<DOC>
[December 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 237)]
[Unified Agenda]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [frwais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID: f:ua061002.wais]

[Page 72725-72938]
 
                    INTRODUCTION TO THE FALL 2006 REGULATORY PLAN




                          The Regulatory Plan 


____________________________________________________________________

[[Page 72725]]


                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, environmental 
                protection, educational quality, food safety, 
                transportation 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 that agencies expect to undertake in the coming 
                year. An accessible regulatory process enables citizen 
                centered service, which is a vital part of the 
                President's Management Agenda.

                Federal Regulatory Policy

                The Bush Administration supports Federal regulations 
                that are sensible and based on sound science, 
                economics, and the law. Accordingly, the Administration 
                is striving for a regulatory process that adopts new 
                rules when markets fail to serve the public interest, 
                simplifies and modifies existing rules to make them 
                more effective or less costly or less intrusive, and 
                rescinds outmoded rules whose benefits do not justify 
                their costs. In pursuing this agenda, OIRA 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 begins with the 
                authority granted under the law. Within the discretion 
                available to the regulating agency by 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 ends in the most 
                efficient way. This means 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, as sometimes economic 
                and scientific information may point in very different 
                directions, and therefore designing regulations does 
                not mean just the rote application of quantified data 
                to reach policy decisions. In making regulatory 
                decisions, we expect agencies to consider not only 
                benefit and cost items 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 fairness and privacy. 
                However, effective regulation is the result

[[Page 72726]]

                of the careful use of all available high-quality data, 
                and the application of broad principles established by 
                the President.

                In pursuing this goal of establishing an effective, 
                results-oriented regulatory system, the Bush 
                Administration has increased the level of public 
                involvement and transparency in its review and 
                clearance of new and existing regulations.

                For new rulemakings and programs, OIRA has enhanced the 
                transparency of OMB's regulatory review process. OIRA's 
                website now enables the public to find which rules are 
                formally under review at OMB and which rules have 
                recently been cleared or have been returned to agencies 
                for reconsideration. OIRA has also 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 clearance letters,'' as well as 
                the Administrator's memorandum to the President's 
                Management Council (September 20, 2001) on presidential 
                review of agency rulemaking by OIRA.

                For existing rulemakings, OIRA has initiated a modest 
                series of calls for reform nominations in 2001, 2002, 
                and 2004. In the draft 2001 annual Report to Congress 
                on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulation, OMB 
                asked for suggestions from the public about specific 
                regulations that should be modified in order to 
                increase net benefits to the public. We received 
                suggestions regarding 71 regulations, 23 of which OMB 
                designated as high priorities. After a similar call for 
                reforms in the 2002 draft Report, OMB received 
                recommendations on 316 distinct rules, guidance 
                documents, and paperwork requirements from over 1,700 
                commenters. Many of the nominations involved rules and 
                guidance documents that were recently issued or already 
                under review by the agencies, or involved independent 
                agency rules or guidance documents. OMB determined that 
                the remaining 122 rules and 34 guidance documents were 
                not under active review, and referred them to the 
                agencies for their evaluation as possible reforms. 
                Finally, in the 2004 draft Report, OMB requested public 
                nominations of promising regulatory reforms relevant to 
                the manufacturing sector. In particular, 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 of the 189 nominations have 
                potential merit and justify further action. For further 
                information, all of these Reports are available on 
                OIRA's website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
                inforeg/regpol.html.

                The Bush Administration has also moved aggressively to 
                establish basic quality performance goals for all 
                information disseminated by Federal agencies, including 
                information disseminated in support of proposed and 
                final regulations. The Federal agencies issued 
                guidelines on October 1, 2002 under the Information 
                Quality Act to ensure the ``quality, objectivity, 
                utility, and integrity'' of all information 
                disseminated by Federal agencies. Under these 
                guidelines, Federal agencies are taking appropriate 
                steps to incorporate the information quality 
                performance standards into agency information 
                dissemination practices, and developing pre-
                dissemination review procedures to substantiate the 
                quality of information before it is disseminated. Under 
                the agency information quality guidelines, ``affected 
                persons'' can request that the agencies correct 
                information if they believe that scientific, technical, 
                economic, statistical or other information disseminated 
                does not meet the agency and OMB standards. If the 
                requestor is dissatisfied with the initial

[[Page 72727]]

                agency response to a correction request, an appeal 
                opportunity is provided by the agencies. With the 
                implementation of these guidelines, agencies are now 
                aware that ensuring the high quality of government 
                information disseminations is a high priority of the 
                Administration. Further information on OIRA's 
                activities implementing the Information Quality Act is 
                available on OIRA's website at http://
                www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/infopoltech.html.

                As part of its efforts to improve the quality, 
                objectivity, utility, and integrity of information 
                disseminated by the Federal agencies, on December 16, 
                2004, OMB issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin 
                for Peer Review. This Bulletin establishes government-
                wide guidance aimed at enhancing the practice of peer 
                review of government science documents. The Bulletin 
                describes minimum standards for when peer review is 
                required and how intensive the peer review should be 
                for different information. The Bulletin requires the 
                most rigorous form of peer review for highly 
                influential scientific assessments. Further information 
                on peer review is available on OIRA's website at http:/
                /www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-03.pdf.

                In addition to increasing the level of public 
                involvement and transparency in its review of 
                regulations, the Bush Administration has sought to 
                enhance the role of analysis in the development of 
                effective regulations. On September 17, 2003, OMB 
                issued revised guidance to agencies on regulatory 
                analysis.\1\ Key features of the revised guidance 
                include more emphasis on cost-effectiveness, more 
                careful evaluation of qualitative and intangible 
                values, and a greater emphasis on considering the 
                uncertainty inherent in estimates of impact. OIRA was 
                very interested in updating the guidance in light of 
                these and other innovations now commonplace in the 
                research community. The 2006 Regulatory Plan continues 
                OIRA's effort to ensure coordination across Federal 
                agencies in pursuing analytically sound regulatory 
                policies.

                The Administration's 2006 Regulatory Priorities

                With regard to Federal regulation, the Bush 
                Administration's objective is quality, not quantity. 
                Those rules that are adopted promise to be more 
                effective, less intrusive, and more cost-effective in 
                achieving national objectives while demonstrating 
                greater durability in the face of political and legal 
                attack. The Regulatory Plan is integral to enhancing 
                the quality of Federal regulations, and OMB seeks to 
                ensure that the public is provided with the information 
                needed to understand and comment on the Federal 
                regulatory agenda. Accordingly, the 2006 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 that are of particular 
                            concern to small businesses.

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

                \1\ See Circular A-4, ``Regulatory Analysis,'' 
                published as part of OMB's 2003 Report to Congress on 
                the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations. The 
                report is available on OMB's website at http://
                www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2003--cost-ben--final--
                rpt.pdf

[[Page 72728]]

                        <bullet> Regulations that respond to public 
                            nominations submitted to OMB in 2001 or 
                            2002.

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

                Conclusion

                Smarter regulatory policies, created through public 
                participation, transparency, and cooperation across 
                Federal agencies, are a key Administration objective. 
                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.

[[Page 72729]]


                                                                DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1                Procurement of Commodities for Foreign Donation                                                          0560-AH40    Final Rule Stage
2                Animal Welfare; Regulations and Standards for Birds                                                         0579-AC02    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
3                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
4                Revision of Fruits and Vegetables Import Regulations                                                     0579-AB80    Final Rule Stage
5                Phytophthora Ramorum; Quarantine and Regulations                                                         0579-AB82    Final Rule Stage
6                Special Nutrition Programs: Fluid Milk Substitutions                                                     0584-AD58       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
7                Child and Adult Care Food Program: Improving Management and Program Integrity                               0584-AC24 Final Rule Stage
8                FSP: Eligibility and Certification Provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002      0584-AD30    Final Rule Stage
9                Quality Control Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 107-171                                             0584-AD31    Final Rule Stage
10               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
11               Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): WIC Vendor Cost           0584-AD71    Final Rule Stage
                 Containment
12               Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC): Revisions in the WIC       0584-AD77    Final Rule Stage
                 Food Packages
13               Egg Products Inspection Regulations                                                                         0583-AC58    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
14               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
15               Nutrition Labeling of Single-Ingredient Products and Ground or Chopped Meat and Poultry Products            0583-AC60 Final Rule Stage
16               Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirements for the                  0583-AC88 Final Rule Stage
                 Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
17               Meat Produced by Advanced Meat/Bone Separation Machinery and Meat Recovery Systems                       0583-AD00    Final Rule Stage
18               Prohibition on the Use of Air-Injection Stunners for the Slaughter of Cattle                             0583-AD03    Final Rule Stage
19               Availability of Lists of Retail Consignees During Meat or Poultry Product Recalls                        0583-AD10    Final Rule Stage
20               Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act Procedures                                                 0596-AC49    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
21               National Forest System Land Management Planning Categorical Exclusion (Final Directive, Forest           0596-AB86    Final Rule Stage
                 Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 30)
22               National Forest System Land Management Planning Directive (Final Directive, Forest Service Handbook         0596-AC57 Final Rule Stage
                 1909.12, Chapter 70-Wilderness Evaluation)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23               Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction                                                                        0648-AS36    Final Rule Stage
24               Implement and Administer a Coupon Program for Digital-to-Analog Converter Boxes                          0660-AA16    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25               TRICARE Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS)                                                     0720-AB03    Final Rule Stage
26               TRICARE; Certain Survivors of Deceased Active Duty Members; and Adoption Intermediaries                  0720-AB04    Final Rule Stage
27               Expand Eligibility of Selected Reserve Members Under the TRICARE Program                                 0720-AB05    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 72730]]


                                                                  DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28               Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Electric and Gas Ranges and Ovens and Microwave            1904-AB49       Prerule Stage
                 Ovens, Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and Commercial Clothes Washers
29               Energy Efficiency Standards for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment                                       1904-AB59       Prerule Stage
30               Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Furnaces and Boilers                                         1904-AA78       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
31               Energy Efficiency Standards for Electric Distribution Transformers                                       1904-AB08    Final Rule Stage
32               Energy Efficiency Standards for Ceiling Fan Light Kits                                                   1904-AB61    Final Rule Stage
33               Loan Guarantees for Projects That Employ Innovative Technologies                                         1901-AB21       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
34               Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment                                                   1901-AA38    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                         DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35               Control of Communicable Diseases, Interstate and Foreign Quarantine                                      0920-AA12    Final Rule Stage
36               Electronic Submission of Data From Studies Evaluating Human Drugs and Biologics                             0910-AC52    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
37               Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drugs and Biologics; Requirements for              0910-AF11       Proposed Rule
                 Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling                                                                                                 Stage
38               Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs for Treatment Use                                               0910-AF14       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
39               Label Requirement for Food That Has Been Refused Admission Into the United States                        0910-AF61       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
40               Medical Device Reporting; Electronic Submission Requirements                                             0910-AF86       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
41               Electronic Registration and Listing for Devices                                                          0910-AF88       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
42               Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packing, or Holding Dietary Ingredients and        0910-AB88    Final Rule Stage
                 Dietary Supplements
43               Prior Notice of Imported Food Under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and            0910-AC41 Final Rule Stage
                 Response Act of 2002
44               Prospective Payment System for Long-Term Care Hospitals RY 2008: Annual Payment Rate Updates (CMS-       0938-AO30       Proposed Rule
                 1529-P)                                                                                                                          Stage
45               Standards for E-Prescribing Under Medicare Part D (CMS-0016-P)                                           0938-AO66       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
46               Changes to the Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems and FY 2008 Rates (CMS-1533-P)             0938-AO70       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
47               Revisions to the Medicare Advantage and Part D Prescription Drug Contract Confidentiality and            0938-AO78       Proposed Rule
                 Disclosure, Determinations, Appeals, and Intermediate Sanctions Processes (CMS-4124-P)                                           Stage
48               Competitive Acquisition for Certain Durable Medical Equipment (DME), Prosthetics, Orthotics, and         0938-AN14    Final Rule Stage
                 Supplies (CMS-1270-F)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                             DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
49               Minimum Standards for Driver's Licenses and Identification Cards Acceptable to Federal Agencies for      1601-AA37       Proposed Rule
                 Official Purposes                                                                                                                Stage
50               United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program (US-VISIT), Enrollment of        1601-AA35    Final Rule Stage
                 Additional Aliens in US-VISIT
51               Chemical Security Anti-terrorism Standards                                                               1601-AA41    Final Rule Stage

[[Page 72731]]


