time.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Non-hazardous industrial materials, such a coal combustion products and 
refuse materials, spent foundry sands, and construction and demolition 
(C&D) materials, as well as scrap tires, wood/biomass, used oil, and 
solvents, all represent examples of ``usable materials'' that are 
generated by industry in the process of producing primary products. 
These materials, when used as ``secondary materials'' for fuel or as 
ingredients in production processes, can provide significant and wide-
spread benefits. The productive reuse of ``secondary materials'' for 
these purposes is central to the very principles of conservation and 
sustainability.


Risks:


Risks to human health and the environment, if any, will be addressed by 
either Section 112 or Section 129 of the CAA.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5266


Agency Contact:
Michael Galbraith
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5306P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-605-0567
Fax: 703 308-8686
Email: galbraith.michael@epamail.epa.gov

Jim Eddinger
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
D24301
Durham, NC 20460
Phone: 919 541-5426
Fax: 919 541-5450
Email: eddinger.jim@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2050-AG44
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

102. GREENHOUSE GAS MANDATORY REPORTING RULE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7401 et seq


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, September 26, 2008, FY08 Consolidated Appropriations

[[Page 71263]]

directed EPA to publish a proposal 9 months after enactment.


Final, Statutory, June 26, 2009, FY08 Consolidated Appropriations 
directed EPA to publish final 18 months after enactment.


Abstract:


On December 26, 2007, President Bush signed the FY2008 Consolidated 
Appropriations Amendment which authorized funding for EPA to ``develop 
and publish a draft rule not later than 9 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act, and a final rule not later than 18 months after 
the date of enactment of this Act, to require mandatory reporting of 
greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of 
the economy of the United States.'' The accompanying joint explanatory 
statement directed EPA to ``use its existing authority under the Clean 
Air Act'' to develop a mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule. The 
joint explanatory statement went on to say that ``The Agency is further 
directed to include in its rule reporting of emissions resulting from 
upstream production and downstream sources, to the extent that the 
Administrator deems it appropriate.'' Accordingly this rulemaking would 
establish monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements on 
facilities that produce, import, or emit greenhouse gases above a 
specific threshold in order to provide comprehensive and accurate data 
to support a range of future climate policy options.


Statement of Need:


This action is necessary because the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations 
Amendment signed by President Bush on December 26, 2007, authorized EPA 
to ``develop and publish a draft rule not later than 9 months after the 
date of enactment of this Act, and a final rule not later than 18 
months after the date of enactment of this Act, to require mandatory 
reporting of greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate thresholds in 
all sectors of the economy of the United States.''


Summary of Legal Basis:


The legal basis is the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.


Alternatives:


Not yet determined.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Not yet determined.


Risks:


Not yet determined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/09
Final Action                    10/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5242


Agency Contact:
Suzanne Kocchi
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
6207J
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 343-9387
Email: kocchi.suzanne@epamail.epa.gov

Reid Harvey
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
6207J
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 343-9429
Email: harvey.reid@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AO79
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
103. RENEWABLE FUELS STANDARD PROGRAM

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Legal Authority:


Clean Air Act Section 211(o)


CFR Citation:


40 CFR Part 86, 40 CFR Part 80


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 19, 2008.


Abstract:


This action will implement certain provisions in Title II of the 2007 
Energy Independence and Security Act that amend Section 211 (o) of the 
Clean Air Act. The new law sets a modified standard for renewable fuels 
increasing the national requirement to 9.0 billion gallons in 2008 and 
rising to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Of the latter total, 21 billion 
gallons is required to be obtained from cellulosic ethanol and other 
advanced biofuels. Starting in 2016, all of the increase in the RFS 
target must be met with advanced biofuels, defined as cellulosic 
ethanol and other biofuels derived from feedstock other than corn 
starch -- with explicit standards for cellulosic biofuels and biomass-
based diesel. Renewable fuels produced from new biorefineries will be 
required to reduce by at least 20% the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions relative to life cycle emissions from gasoline and diesel.


Statement of Need:


This action will implement certain provisions in Title II of the 2007 
Energy Independence and Security Act that amend Section 211 (o) of the 
Clean Air Act. This new law sets a modified standard for renewable 
fuels and directs EPA to implement that standard.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Clean Air Act Section 211(o)


Alternatives:


Alternatives are being developed and will be presented in the Preamble 
to the proposed rule.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We haven't completed the necessary ananlytical work that supports 
calculating and developing the costs and benefits of this rule. Once 
the analysis plan/work is completed, we can then compile and present 
the information.


Risks:


This rule will increase energy security by increasing the domestic 
supply of energy, and will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/00/08
Final Action                    06/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Energy Effects:


 Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by Executive Order 
13211.

[[Page 71264]]

Additional Information:


SAN No. 5250


Agency Contact:
Paul Argyropoulos
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
6520J ARN
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-1123
Fax: 202 564-1686
Email: argyropoulos.paul@epa.gov

David Korotney
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
AAFC
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 214-4507
Email: korotney.david@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AO81
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
104. RISK AND TECHNOLOGY REVIEW PHASE II GROUP 2A

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


CAA Section 112(f)(2); CAA Section 112(d)(6)


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, September 19, 2003, 5 MACT included in RTR Group 2A. 
EPA required to complete RTR 8 yrs after promulgation. RTR due for this 
rule: 09/2003 to 06/2007.


Abstract:


This action is the Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Group 2A and its 
title is: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 
Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins (Epichlorohydrin Elastomers 
Production, HypalonTM Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production, 
Polybutadiene Rubber Production, and Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex 
Production); National Emission Standards for Marine Vessel Loading 
Operations; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Mineral Wool Production; National Emission Standards for 
Pharmaceuticals Production; and National Emission Standards for the 
Printing and Publishing Industry. It will address both EPA's obligation 
to conduct a residual risk review and to conduct a technology review. 
It includes nine source categories, each affected by one of five MACT 
standards.


Statement of Need:


CAA section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine for source categories 
subject to certain CAA section 112(d) standards whether the emissions 
limitations provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 
If the MACT standards for HAP ``classified as a known, probable, or 
possible human carcinogen do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to 
the individual most exposed to emissions from a source in the category 
or subcategory to less than 1-in-1 million,'' EPA must promulgate 
residual risk standards for the source category (or subcategory), as 
necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health. EPA must also adopt more stringent standards, if necessary, to 
prevent an adverse environmental effect, ``Adverse environmental 
effect'' is defined in CAA section 112(a)(7) as any significant and 
widespread adverse effect which may be reasonably anticipated to 
wildlife, aquatic life, or natural resources, including adverse impacts 
on populations of endangered or threatened species or significant 
degradation of environmental quality over broad areas. but must 
consider cost, energy, safety, and other relevant factors in doing so. 
This residual risk review is due 8 years after MACT standard compliance 
date. EPA is also required to review and revise the MACT standards 
every 8 years with regard to practices, processes and control 
technologies according to Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Clean Air Act Sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6).


Alternatives:


Alternatives are developed for residual risk to evaluate ample margin 
of safety or if risk is unaccetable. Alternatives are developed for 
technology review if there have been significant advances in practices, 
processes and control technologies. For the Printing and Publishing 
MACT, risks were acceptable and an ample margin of safety was achieved, 
and no significant technological advances were identified. Therefore, 
no alternatives were evaluated. For the other eight source categories 
in RTR Group 2A, alternatives were considered; none was cost-effective 
relative to the associated reduction in risk.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


No revisions to the MACT standards were proposed; therefore, there are 
no associated costs or emissions reductions.


Risks:


The risk assessment found that after application of the MACT standards 
the chronic cancer risks are below 100-in-1 million, which is 
acceptable, and additional controls were not cost-effective; therefore, 
the MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health and no further cancer risk reduction was required. The analysis 
also found that non-cancer and acute risks to humans, as well as 
ecological risks from these facilities, were low and that no further 
controls were warranted.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/00/08
Final Action                    01/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5093.2; Split from RIN 2060-AN85.


Agency Contact:
Mary Kissell
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
E143-01
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-4516
Fax: 919 685-3219
Email: kissell.mary@epa.gov

Ken Hustvedt
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
E143-01
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5395
Fax: 919 541-0246
Email: hustvedt.ken@epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AO91

[[Page 71265]]

_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
105. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION 
AND DEVELOPMENT POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Legal Authority:


CWA 301; CWA 304; CWA 306; CWA 501


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Other, Judicial, December 1, 2007, Data collection, identification of 
best options, and development of cost-benefit models completed.


NPRM, Judicial, December 1, 2008, FR Publication by 12/1/2008 as per 
12/5/2006 Court Order.


Final, Judicial, December 1, 2009, FR Publication by 12/1/2009 as per 
12/5/2006 Court Order.


Abstract:


This rulemaking will establish effluent limitations guidelines (ELG) 
and new source performance standards (NSPS) for stormwater discharges 
associated with construction and development activities. This 
rulemaking and its schedule respond to a court order that requires the 
Agency to promulgate final regulations by December 2009. The ELGs and 
NSPSs will control the discharge of pollutants such as sediment in 
stormwater discharges from construction and development activities and 
will be implemented through the issuance of NPDES permits.


Statement of Need:


Despite substantial improvements in the nation's water quality since 
the inception of the Clean Water Act, 45 percent of assessed river and 
stream miles, 47 percent of assessed lake acres, and 32 percent of 
assessed square miles of estuaries show impairments from a wide range 
of sources. Improper control of stormwater discharges from construction 
activity is among the many contributors to remaining water quality 
problems throughout the United States. Sediment is the primary 
pollutant that causes water quality impairment for streams and rivers. 
Construction generates significantly higher loads of sediment per acre 
than other sources. The rulemaking would constitute the nationally 
applicable, technology-based ELGs and NSPS applicable to all 
dischargers required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to establish ELGs and NSPS to limit 
the pollutants discharged from point sources. In addition, EPA is bound 
by the district court decision, in NRDC v. EPA, 437 F.Supp.2d 1137, 
(C.D. Cal.2006), to propose ELGs and NSPS for the construction and 
development industry by December 1, 2008 and to promulgate ELGs and 
NSPS as soon as practicable, but in no event later than December 1, 
2009.


Alternatives:


The Clean Water Act directs EPA to establish a technology basis for the 
ELGs and NSPS, which are based on the performance of specific 
technology levels, such as the best available technology economically 
achievable. EPA is considering a range of pollution control approaches 
and technologies, and is also considering waivers based on construction 
site size, rainfall, and soil erosivity to reduce the impact on small 
dischargers.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The annualized social costs of the rulemaking are estimated to range 
from $141 million to $3.8 billion, and the annualized monetized 
benefits are estimated to range from $11 million to $327 million. The 
costs include compliance costs, administrative costs, and partial 
equilibrium estimates of quantity effects and deadweight loss to 
society. The monetized benefit categories include avoided costs of 
dredging for navigation and water storage, avoided costs of drinking 
water treatment, and monetizable water quality benefits.


Risks:


Sediment is currently one of the major pollutants that causes water 
quality impairment for streams and rivers, and presents a risk to 
aquatic life. The ELGs and NSPS are expected to result in a reduction 
of the discharge of pollutants to surface waters, primarily as sediment 
and turbidity.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/08
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5119


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/guide/construction

Agency Contact:
Jesse Pritts
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4303T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-1038
Fax: 202 566-1053
Email: pritts.jesse@epamail.epa.gov

Ronald Jordan
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4303T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-1003
Fax: 202 566-1053
Email: jordan.ronald@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2040-AE91
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

106. PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION AND NONATTAINMENT NEW 
SOURCE REVIEW: EMISSION INCREASES FOR ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


Clean Air Act, Title I Parts C and D and Section 111(a)(4)


CFR Citation:


40 CFR Part 51; 40 CFR Part 52


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would revise the emissions test for existing electric 
generating units (EGUs) that are subject to the regulations governing 
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration

[[Page 71266]]

(PSD) and nonattainment major New Source Review (NSR) programs mandated 
by parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The existing 
emissions test compares actual emissions to either potential emissions 
or projected actual emissions. Under this rulemaking's revised NSR 
emissions test (a maximum hourly test like that used in the NSPS 
program), we would compare the EGU's maximum hourly emissions 
(considering controls) before the change for the past 5 years to the 
maximum hourly emissions after the change. The maximum hourly emissions 
test will be based either on maximum achieved or maximum achievable 
hourly emissions, measured on an input or an output basis. One proposed 
option provides that the maximum hourly emissions increase test would 
be followed by the annual emissions increase test in the current rules.


Statement of Need:


Utilization of this rulemaking's alternative NSR applicability test for 
existing EGUs would encourage increased utilization at the more 
efficient units by displacing energy production at less efficient ones.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act; CAA section 111(a)(4)


Alternatives:


The proposed basis for the applicability test is a comparison of 
maximum hourly emissions, which will enhance the implementation and 
environmental benefits for existing EGUs.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We are not able to provide quantitative estimates of the costs and 
benefits of this rule because of the difficulty in identifying the 
quantity and locations of sources that will utilize this rulemaking in 
the future, and the difficulty in specifically quantifying the 
difference in environmental outcomes that would result with and without 
the rule. Qualitatively, our analysis indicates that we anticipate a 
reduction in recordkeeping and reporting - and therefore a decrease in 
cost - and we expect that the environmental benefits of the program 
would not significantly change and may improve as a result of the 
positive impact on the safety, reliability, and efficiency of EGUs as a 
result of this rulemaking.


Risks:


We are not able to provide quantitative risk information because of the 
difficulty in identifying the quantity and locations of sources that 
will utilize this rulemaking in the future, and the difficulty in 
specifically quantifying the difference in environmental outcomes that 
would result with and without the rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/20/05                    70 FR 61081
Supplemental NPRM               05/08/07                    72 FR 26202
Notice of public hearing        06/07/07                    72 FR 31491
Final Action                    12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4794.2; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2005/October/Day-20/a20983.htm; Split from RIN 2060-
AM95.; EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/nsr

Agency Contact:
Lisa Sutton
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C339-03
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-3450
Fax: 919 541-1039
Email: sutton.lisa@epamail.epa.gov

Dave Svendsgaard
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C339-03
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 919 541-2380
Email: svendsgaard.dave@epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AN28
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
107. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST REVISIONS -- STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR 
ELECTRONIC MANIFESTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 6922; 42 USC 6923; 42 USC 6924; 42 USC 6926; PL 105-277


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 260; 40 CFR 262; 40 CFR 263; 40 CFR 264; 40 CFR 265; 40 CFR 271


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action is aimed at finalizing the development of EPA's Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulatory standards and 
procedures that will govern the initiation, signing, transmittal, and 
retention of hazardous waste manifests using electronic documents and 
systems. There are 2.4 million Federal-defined RCRA hazardous waste 
paper manifests processed each year, and a total of 5.1 million 
manifests processed each year including State-defined hazardous waste 
paper manifests. EPA proposed electronic manifest standards in May 2001 
as part of a more general manifest revision action that also addressed 
standardizing the paper manifest form's data elements and procedures 
for its use across all states (EPA Form 8700-22). The manifest form 
revisions were decoupled from action on the electronic manifest, and 
the Final Form Revisions Rule was published on June 16, 2005. The May 
2001 proposed rule included: (1) Electronic file formats for the 
manifest data elements; (2) electronic signature options; and (3) 
computer security controls aimed at ensuring data integrity and 
reliable commercial e-manifest systems. However, since publication of 
the 2001 proposed rule, EPA found that there is a broad consensus in 
favor of a single national ``eManifest'' system sponsored by EPA, 
rather than assorted de-centralized commercial systems. Subsequently in 
May 2004, EPA conducted a manifest stakeholder meeting to collect 
additional stakeholder views on the future direction of eManifest. 
Based on public comment on the 2001 proposed electronic standards and 
stakeholder feedback at the May 2004 meeting, EPA published a Notice of 
Data Availability (NODA) on 18 April 2006 announcing EPA's preferred 
approach to develop a centralized web-based eManifest system to be 
hosted on EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) computer hub. To that end, 
in Autumn 2006 EPA provided technical assistance to the US Senate for 
drafting S.3871 which would have authorized the CDX-based solution, as 
well as authorized EPA to charge and retain user fees to fund a 
``share-in-

[[Page 71267]]

revenue'' contracting approach to build and operate eManifest. EPA's 
ability to publish a final rule in 2009 that will recognize this system 
as a compliant voluntary alternative to the current paper manifest 
form, and to pursue this centralized eManifest design and funding 
solution will depend on new Congressional authority for EPA to collect 
user fees.


Statement of Need:


This revision of the RCRA regulation is necessary to establish the 
standards and procedures under which hazardous waste handlers will be 
authorized to use electronic manifests in lieu of the existing paper 
manifest form (EPA Form 8700-22). EPA's current RCRA regulations only 
allow the use of the paper manifest form which must be carried 
physically with the waste shipment, signed by hand with each change of 
custody, and filed among each waste handler's operating records for 
three years. This revision to the RCRA manifest regulation will specify 
the conditions under which electronic manifests may be obtained, 
completed, electronically signed, and transmitted, so that the 
electronic manifests may be used and accepted as the legal equivalent 
of the current paper manifest form.


Summary of Legal Basis:


There is currently not in place a statue or court order that requires 
EPA to revise the RCRA manifest regulations to adopt the electronic 
manifest regulation. However, on September 7, 2006 the U.S. Senate 
introduced S.3871 that would mandate the development of an electronic 
manifest system by EPA. The U.S. Senate also introduced a similiar bill 
S.3109 on June 10, 2008. In addition to authorizing EPA to collect user 
fees to build and annually operate and maintain the e-manifest 
information technology (IT) system using a novel share-in-revenue 
contracting approach, this new bill, also authorizes the collection of 
user fees to process paper manifests, should EPA require their 
collection and provides for the tracking of state regulated hazardous 
wastes. The bill also clarifies what state governments would not be 
subject to the user fees authorized by the bill. If enacted by the 
Congress, the bill could include a deadline to EPA for promulgating 
revisions to the RCRA manifest regulations to authorize the voluntary 
use of electronic manifests. Whether or not there is such a statutory 
mandate, EPA could develop a regulation prescribing the conditions for 
electronic manifesting under the authority of RCRA Section 3002(a)(5), 
which authorizes EPA to promulgate regulations establishing standards 
for generators of hazardous waste, including standards on ``the use of 
a manifest system and any other reasonable means necessary to assure 
that all such hazardous waste generated is designated for treatment, 
storage, or disposal in and arrives at'' permitted facilities.