52               Special Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Religious Workers                                                     1615-AA16       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
53               Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Aliens in T and U Nonimmigrant Status              1615-AA60    Final Rule Stage
54               New Classification for Victims of Certain Criminal Activity; Eligibility for the U Nonimmigrant          1615-AA67    Final Rule Stage
                 Status
55               Removal of Standardized Request for Evidence Processing Timeframe                                        1615-AB13    Final Rule Stage
56               Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System (USCG-     1625-AA99       Proposed Rule
                 2005-21869)                                                                                                                      Stage
57               Passenger Manifest for Commercial Aircraft Arriving In and Departing From the United States;             1651-AA62    Final Rule Stage
                 Passengers and Crew Manifests for Commercial Vessels Departing From the United States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                       DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58               Permanent Foundations for Manufactured Housing (FR-5075)                                                 2502-AI45       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
59               Capital Fund Program (FR-4880)                                                                              2577-AC50    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
60               Revisions to the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) (FR-5094)                                          2577-AC68    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                               DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
61               Valuation of Oil From Indian Leases                                                                      1010-AD00    Final Rule Stage
62               Placement of Excess Spoil                                                                                   1029-AC04    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
63               Oil Shale Leasing and Operations                                                                         1004-AD90       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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


                                                                   DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
66               Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993; Conform to the Supreme Court's Ragsdale Decision                   1215-AB35       Prerule Stage
67               Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance Benefits; Amendment of Regulations                               1205-AB40       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage

[[Page 72732]]


68               Revision of the Department of Labor Regulations for Petitions and Determinations of Eligibility to       1205-AB44       Proposed Rule
                 Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers                                                                                Stage
69               Revision to the Department of Labor Benefit Regulations for Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers      1205-AB32    Final Rule Stage
                 Under the Trade Act of 1974, as Amended
70               Labor Certification for the Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States; Reducing the            1205-AB42    Final Rule Stage
                 Incentives and Opportunities for Fraud and Abuse and Enhancing Program Integrity
71               Amendment of Regulation Relating to Definition of Plan Assets--Participant Contributions                 1210-AB02       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
72               Regulations Implementing the Health Care Access, Portability, and Renewability Provisions of the         1210-AA54    Final Rule Stage
                 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
73               Prohibiting Discrimination Against Participants and Beneficiaries Based on Health Status                 1210-AA77    Final Rule Stage
74               Section 404 Regulation--Default Investment Alternatives Under Participant Directed Individual            1210-AB10    Final Rule Stage
                 Account Plans
75               Personal Continuous Dust Monitors                                                                        1219-AB48       Prerule Stage
76               Sealing of Abandoned Areas                                                                               1219-AB52       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
77               Mine Rescue Teams                                                                                        1219-AB53       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
78               Diesel Particulate Matter: Conversion Factor from Total Carbon to Elemental Carbon                       1219-AB55       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
79               Asbestos Exposure Limit                                                                                  1219-AB24    Final Rule Stage
80               Emergency Mine Evacuation                                                                                1219-AB46    Final Rule Stage
81               Criteria and Procedures for Proposed Assessment of Civil Penalties                                       1219-AB51    Final Rule Stage
82               Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica                                                              1218-AB70       Prerule Stage
83               Hazard Communication                                                                                        1218-AC20    Prerule Stage
84               Cranes and Derricks                                                                                         1218-AC01    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                              DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
85               Commuter Operations in Very Light Jets (VLJS)                                                            2120-AI84       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
86               Aging Aircraft Program (Widespread Fatigue Damage)                                                       2120-AI05    Final Rule Stage
87               Transport Airplane Fuel Tank Flammability Reduction                                                      2120-AI23    Final Rule Stage
88               Medical Certification Requirements as Part of the Commercial Driver's License                            2126-AA10       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
89               Unified Registration System                                                                              2126-AA22       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
90               National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners                                                         2126-AA97       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
91               Roof Crush Resistance                                                                                    2127-AG51    Final Rule Stage
92               Side Impact Protection Upgrade--FMVSS No. 214                                                            2127-AJ10    Final Rule Stage
93               Reduced Stopping Distance Requirements for Truck Tractors                                                2127-AJ37    Final Rule Stage
94               Electronic Stability Control (ESC)                                                                       2127-AJ77    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                               DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95               Implementation of a Revised Basel Capital Accord (Basel II)                                                 1557-AC91    Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage

[[Page 72733]]


96               Risk-Based Capital Guidelines; Capital Adequacy Guidelines; Capital Maintenance: Domestic Capital           1557-AC95    Proposed Rule
                 Modifications (Basel IA)                                                                                                         Stage
97               Implementation of a Revised Basel Capital Accord (Basel II)                                              1550-AB56       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98               Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP); Implementing the Screening and Testing Phase               2070-AD61       Prerule Stage
99               Standards for the Management of Coal Combustion Wastes Generated by Commercial Electric Power            2050-AE81       Prerule Stage
                 Producers
100              Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide                                 2060-AI43       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
101              Control of Emissions From New Locomotives and New Marine Diesel Engines Less Than 30 Liters per          2060-AM06       Proposed Rule
                 Cylinder                                                                                                                         Stage
102              Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment                                   2060-AM34       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
103              Implementing Periodic Monitoring in Federal and State Operating Permit Programs                          2060-AN00       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
104              Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone                                           2060-AN24       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
105              Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment New Source Review, and New Source                 2060-AN28       Proposed Rule
                 Performance Standards: Emissions Test for Electric Generating Units                                                              Stage
106              Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead                                            2060-AN83       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
107              Test Rule; Testing of Certain High Production Volume (HPV) Chemicals                                     2070-AD16       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
108              Pesticides; Competency Standards for Occupational Users                                                  2070-AJ20       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
109              Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions                                            2070-AJ22       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
110              Pesticide Agricultural Container Recycling Program                                                       2070-AJ29       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
111              Revisions to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule, 40 CFR Part 112              2050-AG16       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
112              Expanding the Comparable Fuels Exclusion under RCRA                                                      2050-AG24       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
113              Definition of Solid Wastes Revisions                                                                     2050-AG31       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
114              NESHAP: Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) Residual Risk Standards                                           2060-AK14    Final Rule Stage
115              NESHAP: Halogenated Solvent Cleaning--Residual Risk Standards                                            2060-AK22    Final Rule Stage
116              Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources                                                  2060-AK70    Final Rule Stage
117              Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule                                                              2060-AK74    Final Rule Stage
118              Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR):                 2060-AL75    Final Rule Stage
                 Debottlenecking, Aggregation and Project Netting
119              Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles: Revisions to Improve Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates      2060-AN14    Final Rule Stage
120              Amendment of the Standards for Radioactive Waste Disposal in Yucca Mountain, Nevada                      2060-AN15    Final Rule Stage
121              Renewable Fuels Standard Rule                                                                            2060-AN76    Final Rule Stage
122              Final Rule for Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for PM2.5                           2060-AN86    Final Rule Stage
123              Pesticides; Data Requirements for Conventional Chemicals                                                    2070-AC12 Final Rule Stage
124              Lead-Based Paint Activities; Amendments for Renovation, Repair, and Painting                                2070-AC83 Final Rule Stage
125              Pesticides; Data Requirements for Biochemical and Microbial Products                                     2070-AD51    Final Rule Stage

[[Page 72734]]


126              Notification of Chemical Exports under TSCA Section 12(b)                                                2070-AJ01    Final Rule Stage
127              Testing Agreement for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)                                                      2070-AJ06    Final Rule Stage
128              Hazardous Waste Manifest Revisions-Standards and Procedures for Electronic Manifests                     2050-AG20    Final Rule Stage
129              Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Requirements--            2050-AG23    Final Rule Stage
                 Amendments
130              National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Requirements for Peak Wet Weather Discharges      2040-AD87    Final Rule Stage
                 from Publicly Owned Treatment Work Treatment Plants Serving Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems
                 Policy
131              Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Rule                                                               2040-AE80    Final Rule Stage
132              Water Transfers Rule                                                                                     2040-AE86    Final Rule Stage
133              Implementation Guidance for Mercury Water Quality Criteria                                               2040-AE87    Final Rule Stage
134              Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Burden Reduction Rule                                                 2025-AA14    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                         EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
134A             Coordination of Retired Health Benefits With Medicare and State Health Benefits                          3046-AA72    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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


                                                              SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
136              Small Business Lending Company and Lender Oversight Regulations                                          3245-AE14       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
137              Size for Purposes of Long Term Contracts; Small Business Size Regulations; 8(a) Business                 3245-AF06    Final Rule Stage
                 Development/Small Disadvantaged Business Status Determinations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                             SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
138              Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders (886P)                                          0960-AF69       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
139              Additional Insured Status Requirements for Certain Alien Workers (2882P)                                 0960-AG22       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
140              Consultative Examination - Annual Onsite Review by DDSs (3338P)                                          0960-AG41       Proposed Rule
                                                                                                                                                  Stage
141              Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Impairments of the Digestive System (800F)                       0960-AF28    Final Rule Stage
142              Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Immune System Disorders (804F)                                   0960-AF33    Final Rule Stage
143              Mandatory Exclusion of Health Care Providers and Representatives From Participating in Programs          0960-AF85    Final Rule Stage
                 Administered by SSA, Including Representative Payment (954F)
144              Amendments to the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program (967F)                                     0960-AF89    Final Rule Stage
145              Age as a Factor in Evaluating Disability (3183F)                                                         0960-AG29    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 72735]]


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


                                                            NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Regulation
   Sequence                                                     Title                                                   Identifier     Rulemaking Stage
    Number                                                                                                                Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
147              Technical Amendments to the Minimum Internal Control Standards                                           3141-AA27    Final Rule Stage
148              Technical Standards for Gaming Machines and Gaming Systems                                               3141-AA29    Final Rule Stage
149              Game Classification Standards                                                                            3141-AA31    Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[FR Doc. 06-8765 Filed 12-08-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-27-S

[[Page 72736]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
USDA's regulations 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. Significant focus is 
being placed on efficiencies that can be achieved through eGov 
activities, the migration to efficient electronic services and 
capabilities, and the implementation of focused, efficient information 
collections necessary to support effective program management. 
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, and 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. In May 2006, an enhanced small 
            business outreach program was established. The agency will 
            collaborate in this initiative with other USDA agencies and 
            cooperating State partners. 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.
<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 2007, FNS will continue to promote 
            nutritional knowledge and education while minimizing 
            participant and vender fraud.
<bullet> USDA has a priority to improve access to natural resources of 
            Forest Service land by developing leases and expedited 
            reviews of permits. If accomplished, the use of oil or 
            natural gas could be used in accelerating the completion of 
            projects while maintaining the safety of public health, 
            environment and working to reduce dependence on foreign 
            oil.
<bullet> USDA will continue to promote economic opportunities for 
            agriculture and rural communities through its Federal 
            Biobased Product Preferred Procurement Program (FB4P). The 
            Department will continue to designate groups of biobased 
            products to receive procurement preference from Federal 
            agencies and contractors. In addition, USDA intends to 
            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 (the largest 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. The Farm Security 
and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171; the Child 
Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, Public Law 108-265; and 
the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, Public Law 106-224, 
affect most agencies of USDA resulting in the modification, addition, 
or deletion of many programs. These statutes set in motion rulemakings 
that provide for improvements in market loss and conservation 
assistance, crop and livestock disease and pest protection, marketing 
enhancements, pollution control, research and development for biomass, 
and refinements to the nutrition assistance programs to help ensure the 
best practical outcomes for beneficiaries and the taxpayer.
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 2007:
Food and Nutrition Service
Mission: FNS increases food security and reduces hunger in partnership 
with cooperating organizations by providing

[[Page 72737]]