Alternatives:


Based on public comments submitted on EPA's 2001 electronic manifest 
proposed rule, and additional manifest stakeholder input received at 
EPA's 2004 public meeting on eManifest, EPA's preferred alternative is 
now the development of a centralized national eManifest system that EPA 
would develop and operate under a share-in-revenue contract funded by 
user fees, and hosted on EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) computer 
hub. Other alternatives include (1) a national system that would be 
developed entirely commercially and operated by the NGO; (2) a 
decentralized option like the one suggested in the EPA's 2001 proposed 
rule, under which various private entities would develop numerous 
eManifest systems adhering to standards announced by EPA; and a no 
action alternative, under which all manifesting would continue only 
with paper manifests. Although too early for EPA to evaluate as of 
2007, the 2006-2009 electronic manifesting pilot project hosted by the 
Michigan state government may provide a new alternative for EPA to 
consider scaling-up to become the national eManifest system.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


As initially estimated by an EPA contractor in 2002, the first-year 
start-up (i.e., design, build, and installation) costs to EPA for a 
centralized national eManifest system to be hosted on EPA's CDX 
computer hub, are projected to be in the range of $2 million to $7 
million. EPA's annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for such a 
system are projected in the range $1.6 million to $3.2 million. EPA 
updates and refines the system cost estimates but refrains from making 
them publicly available because they constitute EPA's confidential 
independent government cost estimate (IGCE) which EPA will use as a 
benchmark to evaluate contractor bids to procure the system. In 
addition to EPA system costs, (a) the regulated community consisting of 
227,000 industrial facilities involved in shipping hazardous wastes 
every year, may voluntarily need to purchase $60 million to $69 million 
in computer equipment and services to connect to eManifest, and (b) 
state governments may voluntary need to spend around $3 million to 
integrate with the eManifest system, although EPA's over $100 million 
in grants the past few years to integrate state governments with EPA's 
CDX via EPA's National Environmental Information Exchange Network 
(NEIEN) has nearly provided integration for all state governments and 
many large industrial facilities with CDX via NEIEN nodes. National 
economic benefits from eManifest are expected to provide 45% reduction 
in paperwork burden costs to manifest useres and to RCRA-authorized 
state government agencies of up to $233 million per year (relative to a 
baseline national cost for paper manifest burden of $513 million per 
year), assuming that 75% of manifests can be completed electronically. 
These projected savings can also be expressed as a net unit paperwork 
burden savings of $23 to $40 per manifest. Other expected benefits of 
eManifest include: (1) better quality and more timely waste shipment 
data; (2) nearly real time shipment tracking capabilities for users and 
public safety agencies (rather than a 30-day wait); (3) enhanced 
inspection and compliance monitoring capabilities for regulators; (4) 
more rapid notification and response to problems or discrepancies with 
waste shipments; (5) more efficient or ``one-stop'' submission of 
manifest data to States; and (6) new possibilities to manage manifest 
data and to simplify or consolidate existing systems for reporting and 
tracking manifest and RCRA Biennial Report hazardous waste shipment 
data.


Risks:


This action addresses administrative requirements for tracking 
hazardous waste shipments and does not involve the control of ``risks'' 
in the sense that RCRA regulations typically address environmental, 
human health, and public safety risks posed by the possible mis-
management of hazardous wastes. Consequently, EPA has developed a CPIC 
Exhibit 300 business case ``Risk Management Plan'' for this action, 
rather than a hazardous waste chemical exposure risk analysis. Since 
the e-manifest regulation could authorize the voluntary use of an 
information technology (IT) system that would be developed to create 
and transmit electronic manifests, there would be information system

[[Page 71268]]

management risks and information security risks associated with 
developing and operating such an IT system. EPA is assessing and 
managing these IT risks as part of OMB's annual Capital Planning and 
Investment Control (CPIC) process that governs the management of EPA's 
IT investments.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM Original                   05/22/01                    66 FR 28240
Notice of Public Meeting        04/01/04                    69 FR 17145
NODA                            04/18/06                    71 FR 19842
NODA <greek-i>2                 02/26/08                    73 FR 10204
Final Action                    09/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3147.1; EPA publication information: NPRM Original - http://
www.gpo.gov/su--docs/aces/fr-cont.html; Split from RIN 2050-AE21.; EPA 
Docket information: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0032


Sectors Affected:


325 Chemical Manufacturing; 2211 Electric Power Generation, 
Transmission and Distribution; 332 Fabricated Metal Product 
Manufacturing; 2122 Metal Ore Mining; 2111 Oil and Gas Extraction; 326 
Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing; 331 Primary Metal 
Manufacturing; 323 Printing and Related Support Activities; 3221 Pulp, 
Paper, and Paperboard Mills; 482 Rail Transportation; 484 Truck 
Transportation; 5621 Waste Collection; 56221 Waste Treatment and 
Disposal; 483 Water Transportation


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/manifest/

Agency Contact:
Rich LaShier
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8796
Fax: 703 308-0514
Email: lashier.rich@epa.gov

Bryan Groce
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8750
Fax: 703 308-0514
Email: groce.bryan@epa.gov
RIN: 2050-AG20
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
108. CERCLA--ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTING EXEMPTION FOR AIR RELEASES OF 
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES FROM ANIMAL WASTE AT FARMS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 9603; 42 USC 11004


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 302; 40 CFR 355


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


EPA is considering finalizing an administrative reporting exemption 
from particular notification requirements under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as 
amended. This exemption would apply to releases of hazardous substances 
to the air that meet or exceed their reportable quantity where the 
source of those hazardous substances is animal waste at farms. The 
proposed rule also included a parallel administrative reporting 
exemption (also for the release of hazardous substances to the air that 
meet or exceed their reportable quantity from animal waste at farms) 
from the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). 
EPA is not making a final decision on this part of the proposed rule at 
this time. Persons still have an obligation to file reports under 
EPCRA, as appropriate, until EPA makes a final decision and amends the 
section 304 requirements. Nothing in the rule will change the 
notification requirements if hazardous substances are released to the 
air from any other source other than animal waste at farms (i.e., 
ammonia tanks), as well as releases of any hazardous substances from 
animal waste to any other environmental media, (i.e., soil, ground 
water, surface water) when the release of those hazardous substances is 
at or above its reportable quantity. This administrative reporting 
exemption is protective of human health and the environment and 
consistent with the Agency's goal to reduce reporting burden where 
there would likely be no Federal response to such release reports. 
Eliminating such reporting will allow response officials to better 
focus on releases where EPA is more likely to take a response action. 
The administrative reporting exemption from the notification 
requirements under CERCLA section 103(a) will not limit any of its 
authorities under CERCLA sections 104 (response authorities), 106 
(abatement actions), 107 (liability), or any other provisions of 
CERCLA.


Statement of Need:


Under this action, the Agency is considering the primary purpose of 
CERCLA and EPCRA notification requirements and is considering an 
exemption based on the likelihood of whether there would or would not 
be a governmental response to those notifications.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This action is not required by statute or court order. This action is 
being done at the discretion of the Agency.


Alternatives:


Not applicable.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


If finalized, it is estimated that the rule will reduce burden on farms 
associated with making modifications under CERCLA section 103 by 
approximately 3,408,000 hours over the ten-year period beginning in 
2009 and associated costs by approximately $155,313,000 over the same 
period.


Risks:


Not estimated.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/28/07                    72 FR 73700
Final Action                    11/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No

[[Page 71269]]

Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5117; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2007/December/Day-28/a25231.pdf; EPA Docket 
information: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469


Agency Contact:
Lynn Beasley
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5104A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-1965
Fax: 202 564-2625
Email: beasley.lynn@epa.gov
RIN: 2050-AG37
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S

[[Page 71270]]

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The mission of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, 
Commission or agency) is to ensure equality of opportunity in 
employment by vigorously enforcing six federal statutes. These statutes 
are: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (prohibits 
employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, 
or national origin); the Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended; the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended; Title I of 
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, and sections 
501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (disability); 
and the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991, which extends 
protections against employment discrimination to certain Federal 
employees who were not previously covered.
The first item in this Regulatory Plan is titled ``Disparate Impact 
Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.'' In Smith v. City of 
Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005), the United States Supreme Court affirmed 
that disparate impact is a cognizable theory of discrimination under 
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (``ADEA'') but indicated that 
``reasonable factors other than age'' (``RFOA'' ) is the appropriate 
model for the employers' defense against an impact claim.
Current EEOC regulations interpret the ADEA as prohibiting an 
employment practice that has a disparate impact on individuals within 
the protected age group unless it is justified as a business necessity. 
The Supreme Court's holding in Smith v. City of Jackson validated the 
Commission's position that disparate impact analysis applies in ADEA 
cases. The holding, however, differed from the Commission's position 
that the business necessity test was the appropriate standard for 
determining the lawfulness of a practice that had an age-based 
disparate impact. The EEOC is revising its regulation to reflect the 
Smith decision.
The second item in this Regulatory Plan is titled the ``Genetic 
Information Nondiscrimination Act'' and involves the use of genetic 
information in the workplace. On May 21, 2008, the President signed 
into law the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) 
in light of achievements in the field of genetics such as decoding the 
human genome and using genomic medicine. Many genetic tests now exist 
that can inform individuals whether they may be at risk for developing 
specific diseases or disorders.
Congress enacted GINA to address public concerns regarding 
discrimination and misuse of genetic information. GINA prohibits 
employment discrimination based on genetic information and restricts 
acquisition and disclosure of such information. In particular, Title II 
of the Act protects job applicants, current and former employees, labor 
union members, and apprentices and trainees, from discrimination based 
on their genetic information, whether acquired through genetic testing 
or from an individual's family medical history. It also places strict 
limits on the acquisition or disclosure of genetic information and 
requires that information that is acquired be maintained in a 
confidential medical file, separate and apart from personnel 
information.
Consistent with section 4(c) of Executive Order 12866, this statement 
was reviewed and approved by the Chair of the Agency. The statement has 
not been reviewed or approved by the other members of the Commission.
_______________________________________________________________________
EEOC

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

109. <bullet> GENETIC INFORMATION NONDISCRIMINATION ACT

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC section 2000ff-10


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 1635


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, May 21, 2009, As set forth in section 211 of the 
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.


Abstract:


Section 211 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, 
42 U.S.C. section 2000ff-10, requires the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission to issue regulations implementing Title II of the Act. Title 
II prohibits the use of genetic information in making employment 
decisions and limits employer access to genetic information. The Act 
also imposes confidentiality obligations on employers and other covered 
entities (employment agencies, labor unions, and training programs) 
that possess genetic information.


Statement of Need:


On May 21, 2008, the President signed into law the Genetic Information 
Nondiscrimination Act of 2008(GINA). Congress enacted GINA in 
recognition of, among many achievements in the field of genetics, the 
decoding of the human genome and the creation and increased use of 
genomic medicine. Many genetic tests now exist that can inform 
individuals whether they may be at risk for developing a specific 
disease or disorder. Congress enacted GINA to address public concerns 
regarding the potential for misuse of genetic information.


GINA prohibits discrimination based on genetic information and 
restricting acquisition and disclosure of such information. In 
particular, Title II of the Act protects job applicants, current and 
former employees, labor union members, and apprentices and trainees 
from discrimination based on their genetic information. GINA prohibits 
use of, and limits acquisition and disclosure of, genetic information, 
whether acquired through genetic testing or from an individual's family 
medical history. It also places strict limits on the acquisition or 
disclosure of genetic information and requires that such information 
that is acquired be maintained in a confidential medical file, separate 
and apart from personnel information.


Summary of Legal Basis:


GINA section 211, 42 U.S.C. section 2000ff-10, requires the EEOC to 
issue regulations implementing Title II of the Act within one year of 
its enactment.


Alternatives:


None: Congress mandated issuance of regulations.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Commission does not anticipate that the rule will impose additional 
costs to employers. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act does 
not impose any new employer reporting obligations or record keeping 
obligations.


Risks:


The proposed rule imposes no new or additional risks to employers. This

[[Page 71271]]

proposal does not address risks to public safety or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End         03/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Christopher Kuczynski
Assistant Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
1801 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20507
Phone: 202 663-4665
Fax: 202 663-4639
Email: christopher.kuczynski@eeoc.gov
RIN: 3046-AA84
_______________________________________________________________________
EEOC

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

110. DISPARATE IMPACT UNDER THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


29 USC 628


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 1625.7(d)


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005), the U.S. Supreme 
Court affirmed that disparate impact is a cognizable theory of 
discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 
(``ADEA'') but indicated that ``reasonable factors other than age'' 
(``RFOA''), not ``business necessity,'' is the appropriate model for 
the employers' defense against an impact claim. Accordingly, the 
Commission intends to revise its regulation on disparate impact, 
currently codified at 29 CFR section 1625.7(d).


Statement of Need:


Current EEOC regulations interpret the ADEA as prohibiting an 
employment practice that has a disparate impact on individuals within 
the protected age group unless it is justified as a business necessity. 
The Supreme Court's holding in Smith v. City of Jackson validated the 
Commission's position that disparate impact analysis applies in ADEA 
cases. The holding, however, differed from the Commission's position 
that the business necessity test was the appropriate standard for 
determining the lawfulness of a practice that had an age-based 
disparate impact. The EEOC is revising its regulation to reflect the 
Smith decision.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 9 of the ADEA authorizes the EEOC ``to issue such rules and 
regulations it may consider necessary or appropriate for carrying out 
this chapter . . ..'' 29 U.S.C. section 628.


Alternatives:


The Commission will consider all alternatives offered by the public 
commenters.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The proposed rule, which makes no change to covered entities' 
compliance obligations under the ADEA, brings the Commission's 
regulations into conformity with a recent Supreme Court interpretation 
of the statute. This revision to EEOC's regulation, informed by the 
comments of stakeholders, will be beneficial to courts, employers, and 
employees seeking to interpret, understand, and comply with the ADEA.


Risks:


The proposed regulation will reduce the risks of liability for 
noncompliance with the statute by clarifying the rights and 
responsiblities of job applicants, employees, and covered entities. The 
proposal does not address risks to public health, safety, or the 
environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/31/08                    73 FR 16807
NPRM Comment Period End         05/30/08
Final Action                    05/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local


Agency Contact:
Dianna B. Johnston
Assistant Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
1801 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20507
Phone: 202 663-4638
TDD Phone: 202 663-7026
Fax: 202 663-4639
Email: dianna.johnston@eeoc.gov
RIN: 3046-AA76
BILLING CODE 6570-01-S

[[Page 71272]]

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
 The General Services Administration (GSA) establishes agency 
acquisition rules and guidance through the General Services Acquisition 
Regulation (GSAR), which contains agency acquisition policies and 
practices, contract clauses, solicitation provisions, and forms that 
control the relationship between GSA and contractors and prospective 
contractors.
 GSA's fiscal year 2009 regulatory priority is to continue with the 
complete rewrite of the GSAR. GSA is rewriting the GSAR to maintain 
consistency with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and to 
implement streamlined and innovative acquisition procedures that 
contractors, offerors, and GSA contracting personnel can utilize when 
entering into and administering contractual relationships.
 GSA will clarify the GSAR to--
<bullet> Provide consistency with the FAR;
<bullet> Eliminate coverage which duplicates the FAR or creates 
            inconsistencies within the GSAR;
<bullet> Correct inappropriate references listed to indicate the basis 
            for the regulation;
<bullet> Rewrite sections which have become irrelevant because of 
            changes in technology or business processes, or which place 
            unnecessary administrative burdens on contractors and the 
            Government;
<bullet> Streamline or simplify the regulation;
<bullet> Roll up coverage from the services and regions/zones which 
            should be in the GSAR;
<bullet> Provide new and/or augmented coverage; and
<bullet> Delete unnecessary burdens on small businesses.
BILLING CODE 6820-34-S

[[Page 71273]]

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
NASA's Mission, as stated in its 2006 Strategic Plan, is ``To pioneer 
the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics 
research.'' In the 50 years since Congress enacted the National 
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, NASA has challenged its scientific 
and engineering capabilities in pursuing its mission, generating 
tremendous results, and benefits for all of humankind.
In the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, Congress endorsed the Vision for 
Space Exploration and provided additional guidance for implementation. 
NASA is committed to achieving this Vision through the six Strategic 
Goals articulated in the 2006 Strategic Plan:
1. Fly the Shuttle as safely as possible until its retirement, not 
            later than 2010.
2. Complete the International Space Station in a manner consistent with 
            NASA's International Partner commitments and the needs of 
            human exploration.
3. Develop a balanced program of science, exploration, and aeronautics 
            consistent with the Agency's new exploration focus.
4. Bring a new Crew Exploration Vehicle into service as soon as 
            possible after Shuttle retirement.
5. Encourage the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the emerging 
            commercial space sector.
6. Establish a lunar return program having the maximum possible utility 
            for later missions to Mars and other destinations.
In embracing a vision and mission for space exploration, and continued 
scientific discovery and aeronautics research, NASA pledges to continue 
the American tradition of pioneering. In pursuit of these activities, 
NASA is increasing internal collaboration, leveraging personnel and 
facilities, developing strong, healthy Centers, and fostering a safe 
environment of respect and open communication. We also will ensure 
clear accountability and solid program management and reporting 
practices. Effective regulation supports NASA activities related to its 
Vision, mission, and goals. The following are narrative descriptions of 
the most important regulations being planned for publication in the 
Federal Register during fiscal year (FY) 2009.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 CFR chapter 1, contains 
procurement regulations that apply to NASA and other Federal agencies. 
NASA implements and supplements FAR requirements through the NASA FAR 
Supplement (NFS), 48 CFR Chapter 18. Major NFS revisions are not 
expected in FY 2008, except to conform to the FAR implementation of 
Earned Value Management, the revision of FAR Part 45, Government 
Property, and the revision of FAR Part 27, Patents, Data, and 
Copyrights. In a continuing effort to keep the NFS current with NASA 
initiatives and Federal procurement policy, minor revisions to the NFS 
will be published.
NASA is planning on adding a subpart to its regulations that will list 
NASA's procedures for service of process on the Agency, including 
subpoenas, summons, and complaints. NASA will be cancelling Subpart 5 
to 14 CFR 1245 and will be providing notice of such cancellation in the 
Federal Register. NASA will be revising 14 CFR Part 1240 Inventions and 
Contributions. Such revisions will be not be substantive in nature.
BILLING CODE 7510-13-S

[[Page 71274]]

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION (NARA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Overview
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) issues 
regulations directed to other Federal agencies and to the public. 
Records management regulations directed to Federal agencies concern the 
proper management and disposition of Federal records. Through the 
Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), NARA also issues 
Governmentwide regulations concerning information security 
classification and declassification programs. NARA regulations directed 
to the public address access to and use of our historically valuable 
holdings, including archives, donated historical materials, Nixon 
Presidential materials, and Presidential records. NARA also issues 
regulations relating to the National Historical Publications and 
Records Commission (NHPRC) grant programs.
NARA has one regulatory priority for fiscal year 2009, which is 
included in The Regulatory Plan. We are revising and updating our 
records management regulations in 36 CFR ch. XII, subchapter B. We 
began work on this priority in fiscal year 2004 with a proposal for a 
new organizational framework for the records management regulations to 
make them easier to use. The proposed rule to revise subchapter B was 
published in the Federal Register on August 4, 2008 (73 FR 45274).
Regulations with International Effects or Interest
None in fiscal year 2009.
_______________________________________________________________________
NARA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

111. FEDERAL RECORDS MANAGEMENT

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


44 USC 2104(a); 44 USC ch 21; 44 USC ch 29; 44 USC ch 33


CFR Citation:


36 CFR 1220 to 1238


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


As part of its initiative to redesign Federal records management, NARA 
is revising its records management regulations in 36 CFR ch. XII, 
subchapter B to ensure that the regulations are appropriate, effective, 
and clear.


Statement of Need:


NARA's records management program was developed in the 20th century in 
a paper environment. This program has not kept up with a Federal 
Government that creates and uses most of its records electronically. 
Today's Federal records environment requires different management 
strategies and techniques.


The revision of NARA's records disposition policies, processes, and 
tools is necessary to meet a strategic goal identified in our Strategic 
Plan: ``As the nation's record keeper, we will ensure the continuity 
and effective operation of Federal programs by expanding our leadership 
and services in managing the Government's records.'' Effective records 
management ensures: That records are created and managed for agencies' 
business needs; protection of citizens' rights; accountability; and the 
ability to preserve and make available records of archival value.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Under the Federal Records Act, the Archivist of the United States is 
responsible for: 1) Providing guidance and assistance to Federal 
agencies to ensure adequate and proper documentation of the policies 
and transactions of the Federal Government and ensuring proper records 
disposition (44 USC 2904); 2) approving the disposition of Federal 
records (44 USC 33); and 3) preserving and making available the Federal 
records of continuing value that have been transferred to the National 
Archives of the United States (44 USC 21).


The Federal Records Act also makes the heads of Federal agencies 
responsible for making and preserving records containing adequate and 
proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, 
decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and is 
designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and 
financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by 
the agency's activities (44 USC 3101). Agency heads must also have an 
active, continuing records management program (44 USC 3102).


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The revision of NARA's records disposition policies and processes is 
intended to reduce the burden on agencies and NARA in the area of 
records management and disposition activities.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Begin Review                    09/17/02
ANPRM                           03/15/04                    69 FR 12100
ANPRM Comment Period End        05/14/04
NPRM                            08/04/08                    73 FR 45274
NPRM Comment Period End         10/03/08
Final Action                    01/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


URL For More Information:
www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/initiatives/rm-redesign-project.html

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Laura McCarthy
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740
Phone: 301 837-3023
Email: laura.mccarthy@nara.gov

Nancy Allard
Regulatory Contact
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001
Phone: 301 837-1477
Fax: 301 837-0319
Email: nancy.allard@nara.gov
Related RIN: Related to 3095-AB05, Related to 3095-AB41, Related to 
3095-AB43, Related to 3095-AB39
RIN: 3095-AB16
BILLING CODE 7515-01-S

[[Page 71275]]

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Office of Personnel Management's mission is to ensure the Federal 
Government has an effective civilian workforce. OPM fulfills that 
mission by, among other things, providing human capital advice and 
leadership for the President and Federal agencies; delivering human 
resources policies, products, and services; and holding agencies 
accountable for their human capital practices. OPM's 2008 regulatory 
priorities are designed to support these activities.
Adverse Actions
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) proposes to amend its 
regulations governing Federal adverse actions. The proposed amendments 
would clarify the adverse action rules regarding reductions in pay and 
indefinite suspension. In addition, OPM proposes to remove unnecessary 
subparts pertaining to statutory requirements, make a number of 
technical corrections, and utilize consistent language for similar 
regulatory requirements. OPM also proposes various revisions to make 
the regulations more readable.
Suitability and National Security
OPM is participating in a review of the Federal Government's 
requirements for access to classified information and for suitability 
for employment. This review covers relevant statutes, executive orders, 
and Governmentwide regulations and is intended to determine whether a 
reengineered system that is cohesive, simplified, and equitable as 
possible can be developed. In particular, a reengineered system may 
require adjustments to the following Government-wide regulations within 
OPM's jurisdiction: (1) Suitability, 5 CFR part 731; (2) National 
Security Positions, 5 CFR part 732; and (3) Personnel Investigations, 5 
CFR part 736. OPM expects this review process and any potential 
modifications of these regulations to be made by the end of FY 2008.
Training; Supervisory, Management, Executive Development
On October 30, 2004, the President signed the Federal Workforce 
Flexibility Act of 2004 (Act), Public Law 108-411, into law. The Act 
makes several significant changes in the law governing the training and 
development of Federal employees, supervisors, managers, and 
executives. It requires each agency to evaluate, on a regular basis, 
its training programs and plans to ensure that its training activities 
are linked to the accomplishment of its specific performance plans and 
strategic goals, and to modify its training plans and programs as 
needed to accomplish the agency's performance and strategic goals. 
Another change requires agencies to work with OPM to establish 
comprehensive management succession programs designed to develop future 
mangers for the agency. It also requires agencies, in consultation with 
OPM, to establish programs to provide training to managers regarding 
how to relate to employees with unacceptable performance, mentor 
employees, use various actions, options and strategies to improve 
employee performance and productivity, and conduct employee performance 
appraisals. Our proposed revision to the OPM regulations at parts 410 
and 412 of 5 CFR have been designed to address the changes, and in 
general to increase the emphasis on employee and executive development 
in the Federal Government. These proposed regulations were approved by 
OMB in August 2008 and published in the Federal Register in September 
2008. Public comments have been received, and OPM is targeting 2009 for 
publication of the final rule.
Leave for Employees Affected by a Pandemic Health Crisis or Other 
Emergencies
In FY 2009, OPM will continue efforts to provide alternative methods 
for agencies to assist their employees in the event of a pandemic 
health crisis or other major disasters or emergencies as declared by 
the President. Under current law and regulations, in the event of a 
major disaster or emergency, as declared by the President, that results 
in severe adverse effects for a substantial number of employees, the 
President may direct OPM to establish an emergency leave transfer 
program under which an employee may donate unused annual leave for 
transfer to employees of his or her agency or to employees in other 
agencies who are adversely affected by such disaster or emergency. OPM 
anticipates issuing regulations that will enhance the emergency leave 
transfer program by--
<bullet> Allowing donated annual leave in a voluntary leave bank 
            administered by one agency to be transferred to an 
            emergency leave transfer program administered by another 
            agency. OPM's regulations currently permit a leave bank to 
            donate annual leave to an emergency leave transfer program 
            administered by the leave bank's employing agency. We 
            believe a broader authority, which several agencies 
            requested in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, would have 
            provided an immediate benefit to employees adversely 
            affected by Hurricane Katrina and could benefit employees 
            adversely affected by future major disasters or 
            emergencies.
<bullet> Incorporating the inclusion of Judicial branch employees as 
            eligible participants in any emergency leave transfer 
            program as provided by Public Law 109-229, now codified at 
            5 U.S.C. 6391(f)).
<bullet> Clarifying the rules for returning unused donated annual leave 
            to emergency leave donors, which includes leave banks.
Pay Flexibilities and Entitlements
In FY 2009, OPM will continue to enhance pay flexibilities and 
entitlements to help Federal agencies better meet their strategic human 
capital needs. OPM anticipates finalizing interim regulations that 
implemented statutory changes dealing with pay setting for General 
Schedule employees. These statutory and regulatory changes made the pay 
setting rules more rational, consistent, and equitable. Also, OPM 
anticipates finalizing proposed regulations governing student loan 
repayment benefits, which agencies may offer to current Federal 
employees or candidates for Federal jobs when necessary to recruit or 
retain highly qualified personnel. These revisions will include certain 
policy changes and clarifications to assist agencies in taking full 
advantage of the Federal student loan repayment program.
BILLING CODE 6325-44-S

[[Page 71276]]

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION (PBGC)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) protects the pensions 
of over 44 million working men and women in about 30,500 private 
defined benefit plans. PBGC receives no funds from general tax 
revenues. Operations are financed by insurance premiums, investment 
income, assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from 
the companies formerly responsible for the trusteed plans.
To carry out these functions, PBGC issues regulations interpreting such 
matters as the termination process, establishment of procedures for the 
payment of premiums, reporting and disclosure, and assessment and 
collection of employer liability. The Corporation is committed to 
issuing simple, understandable, and timely regulations to help affected 
parties do business.
PBGC's intent is to issue regulations that implement the law in ways 
that do not impede the maintenance of existing defined benefit plans or 
the establishment of new plans. Thus, the focus is to avoid placing 
burdens on plans, employers, and participants, wherever possible. PBGC 
also seeks to ease and simplify employer compliance whenever possible.
PBGC Insurance Programs
PBGC administers two insurance programs for private defined benefit 
plans under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
1974 (ERISA): a single-employer plan termination insurance program and 
a multiemployer plan insolvency insurance program.
<bullet> Single-Employer Program. Under the single-employer program, 
            PBGC pays guaranteed and certain other pension benefits to 
            participants and beneficiaries if their plan terminates 
            with insufficient assets (distress and involuntary 
            terminations). The single-employer program had a $13.1 
            billion deficit at the end of fiscal year 2007.
<bullet> Multiemployer Program. The smaller multiemployer program 
            covers about 1500 collectively bargained plans involving 
            more than one unrelated employer. PBGC provides financial 
            assistance (in the form of a loan) to the plan if the plan 
            is unable to pay benefits at the guaranteed level. 
            Guaranteed benefits are less than single-employer 
            guaranteed benefits. The multiemployer program, which is 
            separately funded from the single-employer program, had a 
            $955 million deficit at the end of fiscal year 2007.
Recent Legislation
Early in 2005, the Administration proposed reforms to improve funding 
of plans and restore the financial health of the insurance program, 
which had a $233.billion deficit at the end of fiscal year 2004. 
Legislation signed into law in 2006 -- the Deficit Reduction Act of 
2005 (DRA 2005) and the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA 2006) -- 
contain various provisions intended to improve plan funding, enhance 
pension-related reporting and disclosure, and strengthen the insurance 
programs.
Regulatory Objectives and Priorities
PBGC's current regulatory objectives and priorities are to continue 
implementation of the PPA 2006 changes by issuing simple, 
understandable, and timely regulations that do not impose undue burdens 
that could impede maintenance or establishment of defined benefit 
plans. (PBGC has completed its implementation of DRA 2005.) These 
regulatory objectives and priorities are developed in the context of 
the Corporation's statutory purposes:
<bullet> To encourage voluntary private pension plans;
<bullet> To provide for the timely and uninterrupted payment of pension 
            benefits; and
<bullet> To keep premiums at the lowest possible levels.
PBGC also attempts to minimize administrative burdens on plans and 
participants, improve transparency, simplify filing, and provide relief 
for small businesses. As mentioned below, the first set of rulemakings 
concerns premiums, disclosure of termination information, annual 
financial and actuarial reporting, treatment of bankruptcy filing date 
as termination date for certain purposes, multiemployer plan withdrawal 
liability, and missing participants.
The Corporation seeks to improve transparency of information to plan 
participants, investors, and PBGC, in order to better inform them and 
to encourage more responsible funding of pension plans. PPA 2006 
contains provisions for disclosure of certain information to 
participants regarding the termination of their underfunded plan. PBGC 
published a proposed regulation on this disclosure of termination 
information in December 2007 and expects to publish a final regulation 
in October 2008.
PPA 2006 also makes changes to the plan actuarial and employer 
financial information required under section 4010 of ERISA to be 
reported to PBGC by employers with large amounts of pension 
underfunding. PBGC published a proposed regulation implementing those 
changes in February 2008 and expects to publish a final regulation in 
October 2008.
PBGC also seeks to simplify filing with PBGC by increasing use of 
electronic filing. Electronic filing of premium information has been 
mandatory for all plans for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 
2007. Filers have a choice of using private-sector software that meets 
PBGC's published standards or using PBGC's software. Electronic premium 
filing simplifies filers' paperwork, improves accuracy of PBGC's 
premium records and database, and enables more prompt payment of 
premium refunds.
In December 2007 and March 2008, PBGC published final rules 
implementing most of the premium changes under PPA 2006. The 
Corporation has incorporated the changes to the flat-rate and variable-
rate premiums into software so that it will be easy to comply with the 
premium changes under the new law.
Plan actuarial and employer financial information required under 
section 4010 of ERISA to be reported to PBGC by employers with large 
amounts of pension underfunding is required to be filed electronically. 
Electronic filing reduces the filing burden, improves accuracy, and 
better enables PBGC to monitor and manage risks posed by these plans. 
PBGC is incorporating the PPA 2006 changes to this reporting into 
software so that it will be easy to comply with the reporting changes 
under the new law.
In July 2008, PBGC published a proposed rule that would implement a PPA 
2006 provision that treats the bankruptcy filing date as the plan 
termination date for purposes of determining the amount of benefits 
PBGC guarantees and the amount of assets allocated to participants who 
retired or have been retirement-eligible for three years. The provision 
applies to plans that terminate in a distress or involuntary 
termination while the sponsor is a bankruptcy proceeding that was 
initiated on or after September 16,

[[Page 71277]]

2006. PBGC expects to publish a final rule in 2009.
PPA 2006 provides for changes in the allocation of unfunded vested 
benefits to withdrawing employers from a multiemployer pension plan and 
requires adjustments in determining an employer's withdrawal liability 
when a multiemployer plan is in critical status. In March 2008, PBGC 
published a proposed rule to implement these provisions. The proposed 
rule also would provide new modifications to the statutory methods for 
determining an employer's allocable share of unfunded vested benefits 
and improve the process of fully allocating a plan's total unfunded 
vested benefits among liable employers in a plan terminated by mass 
withdrawal. PBGC expects to issue a final rule in October 2008.
PBGC gives consideration to the special needs and concerns of small 
businesses in making policy. A large percentage of the plans insured by 
PBGC are small or maintained by small employers. The first proposed 
rule PBGC published under PPA 2006 implemented the cap on the variable-
rate premium for plans of small employers. In 2009, the Corporation 
expects to issue a proposed regulation implementing the expanded 
missing participants program under PPA 2006, which will also benefit 
small businesses.
PBGC will continue to look for ways to further improve its regulations.
BILLING CODE 7709-01-S

[[Page 71278]]

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Overview
 The Small Business Administration's (SBA) mission is to maintain and 
strengthen the Nation's economy by enabling the establishment and 
viability of small businesses and by assisting in economic recovery of 
communities after disasters. In order to accomplish this mission, SBA 
focuses on improving the economic and regulatory environment for small 
businesses, especially those in areas that have significantly higher 
unemployment and lower income levels than the Nation's averages and 
those in traditionally underserved markets. The agency also focuses on 
providing timely, effective financial assistance to businesses, 
including non-profit organizations, homeowners, and renters affected by 
disasters.
SBA is committed to:
<bullet> Working with its financial partners to improve small 
            businesses' access to capital through SBA's loan and 
            venture capital programs;
<bullet> Providing technical assistance to small businesses through its 
            resource partners;
<bullet> Increasing contracting and business opportunities for small 
            businesses;
<bullet> Providing affordable, timely and easily accessible financial 
            assistance to businesses, homeowners and renters after a 
            disaster; and
<bullet> Measuring outcomes, such as revenue growth, job creation, 
            business longevity, and recovery rate after a disaster, to 
            ensure that SBA's programs and services are delivered 
            efficiently and effectively.
SBA's regulatory actions reflect the goals and objectives of the agency 
and are designed to provide the small business and residential 
communities with the information and guidance they need to succeed as 
entrepreneurs and restore their homes or other property after a 
disaster. In the coming year, SBA's regulatory priorities will focus on 
strengthening SBA's management of its business loan programs, including 
issuing a final rule that would support lender oversight and improve 
lender performance. This final rule would further the President's 
priority of improved financial performance in government, and financial 
institutions would benefit from performance feedback to the extent it 
can assist them in improving their SBA operations and minimizing 
losses. The estimated cost of the changes incorporated into this final 
rule is $1.5 million.
_______________________________________________________________________
SBA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

112. LENDER OVERSIGHT PROGRAM

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 634(b)(6),(b)(7),(b)(14),(h), and note; 687(f),697(e)(c)(8), and 
650.


CFR Citation:


13 CFR 120


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule would implement the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 
statutory authority under the Small Business Reauthorization and 
Manufacturing Assistance Act of 2004 (Reauthorization Act) to regulate 
Small Business Lending Companies (SBLCs) and non-federally regulated 
lenders (NFRLs). It also would conform SBA rules to various changes in 
the section 7(a) Business Loan Program and the Certified Development 
Company (CDC) Program.


In particular, this rule would: (1) Define SBLCs and NFRLs; (2) clarify 
SBA's authority to regulate SBLCs and NFRLs; (3) authorize SBA to set 
certain minimum capital standards for SBLCs, to issue cease and desist 
orders, and revoke or suspend lending authority of SBLCs and NFRLs; (4) 
establish the Bureau of Premier Certified Lender Program Oversight in 
the Office of Credit Risk management; (5) transfer existing SBA 
enforcement authority over CDCs from the Office of Financial Assistance 
to the appropriate official in the Office of Capital Access; and (6) 
define SBA's oversight and enforcement authorities relative to all SBA 
lenders participating in the 7(a) and CDC programs and intermediaries 
in the Microloan program.


Statement of Need:


Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act states that SBA may provide 
financing to small businesses ``directly or in cooperation with banks 
or other financial institutions.'' Presently, SBA guarantees loans 
through approximately 5,000 lenders. Of these lenders, about 14 are 
SBLCs that are not otherwise regulated by Federal or State chartering/
licensing agencies. SBA examines these SBLCs periodically. 
Congressional and Administration policy to delegate lending 
responsibilities to SBLCs and other SBA lenders requires that SBA 
increase its lender oversight. To that end, SBA has drafted regulations 
that strengthen the Agency's management of its business loan and lender 
oversight programs.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Small Business Act, section 5(b)(6)(7),(14),(h) and note 650.


Small Business Investment Act section 308(f) and 508(c)(8).


Alternatives:


This rulemaking amends and expands SBA's existing regulations on the 
SBLC and lender oversight programs.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This rulemaking is designed to strengthen SBA's regulations regarding 
the SBLC Program and business loan and lender oversight programs. Some 
additional costs associated with additional reporting by the SBLCs, 
NFRLs, and other SBA lenders to the SBA are anticipated.