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' 
2006 regulatory plan supports USDA's Strategic Goal 5, ``Improve the 
Nation's Nutrition and Health,'' and its three related objectives:
 Improve Access to Nutritious Food. This objective represents FNS' 
efforts to improve nutrition by providing access to program benefits 
(Food Stamps, WIC, and school meals) 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. The Agency will also issue rules 
implementing provisions of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization 
Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-265) to ensure access to the Child Nutrition 
Programs for low-income children receiving Food Stamps through direct 
certification, and to establish automatic eligibility for homeless 
children.
 Promote Healthier Eating Habits and Lifestyles. This objective 
represents FNS' 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 propose 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. FNS 
will also propose changes to improve food packages in the WIC program 
to reflect current dietary guidance, based on recommendations made by 
an Institute of Medicine expert panel.
 Improve Nutrition Assistance Program Management and Customer Service. 
This objective represents FNS' 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 Food 
Stamp Program (FSP) to improve program operations and monitoring at the 
State and institution levels. For example, the proposed Food Stamp 
Program Disqualified Recipient Reporting and Computer Matching rule 
would require State agencies at certification and periodically 
thereafter to match persons in households applying for benefits against 
several databases to ensure prisoners, deceased, and other disqualified 
individuals are not receiving food stamp benefits. FNS will also 
publish rules implementing several changes to the Food Stamp Quality 
Control system, and related performance incentives for States, required 
by P. L. 107-171, and propose rules to correct and clarify provisions 
of the July 6, 2000, final regulation on recipient claims.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Mission: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible 
for ensuring that meat, poultry, and egg products in commerce are 
wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged.
Priorities: FSIS is committed to developing and issuing science-based 
regulations intended to ensure that meat, poultry, and egg products are 
wholesome and not adulterated or misbranded. FSIS 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' 2006 regulatory plan supports USDA's Strategic 
Goal 5, ``Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and 
Food Supply,'' and the related objective to reduce the incidence of 
food borne illnesses related to meat, poultry, and egg products in the 
U.S.
Following are some of the Agency's recent and planned initiatives:
 Expand the Use of Performance Standards: In February 2001, FSIS 
proposed a rule to establish food safety performance standards for all 
processed ready-to-eat (RTE) meat and poultry products and for 
partially heat-treated meat and poultry products that are not ready-to-
eat. The proposal also contained provisions addressing post-lethality 
contamination of RTE products with Listeria monocytogenes. In June 
2003, FSIS published an interim final rule requiring establishments to 
prevent L. monocytogenes contamination of RTE products. The Agency is 
evaluating the effectiveness of this interim rule, which in 2004 was 
the subject of a regulatory reform nomination to OMB. FSIS has 
carefully reviewed its economic analysis of the interim 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 also is 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 amending the poultry products inspection 
regulations by replacing, with a performance standard, the requirement 
for ready-to-cook poultry products to be chilled to 40(deg) F or below 
within certain time limits according to the weight of the dressed 
carcasses. Under the performance standard, poultry establishments would 
have to carry out slaughtering, 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 existing time/
temperature chilling regulations would remain available for use by 
establishments as a ``safe harbor'' for compliance with the new 
standard.
 Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE): In January 2004, FSIS 
published three interim final rules to prevent the agent of BSE from 
entering the human food supply. FSIS took this action in response to 
the confirmation of BSE in a cow in Washington State that had been 
imported from Canada. In addition, FSIS issued a Federal Register 
Notice in January 2004 that announced that the Agency would no longer 
pass and apply the mark of inspection to carcasses and parts of cattle 
selected for BSE testing by APHIS until the sample is determined to be 
negative. FSIS has been evaluating the comments received in response to 
the interim final rules to determine whether to implement additional 
measures to prevent human exposure to the BSE agent.
 Expand the Use of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) 
Systems: FSIS also is planning to propose requirements for federally 
inspected egg product plants to develop and implement HACCP systems and 
sanitation standard operating procedures. The Agency will be proposing 
pathogen reduction performance standards for egg products. Further, the 
Agency will be proposing to remove requirements for FSIS approval of 
egg-product plant drawings, specifications, and equipment before their 
use, and to end the system for pre-marketing approval of labeling for 
egg products.

[[Page 72738]]

 Improve Consumer Information: FSIS has proposed requirements for the 
nutrition labeling of ground or chopped meat and poultry products and 
single-ingredient products. This proposed rule would require nutrition 
labeling, on the label or at the point-of-purchase, for the major cuts 
of single-ingredient, raw products and would require nutrition 
information on the label of ground or chopped products. Completing this 
rulemaking would respond to a regulatory reform recommendation made to 
OMB in 2002.
FSIS proposed March 7, 2006, to amend the Federal meat and poultry 
product regulations to provide that the Agency would make available to 
individual consumers lists of the retail consignees of meat and poultry 
products that a federally inspected meat or poultry products 
establishment has voluntarily recalled. FSIS believes that this 
information will be of value to consumers and the industry in 
clarifying which products should be removed from commerce and form 
consumers' possession because the products may be adulterated or 
misbranded.
Small business implications: The great majority of businesses regulated 
by FSIS are small businesses. With the possible exception of the 
poultry chilling proposal, the regulations listed above substantially 
affect small businesses. FSIS recognizes the difficulties faced by many 
small and very small establishments in complying with necessary, 
science-based food safety 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.
In May 2006, FSIS announced an enhanced small business outreach program 
that will ensure critical training, access to food safety experts, and 
information resources that are available in a form that is uniform, 
easily comprehended, and consistent. The Agency will collaborate in 
this initiative with other USDA Agencies and cooperating State 
partners. For example, FSIS will make plant owners and operators aware 
of loan programs, available through USDA's Rural Business and 
Cooperative programs, to help them in upgrading their facilities. FSIS 
employees will be meeting 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.
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 that will result in a revision of 
its regulations concerning the introduction of organisms and products 
altered or produced through genetic engineering. This work consists of 
two parts. The first is to amend the existing plant-related regulations 
to reflect new consolidated authorities under the Plant Protection Act 
and to address new technological trends. The second is to develop a 
regulatory framework for transgenic animals. These regulatory changes 
are needed to address risks to plant and animal health. APHIS also 
plans to complete rulemaking to streamline the process for approving 
new fruits and vegetables for importation, and to propose changes to 
the regulations for importing nursery stock that will enhance our 
ability to protect plant health. The Agency is also continuing to work 
on amending its regulations concerning bovine spongiform encephalopathy 
(BSE) to provide for the importation of certain animals and products 
that present low risk.
With regard to animal welfare, APHIS plans to propose specific 
standards for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation 
of birds covered under the Animal Welfare Act.
APHIS' 2006 regulatory plan supports USDA's Strategic Goal 4, ``Enhance 
Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply, '' 
and the related objective to reduce the number and severity of 
agricultural pest and disease outbreaks.
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' priorities are to support Strategic Goal 2, ``Enhance 
the Competitiveness and Sustainability of Rural and Farm Economies,'' 
by expanding domestic market opportunities for agricultural producers. 
In response to concerns raised by Fruit and Vegetable industry members 
that produce sellers may lose their status as trust creditors when 
using electronic invoicing systems, the Agricultural Marketing Service 
issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) under the 
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) soliciting comments from 
the public, including buyers and sellers of fruits and vegetables. The 
ANPR was published on January 30, 2006, and the comment period ended 
March 16, 2006. The agency expects to proceed to rulemaking in the near 
future. The PACA established a code of fair trading practices in the 
marketing of fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables in interstate and 
foreign commerce. The law imposes a statutory trust on the assets, 
including inventory and receivables, of a licensee or firms operating 
subject to the PACA. The PACA provides that PACA licensees may preserve 
their trust rights by including specified language on billing or 
invoicing statements. In 1997, the PACA regulations were amended to 
state that electronic transmissions are considered ``ordinary and usual 
billing and invoicing statements.'' A number of produce sellers have 
voiced concerns that their PACA trust rights may not be preserved when 
invoicing electronically. Additional concerns have been expressed that 
notice to sellers using the alternate method of trust notice (i.e., 
separate trust notice letter) is not being accepted by some buyers who 
require their suppliers to invoice electronically. Others in the 
industry have expressed concern about being charged a fee by the buyer 
to accept the notice to preserve their trust benefits if they send a 
paper invoice or separate trust notice.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) administers the National 
Organic Program (NOP) which is authorized by the Organic Food 
Production Act of

[[Page 72739]]

1990 (7 U.S.C. 6510 et seq.). Under the NOP, AMS establishes national 
standards for the production and handling of organically produced 
agricultural products. Since the 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. Appropriate access to pasture has been a 
topic of discussion in the organic community for many years, including 
by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). For these reasons, AMS 
published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on April 13, 
2006, to give the public the opportunity to comment on key issues that 
have been raised during previous rulemakings and National Organic 
Standards Board deliberations regarding access to pasture and temporary 
confinement based on an animal's stage of production. The comment 
period closed on June 12. AMS intends to publish a proposed rule this 
fall.
Farm Service Agency
Mission: The mission of the Farm Service Agency is to stabilize farm 
income, help farmers conserve land and water resources, provide credit 
to new or disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and help farm operations 
recover from the effects of disaster.
Priorities: FSA's Regulatory Plan supports USDA Strategic Goal 2, 
``Enhance the Competitiveness and Sustainability of Rural and Farm 
Economies,'' and Strategic Goal 6, ``Protect and Enhance the Nation's 
Natural Resource Base and Environment.'' FSA's immediate priority is to 
finish implementation of the disaster assistance programs required by 
the 2006 Emergency Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 109-148), and the 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War 
on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery of 2006. The disaster programs 
provide assistance to agricultural producers in areas that were 
affected by the unusual number and severity of hurricanes in 2005.
A primary mission of FSA is to administer the commodity and 
conservation programs provided by the Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Act). Generally, these programs are 
authorized by the 2002 Act with respect to the 2002 through 2007 crop 
years. Accordingly, FSA envisions no major changes in the last year of 
the regulations used to administer these programs. However. the Agency 
does expect major initiatives for a new Farm Bill to be proposed by 
this Administration for the 2008 and subsequent crop years. FSA will 
develop and issue the necessary 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. In addition, the Agency will continue to streamline 
its farm loan programs operated under the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act, as amended (Pub. L. 87-128).
The Agency plans to publish a final rule to adopt new procedures to be 
used by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) in the evaluation of 
bids in connection with the procurement of commodities for foreign 
donation under various food aid authorities. CCC is amending the 
existing regulations to provide for the simultaneous review of 
commodity and ocean freight offers when evaluating lowest-landed cost 
options in connection with the procurement of commodities for foreign 
donation. Under the revised bid process, CCC can better control 
shipping costs, take advantage of efficiencies in load consolidation 
and ensure a more competitive commodity procurement process. Program 
savings should result from the ability to better position procured 
commodities at domestic ports based on actual shipping cost 
comparisons. Program savings are also expected as a result of greater 
head-to-head competition for program freight among U.S.-flagged 
carriers. These savings should allow for additional food aid quantities 
to move to donation countries. This rule will enhance bidding 
opportunities for potential vendors while allowing CCC to more 
efficiently acquire commodities.
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: Forest Service's regulatory plan supports USDA Strategic 
Goal 6, ``Protect and Enhance the Nation's Natural Resource Base and 
Environment.'' The agency's priorities for fall 2006 include publishing 
a proposed regulation to revise 36 CFR Part 220 regarding the agency's 
implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 
proposed regulation would move existing agency NEPA procedures required 
by 40 CFR 1507.3 from the internal Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 to 
the Code of Federal Regulations. Codifying agency NEPA procedures would 
make it easier for the Forest Service to revise internal agency 
guidance.
The agency plans to publish two final directives to Forest Service 
Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook 1909.15, chapter 30. The 
existing agency NEPA procedures would be updated to allow the use of a 
categorical exclusion when a land management plan is not making 
decisions that will result in significant impacts on the human 
environment and where no extraordinary circumstances exist that would 
prohibit the use of the categorical exclusion. Notice of the proposed 
categorical exclusion and request for comment was published January 5, 
2005 (70 FR 3).
The second final directive to Forest Service Environmental Policy and 
Procedures Handbook 1909.15, chapter 30 applies to issuance of Surface 
Use Plans of Operation for exploration or development of an oil and gas 
lease. The final directive will allow for expedited review of permits 
to accelerate the completion of projects while maintaining safety, 
public health and environmental protection. Notice of the proposed 
directive and request for comment was published December 13, 2005 (70 
FR 238).
Forest Service also plans to publish a final directive to Forest 
Service National Forest System Land Management Planning Handbook 
1909.12, chapter 70, regarding wilderness evaluation. The final 
planning rule was published on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 1023), and an 
interim directive to chapter 70 regarding wilderness evaluation was 
published on March 23, 2005 (70 FR 14637). The final directive updates 
guidance for the identification, inventory, evaluation, and 
recommendation of areas within National Forest System lands that 
satisfy the definition of wilderness