Risks:


This regulation poses no risks to the public health and safety or to 
the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/31/07                    72 FR 61752
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    12/20/07                    72 FR 72264
NPRM Comment Period End         02/29/08
Final Action                    12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

[[Page 71279]]

Agency Contact:
Bryan Hooper
 Director, Office of Credit Risk Management
Small Business Administration
409 3rd Street SW
Washington, DC 20416
Phone: 202 205-3049
Fax: 202 205-6831
Email: bryan.hooper@sba.gov
RIN: 3245-AE14
BILLING CODE 8025-01-S

[[Page 71280]]

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Social Security Administration (SSA) administers the retirement, 
survivors, and disability insurance programs under title II of the 
Social Security Act (the Act), the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 
program under title XVI of the Act and the Special Veterans Benefits 
under title XVIII of the Act. As directed by Congress, we also assist 
in administering portions of the Medicare program. Our regulations 
codify the requirements for eligibility and entitlement to benefits 
under these programs. Generally, SSA's regulations do not impose 
burdens on the private sector or on State or local governments.
The 14 entries in SSA's Regulatory Plan represent the issues of major 
importance to the Agency in the retirement, survivors, disability, SSI, 
and Medicare programs. Several of these regulatory priorities reflect 
recently enacted statutory provisions, including the Social Security 
Protection Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-203). We describe the individual 
initiatives more fully in the attached Regulatory Plan.
Improving the Disability Process
Because the continued improvement of the disability program is of vital 
concern to SSA, we have 10 initiatives in the Plan addressing 
disability-related issues. They include:
<bullet> A proposed rule providing that SSA identify claimants with 
            serious medical conditions as soon as possible, allowing 
            the Agency to grant benefits expeditiously to those 
            claimants who meet SSA disability standards;
<bullet> A proposed rule clarifying that the agency may set the time 
            and place for a hearing before an administrative law judge 
            (ALJ).
<bullet> A proposed rule allowing casualty reports prepared by the 
            United States armed forces to serve as statement of intent 
            to claim benefits and preserving filing dates for all 
            benefits.
<bullet> A proposed rule eliminating the Disability Service Initiative 
            processes in place in our Boston Region;
<bullet> A proposed rule clarifying when previously decided claims or 
            issues are barred from further consideration to ensure 
            consistency of decisions at different levels of 
            adjudication and in different locations in the country; 
            and,
<bullet> Six initiatives updating the medical listings used to 
            determine disability--two final rules evaluating hearing 
            loss and malignant neoplastic diseases, and four proposed 
            rules on evaluating respiratory system disorders, mental 
            disorders, hematological disorders and immune (HIV) system 
            disorders
Improved Stewardship
Also included in the Plan is a proposed rule that will strengthen our 
stewardship and program integrity activities by specifying the 
requirements certain non-citizen workers must meet to establish 
entitlement to benefits under title II, as provided in the Social 
Security Protection Act of 2004.
Enhanced Public Service
We are proposing to revise our rules concerning the representation of 
claimants before the Social Security Administration. These proposed 
rules include adding new language recognizing law firms and other 
entities as claimant representatives, allowing representatives in 
certain situations to charge and receive their fees from third parties, 
and modifying our rules on fee agreement and representative sanctions.
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

113. REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING RESPIRATORY SYSTEM 
DISORDERS (859P)

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 402; 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 42 USC 405(d) to 42 USC 
405(h); 42 USC 416(i); 42 USC 421(a); 42 USC 421(i); 42 USC 422(c); 42 
USC 423; 42 USC 425; 42 USC 902(a)(5)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1500, app 1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Sections 3.00 and 103.00, Respiratory System, of appendix 1 subpart P 
of part 404 of our regulations describe respiratory system disorders 
that are considered severe enough to prevent an individual from doing 
any gainful activity, or for a child claiming SSI payments under title 
XVI, that cause marked and severe functional limitations. We are 
proposing revisions to these sections to ensure that the medical 
evaluation criteria are up-to-date and consistent with the latest 
advances in medical knowledge and treatment.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are necessary to update the respiratory system 
listings to reflect advances in medical knowledge, treatment, and 
methods of evaluating respiratory disorders. The changes will ensure 
that determinations of disability have a sound medical basis and that 
people who are disabled can be readily identified and awarded benefits 
if all other factors of entitlement or eligibility are met.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


We considered not revising the listings and continuing to use our 
current criteria. However, we believe that proposing these revisions is 
preferable because of the medical advances that have been made in 
treating and evaluating respiratory diseases and because of our 
adjudicative experience.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Estimated costs - low.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           04/13/05                    70 FR 19358
ANPRM Comment Period End        06/13/05
NPRM                            03/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

[[Page 71281]]

Agency Contact:
Cheryl A. Williams
Acting Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvements
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1020

Suzanne DiMarino
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21225-6401
Phone: 410 965-1769
RIN: 0960-AF58
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
114. REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING MENTAL DISORDERS (886P)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 401(j); 42 USC 402; 42 USC 404(f); 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 
42 USC 405(d) to 42 USC 405(h); 42 USC 405(j); 42 USC 416(i); 42 USC 
421; 42 USC 421(a); 42 USC 421(i); 42 USC 421(m); 42 USC 422(c); 42 USC 
423; 42 USC 423(i); 42 USC 425; 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 1382; 42 USC 
1382(c); 42 USC 1382(h); 42 USC 1383; 42 USC 1383(a); 42 USC 1383(c); 
42 USC 1383(d); 42 USC 1383(i); 42 USC 1383(p); 42 USC 1383b


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.941; 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1; 20 CFR 404.1503; 20 CFR 
404.1520 to 404.1520a; 20 CFR 404.1528; 20 CFR 404.1615; 20 CFR 
416.903; 20 CFR 416.920a; 20 CFR 416.928; 20 CFR 416.1015; 20 CFR 
416.1441


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We propose to update and revise the rules that we use to evaluate 
mental disorders of adults and children who apply for, or receive, 
disability benefits under title II and Supplemental Security Income 
payments based on disability under title XVI of the Social Security 
Act. The rules we plan on revising are sections 12.00 and 112.00 in 
appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations (the listings). 
These listings include such impairments as affective disorders, 
schizophrenic disorders, intellectual disabilities, and autistic 
disorders.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are necessary to update the listings for evaluating 
mental disorders to reflect advances in medical knowledge, treatment, 
and methods of evaluating these diseases. The changes ensure that 
determinations of disability have a sound medical basis, that claimants 
receive equal treatment through the use of specific criteria, and that 
individuals who are disabled can be readily identified and awarded 
benefits if all other factors of entitlement or eligibility are met.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


We considered not revising the listings or making only minor technical 
changes. However, we believe that proposing these revisions is 
preferable because of the medical advances that have been made in 
treating and evaluating these types of diseases. We have not 
comprehensively revised the current listings in over 15 years. Medical 
advances in disability evaluation and treatment and our program 
experience make clear that the current listings do not reflect state-
of-the-art medical knowledge and technology.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Savings estimates for fiscal years 2010 - 2018: (in millions of 
dollars) OASDI - 315, SSI - 370.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           03/17/03                    68 FR 12639
ANPRM Comment Period End        06/16/03
NPRM                            11/00/08
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Cheryl A. Williams
Acting Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvements
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1020

Rosemarie Greenwald
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 966-7813
RIN: 0960-AF69
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
115. REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING HEMATOLOGICAL DISORDERS 
(974P)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 402; 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 42 USC 405(d) to 42 USC 
405(h); 42 USC 416(i); 42 USC 421(a); 42 USC 421(i); 42 USC 422(c); 42 
USC 423; 42 USC 425; 42 USC 902(a)5)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1500, app 1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Sections 7.00 and 107.00 (hematological disorders) of appendix 1 to 
subpart P of part 404 of our regulations describe hematological 
disorders that are considered severe enough to prevent a person from 
performing any gainful activity, or for a child claiming SSI payments 
under title XVI, that cause marked and severe functional limitation. We 
are proposing to revise these sections to ensure that the medical 
evaluation criteria are up-to-date and consistent with the latest 
advances in medical knowledge and treatment.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are necessary to update the hematological listings to 
reflect advances in medical knowledge, treatment, and methods of 
evaluating hematological disorders. The changes ensure that 
determinations of disability have a sound medical basis, that claimants 
receive equal treatment

[[Page 71282]]

through the use of specific criteria, and that people who are disabled 
can be readily identified and awarded benefits if all other factors of 
entitlement or eligibility are met.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


We considered not revising the listings or making only minor technical 
changes and continuing to use our current criteria. However, we believe 
that proposing these revisions is preferable because of the medical 
advances that have been made in treating and evaluating these types of 
impairments.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Estimated savings - low.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Cheryl A. Williams
Acting Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvements
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1020

Richard M. Bresnick
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1758
RIN: 0960-AF88
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
116. ADDITIONAL INSURED STATUS REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN ALIEN WORKERS 
(2882P)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 414(c); 42 USC 423(a)(1)(C); PL 108-203, sec 211


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.110; 20 CFR 404.120; 20 CFR 404.130; 20 CFR 404.315; 20 CFR 
404.1912; 20 CFR 404.1931


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The proposed rule will revise our regulations on insured status to 
include an additional requirement under section 211 of Public Law 108-
203 - the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA).


An alien worker to whom we did not assign a Social Security Number 
(SSN) before January 1, 2004, must meet one of two additional 
requirements in order to be found entitled to title II benefits based 
on that alien's earnings record. One is assignment of an SSN and 
authorization to work in the United States. Alternatively, the work at 
issue must have been performed while the alien was admitted to the 
United States as a visitor for business (Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) nonimmigrant classification ``B-1'') or as a crewman on 
a vessel or aircraft (DHS nonimmigrant classification ``D-1'' or ``D-
2''), and the business engaged in or service performed as a crewman was 
within the scope of the terms of such individual's admission to the 
United States.


If an alien worker whose SSN was originally assigned on or after 
January 1, 2004, does not meet either of these requirements, then he or 
she is not fully or currently insured and is not entitled to benefits 
even if the alien worker appears to have the required number of 
quarters of coverage in accordance with the other insured status 
provisions. This additional insured status requirement affects the 
entitlement of certain alien workers and any person seeking a benefit 
on the record of an alien who is subject to this law.


An alien worker who was properly assigned an SSN before January 1, 
2004, is not subject to section 211 of the SSPA.


Statement of Need:


By incorporating the changes mandated by the law in our regulations, 
our program rules and operating instructions will be consistent with 
the statute.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The proposed revisions to our regulations will reflect the Social 
Security Act, as amended by section 211 of the SSPA.


Alternatives:


None


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Administrative start-up costs will be nominal since we have implemented 
the law via operating instructions. No systems changes are needed. 
Benefits include savings to the title II Trust Funds and in 
administrative enumeration costs since some claimants who are denied 
under this law will not be able to get an SSN card for non-work 
purposes. We estimate that costs will be less than $500,000 per year 
and total roughly $2,000,000 over a 10 year period.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/00/08
Final Action                    10/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

[[Page 71283]]

Agency Contact:
Jessica MacBride
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Income Security Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 966-8481

Richard M. Bresnick
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1758
RIN: 0960-AG22
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
117. REVISIONS TO RULES ON REPRESENTATION OF PARTIES (3396F)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 406(a)(1); 42 USC 810(a); 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 
USC 1010; 42 USC 1383(d)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.612; 20 CFR 404.901; 20 CFR 404.903; 20 CFR 404.909; 20 CFR 
404.910; 20 CFR 404.933; 20 CFR 404.934; 20 CFR 404.1700 to 404.1799; 
20 CFR 408.1101; 20 CFR 416.315; 20 CFR 416.1401; 20 CFR 416.1403; 20 
CFR 416.1409; 20 CFR 416.1410; 20 CFR 416.1433; 20 CFR 416.1434; 20 CFR 
416.1500 to 416.1599; 20 CFR 422.203; 20 CFR 422.515


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We are proposing several revisions to our rules on representation of 
parties in parts 404, 408, 416, and 422 to reflect changes in 
representatives' business practices, beneficiaries' use of the 
Internet, and to become more efficient in processing claims for 
benefits. These rules propose to:


o Recognize entities as representatives;


o Mandate the use of Form SSA-1696 to appoint a representative or 
revoke or withdraw an appointment of a representative;


o Mandate the use of Form SSA-1696 to waive a fee or direct payment of 
the fee;


o Define the roles of a principal representative and a professional 
representative;


o Require professional representatives to use our electronic services 
as they become available;


o Authorize principal representatives to sign and file a claim for 
benefits for a claimant with us;


o Require professional representatives to submit certain requests for 
reconsideration and hearings before an administrative law judge 
electronically;


o Require a representative to keep paper copies of certain documents 
that we may require;


o Add new definitions or revise existing definitions for: 
``disqualify,'' ``electronic media,'' ``Federal agency,'' ``Federal 
program,'' ``fee petition,'' ``initial disability claim,'' ``person,'' 
``principal representative,'' ``professional representative,'' and 
``representative;''


o Add new affirmative duties and prohibited actions for 
representatives; and


o Change references in the representative sanctions rules to reflect a 
recent delegation of authority and a recent agency reorganization.


Statement of Need:


We are proposing these revisions to reflect changes in representatives' 
business practices and to improve our efficiency by enhancing use of 
the Internet.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 206 of the Social Security Act, as amended by the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA) and section 302 and 4303 of 
the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA) Public Law 108-203.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Negligible.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/08/08                    73 FR 51963
NPRM Comment Period End         11/07/08
Final Action                    09/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Peter Kierpiec
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Income Security Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-5734

Joshua B. Silverman
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 594-2128
RIN: 0960-AG56
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
118. SETTING THE TIME AND PLACE FOR A HEARING BEFORE AN ADMINISTRATIVE 
LAW JUDGE (3481P)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 401(j); 42 USC 404(f); 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 42 USC 
405(d) to 405(h); 42 USC 405(j); 42 USC 405 note; 42 USC 421; 42 USC 
421 note; 42 USC 423(i); 42 USC 425; 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 902 note; 
42 USC 1383; 42 USC 1383b


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.932; 20 CFR 404.936; 20 CFR 404.938; 20 CFR 404.950; 20 CFR 
416.1436; 20 CFR 416.1438; 20 CFR 416.1450(b)


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We propose to amend our rules to clarify that the agency is responsible 
for setting the time and place for a hearing before an administrative 
law judge (ALJ). Consistent with our regulations at other levels of the 
administrative process, we propose to use ``we'' or ``us'' in the rules 
addressing the scheduling of hearings. These changes will ensure 
greater flexibility in scheduling both in person and video 
teleconference hearings, increase efficiency in the hearing process, 
and reduce the number of pending hearings. The number of cases awaiting 
a hearing has reached historic

[[Page 71284]]

proportions, and efforts toward greater efficiency are critical to 
addressing this problem.


Statement of Need:


SSA currently faces a considerable challenge in processing a large 
backlog of requests for hearings at resource levels that have not kept 
pace with the rising level of receipts. Our proposed rulemaking will 
promote greater efficiency at the hearing level.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


Undetermined at this time.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Program benefit costs are estimated to increase for fiscal years 2008 - 
2018 by $1.2 billion for OASDI and SSI.


Risks:


Undetermined at this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Brent Hillman
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
5107 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-3260
Phone: 703 605-8280

Pamela Kultgen
Assistant Regional Counsel
Social Security Administration
Office of the General Counsel
601 E. 125th Street
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: 816 936-5078
RIN: 0960-AG61
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
119. REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING IMMUNE (HIV) SYSTEM 
DISORDERS (3466P)

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


42 USC 402; 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 42 USC 42 USC 405(d) to 42 
USC 405(h); 42 USC 416(i); 42 USC 421(a); 42 USC 421(i); 42 USC 422(c); 
42 USC 423; 42 USC 425; 42 USC 902(a)(5)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1500, app 1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Sections 14.00 and 114.00, Immune System, of appendix 1 subpart P of 
part 404 of our regulations describe immune system diseases that are 
considered severe enough to prevent an individual from doing any 
gainful activity, or for a child claiming SSI payments under title XVI, 
that cause marked and severe functional limitations. With this ANPRM, 
we are soliciting input on how best to update and revise listing 
sections 14.00 and 114.00 to ensure that the medical evaluation 
criteria are up-to-date and consistent with the latest advances in 
medical knowledge and treatment.


Statement of Need:


This regulation is necessary in order to update the HIV evaluation 
listings to reflect advances in medical knowledge, treatment, and 
evaluation methods. It ensures that determinations of disability have a 
sound medical basis, that claimants receive equal treatment through the 
use of specific criteria, and that individuals who are disabled can be 
readily identified and awarded benefits if all other factors of 
entitlement or eligibility are met.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


Undetermined at this time.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Cost/Savings estimate - negligible.


Risks:


Undetermined at this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           03/18/08                    73 FR 14409
ANPRM Comment Period End        05/19/08
NPRM                            09/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Cheryl A. Williams
Acting Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvements
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1020

Suzanne DiMarino
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21225-6401
Phone: 410 965-1769
RIN: 0960-AG71
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
120. AMENDMENTS TO APPLICATION FILING DATE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN 
MILITARY MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICE (3474P)

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


42 USC 402(i); 42 USC 402(j); 42 USC 402(o); 42 USC 402(p); 42 USC 
402(r); 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 416(i)(2); 42 USC 423(b); 42 USC 428(a); 
42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USCC 1382; 42 USC 1383(a); 42 USC 1383(d); 42 USC 
1383(e)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.340; 20 CFR 404.370; 20 CFR 404.621; 20 CFR 404.630; 20 CFR 
404.802

[[Page 71285]]

Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These proposed rules will allow casualty reports prepared by the United 
States armed forces to serve as statements of intent to claim benefits 
and preserve filing dates for all benefits. The changes to sections 
404.630 and 416.340 shall apply to all servicemembers entitled to 
receive benefits. These changes would simplify the benefits 
determination process and ensure that veterans receive those benefits 
to which they are entitled. Additionally, these rules provide a 
technical correction replacing the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief 
Act of 1940 with the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act where applicable. 
This proposed change would update our regulations to reflect 
legislative changes.


Statement of Need:


Military servicemembers serving in today's armed forces face unique 
obstacles due to the nature of their casualties. Unlike physical 
wounds, cognitive and neurological disorders such as Traumatic Brain 
Injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder dramatically affect the 
emotional, psychological, and physical well being of servicemembers and 
can have delayed onset. These effects often result in delayed benefit 
applications and loss of benefits. It is important to consider the full 
spectrum of issues related to disabilities and accommodate their 
effects. This regulation would ensure that servicemembers, veterans, 
and their families or survivors receive the full and timely benefits to 
which they are entitled or eligible. Additionally, these rules would 
update references to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 
1940 with its predecessor, the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative - not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


To be determined.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Terry Dodson
Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Disability Programs
Office of Process Policy
6401 Security Blvd.
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-0143

Dean Dwight
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Disability Programs
Office of Process Policy
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 966-7161

Helen Droddy
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1483
Email: helen.droddy@ssa.gov
RIN: 0960-AG73
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
121. REESTABLISHING APPEALS COUNCIL LEVEL PROVISIONS IN THE BOSTON 
REGION (3502P)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 401(j); 42 USC 402; 42 USC 404(f); 42 USC 405; 42 USC 405(a); 42 
USC 405(b); 42 USC 405(d)-(h); 42 USC 405(j); 42 USC 405(s); 42 USC 405 
note; 42 USC 416(i); 42 USC 421; 42 USC 421(a); 42 USC 421(i); 42 USC 
421(m); 42 USC 421 note; 42 USC 422(c); 42 USC 423; 42 USC 423(i); 42 
USC 423 note; 42 USC 425; 42 USC 432; 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 902 
note; 42 USC 1320b-1; 42 USC 1320b-13; 42 USC 1381; 42 USC 1381a; 42 
USC 1382; 42 USC 1382c; 42 USC 1382h; 42 USC 1382h note; 42 USC 1383; 
42 USC 1383(a); 42 USC 1383(c); 42 USC 1383(d)(1); 42 USC 1383(p); 42 
USC 1383b


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.970; 20 CFR 404.976; 20 CFR 404.1502; 20 CFR 404.1512; 20 
CFR 404.1513; 20 CFR 404.1519k; 20 CFR 404.1519s; 20 CFR 404.1520a; 20 
CFR 404.1527; 20 CFR 404.1529; 20 CFR 404.1546; 20 CFR 404.1601; 20 CFR 
404.1624; 20 CFR 405.1; 20 CFR 405.5; 20 CFR 405.20; 20 CFR 405.240; 20 
CFR 405.360; 20 CFR 405.371; 20 CFR 405.372; 20 CFR 405.373; 20 CFR 
405.381; 20 CFR 405.382; 20 CFR 405.383; 20 CFR 405.401; 20 CFR 
405.405; 20 CFR 405.410; 20 CFR 405.415; 20 CFR 405.420; 20 CFR 
405.425; 20 CFR 405.427; 20 CFR 405.430; 20 CFR 405.440; 20 CFR 
405.445; 20 CFR 405.450; 20 CFR 405.501; 20 CFR 405.505; 20 CFR 
405.510; 20 CFR 405.515; 20 CFR 416.902; 20 CFR 416.912; 20 CFR 
416.913; 20 CFR 416.919k; 20 CFR 416.919s; 20 CFR 416.920a; 20 CFR 
416.924; 20 CFR 416.926; 20 CFR 416.926a; 20 CFR 416.927; 20 CFR 
416.929; 20 CFR 416.946; 20 CFR 416.1001; 20 CFR 416.1024; 20 CFR 
416.1470; 20 CFR 416.1476; 20 CFR 422.130; 20 CFR 422.201


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We propose to eliminate the Decision Review Board (DRB) portion of part 
405 of our rules, which we now use for initial disability claims 
arising in our Boston region. Instead, we propose to allow claimants in 
the Boston region who are dissatisfied with the decision of the 
administrative law judge (ALJ) to request Appeals Council review, and, 
if dissatisfied with the Appeals Council's action, to file a civil 
action in Federal court. We will apply the existing provisions in parts 
404 and 416 of our rules to provide for these steps in the appellate 
process where those rules are directly applicable. We intend to make 
the process for Appeals Council review of cases in the Boston region 
parallel to the Appeals Council process in the rest of the country to 
the greatest extent possible.