[[Page 72740]]

found in section 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Mission: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) mission is 
to provide leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve, 
maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment.
Priorities: NRCS' priority for FY 2007 will be to make final 
adjustments to rules related to the conservation provisions of the Farm 
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the 2002 Farm Bill), in 
response to public comments and experience gained from the 
implementation of the programs. These clarifications and modifications 
will ensure efficient and responsive delivery of conservation programs 
to landowners and land users and help further the agency mission to 
help people conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and 
the environment. NRCS' 2006 regulatory plan supports USDA's Strategic 
Goal 6, ``Protect and Enhance the Nation's Natural Resource Base and 
Environment,'' and the related objectives to protect and conserve 
natural resources that form the foundation for healthy lands.
NRCS remains committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork 
Elimination Act and the Freedom to E-File Act, which require Government 
agencies in general and NRCS in particular to provide the public the 
option of submitting information or transacting business electronically 
to the maximum extent possible. NRCS is designing its program forms to 
allow the public to conduct business with NRCS electronically.
The NRCS plans to publish the following rules during FY 2007:
 Interim Final Rule for the Environmental Quality Incentives Programs 
(EQIP): This revision to the final rule is to: 1) consider public 
comments about which resource concerns should be given national 
priority in the implementation of EQIP in future years; 2) clarify the 
cost-share rates (actual versus average cost); and 3) expansion of 
conservation practice definitions with varying payment incentives for a 
single conservation practice applied at different levels to achieve 
additional environmental benefits.
The rulemaking for EQIP consists of making minor changes to existing 
rules.
 Final Rule for the Farmland and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP): 
This action will modify the FRPP final rule to clarify the amount of 
construction and forested acres permitted on FRPP easements and 
identify the procedure in which the United States would invoke its 
contingent rights.
 Interim Final Rule for the Confidentiality of Conservation Program 
Information: If a producer believed that the proprietary information 
about their land and the agricultural operation provided to NRCS for 
participation in a conservation program would become ``public'' and 
thus subject to disclosure requirements under the Freedom of 
Information Act, the producer might not wish to participate in the 
voluntary conservation programs. Therefore, NRCS action to promulgate a 
rule is to ensure that NRCS or anyone acting on its behalf does not 
unlawfully release protected information.
 Final Rule for the Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP): This action 
implements HFRP -- a voluntary program to restore and enhance forest 
ecosystems that promote the recovery of threatened and endangered 
species, improve biodiversity, and enhance carbon sequestration. Land 
can be enrolled through a 10-year cost-share agreement and an easement 
contract.
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Farm Service Agency (FSA)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

1. PROCUREMENT OF COMMODITIES FOR FOREIGN DONATION

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 1431; 7 USC 1721; 15 USC 714b


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 1496


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule proposes new procedures to be used by the Commodity Credit 
Corporation (CCC) in the evaluation of bids in connection with the 
procurement of commodities for donation overseas. This proposed rule 
would enhance bidding opportunities for potential vendors while 
allowing CCC to more efficiently acquire commodities. In general, CCC 
proposes to amend the existing regulations to provide for the 
simultaneous review of commodity and ocean freight offers when 
evaluating lowest landed cost options in connection with the 
procurement of commodities.


Statement of Need:


Under the revised bid process, CCC can better control shipping costs, 
take advantage of efficiencies in load consolidation and ensure a more 
competitive commodity procurement process. The ``two-step'' process was 
designed at a time when donation commodities were shipped under ocean 
carrier tariffs that could be readily identified. Despite the 
irrelevance of published ocean tariffs and reliance on negotiated 
shipping service contracts today, the current ``two-step'' procurement 
process remains tied by regulation to the obsolete tariff system. 7 CFR 
Part 1496.5 (b)(4) states as follows: ``Freight rates will be obtained 
from published ocean tariffs to make cost comparisons between various 
steamship companies and coastal ranges.''


Without the changes that are being made to 7 CFR Part 1496 under this 
final rule, the Kansas City Commodity Office (KCCO) would be forced to 
continue to operate the identified donation programs without reliable 
rate information. The current collection process for non-binding rate 
indications is exceedingly cumbersome and time-consuming. In addition, 
the rate indications obtained are generally not representative of the 
rates under which the procured products will be shipped. The ``two-
step'' process invites gaming and manipulation by participating ocean 
carriers. These problems render the lowest-landed-cost criteria under 
which the program operates nearly meaningless. Without the ability to 
determine accurate freight rates, KCCO cannot effectively manage these 
programs to maximize the quantity of food products donated under them.


Summary of Legal Basis:


15 U.S.C. 714b(h) provides that CCC may contract for the use, in 
accordance with the usual customs of trade and commerce, of plants and 
facilities for the physical handling, storage, processing, servicing, 
and transportation of the agricultural commodities subject to its 
control. The Commodity Credit Corporation may sell any commodity owned 
or controlled by the Corporation at any price that the Secretary 
determines will maximize returns to the Corporation, including 
minimizing the handling and

[[Page 72741]]

transportation costs in making delivery of the commodity.


Alternatives:


CCC has the alternative of maintaining the current ``two-step'' process 
used to procure and ship agricultural commodities.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Program savings should result from the ability to better position 
procured commodities at domestic ports based on actual shipping cost 
comparisons. Program savings are also expected as a result of greater 
head-to-head competition for program freight among U.S.-flagged 
carriers. These savings should allow for additional food aid quantities 
to move to donation countries. This rule will enhance bidding 
opportunities for potential vendors while allowing CCC to more 
efficiently acquire commodities.


Risks:


The magnitude of the savings or losses from lower expected freight 
revenue will be driven by the behavior of carriers as they adjust to 
the new process. Such costs are difficult to quantify given the 
impossibility of predicting ocean carrier bidding behavior under the 
``one-step'' system. Larger trends in program shipments and costs are 
expected to continue when the ``one-step'' freight bidding process is 
implemented. The existing trends reflect issues of port capacity and 
facilities, shipping trade and vessel availability, and the more 
general availability of container and inland freight equipment. The 
opportunity to better consolidate loads should support the continuation 
of these trends and, in doing so, lower freight costs for program 
shipments.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/16/05                    70 FR 74717
NPRM Comment Period End         01/17/06
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    01/23/06                     71 FR 3442
Public Meeting                  02/21/06
Second NPRM                     04/07/06                    71 FR 17767
Second NPRM Comment 
    Period End                  05/08/06
Final Action                    01/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Phillip Elder
Agricultural Economist
Department of Agriculture
Farm Service Agency
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 690-8104
Fax: 202 720-5233
Email: phillip--elder@wdc.usda.gov
RIN: 0560-AH40
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

2. 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                            09/00/07
NPRM Comment Period End         11/00/07

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:
Jerry D. DePoyster
Senior Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal Care
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 84
Riverdale, MD 20737-1234
Phone: 301 734-7586
RIN: 0579-AC02
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
3. 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

[[Page 72742]]

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. In order to determine 
whether to add a taxon of plants for planting to this category, we 
would review scientific information other than a pest risk assessment; 
the types of scientific information we would review would be listed in 
the regulations. If scientific information other than a pest risk 
assessment indicated that importation of the taxon of plants for 
planting posed a potential risk, we would then publish an interim rule 
adding the taxon to the proposed category and giving the public an 
opportunity to comment on the change. 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. We are also 
proposing to expand the scope of the plants regulated in the plants for 
planting regulations to include non-vascular plants. These changes 
would allow us to react more quickly to evidence that a taxon of plants 
for planting may pose a pest risk while ensuring that our actions are 
based on scientific evidence.


Statement of Need:


APHIS typically relies on inspection at a Federal plant inspection 
station or port of entry to mitigate the risks of pest introduction 
associated with the importation of plants for planting. Importation of 
plants for planting is further restricted or prohibited only if there 
is specific evidence that such importation could introduce a quarantine 
pest into the United States. Most of the taxa of plants for planting 
currently being imported have not been thoroughly studied to determine 
whether their importation presents a risk of introducing a quarantine 
pest into the United States. The volume and the number of types of 
plants for planting have increased dramatically in recent years, and 
there are several problems associated with gathering data on what 
plants for planting are being imported and on the risks such 
importation presents. In addition, quarantine pests that enter the 
United States via the importation of plants for planting pose a 
particularly high risk of becoming established within the United 
States. The current regulations need to be amended to better address 
these risks.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the importation 
or entry of any plant if the Secretary determines that the prohibition 
or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction into the United 
States of a plant pest or noxious weed (7 U.S.C. 7712).


Alternatives:


APHIS has identified two alternatives to the approach we are 
considering. The first is to maintain the status quo; this alternative 
was rejected because, given our limited resources and the risks of pest 
introduction posed by the rapid increase in the importation of plants 
for planting, we do not believe that this approach would allow us to 
address the potential risks posed by quarantine pests in a timely 
manner. The second is to 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 was rejected because, in the absence of 
additional resources for conducting risk evaluation and rulemaking, 
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:


In general, the costs associated with plant pests that are introduced 
into the United States via imported nursery stock are expected to 
increase in the absence of some action to revise the nursery stock 
regulations to better address pest risks. Specific costs and benefits 
will be determined.


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                            02/00/07
NPRM Comment Period End         04/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


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


Agency Contact:
Arnold T. Tschanz
Senior Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis & Operations, PPQ
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 141
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236
Phone: 301 734-5306
RIN: 0579-AC03
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

4. REVISION OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES IMPORT REGULATIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 450; 7 USC 7701 to 7772; 7 USC 7781 to 7786; 7 USC 8311; 21 USC 
136 and 136a; 31 USC 9701


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 305; 7 CFR 319; 7 CFR 352


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule would revise and reorganize the regulations pertaining to the 
importation of fruits and vegetables to consolidate requirements of 
general applicability and eliminate redundant requirements, update 
terms and remove outdated requirements and references, update the 
regulations that apply to importations into territories under U.S.

[[Page 72743]]

administration, and make various editorial and nonsubstantive changes 
to regulations to make them easier to use. The rule would also make 
substantive changes to the regulations, including: (1) Establishing 
criteria within the regulations that, if met, would allow us to approve 
certain new fruits and vegetables for importation into the United 
States and to acknowledge pest-free areas in foreign countries without 
undertaking rulemaking; (2) doing away with the practice of listing 
specific commodities that may be imported subject to certain types of 
phytosanitary measures; and (3) providing for the issuance of special 
use permits for fruits and vegetables. These changes are intended to 
simplify and expedite our processes for approving certain new imports 
and pest-free areas while continuing to allow for public participation 
in the processes. If adopted, the rule would represent a significant 
structural revision of the fruits and vegetables import regulations and 
would establish a new process for approving certain new commodities for 
importation into the United States. It would not, however, allow the 
importation of any specific new fruits or vegetables, nor would it 
alter the conditions for importing currently approved fruits or 
vegetables except as specifically described in this document.


Statement of Need:


The volume of requests for new imports of fruits and vegetables has 
risen sharply in recent years with expanding global trade. APHIS is 
seeking an alternative process for certain new imports to expedite 
their evaluation and, where applicable, their approval.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Under the Plant Protection Act of 2000, it is the responsibility of the 
Secretary to facilitate . . . imports . . . in agricultural products 
and other commodities that pose a risk of harboring plant pests or 
noxious weeds in ways that will reduce, to the extent practicable, as 
determined by the Secretary, the risk of dissemination of plant pests 
or noxious weeds. This proposed rule, if adopted, would expedite the 
process for approving certain new imports.


Alternatives:


One alternative to this proposed rule would be to simply continue under 
APHIS' current process of authorizing the importation of fruits and 
vegetables. In this case, we would continue to list all newly approved 
fruits and vegetables in the regulations through notice-and-comment 
rulemaking, as we have been doing since 1987. This approach is 
unsatisfactory, because the number of requests we receive from foreign 
exporters and domestic importers to amend the regulations has been 
steadily increasing. Maintaining the current process will make it 
difficult to keep pace with the volume of import requests. Therefore, 
this alternative was rejected. We believe that the new approach would 
enable us to be more responsive to the import requests of our trading 
partners while maintaining the transparency of our decision-making 
afforded by notice-and-comment rulemaking.


Prior to 1987, APHIS authorized the importation of a fruit or vegetable 
by simply issuing a permit once the Agency was satisfied that the 
relevant criteria in the regulations had been met. Another alternative 
to this proposed rule would be to return to this method of authorizing 
fruit and vegetable importations. This approach is unsatisfactory, 
because it does not provide the opportunity for public analysis of and 
comment on the science associated with such imports. Therefore, this 
alternative was rejected. We believe that the new approach would enable 
us to be more responsive to the import requests of our trading partners 
while maintaining the transparency of our decisionmaking afforded by 
notice-and-comment rulemaking.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


There would be no new costs associated with this rule. Benefits could 
include more timely action on import requests, which could also lead to 
reciprocal action by trading partners as they evaluate our export 
requests.


Risks:


This action is administrative in nature and poses no direct specific 
risks. If new import requests are evaluated using the system proposed 
in this rule, each would be based on a unique risk analysis.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/27/06                    71 FR 25010
NPRM Comment Period End         07/26/06
NPRM Comment Period 
    Reopened                    08/01/06                    71 FR 43385
NPRM Comment Period End         08/25/06
Final Rule                      03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


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


Agency Contact:
Donna L. West
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 20737-1231
Phone: 301 734-0627
RIN: 0579-AB80
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
5. PHYTOPHTHORA RAMORUM; QUARANTINE AND REGULATIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 7701 to 7772; 7 USC 7781 to 7786; sec 301.75-15 also issued under 
sec 204, title II, PL 106-113, 113 Stat 1501A-293; secs 301.75-15 and 
301.75-16 also issued under sec 203, title II, PL 106-224, 114 Stat 400 
(7 USC 1421 note)


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 301


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action will amend the Phytophthora ramorum regulations to make the 
regulations consistent with a Federal Order issued by APHIS in December 
2004 that established restrictions on the interstate movement of 
nursery stock from nurseries in nonquarantined counties in California, 
Oregon, and Washington. This action will also update conditions for the 
movement of regulated articles of nursery stock from quarantined areas, 
as well as restrict the interstate movement of all other nursery stock 
from nurseries in quarantined areas. We are also updating the list of 
plants regulated because of P. ramorum and the list of areas that are 
quarantined for P. ramorum and making other

[[Page 72744]]

miscellaneous revisions to the regulations. These actions are necessary 
to prevent the spread of P. ramorum to noninfested areas of the United 
States. We will continue to update the regulations through additional 
rulemakings as new scientific information on this pathogen becomes 
available.