Statement of Need:


To provide more consistent processing of appeals level claims for all 
regions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative - not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


Continue existing process.

[[Page 71286]]

Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Cost estimates for fiscal year 2009 - 2018: (in millions of dollars) 
OASDI - 55, SSI - 7.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Dean Landis
Director, Office of Regulations
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-0520
RIN: 0960-AG80
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
122. <bullet> DISABILITY DETERMINATIONS BY STATE AGENCY DISABILITY 
EXAMINERS (3510P)

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 402; 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 42 USC 405(d) to 405(h); 42 
USC 416(i); 42 USC 421; 42 USC 421 note; 42 USC 421(a); 42 USC 421(i); 
42 USC 421(m); 42 USC 422(c); 42 USC 423; 42 USC 423 note; 42 USC 425; 
42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 1382; 42 USC 1382c; 42 USC 1382h; 42 USC 1382h 
note; 42 USC 1383; 42 USC 1383(a); 42 USC 1383(c); 42 USC 1383(d)(1); 
42 USC 1383(p); 42 USC 1383b


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1527; 20 CFR 404.1529; 20 CFR 404.1546; 20 CFR 404.1615; 20 
CFR 404.1619; 20 CFR 416.927; 20 CFR 416.929; 20 CFR 416.946; 20 CFR 
416.1015; 20 CFR 416.1019


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We propose to amend our rules to permit disability examiners in our 
State agencies to make fully favorable determinations without requiring 
the input of a medical or psychological consultant in certain claims 
for disability benefits under title II (Social Security Disability 
Insurance) and title XVI (Supplemental Security Income) of the Social 
Security Act.


Statement of Need:


This proposal would allow us to improve service to a vulnerable section 
of the public by processing very specific disability claims faster.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative - not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


To be determined.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Nancy Schoenberg
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvements
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 966-9408

Pamela Kultgen
Assistant Regional Counsel
Social Security Administration
Office of the General Counsel
601 E. 125th Street
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: 816 936-5078
RIN: 0960-AG87
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
123. <bullet> AMENDMENTS TO RULES ON FEE PAYMENTS AND SANCTIONS (3513P)

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:


These proposed rules would modify our rules on fee payment, fee 
agreements, and fee petitions. We plan to clarify how bankruptcy 
proceedings and fee waivers affect claims. We also propose to 
strengthen our sanctions process and to consolidate our rules on 
Representation of Parties to make it easier for the public to 
understand and use them.


Statement of Need:


We are proposing these revisions to reflect changes in our policies on 
fees and to strengthen our sanctions process.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 206 of the Social Security Act, as amended by the Omnibus 
Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA) and Section 302 and 4303 of the 
Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA) Pub. L. 108-203.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Negligible


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined

[[Page 71287]]

Agency Contact:
Joshua B. Silverman
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 594-2128
RIN: 0960-AG90
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

124. REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING HEARING LOSS (2862F)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 402; 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 42 USC 405(d) to 42 USC 
405(h); 42 USC 416(i); 42 USC 421(a); 42 USC 421(i); 42 USC 422(c); 42 
USC 423; 42 USC 425; 42 USC 902(a)(5)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1500, app 1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Sections 2.00 and 102.00, Special Senses and Speech, of appendix 1 
subpart P of part 404 of our regulations describe hearing loss that is 
considered severe enough to prevent a person from doing any gainful 
activity, or for a child claiming Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 
payments under title XVI, that causes marked and severe functional 
limitations. We are revising these sections to ensure that the medical 
evaluation criteria are up-to-date and consistent with the latest 
advances in medical knowledge and treatment.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are necessary to update the hearing loss listings to 
reflect advances in medical knowledge, treatment, and methods of 
evaluating hearing impairments. The changes ensure that determinations 
of disability have a sound medical basis, that claimants receive equal 
treatment through the use of specific criteria, and that people who are 
disabled can be readily identified and awarded benefits if all other 
factors of entitlement or eligibility are met.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


We considered not revising the listings or making only minor technical 
changes and continuing to use our current criteria. However, we believe 
that proposing these revisions is preferable because of the medical 
advances that have been made in treating and evaluating these types of 
impairments. The current listings are now over 15 years old. Medical 
advances in disability evaluation and treatment and our program 
experience make clear that the current listings do not reflect state-
of-the-art medical knowledge and technology.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Cost estimates for fiscal years 2008 - 2018: (in millions of dollars) 
OASDI - 105, SSI - 10.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           04/13/05                    70 FR 19353
ANPRM Comment Period End        06/13/05
NPRM                            08/13/08                    73 FR 47103
NPRM Comment Period End         10/14/08
Final Action                    09/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Cheryl A. Williams
Acting Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvements
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1020

Rosemarie Greenwald
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 966-7813
RIN: 0960-AG20
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
125. REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASES (3429F)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 402; 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 42 USC 405(d) to 42 USC 
405(h); 42 USC 416(i); 42 USC 421(a); 42 USC 421(i); 42 USC 422(c); 42 
USC 423; 42 USC 425; 42 USC 902(a)(5)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1500, app 1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Sections 13.00 and 113.00, Malignant Neoplastic Diseases, of appendix 1 
in part 404, subpart P of our regulations describe malignant neoplastic 
diseases that are considered severe enough to prevent a person from 
doing any gainful activity, or for a child claiming SSI payments under 
title XVI, that cause marked and severe functional limitations. We are 
revising these sections to ensure that the medical evaluation criteria 
are up-to-date and consistent with the latest advances in medical 
knowledge and treatment.


Statement of Need:


These final regulations are necessary to update the Malignant 
Neoplastic Diseases listings to reflect advances in medical knowledge, 
treatment, and methods of evaluating Malignant Neoplastic Diseases 
Impairments. They ensure that determinations of disability have a sound 
medical basis, that claimants receive equal treatment

[[Page 71288]]

through the use of specific criteria, and that individuals who are 
disabled can be readily identified and awarded benefits if all other 
factors of entitlement or eligibility are met.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


We considered not revising selected criteria of the listings or making 
only minor technical changes and continuing to use our current 
criteria. However, we believe that these revisions are preferable 
because of the medical advances that have been made in treating and 
evaluating these types of impairments. The current listings are three 
years old. It was our intention to monitor these listings and to update 
the criteria as the need arose. Medical advances in disability 
evaluation and treatment and our program experience make clear that the 
current listings do not reflect state-of-the-art medical knowledge and 
technology.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Savings estimates for fiscal years 2009 - 2018: (in millions of 
dollars) OASDI - 46, SSI - 8.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/28/08                    73 FR 22871
NPRM Comment Period End         06/27/08
Final Action                    04/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Cheryl A. Williams
Acting Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvements
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1020

Rosemarie Greenwald
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 966-7813
RIN: 0960-AG57
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
126. <bullet> AUTHORIZATION OF REPRESENTATIVE FEES (3508F)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 406(a)(1); 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 1383(d)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1703; 20 CFR 404.1720; 20 CFR 416.1503; 20 CFR 416.1520


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We are proposing to revise our rules regarding payment of 
representative fees to allow representatives, in certain cases, to 
charge and receive a fee for their services from third parties without 
requiring our approval. We are also proposing to eliminate the 
requirement that we approve fees for legal guardians or court-appointed 
representatives providing representational services in claims before us 
if a court has already authorized their fees. Lastly, we propose to 
define ``legal guardians or court-appointed representatives.''


Statement of Need:


We are proposing these revisions to reflect changes in representatives' 
business practices, the ways in which claimants obtain representation, 
and how we process representative fees. Specifically, we propose to 
revise our rules regarding payment of representative fees to allow 
representatives to charge and receive a fee from third parties without 
requiring our authorization in certain instances. We also propose to 
eliminate the requirement that we authorize fees for legal guardians or 
court-appointed representatives who provide representational services 
before us if a court has already authorized their fees.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 206 of the Social Security Act, as amended by the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA) and section 302 and 303 of the 
Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA) Public Law 108-203.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Negligible.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/26/08                    73 FR 50260
NPRM Comment Period End         09/25/08
Final Action                    09/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Joshua B. Silverman
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 594-2128
RIN: 0960-AG82
BILLING CODE 4191-02-S

[[Page 71289]]

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION (CPSC)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting 
the public from unreasonable risks of death and injury associated with 
consumer products. To achieve this goal, the Commission:
<bullet> develops mandatory product safety standards or banning rules 
            when other, less restrictive, efforts are inadequate to 
            address a safety hazard;
<bullet> obtains repair, replacement, or refund of the purchase price 
            for defective products that present a substantial product 
            hazard;
<bullet> develops information and education campaigns about the safety 
            of consumer products; and
<bullet> staff participates in the development or revision of voluntary 
            product safety standards.
When deciding which of these approaches to take in any specific case, 
the Commission gathers and analyzes the best available data about the 
nature and extent of the risk presented by the product. The 
Commission's rules require the Commission to consider, among other 
factors, the following criteria when deciding the level of priority for 
any particular project:
<bullet> frequency and severity of injury;
<bullet> causality of injury;
<bullet> chronic illness and future injuries;
<bullet> costs and benefits of Commission action;
<bullet> unforeseen nature of the risk;
<bullet> vulnerability of the population at risk;
<bullet> probability of exposure to the hazard.
Additionally, if the Commission proposes a mandatory safety standard 
for a particular product, the Commission is generally required to make 
statutory cost/benefit findings and adopt the least burdensome 
requirements that adequately protect the public.
In fiscal year 2009, the Commission will continue rulemaking activity 
to address risks of fire associated with upholstered furniture. This 
rulemaking may be economically significant, both domestically and with 
respect to impact on international trade and investment. Pending 
reauthorization legislation, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement 
Act of 2008, will also have a significant impact on the Commission's 
regulatory activities in fiscal year 2009.
_______________________________________________________________________
CPSC

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

127. FLAMMABILITY STANDARD FOR UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


15 USC 1193, Flammable Fabrics Act; 5 USC 801


CFR Citation:


16 CFR 1640


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On October 23, 2003, the Commission issued an ANPRM to expand the scope 
of the ongoing upholstered furniture flammability proceeding to include 
both cigarette and small open flame-ignited fires. The staff developed 
a draft standard addressing both cigarette and small open flame 
ignition, and held public meetings in 2004 and 2005 to present and 
discuss the draft. In January, 2006, the staff sent a briefing package 
containing a revised draft standard and describing regulatory options 
to the Commission and provided follow-up status reports on various 
technical research efforts in November 2006 and December 2006. The 
staff forwarded another options package to the Commission in November 
2007. The Commission voted to propose a rule based on the 2007 draft 
standard. The Commission's proposed standard would not require FR 
chemicals in fabrics or fillings.


Statement of Need:


For 2001-2003, an annual average of approximately 4,000 residential 
fires in which upholstered furniture was the first item to ignite 
resulted in an estimated 330 deaths, 580 civilian injuries, and about 
$115 million in property damage that could be addressed by a 
flammability standard. The total annual societal cost attributable to 
these upholstered furniture fire losses was approximately $1.9 billion. 
This total includes fires ignited by small open-flame sources and 
cigarettes.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA) (15 U.S.C. 1193) 
authorizes the Commission to issue a flammability standard or other 
regulation for a product of interior furnishing if the Commission 
determines that such a standard is ``needed to adequately protect the 
public against unreasonable risk of the occurrence of fire leading to 
death or personal injury, or significant property damage.'' The 
Commission's regulatory proceeding could result in several actions, one 
of which could be the development of a mandatory standard requiring 
that upholstered furniture sold in the United States meet mandatory 
labeling requirements, resist ignition, or meet other performance 
criteria under test conditions specified in the standard.


Alternatives:


(1) The Commission could issue a mandatory flammability standard if the 
Commission finds that such a standard is needed to address an 
unreasonable risk of the occurrence of fire from ignition of 
upholstered furniture; (2) the Commission could issue mandatory 
requirements for labeling of upholstered furniture, in addition to, or 
as an alternative to, the requirements of a mandatory flammability 
standard; and (3) the Commission could terminate the proceeding for 
development of a flammability standard and rely on a voluntary standard 
if a voluntary standard would adequately address the risk of fire and 
substantial compliance with such a standard is likely to result.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The estimated annual cost of imposing a mandatory standard to address 
ignition of upholstered furniture will depend upon the test 
requirements imposed by the standard and the steps manufacturers take 
to meet those requirements. Again, depending upon the test 
requirements, a standard may reduce cigarette and small open flame-
ignited fire losses, the annual societal cost of which was $1.9 billion 
for 2001-2003. Thus, the potential benefits of a mandatory standard to 
address the risk of ignition of upholstered furniture could be 
significant, even if the standard did not prevent all such fires.


Risks:


The estimated average annual cost to society from all residential fires 
associated with upholstered furniture was $1.9 billion for 2001-2003. 
Societal costs associated with upholstered furniture fires are among 
the highest associated with any product subject to the Commission's 
authority. A standard

[[Page 71290]]

has the potential to reduce these societal costs.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           06/15/94                    59 FR 30735
Commission Hearing May 5 
    & 6, 1998 on Possible 
    Toxicity of Flame 
    Retardant Chemicals         03/17/98                    63 FR 13017
Meeting Notice                  03/20/02                    67 FR 12916
Notice of September 24 
    Public Meeting              08/27/03                    68 FR 51564
ANPRM                           10/23/03                    68 FR 60629
ANPRM Comment Period End        12/22/03
Staff Held Public Meeting       10/28/04
Staff Held Public Meeting       05/18/05
Staff Sends Status Report 
    to Commission               01/31/06
Staff Sends Status Report 
    to Commission               11/03/06
Staff Sends Status Report 
    to Commission               12/28/06
Staff Sends Options 
    Package to Commission       12/22/07
Commission Votes to 
    Direct Staff to 
    Prepare Draft NPRM          12/27/07
Staff Sends Draft NPRM to 
    Commission                  01/22/08
Commission Decision to 
    Publish NPRM                02/01/08
NPRM                            03/04/08                    73 FR 11702
NPRM Comment Period Ends        05/19/08
Staff Sends Final Rule 
    Briefing Package to 
    Commission                  05/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Agency Contact:
Dale R. Ray
Project Manager
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Directorate for Economic Analysis
4330 East-West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814-4408
Phone: 301 504-7704
Email: dray@cpsc.gov
RIN: 3041-AB35
BILLING CODE 6355-01-S

[[Page 71291]]

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION (FMC)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
 The Federal Maritime Commission's (``Commission'') regulatory 
objectives are guided by the Agency's vision statement. The 
Commission's vision is to administer the shipping statutes as 
effectively as possible to provide fairness and efficiency in the 
United States foreign maritime commerce. The Commission's regulations 
are designed to implement each of the statutes the Agency administers 
in a manner consistent with this vision in a way that minimizes 
regulatory costs and fosters economic efficiencies.
 The Commission recently finalized its Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 
2010 through 2015. As a result of the strategic planning process, the 
Commission's mission statement, strategic goals and performance 
measures have been refined to better focus the Agency's efforts in 
achieving its mission and promote efficiency in the Commission's 
business processes. Also during this process, the Commission 
strengthened the link between its budgetary process and Agency 
performance, consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act 
of 1993 and Executive Order 13450 - Improving Government Program 
Performance. In working toward these objectives, the Commission may 
determine to initiate rulemakings to address changing industry 
conditions or to implement technological advancements to minimize 
regulatory costs.
 The Commission is in the process of reviewing its regulations to 
ensure alignment with emerging industry trends and business practices, 
particularly as they relate to ocean transportation intermediaries, 
marine terminal operators and vessel-operating common carriers. The 
Commission also oversees the financial responsibility of passenger 
vessel operators to indemnify passengers and other persons in cases of 
death or injury and to indemnify passengers for nonperformance of 
voyages. The Commission is presently evaluating the passenger vessel 
operator program, particularly with regard to passenger vessel 
financial responsibility requirements.
 The principal priority of the Agency's current regulatory plan will be 
to continue to assess major existing regulations for ongoing need, 
burden on the regulated industry, and clarity. The Commission receives 
requests from segments of the shipping industry with regard to their 
tariff obligations under the Commission's regulations. The Commission 
invites comments on such requests and evaluates those comments. If the 
Commission determines to act favorably on the requests, it is possible 
that there could be specific rulemaking proposals presented for the 
Commission's consideration.
 The Commission's review of existing regulations exemplifies its 
objective to regulate fairly and effectively while imposing a minimum 
burden on the regulated entities, following the principles stated by 
the President in Executive Order 12866.
Description of the Most Significant Regulatory Actions
 The Commission currently has no actions under consideration that 
constitute ``significant regulatory actions'' under the definition in 
Executive Order 12866.
BILLING CODE 6732-01-S

[[Page 71292]]