Statement of Need:


Since 1995, oaks and tanoaks have been dying in the coastal counties of 
California. Since then, other types of plants have been found to be 
infected or associated with this disease, referred to as Sudden Oak 
Death (SOD), ramorum leaf blight, ramorum dieback, or in Federal 
regulations, as Phytophthora ramorum. P. ramorum was first seen in 1995 
in Mill Valley (Marin County) on tanoak. Since that time, the disease 
has been confirmed on various native hosts in 14 coastal California 
counties (Marin, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, Napa, San Mateo, Monterey, Santa 
Clara, Mendocino, Solano, Alameda, Contra Costa, Humboldt, Lake, and 
San Francisco) and in Curry County, Oregon. The pathogen has been 
confirmed to infect 39 host plant taxa, and there are over 30 
additional taxa that are suspected to be hosts. In 2004, the pathogen 
was detected in plants shipped interstate from nonquarantined areas in 
California, Oregon, and Washington. Given the uncertainty associated 
with the spread of the pathogen and its potential effects on eastern 
oak forests, APHIS is taking action to define the extent of the 
pathogen's distribution in the United States and limit its artificial 
spread beyond infected areas through quarantine and a public education 
program. Completing this action is integral to having a scientifically 
sound quarantine as the foundation of our program.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 to 7773) authorizes the 
Secretary to prohibit or restrict the movement in interstate commerce 
of any plant, plant product, or other article if the Secretary 
determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent 
the dissemination of a plant pest within the United States.


Alternatives:


The two most significant alternatives APHIS considered were to (1) 
eliminate the Federal quarantine for P. ramorum because of the 
likelihood that the pathogen has already spread to other parts of the 
United States via interstate trade in articles that may be infested, 
and (2) quarantine the entire states of California, Oregon, and 
Washington and prohibit the interstate movement of P. ramorum host 
articles to protect against the interstate spread of the pathogen. We 
rejected the first alternative because of insufficient evidence about 
the presence of the pathogen in eastern U.S. nurseries or forests. The 
lack of evidence of spread despite the significant amount of trade in 
potentially infected material that has already occurred is the reason 
we did not select the second alternative. Our preferred action balances 
the need to protect eastern forests and nurseries with the goal of 
imposing only those restrictions on trade that are necessary to prevent 
the spread of the pathogen.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The anticipated costs of this rulemaking mirror those of the Federal 
Order of 2004. Specifically, nurseries in regulated and quarantined 
areas will have to meet certain criteria prior to engaging in the 
interstate trade of nursery stock. Depending on the location of the 
nursery, the classification of nursery stock propagated within, and on 
the classification of articles to be shipped, the nursery will have to 
undergo annual inspection; and/or inspection, sampling, and testing of 
individual shipments in order to receive certification for interstate 
shipment. Currently, USDA covers the costs of annual inspection during 
normal business hours; however, as with all government subsidized 
programs, the budget allowable may differ from year to year. There are 
other intangible costs of rulemaking, such as the potential for lost 
revenue while holding plants during sampling and testing. Further, 
there have been some negative stigma associated with nursery stock from 
regulated areas of Oregon and Washington state as a result of the P. 
ramorum rulemaking and restrictions on interstate movement, although it 
is hard to quantify the effect of any perceived stigma.


Because knowledge of the P. ramorum pathogen and how it spreads is 
still in its infancy, the benefits of proactively addressing the 
situation in hopes of preventing widespread infestation far outweigh 
any costs associated with the rulemaking. The total value of sales of 
nursery stock reported in 2004 from operations with $100,000 or more in 
sales in the United States was over $4.8 billion. California, Oregon, 
and Washington alone account for about 25 percent of that total, with 
sales of over $1.2 billion. With new hosts being consistently added to 
the list, and our knowledge of the pathogen's pathways increasing, this 
rulemaking is necessary, not only for protecting the nursery industry 
in the Pacific northwest, but also for protecting the nursery industry 
nationwide.


Risks:


This rulemaking addresses risks associated with the interstate movement 
of articles that may spread P. ramorum to areas of the United States 
where the disease is not known to exist.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              01/00/07
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Additional Information:


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


Agency Contact:
Jonathan Jones
National Phytophthora Ramorum Program Manager, Pest Detection and 
Management Programs, PPQ
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 160
Riverdale, MD 20737
Phone: 301 734-8247
RIN: 0579-AB82
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

6. SPECIAL NUTRITION PROGRAMS: FLUID MILK SUBSTITUTIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 108-265, sec 102


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 220

[[Page 72745]]

Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Currently, by regulation, schools must make substitutions for fluid 
milk for students with a disability when the request is authorized by a 
licensed physician and may make substitutions for students with medical 
or other dietary needs if requested by recognized medical authority. 
These regulatory provisions were included in Public Law 108-265 which 
amended the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. Public Law 
108-265 also amended the current law to allow schools to substitute 
non-dairy beverages nutritionally equivalent (as established by the 
Secretary) to fluid milk for medical or other special dietary needs at 
the request of a parent/guardian. In response to Public Law 108-265, 
the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program 
regulations will be revised to add these provisions. (04-016)


Statement of Need:


The changes made to the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act 
concerning substitutions for fluid milk are intended to assist children 
with an intolerance to or a cultural or other restriction concerning 
the consumption of milk. This regulation allows schools to make 
substitutions at the request of a parent or guardian, which assists 
families that are unable to obtain a doctor's statement. However, the 
Secretary must develop criteria to limit the substitutions for milk to 
nutritionally equivalent beverages. The determination of nutritionally 
equivalent beverages will require careful research and consultation.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These changes are being made in response to provisions in Public Law 
108-265.


Alternatives:


USDA will be working with other Federal agencies to develop criteria 
for nutritionally equivalent substitutes for fluid milk as well as 
conducting research. USDA is issuing a proposed rule on this provision 
in order to solicit public comments prior to any final decisionmaking.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Schools may incur additional costs in obtaining and offering substitute 
beverages. However, children who cannot consume milk will now have a 
beverage nutritionally equivalent to milk.


Risks:


USDA must be diligent in making any determinations of nutritional 
equivalency to milk.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/09/06                    71 FR 65753
NPRM Comment Period End         01/08/07
Final Action                    01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Fax: 703 605-0220
Email: sheri.ackerman@fns.usda.gov
RIN: 0584-AD58
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

7. 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).

[[Page 72746]]

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:


Continuing to operate the CACFP under existing provisions of the 
regulations that do not sufficiently protect against fraud and abuse in 
CACFP puts the program at significant risk. This rule includes changes 
designed to strengthen current program regulations to reduce the risk 
associated with the program.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/12/00                    65 FR 55103
NPRM Comment Period End         12/11/00
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                    09/00/07

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.


Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Fax: 703 605-0220
Email: sheri.ackerman@fns.usda.gov
RIN: 0584-AC24
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
8. 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

[[Page 72747]]

NPRM Comment Period End         06/15/04
Final Action                    12/00/06
Final Action Effective          02/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Fax: 703 605-0220
Email: sheri.ackerman@fns.usda.gov
RIN: 0584-AD30
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
9. QUALITY CONTROL PROVISIONS OF TITLE IV OF PUBLIC LAW 107-171

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 Public Law 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:


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
Final Action                    01/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State

[[Page 72748]]

Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Fax: 703 605-0220
Email: sheri.ackerman@fns.usda.gov
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AD37
RIN: 0584-AD31
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
10. 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 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 sec. 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 developing extensive 
guidance materials in conjunction with our cooperators.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This regulation will reduce paperwork, target benefits more precisely, 
and will improve program access of eligible school children.


Risks:


This regulation may require adjustments to existing computer systems to 
more readily share information between schools, food stamp offices, and 
other agencies.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              02/00/07
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          02/00/08
Final Action                    02/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Fax: 703 605-0220
Email: sheri.ackerman@fns.usda.gov
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AD62
RIN: 0584-AD60
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
11. 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, December 2005.


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

[[Page 72749]]

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 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 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                    08/00/07
Final Action Effective          09/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


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

Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Fax: 703 605-0220
Email: sheri.ackerman@fns.usda.gov
RIN: 0584-AD71
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
12. SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS AND 
CHILDREN (WIC): REVISIONS IN THE WIC FOOD PACKAGES

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1786


CFR Citation:


7 CFR part 246


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 2006, CN and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 
requires issuance of final rule within 18 months of release of IOM 
Report.


Abstract:


This proposed rule would revise regulations governing the WIC food 
packages to change age specifications for assignment to infant feeding 
packages; establish infant formula feeding or breastfeeding categories 
for infants; revise the maximum monthly

[[Page 72750]]

allowances and minimum requirements for certain WIC foods; revise the 
substitution rates for certain WIC foods and allow additional foods as 
alternatives; add fruits and vegetables for WIC participants 6 months 
of age and older and eliminate juice from infants' food packages; add 
whole grains to food packages for children and women and baby food meat 
for fully breastfed infants 6 through 11 months of age; revise the 
purpose, content, and requirements for Food Package III; and address 
general provisions that apply to all food packages. The revisions 
reflect recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine in its 
report, WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change, and certain other 
administrative revisions deemed necessary by the Department. These 
revisions would bring the WIC food packages in line with the 2005 
Dietary Guidelines for Americans and current infant feeding practice 
guidelines, better promote and support the establishment of successful 
long-term breastfeeding, provide WIC participants with a wider variety 
of food, provide WIC State agencies with greater flexibility in 
prescribing food packages to accommodate participants with cultural 
food preferences, and serve all participants with certain medical 
provisions under one food package to facilitate efficient management of 
medically fragile participants. (05-006)


Statement of Need:


The revisions proposed in this rulemaking reflect recommendations made 
by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in its report, WIC Food Packages: 
Time for a Change, and certain administrative revisions deemed 
necessary by the Department. The Child Nutrition and WIC 
Reauthorization Act of 2004, enacted on June 30, 2004, requires the 
Department to issue a final rule within 18 months (November 2006) of 
receiving the IOM's report.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, enacted on 
June 30, 2004, requires the Department to issue a final rule within 18 
months of receiving the Institute of Medicine's report on revisions to 
the WIC food packages. This report was published and released to the 
public on April 27, 2005.


Alternatives:


FNS is in the process of developing a regulatory impact analysis that 
will address a variety of alternatives that are considered in the 
proposed rulemaking.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The IOM was charged by FNS to develop recommendations that were cost-
neutral. The regulatory impact analysis will provide a more detailed 
summary of specific costs/benefits associated with the proposed 
revisions to the WIC Food Packages.


Risks:


The proposed rule has a 90-day comment period, during which interested 
parties may submit comments on any and all provisions contained in the 
rulemaking. Once the comment period has expired, all comments received 
will be carefully considered in the development of the final rule. 
Opportunities for training on and discussion of the revised WIC food 
packages will be offered to State agencies and other entities as 
necessary.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/07/06                    71 FR 44784
NPRM Comment Period End         11/06/06
Interim Final Rule              09/00/07
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   10/00/07
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          10/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State, Tribal


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

URL For Public Comments:
www.fns.usda.gov/wic

Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Fax: 703 605-0220
Email: sheri.ackerman@fns.usda.gov
RIN: 0584-AD77
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

13. EGG PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


21 USC 1031 to 1056


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 590.570; 9 CFR 590.575; 9 CFR 590.146; 9 CFR 590.10; 9 CFR 
590.411; 9 CFR 590.502; 9 CFR 590.504; 9 CFR 590.580; 9 CFR 591; . . .


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to require 
egg products plants and establishments that pasteurize shell eggs to 
develop and implement Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points 
(HACCP) systems and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). 
FSIS also is proposing pathogen reduction performance standards that 
would be applicable to egg products and pasteurized shell eggs. FSIS is 
proposing to amend the Federal egg products inspection regulations by 
removing current requirements for prior approval by FSIS of egg 
products plant drawings, specifications, and equipment prior to their 
use in official plants. The Agency also plans to eliminate the prior 
label approval system for egg products. This proposal will not 
encompass shell egg packers. In the near future, FSIS will initiate 
non-regulatory outreach efforts for shell egg packers that will provide 
information intended to help them to safely process shell eggs intended 
for human consumption or further processing.