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
I. REGULATORY PRIORITIES
Background
 The Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) is an independent 
agency charged with protecting American consumers from ``unfair methods 
of competition'' and ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices'' in the 
marketplace. The Commission strives to ensure that consumers benefit 
from a vigorously competitive marketplace. The Commission's work is 
rooted in a belief that free markets work -- that competition among 
producers and information in the hands of consumers bring the best 
products at the lowest prices for consumers, spur efficiency and 
innovation, and strengthen the economy.
 The Commission pursues its goal of promoting competition in the 
marketplace through two different, but complementary, approaches. Fraud 
and deception injure both consumers and honest competitors alike and 
undermine competitive markets. Through its consumer protection 
activities, the Commission seeks to ensure that consumers receive 
accurate, truthful, and non-misleading information in the marketplace. 
At the same time, for consumers to have a choice of products and 
services at competitive prices and quality, the marketplace must be 
free from anticompetitive business practices. Thus, the second part of 
the Commission's basic mission--antitrust enforcement--is to prohibit 
anticompetitive mergers or other anticompetitive business practices 
without unduly interfering with the legitimate activities of 
businesses. These two complementary missions make the Commission unique 
insofar as it is the Nation's only Federal agency to be given this 
combination of statutory authority to protect consumers.
 The Commission is, first and foremost, a law enforcement agency. It 
pursues its mandate primarily through case-by-case enforcement of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act and other statutes. In addition, the 
Commission is also charged with the responsibility of issuing and 
enforcing regulations under a number of statutes. Pursuant to the FTC 
Act, for example, the Commission currently has in place sixteen trade 
regulation rules. The Commission also has adopted a number of voluntary 
industry guides. Most of the regulations and guides pertain to consumer 
protection matters and are generally intended to ensure that consumers 
receive the information necessary to evaluate competing products and 
make informed purchasing decisions.
Industry Self-Regulation and Compliance Partnerships With Industry
 The Commission vigorously protects consumers through a variety of 
tools including both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches. To that 
end, it has encouraged industry self-regulation, developed a corporate 
leniency policy for certain rule violations, and established compliance 
partnerships where appropriate. The Commission has held workshops and 
issued reports that encourage industry self-regulation and compliance 
partnerships in several areas. As detailed below, consumer credit and 
finance, privacy, information security, information sharing, and the 
evolving nature of technology continue to be at the forefront of the 
Commission's consumer protection and competition programs:
 On July 29-30, 2008, the Commission held a Roundtable on ``FTC at 100: 
Into Our Second Century.'' The sessions were composed of a series of 
panels designed to examine 1) the FTC's Mission, Structure, and 
Resources, 2) the Deployment of Agency Resources in the Enforcement 
Area, 3) the Deployment of Agency Resources in the Policy Research and 
Development Areas, 4) the Agency's External Relationships, 5) 
Characteristics of a Successful Government Agency, 6) the Effectiveness 
of the FTC's Competition Mission, 7) the Effectiveness of the FTC's 
Consumer Protection Mission, and 8) How to Measure the Welfare Effects 
of the FTC's Competition and Consumer Protection Efforts.
Other workshops and conferences concerning the FTC's mission are listed 
below:
(a) The Commission staff held a workshop on September 25, 2008, to 
explore the growth of the for-profit debt settlement industry and to 
analyze how its model is affecting consumers and businesses. The 
workshop assembled consumer advocates, industry representatives, both 
state and federal regulators, and others with pertinent expertise to 
discuss a wide range of topics, including regulation and legal 
developments, advertising and marketing of debt relief services, role 
of third party lead generators and other service providers, the history 
and development of the industry and consumer education.
(b) The Commission also held three workshops or conferences following 
its November 2006 hearings, ``Protecting Consumers in the next Tech-
Ade,'' which examined key technological and business developments that 
will shape consumers' experiences over the next ten years.
-- On July 24, 2008, the Commission staff and the Technology Law and 
Public Policy Clinic at the University of Washington hosted a Town Hall 
meeting to explore the growth of contactless payment systems and their 
implications for consumer protection policy.
--The Commission hosted a Town Hall meeting, titled ``Beyond Voice: 
Mapping the Mobile Marketplace,'' on May 6-7, 2008, to explore the 
evolving mobile commerce (M-commerce) marketplace and its implications 
for consumer protection policy.
-- On November 1-2, 2007, the Commission hosted a Town Hall entitled 
``Behavioral Advertising: Tracking, Targeting, and Technology.'' The 
event brought together consumer advocates, industry representatives, 
technology experts, and academics to address consumer protection issues 
raised by the practice of tracking consumers' activities online to 
target advertising -- or ``behavioral advertising.''
(c) The Commission held three public workshops relating to its review 
of the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (16 CFR 
Part 260) which the FTC previously announced in a Federal Register 
Notice on November 27, 2007. 72 FR 66094.
-- On July 15, 2008, the FTC hosted a workshop to examine developments 
in green building and textiles claims and consumer perception of such 
claims.
-- The Commission held a public workshop on April 30, 2008, to examine 
developments in green packaging claims and consumer perception of these 
claims.
-- On January 8, 2008, the Commission held a public workshop to examine 
the emerging market for carbon offsets (i.e., greenhouse gas emission 
reduction products) and renewable energy certificates (RECs), and 
related advertising claims. The workshop focused on consumer protection 
issues in these markets, such as consumer perception of carbon offset 
and REC advertising claims and substantiation for such claims.
(d) The FTC's Bureau of Economics hosted a conference on ``Consumer 
Information & the Mortgage Market'' on May 29, 2008. The conference 
assessed

[[Page 71293]]

the role of consumer information in the current mortgage crisis from an 
economic perspective. Experts on real estate economics, information 
economics, consumer behavior, and consumer information policy examined 
why mortgage products and markets have changed over time, and the 
effect of consumer information -- and information regulation -- on 
mortgage choices and mortgage market outcomes.
(e) The Commission held a one-day public workshop on May 29, 2008, to 
examine developments in the health care sector relating to ``clinical 
integration'' among health care providers. Clinical integration is a 
term used to describe certain types of collaborations among otherwise 
independent health care providers to improve quality and contain costs. 
The 1996 joint FTC/Department of Justice Statements of Antitrust 
Enforcement Policy in Health Care expressly recognize the relevance of 
such integration to the antitrust analysis of health care provider 
networks that seek to collectively negotiate contracts with payers on 
behalf of their members.
(f) The Commission, the International Association of Privacy 
Professionals, and the Northwestern University School of Law co-hosted 
a one-day public workshop on how businesses can secure the personal 
information of consumers and employees on April 15, 2008. The workshop 
featured business people, attorneys, government officials, privacy 
officers, and other experts discussing data security in general, best 
practices for developing an appropriate data security program, and how 
businesses can respond to security problems, including data breaches.
(g) The FTC also assists newer competition authorities in foreign 
countries to learn about and conform to international best practices in 
competition policy and enforcement through our technical assistance 
program and, along with consumer protection, through the U.S. SAFE WEB 
Fellows Program. On February 6, 2008, the Commission and the Department 
of Justice hosted a workshop on international technical assistance. 
During this workshop, Commission and Department of Justice officials 
described how their programs have worked and discuss ideas for 
maximizing their future effectiveness. Through interactive panels, the 
agencies also obtained the perspectives of other aid providers in the 
field, academics, and private practitioners, with a view toward making 
improvements and charting a course for the future.
(h) The Commission hosted a public workshop on February 12, 2008, to 
examine the application of unilateral effects theory to mergers of 
firms that sell competing, but differentiated products. ``Unilateral 
effects'' as a formal theory of competitive harm was added to the joint 
FTC/DOJ Horizontal Merger Guidelines in 1992. The theory recognizes 
that, in some instances, mergers may create or enhance market power by 
allowing the merged firm to profitably raise prices, without 
accommodation of other rival market incumbents. While section 2.2 of 
the Guidelines explains that unilateral competitive effects can arise 
in a variety of different settings, the most common application of the 
theory is in differentiated product markets, where the products sold by 
different market participants are imperfect substitutes for one 
another.
(i) On December 10-11, 2007, the Commission hosted a public workshop, 
``Security in Numbers: SSNs and ID Theft,'' to explore the uses of 
Social Security numbers (SSNs) in the private sector and the role of 
SSNs in identity theft. This workshop continues the work of the 
President's Identity Theft Task Force, and, in particular, its 
recommendation to explore ways to reduce unnecessary uses of the SSN. 
The workshop provided a forum for public-sector, private-sector, and 
consumer representatives to discuss the various uses of SSNs by the 
private sector, the necessity of those uses, alternatives available, 
the challenges faced by the private sector in moving away from using 
SSNs, and how SSNs are obtained and used by identity thieves.
(j) On October 25, 2007, national advertising experts gathered in 
Houston for Green Lights & Red Flags: FTC-BBB Rules of the Road for 
Advertisers, a ``back to basics'' workshop about complying with federal 
and state truth-in-advertising standards. The workshop was sponsored by 
the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston, Inc. and the 
Federal Trade Commission, in partnership with Houston Bar Association 
and the American Advertising Federation Houston.
(k) The Federal Trade Commission staff held a workshop October 10-11, 
2007, to explore changes in the debt collection industry and examine 
their impact on consumers and businesses. The event brought together 
consumer advocates, industry representatives, state and federal 
regulators, and others with relevant expertise to provide information 
on a range of issues, including the effects of technological, economic, 
and legal changes on the debt collection industry and whether the Fair 
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and other laws have kept pace 
with the developments.
 In other areas, like the entertainment industry, the Commission has 
encouraged industry groups to improve their self-regulatory programs to 
discourage the marketing to children of violent R-rated movies, Mature-
rated electronic games, and music labeled with a parental advisory. The 
motion picture, electronic game and music industries have each 
established self-regulatory systems that rate or label products in an 
effort to help parents seeking to limit their children's exposure to 
violent materials. Since 1999, the Commission has issued six reports on 
these three industries, examining the industries' compliance with their 
own voluntary marketing guidelines.
 In April 2007, the Commission issued the latest of a series of reports 
on entertainment industry practices. Although the Commission found that 
violent R-rated movies and M-rated games were still being advertised on 
television shows and Web sites with large teen audiences, the 
Commission's review revealed that these industries continue to comply, 
for the most part, with their self-regulatory limits on ad placement. 
Because the music labeling system is not age-based, the industry has no 
specific restrictions on advertising explicit-content labeled music in 
media popular with children. In addition, the FTC found that while 
video game retailers have made significant progress in limiting sales 
of M-rated games to children, movie and music retailers have made only 
modest progress limiting sales.
 For the first time, the Commission tracked trends in viral marketing, 
including social networking sites such as MySpace, and viral video 
sites like YouTube. The report also flagged a new trend in gaming, 
mobile phone games, and noted several challenges they pose. The report 
recommended that all three industries consider adopting new, or 
tightening existing, target marketing standards. It also suggested 
retailers further implement and enforce point-of-sale policies 
restricting sales of rated or labeled material to children under 17. In 
particular, the report suggested the movie industry examine whether 
marketing and selling of unrated or ``Director's Cut'' DVD versions of 
R-rated movies, which may contain content that could warrant an even 
more

[[Page 71294]]

restrictive rating, undermines the current self-regulatory system.
 The report also suggested that the music industry provide more 
information on packaging and in advertising about why certain 
recordings receive a Parental Advisory. Finally, the report recommended 
that the video game industry place content descriptors on the front of 
product packaging and conduct research on why many parents believe that 
the system could do a better job of informing them about the level of 
violence in some games. See Federal Trade Commission, Marketing Violent 
Entertainment to Children: A Fifth Follow-Up Review of Industry 
Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recording & Electronic Game 
Industries A Report to Congress (April 2007), available at: 
www.ftc.gov/reports/violence/070412MarketingViolentEChildren.pdf. 
Following a reasonable period of monitoring industry practices and 
consumer concerns, the Commission plans to issue another report.
 In May 2008, the Commission released the results of its latest 
nationwide undercover shop of movie theaters and movie, music, and 
video game retailers. The survey found that 20 percent of underage 
teenage shoppers were able to buy M-rated video games, a major 
improvement from all prior surveys; roughly half were able to purchase 
R-rated and Unrated movie DVDs and PAL music CDs; and 35 percent were 
able to buy tickets to R-rated movies, demonstrating no statistically 
significant improvement in ratings enforcement since 2003.
 Staff is currently working on the development of a mall intercept 
study of parental awareness and use of rating information on movie DVDs 
and on a telephone survey on parental awareness and attitudes toward 
the marketing and sale of Unrated ``Director's Cut'' DVDs. The results 
of this research will be reported in the Commission's seventh media 
violence report, with an anticipated release in the Fall of 2009.
 Regarding advertising for alcoholic products, the Commission issued 
its third report on June 26, 2008, titled Self Regulation in the 
Alcohol Industry: Report of the Federal Trade Commission (June 2008), 
available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/06/080626alcoholreport.pdf. 
This report is based on data provided by 12 major alcohol suppliers in 
response to FTC Special Orders, is the first to present detailed 
information about how alcohol companies allocate their promotional 
dollars. It finds that about 42 percent of such expenditures are used 
for traditional television, radio, print and outdoor advertising; about 
40 percent are used to help wholesalers and retailers promote alcohol; 
about 16 percent are used for sponsorships; and two percent are 
directed to other efforts, such as Internet and digital advertising.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Commission has previously encouraged three alcohol industry 
trade associations; the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, 
the Beer Institute, and the Wine Institute; to develop and implement 
voluntary advertising codes governing the placement and content of 
alcohol advertising. In particular, the Commission encourages self-
regulatory efforts that reduce the likelihood that beverage alcohol 
advertising will be directed, by its content or placement, at youth. In 
its report, Federal Trade Commission, Alcohol Marketing and Advertising 
A Report to Congress (Sept. 2003), available at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/
2003/09/alcohol08report.pdf, the Commission announced that industry had 
adopted a new advertising placement standard, and the Commission made 
additional recommendations about efforts to facilitate code compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 With regard to advertising placement, the FTC's 2003 report announced 
that the alcohol industry had agreed to obtain audience data before 
placing ads, and agreed to require that at least 70 percent of the 
audience for print, radio, and television ads consist of adults over 
the age of 21. The 2008 FTC report found that more that 92 percent of 
radio, television and print ads disseminated by the 12 suppliers met 
the 70 percent standard. Further, all three segments of the alcohol 
industry have now adopted systems for third-party review of advertising 
complaints. In addition, the report found that the industry has adopted 
the 70 percent standard for Internet advertising at the agency's 
request. The report recommends that the industry adopt the 70 percent 
standard for event sponsorships, and that self-regulatory boards accept 
complaints from competitors and anonymous complainants. Finally, the 
report announces a new monitoring system to help the agency assess the 
industry's efforts on a continuing basis.
 The 2008 report also provided an update on the FTC's ``We Don't Serve 
Teens'' alcohol consumer education program. In 2007, ``We Don't Serve 
Teens'' public service announcements (PSAs) generated more than 1.1 
billion advertising impressions, with a market value of over $9 
million. In October 2006, the Commission also launched an alcohol 
consumer education program, www.dontserveteens.gov. The program 
communicates the message that responsible adults do not serve alcohol 
to teens because it is unsafe, irresponsible, and illegal. It includes 
a website, television and radio public service announcements and print 
material to be posted in alcohol retail outlets. The Commission has 
joined with public and private partners to spread this message. The 
week of September 10, 2007 was ``We Don't Serve Teens Week.'' It 
featured a variety of events held nationwide to focus attention on this 
important message.
 To address concerns about the nation's growing childhood obesity 
problem, the Commission and the Department of Health and Human Services 
(HHS) held a one-day forum on food marketing self-regulation. See 
Weighing In: A Check-Up on Marketing, Self-Regulation, & Childhood 
Obesity (July 2007) (materials available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/
workshops/childobesity/index.shtml). The forum allowed members of the 
food and media industries and self-regulatory groups to report on their 
progress in implementing initiatives addressing food and beverage 
marketing to children that respond to the agencies' recommendations in 
a 2006 joint report titled Perspectives on Marketing, Self-Regulation 
and Childhood Obesity. Following up, the Commission released on July 
29, 2008, a Report to Congress on Marketing Food to Children and 
Adolescents: A Review of Industry Expenditures, Activities, and Self-
Regulation (found at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/07/
P064504foodmktingreport.pdf). The 2008 report was prepared at the 
request of Congress \2\ and was based on the responses of 44 members of 
the food and beverage industry to Special Orders issued by the 
Commission on July 31, 2007, under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act. The 
2006 data presented in the Report describe food and beverage marketing 
early in the development of industry self-regulatory activities 
designed to reduce the profile of such marketing to children. The 
Report contains information not previously assembled or available to 
the research community. The Report also assesses the status of self-
regulatory initiatives and makes additional recommendations for both 
food and entertainment industry members, as well as the organizations 
leading self-regulatory efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Conference Report (H. Rep. No. 109-272 (2005) for the Commission's 
Fiscal 2006 appropriation legislation (Pub. L. No. 109-108) 
incorporated by reference language from the Senate Report directing the 
FTC to submit a report to the Committee regarding ``marketing 
activities and expenditures of the food industry targeted toward 
children and adolescents.'' (S. Rep. No. 109-88 (2005) at 108).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Additionally, in the industry self-regulation area, the Commission 
continues to apply the Textile Corporate

[[Page 71295]]

Leniency Policy Statement for minor and inadvertent violations of the 
Textile or Wool Rules that are self-reported by the company. 67 FR 
71566 (Dec. 2, 2002). Generally, the purpose of the Textile Corporate 
Leniency Policy is to help increase overall compliance with the rules 
while also minimizing the burden on business of correcting (through 
relabeling) inadvertent labeling errors that are not likely to cause 
injury to consumers. Since the Textile Corporate Leniency Program was 
announced, 142 companies have been granted ``leniency'' for self-
reported minor violations of FTC textile regulations.
 Finally, the Commission also has engaged industry in compliance 
partnerships in at least two areas involving the funeral and franchise 
industries. Specifically, the Commission's Funeral Rule Offender 
Program, conducted in partnership with the National Funeral Directors 
Association, is designed to educate funeral home operators found in 
violation of the requirements of the Funeral Rule, 16 CFR 453, so that 
they can meet the rule's disclosure requirements. Approximately 273 
funeral homes have participated in the program since its inception in 
1996. In addition, the Commission established the Franchise Rule 
Alternative Law Enforcement Program in partnership with the 
International Franchise Association (IFA), a nonprofit organization 
that represents both franchisors and franchisees. This program is 
designed to assist franchisors found to have a minor or technical 
violation of the Franchise Rule, 16 CFR 436, in complying with the 
rule. Violations involving fraud or other section 5 violations are not 
candidates for referral to the program. The IFA teaches the franchisor 
how to comply with the rule and monitors its business for a period of 
years. Where appropriate, the program offers franchisees the 
opportunity to mediate claims arising from the law violations. Since 
December 1998, twenty-one companies have agreed to participate in the 
program.
Rulemakings That Have International Effects
 This year, OMB has requested that agencies discuss the international 
effects of their rulemakings in the regulatory plan narrative. The 
Commission has statutory authority and implementing regulatory 
authority to prevent unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce 
among the states or with foreign nations. The Commission's Rules apply 
to foreign-based corporations doing business in the United States. As 
explained below, to the extent that foreign companies do business in 
the United States or their conduct from outside causes or is likely to 
cause reasonably foreseeable injury within the United States, these 
foreign entities are required to comply with the applicable statutes 
and rules.
 The Commission enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, which provides 
that ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting 
commerce...are...declared unlawful.'' (15 USC 45(a)(1)). Recently, the 
``Undertaking Spam, Spyware, And Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers 
beyond Borders Act of 2006'' (or the ``U.S. SAFE WEB Act of 2006'' or 
``SAFE WEB'') (Pub. L. No. 109-455, codified to the FTC Act, 15 USC 41 
et seq.) amended Sec. 5(a)'s ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices'' 
to include such acts or practices involving foreign commerce that cause 
or are likely to cause reasonably foreseeable injury within the United 
States or involve material conduct occurring within the United States. 
This amendment expressly confirmed the FTC's authority to redress harm 
in the United States caused by foreign actors and harm abroad caused by 
U.S. actors. This also clarified the factors for Commission 
consideration in establishing Trade Regulation Rules to remedy unfair 
or deceptive acts or practices that occur on an industry-wide basis. 
Under Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 USC 57a, the Commission is 
authorized to prescribe ``rules which define with specificity acts or 
practices which are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or 
affecting commerce'' within the meaning of Section 5(a)(1) of the Act.
 Turning to specific rules and rulemakings and their international 
effects or of potential international interest, the Premerger 
Notification Rules, 16 CFR 801-803, for example, apply to mergers or 
acquisitions reaching a certain size threshold and where one or both 
parties are of a certain size. In addition, the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 provided the Commission with authority to 
promulgate a rule addressing manipulation of wholesale prices for 
petroleum products and authorizes rule provisions prohibiting persons 
from supplying misleading or deceptive information or data to certain 
entities. As discussed within Rulemakings and Studies Required by 
Statute below, the Commission has issued an NPRM for this rule. 73 FR 
48317 (Aug. 19, 2008).
 For the Commission's consumer protection mission, some of the rules 
currently being reviewed may have effects on international companies 
doing business in the United States or on U.S. businesses regarding 
their dealings with foreigners. These include, among other things, the 
rules mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
concerning biodiesel fuels and blends and provisions concerning two 
types of lighting contained in the Appliance Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 305. 
Other rules that are pending or under review and that may have an 
effect on international commerce include: Rules adopted pursuant to the 
provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Act, which prohibit calls to 
persons listed on the Do-Not-Call list (16 CFR 310); Rules Implementing 
the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (16 CFR 316) regarding sending unsolicited e-
mails; Trade Regulation Rules adopted pursuant to the Telephone 
Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act of 1992 (900 Number Rule) (16 CFR 
308); Power Output Claims for Amplifiers Used in Home Entertainment 
Systems; Regulations under the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health 
Education Act of 1986 (16 CFR 307); the Trade Regulation Rule on Mail 
or Telephone Order Merchandise, which covers purchases on the Internet 
(16 CFR 435); the Rules adopted pursuant to the textile acts requiring 
content labeling of clothing and fabric and furs sold in the U.S. (16 
CFR 300, 301, and 303); and the Trade Regulation Rule requiring Care 
Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods as Amended 
(16 CFR 423).
In addition, many of the FTC Guides also apply to foreign entities 
doing business in the United States or are of interest to such foreign 
entities. These include among others: Guides for the Jewelry, Precious 
Metals, and Pewter Industries 16 CFR 23; Guides Concerning Fuel Economy 
Advertising for New Automobiles, 16 CFR 259; Labeling Requirements for 
Alternative Fueled Vehicles and Alternative Fuels, 16 CFR 309; and the 
Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, 16 CFR 260. The 
FTC also issued and applies an Enforcement Statement on the use of Made 
in USA and other U.S. origin claims in advertising and labeling.  See 
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/usajump.shtm. The principles set forth 
in this enforcement policy statement apply to U.S. origin claims 
included in labeling, advertising, other promotional materials, and all 
other forms of marketing, including marketing through