The actions being proposed are part of FSIS' regulatory reform effort 
to improve FSIS' egg products food safety regulations, better define 
the roles of Government and the regulated industry, encourage 
innovations that will improve food safety, remove unnecessary 
regulatory burdens on inspected egg products plants, and

[[Page 72751]]

make the egg products regulations as consistent as possible with the 
Agency's meat and poultry products regulations. FSIS is also taking 
these actions in light of changing inspection priorities and findings 
of Salmonella in pasteurized egg products.


Statement of Need:


The actions being proposed are part of FSIS' regulatory reform effort 
to improve FSIS' shell egg and egg products food safety regulations, 
better define the roles of Government and the regulated industry, 
encourage innovations that will improve food safety, remove unnecessary 
regulatory burdens on inspected egg products plants, and make the egg 
products regulations as consistent as possible with the Agency's meat 
and poultry products regulations. FSIS also is taking these actions in 
light of changing inspection priorities and recent findings of 
Salmonella in pasteurized egg products.


This proposal is directly related to FSIS' PR/HACCP initiative.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This proposed rule is authorized under the Egg Products Inspection Act 
(21 U.S.C. 1031 to 1056). It is not the result of any specific mandate 
by the Congress or a Federal court.


Alternatives:


A team of FSIS economists and food technologists is conducting a cost-
benefit analysis to evaluate the potential economic impacts of several 
alternatives on the public, egg products industry, and FSIS. These 
alternatives include: (1) Taking no regulatory action; (2) requiring 
all inspected egg products plants to develop, adopt, and implement 
written sanitation SOPs and HACCP plans; and (3) converting to a 
lethality-based pathogen reduction performance standard many of the 
current highly prescriptive egg products processing requirements. The 
team will consider the effects of a uniform, across-the-board standard 
for all egg products; a performance standard based on the relative risk 
of different classes of egg products; and a performance standard based 
on the relative risks to public health of different production 
processes.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FSIS is analyzing the potential costs of this proposed rulemaking to 
industry, FSIS and other Federal agencies, State and local governments, 
small entities, and foreign countries. The expected costs to industry 
will depend on a number of factors. These costs include the required 
lethality, or level of pathogen reduction, and the cost of HACCP plan 
and sanitation SOP development, implementation, and associated employee 
training. The pathogen reduction costs will depend on the amount of 
reduction sought and on the classes of product, product formulations, 
or processes.


Relative enforcement costs to FSIS and Food and Drug Administration may 
change because the two agencies share responsibility for inspection and 
oversight of the egg industry and a common farm-to-table approach for 
shell egg and egg products food safety. Other Federal agencies and 
local governments are not likely to be affected.


FSIS has cooperative agreements with four States and the Commonwealth 
of Puerto Rico under which they provide inspection services to egg 
processing plants under Federal jurisdiction. FSIS reimburses the 
States for staffing costs and expenses for full-time State inspectors. 
HACCP implementation may result in a reduction of staffing resource 
requirements in the States and a corresponding reduction of the Federal 
reimbursement. As a result, some States may decide to stop providing 
inspection services and convert to Federal inspection of egg products 
plants.


Egg and egg product inspection systems of foreign countries wishing to 
export eggs and egg products to the U.S. must be equivalent to the U.S. 
system. FSIS will consult with these countries, as needed, if and when 
this proposal becomes effective.


This proposal is not likely to have a significant impact on small 
entities. The entities that would be directly affected by this proposal 
would be the approximately 75 federally inspected egg products plants, 
most of which are small businesses, according to Small Business 
Administration criteria. If necessary, FSIS will develop compliance 
guides to assist these small firms in implementing the proposed 
requirements.


Potential benefits associated with this rulemaking include: 
Improvements in human health due to pathogen reduction; improved 
utilization of FSIS inspection program resources; and cost savings 
resulting from the flexibility of egg products plants in achieving a 
lethality-based pathogen reduction performance standard. Once specific 
alternatives are identified, economic analysis will identify the 
quantitative and qualitative benefits associated with each alternative.


Human health benefits from this rulemaking are likely to be small 
because of the low level of (chiefly post-processing) contamination of 
pasteurized egg products. In light of recent scientific studies that 
raise questions about the efficacy of current regulations, however, it 
is likely that measurable reductions will be achieved in the risk of 
foodborne illness.


Risks:


FSIS believes that this regulatory action may result in a further 
reduction in the risks associated with egg products. The development of 
a lethality-based pathogen reduction performance standard for egg 
products, replacing command-and-control regulations, will remove 
unnecessary regulatory obstacles to, and provide incentives for, 
innovation to improve the safety of egg products.


To assess the potential risk-reduction impacts of this rulemaking on 
the public, an intra-Agency group of scientific and technical experts 
is conducting a risk management analysis. The group has been charged 
with identifying the lethality requirement sufficient to ensure the 
safety of egg products and the alternative methods for implementing the 
requirement. FSIS has developed new risk assessments for SE in eggs and 
for Salmonella spp. in liquid egg products to evaluate the risk 
associated with the regulatory alternatives.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Federalism:


 Undetermined

[[Page 72752]]

Agency Contact:
Victoria Levine
Program Analyst, Regulations and Petitions Policy Staff
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-AC58
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

14. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PROCESSED MEAT AND 
POULTRY PRODUCTS; CONTROL OF LISTERIA MONOCYTOGENES IN READY-TO-EAT 
MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


21 USC 451 et seq; 21 USC 601 et seq


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 301; 9 CFR 303; 9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 318; 9 CFR 319; 9 CFR 320; 9 CFR 
325; 9 CFR 331; 9 CFR 381; 9 CFR 417; 9 CFR 430; 9 CFR 431


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


FSIS has proposed to establish pathogen reduction performance standards 
for all ready-to-eat (RTE) and partially heat-treated meat and poultry 
products, and measures, including testing, to control Listeria 
monocytogenes in RTE products. The performance standards spell out the 
objective level of pathogen reduction that establishments must meet 
during their operations in order to produce safe products but allow the 
use of customized, plant-specific processing procedures other than 
those prescribed in the earlier regulations. With HACCP, food safety 
performance standards give establishments the incentive and flexibility 
to adopt innovative, science-based food safety processing procedures 
and controls, while providing objective, measurable standards that can 
be verified by Agency inspectional oversight. This set of performance 
standards will include and be consistent with standards already in 
place for certain ready-to-eat meat and poultry products.


Statement of Need:


The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has proposed to amend the 
Federal meat and poultry inspection regulations by establishing food 
safety performance standards for all ready-to-eat and all partially 
heat-treated meat and poultry products. The proposed performance 
standards set forth both levels of pathogen reduction and limits on 
pathogen growth that official meat and poultry establishments must 
achieve during their operations in order to produce unadulterated 
products but allow the use of customized, plant-specific processing 
procedures. The proposed performance standards apply to ready-to-eat 
meat and poultry products, categorized as follows: Dried products 
(e.g., beef or poultry jerky); salt-cured products (e.g., country ham); 
fermented products (e.g., salami and Lebanon bologna); cooked and 
otherwise processed products (e.g., beef and chicken burritos, corned 
beef, pastrami, poultry rolls, and turkey franks); and thermally 
processed, commercially sterile products (e.g., canned spaghetti with 
meat balls and canned corned beef hash).


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 will 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.


The proposal also contained provisions addressing Listeria 
monocytogenes in RTE products. An Interim Final Rule on this subject 
was published June 6, 2003 (68 FR 34208).


FSIS also has proposed to eliminate its regulations that require that 
both ready-to-eat and not-ready-to-eat pork and products containing 
pork be treated to destroy trichinae (Trichinella spiralis). These 
requirements are inconsistent with HACCP, and some will be unnecessary 
if FSIS makes final the proposed performance standards for ready-to-eat 
meat and poultry products.


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.


The main provisions of the proposed rule are: Lethality performance 
standards for Salmonella and E. coli 0157: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:


None.


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

[[Page 72753]]

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                  02/00/07
Final Action                    06/00/07

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, Program, and Employee 
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
15. NUTRITION LABELING OF SINGLE-INGREDIENT PRODUCTS AND GROUND OR 
CHOPPED MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


21 USC 601 et seq; 21 USC 451 et seq


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 381


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


FSIS has proposed to amend the Federal meat and poultry products 
inspection regulations to require nutrition labeling for the major cuts 
of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products, either on their 
label or at their point-of-purchase, unless an exemption applies. FSIS 
also proposed to require nutrition information on the label of ground 
or chopped meat and poultry products, unless an exemption applies. The 
requirements for ground or chopped products will be consistent with 
those for multi-ingredient products.


FSIS also proposed to amend the nutrition labeling regulations to 
provide that when a ground or chopped product does not meet the 
regulatory criteria to be labeled ``low fat,'' a lean percentage claim 
may be included on the label or in labeling, as long as a statement of 
the fat percentage also is displayed on the label or in labeling.


Statement of Need:


The Agency will require that nutrition information be provided for the 
major cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products, either 
on their label or at their point-of-purchase, because during the most 
recent surveys of retailers, the Agency did not find significant 
participation in the voluntary nutrition labeling program for single-
ingredient, raw meat and poultry products. Without nutrition 
information, FSIS has concluded that the major cuts of single-
ingredient, raw meat and poultry products would be misbranded.


Because consumers cannot easily estimate the level of fat in ground or 
chopped meat and poultry products and because producers are able to 
formulate precisely the fat content of ground or chopped products, FSIS 
has concluded that ground or chopped meat and poultry products that do 
not bear nutrition information on their labels would also be 
misbranded.


Finally, FSIS will amend the nutrition labeling regulations to provide 
that when a ground or chopped product does not meet the criteria to be 
labeled ``low fat,'' a lean percentage claim may be included on the 
product, as long as a statement of the fat percentage is also displayed 
on the label or in labeling. FSIS will include these provisions in the 
final nutrition labeling regulations because many consumers have become 
accustomed to this labeling on ground beef products and because this 
labeling provides a quick, simple, accurate means of comparing all 
ground or chopped meat and poultry products.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This action is authorized under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 
U.S.C. 601 to 695) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 
451 to 470).


Alternatives:


No action; nutrition labels required on all single-ingredient, raw 
products (major cuts and non-major cuts) and all ground or chopped 
products; nutrition labels required on all major cuts of single-
ingredient, raw products (but not non-major cuts) and all ground or 
chopped products; nutrition information at the point-of-purchase 
required for all single-ingredient, raw products (major and non-major 
cuts) and for all ground or chopped products.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs will include the equipment for making labels, labor, and 
materials used for labels for ground or chopped products. The cost of 
providing nutrition labeling for the major cuts of single-ingredient, 
raw meat and poultry products should not be significant, because retail 
establishments would have the option of providing nutrition information 
through point-of-purchase materials.


Benefits of the nutrition labeling rule would result from consumers 
modifying their diets in response to new nutrition information 
concerning ground or chopped products and the major cuts of single-
ingredient, raw products. Reductions in consumption of fat and 
cholesterol are associated with reduced incidence of cancer and 
coronary heart disease.


FSIS has concluded that the quantitative benefits will exceed the 
quantitative costs of the rule.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/18/01                     66 FR 4970
NPRM Comment Period End         04/18/01
Extension of Comment 
    Period                      04/20/01                    66 FR 20213
NPRM Comment Period End         07/17/01
Final Action                    12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None

[[Page 72754]]

Agency Contact:
Robert Post Ph.D.
Director, Labeling and Consumer Protection Staff
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0279
Email: robert.post@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AC60
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
16. PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS FOR HUMAN FOOD 
AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DISPOSITION OF NON-AMBULATORY DISABLED CATTLE

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


21 USC 601 et seq


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On January 12, 2004, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 
issued an interim final rule to amend the Federal meat inspection 
regulations to designate the brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia, 
spinal cord, vertebral column (excluding the vertebrae of the tail, the 
transverse processes of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and the 
wings of the sacrum), and dorsal root ganglia (DRG) of cattle 30 months 
of age and older, and the tonsils and distal ileum of the small 
intestine of all cattle, as ``specified risk materials'' (SRMs). The 
Agency declared that SRMs are inedible and prohibited their use for 
human food. In addition, as a result of the interim final rule, FSIS 
now requires that all non-ambulatory disabled cattle presented for 
slaughter be condemned. The Agency also requires that federally 
inspected establishments that slaughter cattle and federally inspected 
establishments that process the carcasses or parts of cattle develop, 
implement, and maintain written procedures for the removal, 
segregation, and disposition of SRMs. Establishments must incorporate 
these procedures into their HACCP plans or in their Sanitation SOPs or 
other prerequisite program. FSIS took this action in response to the 
diagnosis on December 23, 2003, by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
of a positive case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in an 
adult Holstein cow in the State of Washington. This action is intended 
to minimize human exposure to materials that scientific studies have 
demonstrated as containing the BSE agent in cattle infected with the 
disease. Infectivity has never been demonstrated in the muscle tissue 
of cattle experimentally or naturally infected with BSE at any stage of 
the disease.