[[Page 71296]]

digital or electronic means such as the Internet or electronic mail.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Made in USA Enforcement Statement does not cover products 
specifically subject to the country-of-origin labeling requirements of 
the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, the Wool Products 
Labeling Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act, or the American Automobile 
Labeling Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulemakings and Studies Required by Statute
 The Congress has enacted several laws requiring the Commission to 
undertake rulemakings and studies. These include at least 14 new 
rulemakings and eight studies required by the Fair and Accurate Credit 
Transactions Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-159 (FACTA or the FACT Act); 
additional rulemakings and reports required by the Controlling the 
Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, Pub. L. 
No. 108-187 (CAN-Spam Act); the rulemaking pursuant to the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvements Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 
102-242 (FDICIA); model privacy notices under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley 
Act; a report assessing the impact of laws on competition between the 
United States Postal Service and private competitors as required by 
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, Pub. L. 109-435; and the 
rulemakings concerning gas price manipulation and labeling requirements 
for bio-mass based diesel, biodiesel bio-mass diesel and biodiesel 
blends required or authorized by the Energy Security and Independence 
Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-140. The Final Actions section below 
describes any final actions taken on the rulemakings and studies.
 The Commission has already issued nearly all of the rules required by 
FACTA. These rules are codified in several parts of 16 CFR 600 et seq. 
The active FACTA rulemakings include the following:
 Credit Bureau Charge for Credit Scores-The Commission was required to 
determine a fair and reasonable fee to be charged by a consumer 
reporting agency for providing the credit score information required 
under FACTA. On November 8, 2004, the Commission issued an NPRM on 
reasonable fees for credit scores. 69 FR 64698. The comment period 
ended on January 5, 2005. Staff has reviewed comments and is 
considering what action is appropriate.
 Furnisher Rules-The Commission is required, in coordination with the 
banking agencies and National Credit Union Administration, to issue 
guidelines and rules concerning the accuracy of information furnished 
to consumer reporting agencies, and rules relating to the ability of 
consumers to dispute information directly with furnishers of 
information. The Commission and the other agencies issued an ANPRM for 
public comment on March 22, 2006 (71 FR 14419) and an NPRM on December 
10, 2007 (72 FR 69279). The agencies are reviewing the comments and 
anticipate publishing final rules by the end of 2008.
 Risk Based Pricing Rule-The Commission jointly with the Federal 
Reserve published a risk-based pricing proposal for comment on May 19, 
2008. (73 FR 28966). The comment period ended on August 18, 2008. Risk-
based pricing refers to the practice of setting or adjusting the price 
and other terms of credit offered or extended to a particular consumer 
to reflect the risk of nonpayment by that consumer. This statutorily-
required rulemaking would address the form, content, time, manner, 
definitions, exceptions, and model of a risk-based pricing notice. The 
agencies anticipate issuing a final rule in spring 2009.
 During July 2007, the Federal Trade Commission released a FACTA-
required report presenting the results of a study concerning credit-
based insurance scores and automobile insurance. See Credit Based 
Insurance Scores: Impacts on Consumers of Automobile Insurance: A 
Report to Congress By the Federal Trade Commission (July 2007) 
available at: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/07/facta.shtm. The study 
found that these scores are effective predictors of the claims that 
consumers will file. It also determined that, as a group, African-
Americans and Hispanics tend to have lower scores than non-Hispanic 
whites and Asians. Therefore, the use of scores likely leads to 
African-Americans and Hispanics paying relatively more for automobile 
insurance than non-Hispanic whites and Asians. Credit-based insurance 
scores are calculated based on a consumer's credit history information. 
Insurance companies use them to predict the claims that consumers are 
likely to file, and to determine the premiums they are charged.
 On May 19, 2008, pursuant to the requirement of FACTA Section 215, the 
Commission issued a compulsory process resolution regarding the Federal 
Trade Commission Study of the Effects of the Use of Credit Scores and 
Credit-Based Insurance Scores on the Availability and Affordability of 
A Range of Consumer Financial Products and Services: Draft Model Order 
to File a Special Report and Compulsory Process. Orders issued pursuant 
to this resolution would require certain insurance companies to produce 
information for a study on the use and effect of credit-based insurance 
scores on consumers of homeowner's insurance. Following a public 
comment period which expired on June 18, 2008, the Commission intends 
to serve orders on the nine largest private providers of homeowners 
insurance that represent roughly 60 percent of the homeowners insurance 
market.
 The FDICIA assigns to the Commission responsibilities for certain non-
federally insured depository institutions (``DIs'') and private deposit 
insurers of such DIs. The FTC is required to prescribe by regulation or 
order, the manner and content of certain disclosures required of DIs 
that lack federal deposit insurance. From 1993-2003, the Commission was 
statutorily barred on an annual basis from appropriating funds for 
purposes of complying with FDICIA. The Consolidated Appropriations Act 
of 2004 and subsequent yearly appropriations have not imposed the same 
funding prohibition and the Commission issued an NPRM on March 16, 
2005. 70 FR 12823. The comment period closed on June 15, 2005. Staff is 
reviewing comments and expects to forward a recommendation to the 
Commission by the end of 2008.
 Pursuant to Section 728 of the Financial Services Relief Act of 2006, 
P. L. No. 109-351, which added section 503(e) to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley 
Act (or GLB Act), the Commission together with seven other federal 
agencies \4\ is directed to propose a model form that may be used at 
the option of financial institutions for the privacy notices required 
under GLB. The 2006 amendment provided that the agencies must propose 
the model form within 280 days after enactment, or by April 11, 2007. 
On March 29, 2007, the GLB agencies issued an NPRM proposing as the 
model form the prototype privacy notice developed during the consumer 
testing research project undertaken by first six, and then seven of 
these agencies. (72 FR 14940). Staff of the agencies are reviewing the 
comments

[[Page 71297]]

and expect to take action by spring 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The agencies are the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the 
National Credit Union Administration, the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, and the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-140, 
requires, among other things, that the Commission promulgate rules 
concerning gas price manipulation and labeling requirements for bio-
mass based diesel, biodiesel bio-mass diesel and biodiesel blends as 
well as energy labeling requirements for certain appliances including 
light bulbs.
 Section 811 of this Act prohibits any manipulative or deceptive device 
or contrivance in connection with the wholesale purchase, or sale of 
crude oil, gasoline, or other petroleum distillate in contravention of 
rules or regulations the Commission may prescribe. Section 813 
specifies the methods of enforcing such a rule. On May 1, 2008, the 
Commission announced an ANPRM requesting comments on the manner in 
which it should carry out its responsibilities to promulgate 
regulations under this section. 73 FR 25614 (May 7, 2008). The extended 
comment period ended on June 23, 2008. 73 FR 32259 (June 6, 2008). 
After considering the comments, the Commission issued an NPRM on August 
19, 2008 73 FR 48317. Staff anticipates making a recommendation to the 
Commission by the end of 2008.
 Section 321 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
requires the Commission to conduct a rulemaking to consider the 
effectiveness of current energy labeling for lamps (commonly referred 
to as ``light bulbs'') and to consider alternative labeling approaches. 
In response to that directive, the Commission issued an ANPRM on July 
17, 2008, seeking comments on the effectiveness of current labeling 
requirements for lamp packages and possible alternatives to those 
requirements. 73 FR 40988. As part of this effort, the Commission held 
a public roundtable meeting on September 15, 2008. The comment period 
ended on September 29, 2008, and, after considering the comments, staff 
plans to forward its recommendation to the Commission by late fall 
2008.
Ten-Year Review Program
 In 1992, the Commission implemented a program to review its rules and 
guides regularly. The Commission's review program is patterned after 
provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 USC 601-612. Under the 
Commission's program, rules have been reviewed on a ten-year schedule 
as resources permit. For many rules, this has resulted in more frequent 
reviews than is generally required by section 610 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. This program is also broader than the review 
contemplated under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, in that it provides 
the Commission with an ongoing systematic approach for seeking 
information about the costs and benefits of its rules and guides and 
whether there are changes that could minimize any adverse economic 
effects, not just a ``significant economic impact upon a substantial 
number of small entities.'' 5 USC 610. The program's goal is to ensure 
that all of the Commission's rules and guides remain in the public 
interest. It complies with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121. This program is consistent with the 
Administration's ``smart'' regulation agenda to streamline regulations 
and reporting requirements and Section 5(a) of Executive Order 12866, 
58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993).
 As part of its continuing ten-year review plan, the Commission 
examines the effect of rules and guides on small businesses and on the 
marketplace in general. These reviews may lead to the revision or 
rescission of rules and guides to ensure that the Commission's consumer 
protection and competition goals are achieved efficiently and at the 
least cost to business. In a number of instances, the Commission has 
determined that existing rules and guides were no longer necessary nor 
in the public interest. As a result of the review program, the 
Commission has repealed 48 percent of its trade regulation rules and 57 
percent of its guides since 1992.
Calendar Year 2007-08 Reviews
 Most of the matters currently under review pertain to consumer 
protection and are intended to ensure that consumers receive the 
information necessary to evaluate competing products and make informed 
purchasing decisions. On March 4, 2008, the Commission announced its 
ten-year schedule of review and that it would initiate the review of 
two rules and one guide during 2008: (1) the Rule Concerning Power 
Output Claims for Amplifiers Utilized in Home Entertainment Products 
(the Amplifier Rule), 16 CFR 432, (2) the Rule Concerning Cooling-Off 
Period for Sales Made at Homes or at Certain Other Locations (the 
Cooling-Off Rule), 16 CFR 429 and (3) the Guides Concerning the Use of 
Environmental Marketing Claims (the Green Guides), 16 CFR 260. 73 FR 
11844 (Mar. 5, 2008).
 The Amplifier Rule, 16 CFR 432, promulgated in 1974 and last reviewed 
within the last five years, assists consumers in purchasing by 
standardizing the measurement and disclosure of various performance 
attributes of power amplification equipment for home entertainment 
purposes. The Rule makes it an unfair or deceptive act or practice for 
manufacturers and sellers of sound power amplification equipment for 
home entertainment purposes to fail to disclose certain performance 
information in connection with direct or indirect representations of 
power output, power band, frequency or distortion characteristics. The 
Rule also sets out standard test conditions for performing the 
measurements that support the required performance disclosures. 
Further, the Rule prohibits representations of performance 
characteristics if they are not obtainable when the equipment is 
operated by the consumer in the usual and ordinary manner without the 
use of extraneous aids. On February 27, 2008, the Commission published 
a request for comments including a number of specific issues related to 
changes in technology and products. 73 FR 10403. The comment period 
ended on May 12, 2008, and staff anticipates sending a recommendation 
to the Commission by the end of 2008.
 The Cooling-Off Rule, 16 CFR 429, was last revised in 1995. The 
Cooling-Off Rule requires that a consumer be given a three-day right to 
cancel certain sales greater than $25.00 that occur at a place other 
than a seller's place of business. The Rule also requires a seller to 
notify buyers orally of the right to cancel; to provide buyers with a 
dated receipt or copy of the contract containing the name and address 
of the seller and notice of cancellation rights; and to provide buyers 
with forms which buyers may use to cancel the contract. Staff 
anticipates forwarding a recommendation for an ANPRM concerning the 
review of this rule in December 2008.
 On November 26, 2007, the Commission announced that it would review 
the Green Guides, 16 CFR 260. 73 FR 66091 (Nov. 27, 2007). The 
Commission has held three workshops described above and is continuing 
the review of the Green Guides. Staff anticipates forwarding a 
recommendation to the Commission concerning these Guides in Spring 
2009. Please see subsection (c) under Industry Self-Regulation and 
Compliance

[[Page 71298]]

Partnerships With Industry for further information about each workshop.
Ongoing Reviews
 (a) Rules
 The Commission staff is continuing its review of several rules and 
guides.
 First, for the Mail Order Rule, 16 CFR 435, the Commission plans to 
issue a Federal Register notice during the Fall of 2008 requesting 
comments on whether to retain or amend the Rule. Issued in 1975, and 
last amended in 1995, the rule requires that, when sellers advertise 
merchandise, they must have a reasonable basis for stating or implying 
that they can ship within a certain time. The Commission also plans to 
seek comments about non-substantive changes to the rule to bring it 
into conformity with changing conditions; including consumers' usage of 
means other than the telephone to access the Internet when ordering, 
consumers paying for merchandise by demand draft or debit card, and 
merchants using alternative methods to make prompt rule-required 
refunds.
 Second, the proposed Business Opportunity Rule stems from the recently 
concluded review of the Franchise Rule, where staff recommended that 
the Franchise Rule be split into two parts; one part addressing 
franchise issues and another part addressing business opportunity 
issues. Thereafter, the Commission published an NPRM seeking comments 
on the proposed Business Opportunity Rule. 71 FR 19054 (Apr. 12, 2006). 
This proposed rule would address fraud in the offer and sale of 
business opportunity ventures by requiring business opportunity sellers 
to furnish specific pre-sale disclosures to prospective purchasers, as 
well as prohibiting specific conduct that the rulemaking record and the 
Commission's law enforcement experience show are prevalent problems. 
The NPRM comment period ended on July 17, 2006, and the rebuttal 
comment period was extended to September 29, 2006. After reviewing the 
comments, the Commission issued a revised NPRM on March 26, 2008, that 
would require business opportunity sellers to furnish prospective 
purchasers with specific information that is material to the consumer's 
decision as to whether to purchase a business opportunity and which 
should help the purchaser identify fraudulent offerings. 73 Fed. Reg. 
16110. The NPRM comment period ended on May 27, 2008, and the rebuttal 
comment period ended on June 16, 2008. Staff plans to forward a 
recommendation to the Commission on the need for hearings or workshops 
on the proposed amendments to the Business Opportunity Rule by the end 
of 2008.
 Third, for the Hart-Scott-Rodino Premerger Notification Rules (HSR 
Rules), 16 CFR 801-803, Bureau of Competition staff is continuing to 
review various HSR Rule provisions. Staff is also reviewing the HSR 
Form and anticipates sending a recommendation to the Commission during 
2009.
 Fourth, for the Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule (Used Car 
Rule), 16 CFR 455, the Commission published a notice seeking public 
comments on the effectiveness and impact of the Rule. 73 FR 42285 (July 
21, 2008). The notice seeks comments on a range of issues including, 
among others, whether a bilingual Buyers Guide would be useful or 
practicable, as well as what form such a Buyers Guide should take. 
Second, the notice seeks comments on possible changes to the Buyers 
Guide that reflect new warranty products such as certified used car 
warranties, that have become increasingly popular since the Rule was 
last reviewed. Finally, the notice seeks comments on other issues 
including the continuing need for the Rule and its economic impact, the 
effect of the Rule on deception in the used car market, and the rule's 
interaction with other regulations. Effective in 1985 and last reviewed 
in 1995, this Rule sets out the general duties of a used vehicle 
dealer, requiring that a completed Buyers Guide be posted at all times 
on the side window of each used car a dealer offers for sale. Dealers 
must disclose on the Buyers Guide whether the vehicle is covered by a 
warranty, and if so, the type and duration of the warranty coverage, or 
whether the vehicle is being sold ``as is - no warranty.'' The 
information in the Buyers Guide also becomes part of the sales 
contract, and overrides any contrary provisions contained in the 
contract, under the FTC rule. The rule also prohibits the used vehicle 
dealer from making statements contrary to those on the label. The 
comment period, as extended, ended on November 19, 2008, and staff 
anticipates sending its recommendation to the Commission by spring 
2009.
 Fifth, the Commission's review of the Pay-Per-Call Rule, 16 CFR 308, 
is continuing. The Commission has held workshops to discuss proposed 
amendments to this rule, including provisions to combat telephone bill 
``cramming''--inserting unauthorized charges on consumers' phone 
bills--and other abuses in the sale of products and services that are 
billed to the telephone including voicemail, 900-number services, and 
other telephone based information and entertainment services. The most 
recent workshop focused on discussions of the use of 800 and other 
toll-free numbers to offer pay-per-call services, the scope of the 
rule, the dispute resolution process, the requirements for a pre-
subscription agreement, and the need for obtaining express 
authorization from consumers before placing charges on their telephone 
bills. The review record has remained open to encourage additional 
comments on questions related to expansion of the rule's coverage. 
Staff anticipates forwarding its recommendation to the Commission by 
the end of 2009.
 Finally, the Commission's review of the Regulations Under the 
Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986 (Smokeless 
Regulations), 16 CFR 307, is ongoing. The Smokeless Regulations govern 
the format and display of statutorily-mandated health warnings on all 
packages and advertisements for smokeless tobacco. In fiscal year 2000, 
the Commission undertook its periodic review of the Smokeless 
Regulations to determine whether the Regulations continue to 
effectively meet the goals of the Act and to seek information 
concerning the Regulations' economic impact in order to decide whether 
they should be amended. Staff is currently assessing the public 
comments and anticipates forwarding its recommendations to the 
Commission in late 2009.
  (b) Guides
 For the Fuel Economy Guide for new automobiles, 16 CFR 259, the 
Commission issued a request for comments on May 9, 2007, on whether to 
retain or amend the Guide. 72 FR 72328. The Fuel Economy Guide was 
adopted in 1975 to prevent deceptive fuel economy advertising and to 
facilitate the use of fuel economy information in advertising. The 
Commission sought comments on, among other things, whether there is a 
continuing need for the Guide and, if so, what changes should be made 
to it, if any, in light of the recent Environmental Protection Agency 
amendments to fuel economy labeling requirements for automobiles. 
Comments were accepted through July 23, 2007. Staff anticipates sending 
a recommendation to the Commission by late 2008.