Statement of Need:


FSIS issued an interim final rule to amend the meat inspection 
regulations to add provisions to prevent meat and meat products that 
may contain the BSE agent from entering commerce.


BSE is a chronic, degenerative, neurological disorder of cattle. 
Worldwide, there have been more than 185,000 cases since the disease 
was first diagnosed in 1986 in Great Britain. Recent laboratory and 
epidemiological research indicate that there is a causal association 
between BSE and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), a slow 
degenerative disease that affects the central nervous system of humans. 
Both BSE and vCJD are always fatal.


USDA policy in regard to BSE has been to be proactive and preventive. 
The regulations: (1) Prohibit certain materials that have been shown to 
contain the BSE agent in BSE-infected cattle to be used for human food 
or in the production of human food; (2) prescribe handling, storage, 
and transportation requirements for such materials; (3) prohibit 
slaughter procedures that may cause potentially infective tissues to 
migrate to edible tissues; (4) prescribe requirements for the 
slaughtering and processing of cattle whose materials are most likely 
to contain the BSE agent if the animal is infected with BSE; and (5) 
prescribe requirements for the sanitation or disposal of plant 
equipment that may be contaminated with the BSE agent.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 to 695), FSIS 
issues regulations governing the production of meat and meat food 
products. The regulations, along with FSIS inspection programs, are 
designed to ensure that meat food products are safe, not adulterated, 
and properly marked, labeled, and packaged.


Alternatives:


As an alternative to the interim final rule, FSIS considered taking no 
action. FSIS rejected this option because, as previously mentioned, 
USDA policy in regard to BSE has been to be proactive and preventive.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This interim final rule could result in costs to the regulated 
industry. FSIS expects to minimize the costs by targeting the 
regulations to apply to those cattle whose materials are most likely to 
contain the BSE agent if the animal is infected with BSE. Banning 
certain materials, such as brain and spinal cord, for use as human food 
may require additional staff and time to remove such materials. 
Materials prohibited for use as human food could not be sold 
domestically or exported. Companies may be required to find new ways to 
handle and dispose of these materials, which would impose additional 
costs. Prohibiting the use of bovine vertebral column as a source 
material in AMRS could result in a decrease in product yield and may 
require companies that use these systems to produce boneless beef and 
beef products to find other uses for bovine vertebral column. 
Establishments whose equipment may have been contaminated with the BSE 
agent may have costs associated with sanitation or disposal of plant 
equipment.


FSIS may incur costs to increase inspection and compliance activities 
to ensure that the measures taken to prevent meat and meat food 
products that may contain the BSE agent from entering commerce are 
effective. Producers may receive lower prices from processors, and some 
of their stock may be condemned outright. The price consumers pay for 
meat may rise or fall depending on how the discovery of BSE in the U.S. 
affects consumer demand for beef.


The main benefit of this proposed rule is the prevention of vCJD in the 
United States. There have been over 100 definite and probable cases of 
vCJD detected worldwide since the disease was first identified in 1986 
in the United Kingdom. While vCJD is still considered a rare condition, 
the extent or occurrence of a vCJD epidemic in the United Kingdom 
cannot be determined because of the long incubation period (up to 25 
years). Thus, the interim final rule could have widespread public 
health benefits if it serves to prevent a vCJD epidemic from developing 
in the U.S. Even if vCJD

[[Page 72755]]

remains a rare condition, this proposed rule will still have public 
health benefits because of the severity of the symptoms associated with 
vCJD and the fact that vCJD is always fatal.


This interim final rule may benefit the meat industry by helping to 
restore confidence in the domestic meat supply. This may limit losses 
to meat slaughter and processing operations in the long run.


Risks:


Although vCJD is a rare condition, the symptoms are severe, and it is 
always fatal. This interim final rule is intended to reduce the risk of 
humans developing vCJD in the U.S. in the event BSE is detected in 
native cattle. The measures implemented by FSIS are intended to 
minimize human exposure to materials from cattle that could potentially 
contain the BSE agent. In April 1998, USDA entered into a cooperative 
agreement with Harvard University's School of Public Health to conduct 
a risk analysis to assess the potential pathways for entry into U.S. 
cattle and the U.S. food supply, to evaluate existing regulations and 
policies, and to identify any additional measures that could be taken 
to protect human and animal health. FSIS used the findings of the risk 
assessment to inform its decision to prohibit certain bovine materials 
for human food.


Unlike bacterial and viral pathogens that may be found in or on meat 
food products, the BSE agent cannot be destroyed by conventional 
methods, such as cooking or irradiation. Also, although it is rare, 
vCJD, the human disease associated with exposure to the BSE agent, is 
generally more severe than the human illnesses associated with exposure 
to bacterial and viral pathogens. Thus, additional measures to reduce 
the risk of human exposure to the BSE agent are necessary to protect 
public health.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              01/12/04                     69 FR 1862
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          05/07/04
Interim Final Rule 
    Amendment                   07/07/05                    70 FR 53043
Interim Final Rule 
    Amendment Comment 
    Period End                  10/07/05
Final Action                    12/00/06

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, Program, and Employee 
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-AC88
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
17. MEAT PRODUCED BY ADVANCED MEAT/BONE SEPARATION MACHINERY AND MEAT 
RECOVERY SYSTEMS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


21 USC 601 to 695


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 301.2; 9 CFR 318.24 (Revision); 9 CFR 320.1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On January 12, 2004, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 
issued an interim final rule to amend the Federal meat inspection 
regulations. The rule is designed, in part, to prevent human exposure 
to the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) agent by ensuring that 
Advanced Meat/Bone Separation Machinery and Meat Recovery (AMR) systems 
are not a means of introducing central nervous system (CNS)-type tissue 
into product labeled as ``meat.'' Meat may be derived by mechanically 
separating skeletal muscle tissue from the bones of livestock, other 
than skulls or vertebral column bones of cattle 30 months of age and 
older, using advances in mechanical meat/bone separation machinery; 
i.e., AMR systems. The recovered meat product may not incorporate any 
brain, trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord, or dorsal root ganglia tissues. 
In addition, there must be no more than a non-significant incorporation 
of bone solids or bone marrow as measured by the presence of calcium 
and iron in excess of the requirements in the interim final rule. This 
rule also requires that federally inspected establishments that process 
cattle develop, implement, and maintain written procedures for the 
removal, segregation, and disposition of specified risk materials 
(SRMs), including non-complying products from beef AMR systems. These 
procedures are required to be incorporated into an establishment's 
HACCP plan, Sanitation Standard Operation Procedures, or other 
prerequisite program. FSIS took this action in response to the 
diagnosis on December 23, 2003, by the Department of Agriculture of a 
positive case of BSE in an adult Holstein cow in the State of 
Washington.


Statement of Need:


FSIS issued an interim final rule in part to prevent human exposure to 
the BSE agent by ensuring that AMR systems are not a means of 
introducing CNS-type tissue into product labeled as ``meat.'' In 
addition to the measures related to BSE, FSIS is finalizing 
restrictions related to bone solids and bone marrow for livestock 
products. This rule sets out the criteria that FSIS will use to ensure 
that AMR products can be represented as ``meat'' and, therefore, are 
not adulterated or misbranded. Finally, the Agency is requiring that 
federally inspected establishments that process the carcasses or parts 
of cattle develop, implement, and maintain written procedures for the 
removal, segregation, and disposition of specified risk materials 
(SRMs), including noncomplying product from AMR systems processing 
beef. A 2002 FSIS survey of establishments harvesting AMR product 
derived from beef vertebrae or beef vertebrae mixed with other types of 
beef bones indicated that 35 percent of the final AMRs product samples 
tested positive for spinal cord or dorsal root ganglia.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This action is authorized under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 
U.S.C. 601 to 695).


Alternatives:


No action.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The interim final rule was determined to be not economically 
significant, but significant. The benefit of enforcing the misbranding 
provisions will ensure that the product does not contain materials

[[Page 72756]]

not consistent with boneless, comminuted meat.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              01/12/04                     69 FR 1874
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          05/07/04
Final Action                    09/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Program, and Employee 
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
Related RIN: Duplicate of 0583-AC51
RIN: 0583-AD00
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
18. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF AIR-INJECTION STUNNERS FOR THE SLAUGHTER 
OF CATTLE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


Federal Meat Inspection Act, 21 USC 601(m), 621


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 313


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending the Federal 
meat inspection regulations to prohibit the use of penetrative captive 
bolt stunning devices that deliberately inject air into the cranial 
cavity of cattle. This rulemaking responds to the findings of a risk 
assessment on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) conducted by the 
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (referred to as the Harvard study) and 
is part of a series of actions that the USDA is taking to strengthen 
its BSE prevention programs.


Statement of Need:


FSIS is taking this action to address the potential risk posed by 
stunning devices that may force visible pieces of central nervous 
system (CNS) tissue, known as macro-emboli, into the circulatory system 
of stunned cattle. In cattle in the end stages of bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy (BSE), CNS tissue contains the highest levels of the BSE 
agent. Thus, because CNS macro-emboli can potentially become lodged in 
edible tissues, this action is necessary to prevent potential human 
exposure to the BSE agent.


Summary of Legal Basis:


FSIS' authority to prohibit the use of captive bolt stunning devices 
that inject air into the cranium of cattle derives from the Federal 
Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601(m), 621).


Alternatives:


FSIS considered the alternative of establishing a performance standard 
that stunning equipment would be required to meet to be used on cattle, 
and the alternative of no rulemaking. Under the performance standard 
option, the Agency would have developed a CNS tissue emboli performance 
standard that stunners would be required to meet to be permitted to be 
used on cattle. The benefits of this option are that it is more 
consistent with FSIS regulatory policy than banning a specific 
technology, and that it would prevent all methods of stunning that do 
not comply with the performance standard from being used on cattle, not 
just air-injection stunning. Thus, this option would prevent the need 
to regulate individual pieces of equipment.


A potential problem with this option is that there are relatively few 
studies on stunning methods and CNS tissue emboli. Thus, the Agency was 
concerned that if it were to establish a CNS tissue emboli performance 
standard for cattle stunning devices at this time, further studies 
could reveal that the performance standard selected does not achieve 
the result intended by the Agency. Therefore, FSIS decided to prohibit 
the use of the stunning method that all available studies do conclude 
result in CNS tissue macro-emboli, i.e., stunning that uses air-
injection.


FSIS rejected the option of no rulemaking because the Agency determined 
that it does not address the potential risk of human exposure to the 
BSE agent presented by air-injection stunning.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


There are likely no anticipated costs associated with this rule because 
FSIS is not aware of any establishments that use air-injection stunning 
on cattle. However, although the U.S. beef slaughter industry no longer 
uses air-injection stunning devices, FSIS is taking this action to 
prohibit any future use of these devices, to help facilitate exports of 
U.S. products, and to ensure the safety of imported beef products into 
the United States.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              01/12/04                     69 FR 1885
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          05/07/04
Final Action                    12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Program, and Employee 
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-AD03
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
19. AVAILABILITY OF LISTS OF RETAIL CONSIGNEES DURING MEAT OR POULTRY 
PRODUCT RECALLS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


5 USC 301, 552

[[Page 72757]]

CFR Citation:


9 CFR 390


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has proposed to amend the 
federal meat and poultry products inspection regulations to provide 
that the Agency will make available to the public lists of the retail 
consignees of meat and poultry products that have been voluntarily 
recalled by a federally inspected meat or poultry products 
establishment. FSIS has proposed this action because it believes that 
making this information available will be of significant value to 
consumers and the industry. It will clarify what products should be 
removed from commerce and from consumers' possession because there is 
reason to believe they are adulterated or misbranded.


Statement of Need:


The objective to be accomplished by this regulatory action is to 
provide important information to consumers while ensuring the 
appropriate flexibility for FSIS to protect proprietary information.


While FSIS does not have mandatory recall authority under the Federal 
Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or the Poultry 
Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), the Agency, to 
protect the public health, does ask establishments to voluntarily 
recall adulterated or misbranded meat and poultry products. FSIS 
verifies that such recalls are conducted expeditiously and effectively.