[[Page 71299]]

 After issuing a staff advisory opinion indicating that the 
Commission's current Guides for Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter 
Industries, 16 CFR 23, did not address descriptions of new platinum 
alloy products, the Commission issued a Request for Public Comments on 
whether the platinum section of the Guides for Jewelry, Precious Metals 
and Pewter Industries, should be amended to provide guidance on how to 
non-deceptively mark or describe products containing between 500 and 
850 parts per thousand pure platinum and no other platinum group 
metals. 70 FR 38834 (July 6, 2005). After an extension, the comment 
period closed on October 12, 2005. On February 26, 2008, the Commission 
issued a notice seeking comment on proposals to amend the platinum 
section of the Guides to address the new platinum alloys. 73 FR 10190. 
The extended comment period ended August 25, 2008. 73 FR 22848 (Apr. 
28, 2008). Staff anticipates sending a recommendation to the Commission 
by the end of 2008.
 On January 16, 2007, the Commission requested public comment on the 
overall costs, benefits, and regulatory and economic impact of its 
Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in 
Advertising, 16 CFR 255, as part of the agency's systematic review of 
all current regulations and guides. The Commission also released 
consumer research it commissioned regarding the messages conveyed by 
consumer endorsements, and sought comment both on this research and 
upon several other specific endorsement-related issues. 72 FR 2214 
(Jan. 18, 2007). The initial comment period ended on March 19, 2007, 
but was subsequently extended to June 18, 2007. 72 FR 13051 (Mar. 20, 
2007). In 2008, the Commission may seek comment on proposed revisions 
or updates to the Guides.
 Finally, the Commission anticipates issuing a notice requesting 
comments on the Statement of General Policy or Interpretations under 
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (also known as FCRA Commentary) by 
October 2009.
Final Actions
 Since publication of the 2007 Regulatory Plan, the Commission has 
taken final actions on several rulemakings and guides. First of all, 
section 205 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
requires the Commission to promulgate biodiesel labeling requirements 
for two categories of biomass-based diesel, ``biodiesel,'' ``biomass-
based diesel'' and ``biodiesel blends'' (collectively ``biodiesel 
fuels''). On March 11, 2008, the Commission published an NPRM (73 FR 
12916) that would amend the Commission's Octane Rule, 16 CFR part 306. 
On June 16, 2008, the Commission published the final rule on biodiesel 
fuels. (73 FR 40154). The rule is effective January 1, 2009.
 Second, for the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 CFR 310, the 
Commission issued a revised NPRM on October 4, 2006, proposing to make 
explicit that the TSR's call abandonment prohibition bars sellers and 
telemarketers from delivering a prerecorded message when a person 
answers a telemarketing call, except in the very limited circumstances 
permitted in the call abandonment safe harbor and when a consumer has 
consented, in writing, to receive such calls. The revised NPRM also 
proposes to change the method for measuring the maximum allowable call 
abandonment rate in the call abandonment safe harbor provision from ``3 
percent per day per calling campaign'' to ``3 percent per 30-day period 
per calling campaign.'' The Commission also announced it would not 
create a new safe harbor for prerecorded messages and would end its 
previously announced forbearance policy permitting such messages 
effective January 2, 2007. 71 FR 65762 (Oct. 4, 2006) (revised NPRM); 
69 FR 67287 (Nov. 17, 2004) (initial NPRM). Then, in response to four 
petitions requesting an extension of the forbearance policy, the 
Commission announced that the forbearance policy would remain in effect 
until the conclusion of the prerecorded call amendment proceeding. 71 
FR 77634 (Dec. 27, 2006). On August 29, 2008, the Commission issued two 
final rule amendments. 73 FR 51164 (Aug. 29, 2008). The amendments make 
explicit a prohibition on telemarketing calls that deliver prerecorded 
messages without express written consent from a consumer to receive 
such calls and modify the method for measuring the TSR's call 
abandonment safe harbor. 73 FR 51164. Finally, pursuant to the Do-Not-
Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-188, the 
Commission revised the Final Amended Fee Rule, 16 CFR 310.8(c), to 
incorporate the statutory changes to the fee structure and provides fee 
increases pursuant to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). 73 FR 43354 (July 
25, 2008). The Act also provides that DNC registrations will be 
permanent rather than expiring after five years.
 Third, for the Rules on the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited 
Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (the CAN-SPAM Act Rules), the 
Commission announced a final rule on May 12, 2008, that included: (1) a 
definition of the term ``person,'' a term used repeatedly throughout 
the Act but not defined there; (2) modifying the definition of 
``sender'' to make it easier to determine which of multiple parties 
advertising in a single e-mail message will be responsible for 
complying with the Act's ``opt-out'' requirements; (3) clarifying that 
a sender may comply with section 7704(a)(5(A)(iii) of the Act by 
including in a commercial email message a post office box or private 
mailbox established pursuant to United States Postal Service 
regulations; and (4) clarifying that to submit a valid opt-out request, 
a recipient cannot be required to pay a fee, provide information other 
than his or her e-mail address and opt-out preferences, or take any 
steps other than sending a reply e-mail message or visiting a single 
Internet Web page. 73 FR 29654 (May 21, 2008). The final rules were 
effective July 7, 2008. The Statement of Basis and Purpose also 
explains the Commission's rationale for not adopting other proposals 
contained in the Commission's May 12, 2005, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking. 70 FR 25426.
The Commission completed its regulatory review of certain aspects of 
the Funeral Industry Practices Rule (Funeral Rule), 16 CFR part 453. 
The Funeral Rule, which became effective in 1984, and was amended in 
1994, requires providers of funeral goods and services to give 
consumers itemized lists of funeral goods and services that state 
prices and descriptions and also contain specific disclosures. The rule 
enables consumers to select and purchase only the goods and services 
they want, except for those that may be required by law and a basic 
services fee. Also, funeral providers must seek authorization before 
performing some services, such as embalming. In addition to an 
assessment of the rule's overall costs and benefits and continuing need 
for the rule, the review examined whether changes in the funeral 
industry warrant broadening the scope of the rule to include non-
traditional providers of funeral goods or services and revising or 
clarifying certain prohibitions in the rule. 64 FR 24250 (May 5, 1999). 
A public workshop conference was subsequently held to explore issues 
raised in the comments submitted. After additional review, the 
Commission announced that it is retaining the rule without any 
amendments. 73 FR 13740

[[Page 71300]]

(Mar. 14, 2008). The Commission also announced that it would continue 
to accept written comments and data to further the Commission's 
understanding of the industry.
 Since fall 2007 the Commission published two final rules mandated by 
FACTA. The Commission jointly promulgated with the banking agencies and 
the NCUA identity theft ``red flag'' guidelines and rules to implement 
these guidelines (the ``ID theft red flag rule'') and an address change 
rule (the ``address change rule''). The ID theft red flag rule, among 
other things, requires card issuers to investigate requests for card 
changes. The address change rule requires credit report users to 
investigate when the address on a credit report differs from the 
address on a credit application. The agencies jointly published 
proposed rules on July 18, 2006. (71 FR 40786). The comment period 
closed on September 18, 2006. After reviewing the comments the agencies 
issued final rules on November 9, 2007. (72 FR 63718).
 Under FACTA, the Commission also published the final Affiliate 
Marketing Rule. The Commission, along with the banking agencies, the 
NCUA, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), was required to 
issue rules to implement the Act's provisions allowing consumers to opt 
out of marketing by affiliates. The Commission issued an NPRM on June 
15, 2004 (69 FR 33324). The extended comment period closed on August 
16, 2004. The final rule was published on October 30, 2007. (72 FR 
28966).
 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required the Commission to complete two 
rulemakings while authorizing other discretionary rulemaking actions. 
The statute directed the Commission to issue labeling requirements 
within 18 months of enactment for ceiling fans concerning the 
electricity used by the fans to circulate air in a room. After notice 
and comment, the Commission published a final rule of ceiling fan 
labeling on December 28, 2006, to be effective on January 1, 2009. 71 
FR 78057. The statute also mandated that the Commission initiate a 
rulemaking examining the effectiveness of the energy efficiency related 
consumer product labeling program (also known as the appliance labeling 
effectiveness rulemaking). Further, the Commission was required to 
complete this rulemaking within two years of enactment. After notice 
and comment, the Commission announced a final rule for appliance 
labeling effectiveness on August 7, 2007. 72 FR 49947 (Aug. 29, 2007).
 As required by The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, Pub. L. 
109-435, 120 Stat. 3189 (Dec. 20, 2006), codified at 39 USC 101 et 
seq., the Commission issued a report on January 16, 2008, titled 
``Accounting for Laws that Apply Differently to the United States 
Postal Service and its Private Competitors'' which can be found at 
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/01/080116postal.pdf. The report identifies 
and quantifies - to the extent possible - the Postal Service's economic 
burdens and advantages that exist due to its status as a federal 
government entity, as well as those benefits resulting from its postal 
and mailbox monopolies. The report also examines the net economic 
effect of the relevant laws governing the United States Postal Service 
(USPS) and its private competitors, concluding that the USPS's burdens 
and benefits both create marketplace distortions: legal constraints 
increase the USPS's costs, disadvantaging it as a competitor; implicit 
subsidies that the USPS enjoys partially mask the USPS's higher costs 
from consumers, creating incentives for consumers to purchase more 
competitive mail products from the USPS than they otherwise would.
 Finally, on May 30, 2008, the Commission announced that it was 
retaining the agency's Guides for Select Leather and Imitation Leather 
Products, commonly known as the Leather Guides, 16 CFR 24, in their 
current form. 73 FR 34626 (June 18, 2008). On May 23, 2007, the 
Commission published a Federal Register notice soliciting comments on 
the Leather Guides, which were adopted in 1996. 72 FR 28906. The 
Leather Guides address misrepresentations regarding the composition and 
characteristics of certain leather and imitation leather products, and 
state that disclosure of non-leather content should be made for 
material that appears to be leather but is not leather.
Summary
 In both content and process, the FTC's ongoing and proposed regulatory 
actions are consistent with the President's priorities. The actions 
under consideration inform and protect consumers and reduce the 
regulatory burdens on businesses. The Commission will continue working 
toward these goals. The Commission's ten-year review program is 
patterned after provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act and 
complies with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996. The Commission's ten-year program also is consistent with section 
5(a) of E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993), which directs 
executive branch agencies to develop a plan to reevaluate periodically 
all of their significant existing regulations. In addition, the final 
rules issued by the Commission continue to be consistent with the 
President's Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and Principles, 
Executive Order 12866, section 1(a), which directs agencies to 
promulgate only such regulations as are, inter alia, required by law or 
are made necessary by compelling public need, such as material failures 
of private markets to protect or improve the health and safety of the 
public.
 The Commission continues to identify and weigh the costs and benefits 
of proposed actions and possible alternative actions, and to receive 
the broadest practicable array of comment from affected consumers, 
businesses, and the public at large. In sum, the Commission's 
regulatory actions are aimed at efficiently and fairly promoting the 
ability of ``private markets to protect or improve the health and 
safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being of the 
American people.'' E.O. 12866, section 1.

[[Page 71301]]

Rulemakings that Respond to Public Regulatory Reform Nominations
During March 2002, OMB requested public nominations for regulatory 
reforms. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) 
conducted a preliminary review of the public comments received and 
found five FTC activities that one or more commenters had nominated for 
reform. In a March 7, 2003 letter, the FTC responded that the agency 
systematically reviews all regulations and guides on a ten-year basis 
and explained how the agency had already reviewed or was about to 
review the activity at issue or why some of the other activities were 
not good candidates for reform as contemplated by the Smarter 
Regulations Report. In 2004, OIRA requested recommendations for reform 
in the manufacturing sector. OIRA received two nominations for FTC 
action but determined not to include them in the Report to Congress on 
agency responses to reform nominations in the manufacturing sector.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\The two nominations were 1) a comment concerning the DOE and FTC 
requirements for reporting water usage (the FTC's response indicated 
that the agencies have accepted the requested data based on third party 
reports since 1993); and 2) a comment that the DOE, FTC and EPA should 
work with industry to streamline duplicative energy labels (the FTC's 
response noted that since 2000, where appropriate, manufacturers have 
been allowed to place the Energy Star logo on EnergyGuide Labels and 
noted that the two labels provide different information to the 
consumer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. REGULATORY ACTIONS
The Commission has no proposed rules that would be a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the definition in Executive Order 12866.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Section 3(f) of the Executive Order defines a regulatory action to 
be ``significant'' if it is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user 
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, 
the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this 
Executive Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6750-01-S

[[Page 71302]]

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION (NIGC)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
 The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or the Act), 25 U.S.C. 2701 et 
seq., was signed into law on October 17, 1988. The Act established the 
National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC). The stated purpose of the 
NIGC is to regulate the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means 
of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong 
tribal governments. It is the NIGC's intention to provide regulation of 
Indian gaming to adequately shield it from organized crime and other 
corrupting influences, to ensure that each Indian tribe is the primary 
beneficiary of its gaming operation(s), and to assure that gaming is 
conducted fairly and honestly by both the operator and players.
Gaming technology and regulatory structures continue to evolve rapidly 
in Indian gaming. These changes bring new risks and require a 
distinction between the control standards for class II and class III 
gaming. To that end, the NIGC is undertaking a review and revision of 
its minimum internal control standards to ensure that they remain 
relevant and continue to adequately minimize the risks associated with 
the new technology.
 The NIGC has been innovative in using active outreach efforts to 
inform its policy development and its rulemaking efforts. For example, 
the NIGC has had great success in using regional meetings, both formal 
and informal, with tribal governments to gather views on current and 
proposed NIGC initiatives. The NIGC anticipates that these 
consultations with regulated tribes will continue to play an important 
role in the development of the NIGC's rulemaking efforts.
_______________________________________________________________________
NIGC

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

128. TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR GAMING MACHINES AND GAMING SYSTEMS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


25 USC 2706(b)(10)


CFR Citation:


25 CFR 547


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


It is necessary for the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) to 
promulgate regulations establishing technical standards in order to 
assure the integrity of electronic equipment used with the play of 
class II games. Technical standards will address actual operation of 
gaming machines and systems and the equipment related to their 
operation.


Statement of Need:


Technical standards are needed to assure machine games are operated in 
a manner that ensures uniformity and integrity in tribal gaming.


Summary of Legal Basis:


It is the goal of NIGC to provide regulation of Indian gaming to shield 
it from organized crime and other corrupting influences as well as 
assuring that gaming is conducted fairly and honestly. (25 U.S.C. 
2702). The Commission is charged with the responsibility of monitoring 
gaming conducted on Indian lands. (25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(1)). The Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act expressly authorizes the Commission to 
``promulgate such regulations and guidelines as it deems appropriate to 
implement the provisions of the (Act).'' (25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(10)). The 
Commission relies on these sections of the statute to authorize the 
promulgation of technical standards for gaming machines to ensure 
uniformity and integrity in tribal gaming.


Alternatives:


If the Commission does not issue a rule establishing technical 
standards for gaming machines, tribal gaming will not have the benefit 
of a standard that can help promote the integrity of the equipment in 
class II gaming.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The development of technical standards will reduce the cost of 
regulation to the Federal Government. Additionally, technical standards 
will aid tribal governments in the regulation of their gaming 
activities as well as prevent loss associated with defective or 
substandard gaming devices. Anticipated costs will be to gaming machine 
manufacturers and tribes.


Risks:


There are no known risks to this regulatory action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/11/06                    71 FR 46336
NPRM Withdrawn                  02/09/07                     72 FR 7360
NPRM                            10/24/07                    72 FR 60508
NPRM Comment Period End         03/09/08                     73 FR 3224
Final Action                    12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Tribal


Agency Contact:
Michael Gross
Associate General Counsel
National Indian Gaming Commission
1441 L Street NW., Suite 9100
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202 632-7003
Fax: 202 632-7066
RIN: 3141-AA29
BILLING CODE 7565-01-S

[[Page 71303]]

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION (PRC)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
 The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) was signed into 
law on December 20, 2006. This law gives the Postal Service additional 
tools to meet the challenges of changing markets, and a new authority 
to price its own products. It reaffirms the Postal Service's role as a 
government service whose primary mission remains providing universal 
postal services at affordable rates. Among other things, the PAEA re-
established the Postal Rate Commission as the Postal Regulatory 
Commission (PRC or Commission). The PAEA gave the Commission enhanced 
responsibilities and authority to meet the challenges of the new law. 
It is the intention of the Commission to use its enhanced authority to 
ensure accountability and transparency of the Postal Service to the 
public it serves.
In fiscal year 2009, the Commission continues its comprehensive review 
of its current regulations to ensure alignment with the PAEA. Toward 
that end, many of its regulations will be rewritten to comply with the 
mandates of the PAEA. The Commission's principal regulatory priorities 
for fiscal year 2009 are (1) to develop and establish periodic 
reporting requirements to support annual reports; (2) to develop and 
establish regulations related to commercially sensitive documents 
submitted to the Commission; (3) to develop revised procedural rules 
for handling complaints; and (4) to develop rules establishing the 
accounting practices and principles to govern the operation of the 
Postal Service's Competitive Products Fund and for determining the 
assumed Federal Income Tax on competitive products' income. The 
Commission, in connection with the Postal Service's stakeholders, has 
begun meeting these challenges and will continue to do so well into 
fiscal year 2009.
_______________________________________________________________________
PRC

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

129. ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AND PRINCIPLES

Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


39 USC 2011(h)(2)


CFR Citation:


39 CFR part 3060


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 18, 2008, Statutory deadline for issuance 
unless extended by agreement of Postal Service.


Pursuant to section 2011(h)(2)(B)(ii), the final regulations are to be 
issued within 12 months of the date Treasury submitted its 
recommendations or such later date as agreed to by the Commission and 
the Postal Service. Treasury submitted its report on December 19, 2007.


Abstract:


Section 401 of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act requires 
the Secretary of the Treasury to develop recommendations for accounting 
practices and principles that will govern the operation of the Postal 
Service's Competitive Products Fund and the determination of an assumed 
Federal income tax to be imposed on competitive products' income. On 
December 19, 2007, the Secretary of the Treasury submitted the report 
and its recommendations to the Postal Regulatory Commission concerning 
accounting principles and practices for the operation of the Postal 
Service's Competitive Products Fund and the determination of an assumed 
Federal income tax to be imposed on competitive products' income. Title 
39 U.S.C. Sec.  2011(h) requires the Commission to give the public the 
opportunity to comment on that report and tasks it with the 
responsibility to develop regulations to establish the accounting 
practices and principles to govern the operation of the Competitive 
Products Fund and rules for determining the assumed Federal income tax 
on competitive products' income. This regulation will fulfill the 
Commission's statutory responsibility to prescribe rules and 
regulations concerning accounting principles and practices for the 
operation of the Competitive Products Fund and the determination of an 
assumed Federal income tax on competitive products' income.


Statement of Need:


Establishing the accounting practices and principles to govern the 
operation of the Postal Service's Competitive Products Fund and 
determining the assumed income tax on competitive products' income is 
required by the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. Congress 
tasked the Postal Regulatory Commission with the job of implementing 
those practices and principles. These regulations are the Commission's 
implementation of that Congressional directive.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Title 39 U.S.C. 2011(h)(2) requires the Postal Regulatory Commission to 
issue regulations to establish (1) the accounting practices and 
principles to be followed by the Postal Service relating to the 
operation of the Competitive Products Fund, and (2) rules for 
determining the assumed Federal income tax on competitive products' 
income.


Alternatives:


There are no alternative methods of complying with the requirements of 
39 U.S.C. 2011(h)(2) other than by issuing regulations.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The accounting practices and principles and the determination of an 
assumed Federal income tax on competitive products' income are expected 
to help ensure that a level playing field exists for the Postal Service 
and its competitors with respect to competitive products.


Risks:


There are no known risks to this regulatory action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           02/01/08                     73 FR 6081
ANPRM Comment Period End        04/01/08
ANPRM Reply Comment 
    Period End                  05/01/08
NPRM                            09/19/08                    73 FR 54468
NPRM Comment Period End         10/20/08
NPRM Reply Comment Period 
    End                         11/03/08
Final Action                    12/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


URL For More Information:
www.prc.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.prc.gov

[[Page 71304]]

Agency Contact:
Stephen L. Sharfman
General Counsel
Postal Regulatory Commission
Suite 200
901 New York Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20268-0001
Phone: 202 789-6820
Fax: 202 789-6861
Email: stephen.sharfman@prc.gov
RIN: 3211-AA04
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-S