In 2002, FSIS promulgated regulations defining the circumstances and 
criteria under which it would share customer lists with States and 
other Federal agencies in connection with voluntary meat and poultry 
product recalls. In short, FSIS will disclose product distribution 
lists that have been obtained during voluntary recalls to States and 
other Federal government agencies to verify the removal of the recalled 
product, provided that the State or Federal agency has provided: (1) A 
written statement establishing its authority to protect confidential 
distribution lists from public disclosure; and (2) a written commitment 
not to disclose any information provided by FSIS without the written 
permission of the submitter of the information or written confirmation 
by FSIS that the information no longer has confidential status. 
Currently, FSIS will not disclose distribution lists to the general 
public or to States or other Federal government agencies that have not 
provided to FSIS the written statement and commitment required by the 
Agency's Freedom of Information and public information regulations.


Consumer activists and States have increasingly demanded the public 
release of information on where recalled meat and poultry products have 
been shipped. The States have requested this information be provided 
without the limitations imposed by FSIS's regulations. Consumer groups 
have claimed that the public needs this information to fully protect 
itself. In response to these requests, FSIS is proposing to make 
available to the public the names of likely retail consignees of 
recalled meat and poultry products.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This proposed rule is authorized under 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental 
regulations, and 5 U.S.C. 552, Public information; agency rules, 
opinions, orders, records, and proceedings. It is not the result of any 
specific mandate by the Congress or a Federal court.


Alternatives:


FSIS has prepared a regulatory impact analysis to evaluate the 
potential economic impacts of several alternatives on the public, the 
meat and poultry industry, and FSIS. These alternatives include: (1) 
Including local health departments as entities that could receive 
recall distribution lists; (2) making available to the general public 
recall distribution lists only in response to a Freedom of Information 
request; and (3) making lists available to State agencies with 
agreements with FSIS under 9 CFR 390.9.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FSIS is analyzing the potential costs of this proposed rulemaking.


This proposed rule would provide information to consumers about meat 
and poultry products sold at retail establishments that are believed to 
be adulterated or misbranded and are therefore subject to being 
recalled. The consumption of such products may cause food borne illness 
and other adverse health consequences, including death. Providing 
information of this sort that is more accessible and likely to be used 
by the consumer will reduce the likelihood of food borne illnesses and 
related consequences.


Risks:


FSIS believes that this regulatory action may result in a further 
reduction in the risks associated with the consumption of meat and 
poultry products.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/07/06                    71 FR 11326
NPRM Comment Period End         06/11/06                    71 FR 27211
Final Action                    05/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Mr. Philip Derfler
Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Program, and Employee 
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Room 350, Jamie L. Whitten Building
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3700
Phone: 202 720-2709
Fax: 202 720-2025
Email: philip.derfler@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AD10
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Forest Service (FS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

20. [bull] FOREST SERVICE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT PROCEDURES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


40 CFR 1507.3


CFR Citation:


36 CFR 220


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Forest Service is proposing to move existing agency NEPA procedures 
required by 40 CFR 1507.3 from Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 to the 
CFR, add new procedures, and edit some existing procedures. Presently, 
Forest Service procedures are combined with

[[Page 72758]]

agency guidance in FSH 1909.15 along with quotations from the Council 
on Environmental Quality regulations. Having agency NEPA procedures in 
regulations, separate from guidance, will make it easier for the Forest 
Service to provide guidance through the agency directive system. Agency 
internal processes will continue to reside in FSH 1909.15 with 
references to both CEQ and Forest Service NEPA procedures.


Statement of Need:


The Forest Service is proposing to move existing agency NEPA 
procedures, required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and 
codified at 40 CFR 1507.3, from the internal Forest Service 
Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 to the Code 
of Federal Regulations. New procedures would be added and existing 
procedures would be revised where clarity is needed to incorporate CEQ 
guidance and align agency NEPA procedures with agency decision 
processes.


Presently, the Forest Service NEPA procedures are combined with agency 
guidance in FSH 1909.15 along with quotations from the CEQ regulations. 
This handbook contains general guidance such as how to select an 
interdisciplinary team, thereby associating guidance with NEPA 
procedures. Guidance and quotes from the CEQ regulations are important 
to internal agency work, but bear little similarity to the agency 
procedures contemplated in the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1507.3(b)). 
Changes to agency guidance in FSH 1909.15 currently involve 
consultation with CEQ because the handbook does not differentiate 
between NEPA guidance and ``procedures.'' This makes it more difficult 
to update simple guidance.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1507.3) 
direct Federal agencies to develop NEPA procedures to supplement the 
CEQ regulations. The CEQ regulations require agencies to provide for 
public notice and comment and CEQ consultation when developing and 
revising agency NEPA procedures.


Alternatives:


A possible alternative would be to have the CEQ revise its regulations 
or seek legislative changes.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Codifying agency NEPA procedures in regulation, separate from guidance, 
would make it easier for the Forest Service to provide guidance through 
the agency directive system. General guidance and internal processes 
would reside in the FSH 1909.15 handbook with references to both CEQ 
and Forest Service NEPA procedures set out in the CFR. This will make 
future revisions to internal agency guidance more responsive to new 
ideas and information. Having the agency NEPA procedures at the same 
level as the CEQ regulations would also give them equal status in 
court.


New procedures and revisions to existing procedures would further 
define how the agency must comply with NEPA where the CEQ regulations 
lack clarity, when additional CEQ guidance has been issued, or when 
there are more efficient or applicable procedures appropriate to agency 
decision making. With more flexibility in how NEPA documents are 
prepared, the NEPA process is expected to be more efficient and 
responsive to decision maker needs.


Risks:


More NEPA procedural requirements could be added which would add to the 
present processes. Also, given that some of the proposed procedures 
would allow more flexibility and options to comply with NEPA, the 
results could be a more complex set of regulations for the field to 
understand.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Andria D. Weeks
Regulatory Analyst
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
ATTN: ORMS, D&R Branch
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-0003
Phone: 202 205-3610
Fax: 202 260-6539
Email: aweeks@fs.fed.us
RIN: 0596-AC49
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

21. NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING CATEGORICAL 
EXCLUSION (FINAL DIRECTIVE, FOREST SERVICE HANDBOOK 1909.15, CHAPTER 
30)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


16 USC et seq; 5 USC 301


CFR Citation:


36 CFR 219, subpart A


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Forest Service requested comment on a proposed revision to its 
procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. This 
revision is being proposed at Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, chapter 
30, which describes categorical exclusions, that is, categories of 
actions that will not result in significant impacts on the human 
environment and which are therefore exempt from requirements to prepare 
further NEPA documentation absent extraordinary circumstances. The 
proposal would add one such category of actions to the agency's NEPA 
procedures for final approvals on proposals to develop, amend, or 
revise land management plans that are comprised of five components, 
which are desired conditions, objectives, guidelines, suitability of 
areas, and special areas for a forest. This proposal was published in 
conjunction with the final Forest Service planning regulations 
published January 5, 2005.


Statement of Need:


On January 5, 2005, the Forest Service published a final rule in the 
Federal Register (70 FR 1023) revising Title 36, Code of Federal 
Regulations, Part 219, Subpart A, ``National Forest System Land 
Management Planning.'' This final rule substantially changed the type 
of decisions made in land management plans. These plans developed under 
this regulation are aspirational, and do not result in significant 
impacts on the human environment. Accordingly, existing agency NEPA 
procedures need to be updated to allow the use of a

[[Page 72759]]

categorical exclusion when a land management plan is not making 
decisions that will result in significant impacts on the human 
environment and where no extraordinary circumstances exist that would 
prohibit the use of the categorical exclusion.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) is the legal basis for 
National Forest System Land Management Planning. It requires 
``specifying procedures to insure that land management plans are 
prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 
[NEPA] of 1969, including, but not limited to, direction on when and 
for what plans an environmental impact statement required under section 
102(2)(C) of that Act shall be prepared.'' Notice of the proposed 
categorical exclusion and request for comment was published January 5, 
2005 (70 FR 1062).


Alternatives:


The agency would continue using environmental impact statements or 
environmental assessments for the development, amendment, or revision 
of land management plans.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


A cost-benefit analysis was conducted to compare the costs and benefits 
of implementing the final National Forest System Land Management 
Planning regulation to the baseline, 1982 planning rule. This analysis 
is posted at the Forest Service web site address (www.fs.fed.us/emc/
nfma/index2.html), along with other documents associated with the final 
rule. A basic assumption of the cost-benefit analysis is that the 
planning rule would be carried out using the planning categorical 
exclusion.


Based on costs that can be quantified, implementation of the final rule 
is expected to have an estimated annual average cost savings of $4.6 
million when compared to the 1982 planning rule, and an estimated 
annual average savings of $36.9 million when compared to estimates of 
implementation of the 2000 planning rule. The final rule is expected to 
be less costly than the 2000 planning rule; some of those saved costs 
are expected to be shifted to monitoring and evaluation.


The appropriate use of a categorical exclusion to meet NEPA 
requirements will be a substantial savings over the cost of an 
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment.


Risks:


The directive will help strengthen the Forest Service's ability to 
respond quickly and effectively to a variety of changing issues, such 
as new scientific information, new listing of species, the effects of 
wildfire, and unforeseen plan implementation activities. It will help 
reduce the risk of a land management plan being outdated.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/06/02                    67 FR 72770
NPRM Comment Period End         03/24/03
Final Rule                      01/05/05                     70 FR 1023
Proposed Directive              01/05/05                     70 FR 1062
Comment Period End              03/07/05
Final Action                    12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Andria D. Weeks
Regulatory Analyst
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
ATTN: ORMS, D&R Branch
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-0003
Phone: 202 205-3610
Fax: 202 260-6539
Email: aweeks@fs.fed.us
RIN: 0596-AB86
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FS
22. [bull] NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING DIRECTIVE 
(FINAL DIRECTIVE, FOREST SERVICE HANDBOOK 1909.12, CHAPTER 70-
WILDERNESS EVALUATION)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


36 CFR 219


CFR Citation:


None


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On March 23, 2005, the Forest Service published 12 interim directives 
(70 FR 14637) to Forest Service Manual 1330 (New Management Strategies; 
1900 (Planning; 1920 (Land and Resource Management Planning; and 
1909.12 (Land and Resource Management Planning Handbook). These 
directives provide the detailed direction to agency employees necessary 
to implement the provisions of the final land and resource management 
planning rule, which was published on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 1023). On 
January 31, 2006 (71 FR 5124), all the chapters were finalized except 
for FSH 1909.12, chapter 70-Wilderness Evaluation. Once finalized, this 
chapter will provide guidance for the identification, inventory, 
evaluation, and recommendation of areas within National Forest System 
lands that satisfy the definition of wilderness found in section 2(c) 
of the 1964 Wilderness Act.


Statement of Need:


On January 5, 2005, the Forest Service published a final rule in the 
Federal Register (70 FR 1023) revising Title 36, Code of Federal 
Regulations, Part 219, Subpart A, ``National Forest System Land 
Management Planning.'' To meet the new requirements, this directive 
updates guidance for the identification, inventory, evaluation, and 
recommendation of areas within National Forest System lands that 
satisfy the definition of wilderness found in section 2(c) of the 1964 
Wilderness Act.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Wilderness Act of 1964 requires identification of potential 
wilderness areas. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 requires 
``specifying guidelines for land management plans developed to achieve 
the goals of the Program which -- (A) insure consideration of the 
economic and environmental aspects of various systems of renewable 
resource management, including the related systems of silviculture and 
protection of forest resources, to provide for outdoor recreation 
(including wilderness), range, timber, watershed, wildlife, and 
fish;....''


The National Forest System Land Management Planning regulation requires 
the development of planning directives to set forth the legal 
authorities, objectives, policy, responsibilities, direction, and 
overall guidance needed by Forest Service line officers, agency 
employees, and others to use the rule. Notice of issuance of the 
interim directive for Chapter 70 -- Wilderness Evaluation and a request 
for

[[Page 72760]]

comment was published March 23, 2005 (70 FR 14637) along with 11 other 
interim directives.


Alternatives:


As an alternative to publishing the final directive, the agency will 
use the interim directive until it expires on September 23, 2006. The 
interim directive could be extended for an additional 18 months beyond 
September 23, 2006. If the interim directive is not issued in final, 
before expiration, the agency would operate under the previous outdated 
directive.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


A cost-benefit analysis was conducted to compare the costs and benefits 
of implementing the final National Forest System Land Management 
Planning regulation to the baseline, 1982 planning rule. This analysis 
is posted on the Forest Service web site address (www.fs.fed.us/emc/
nfma/index2.html), along with other documents associated with the final 
rule. A basic assumption of the cost-benefit analysis is that the 
planning rule would be carried out using updated directives.


Based on costs that can be quantified, implementation of the final rule 
is expected to have an estimated annual average cost savings of $4.6 
million when compared to the 1982 planning rule, and an estimated 
annual average savings of $36.9 million when compared to estimates of 
implementation of the 2000 planning rule. The final rule is expected to 
be less costly than the 2000 planning rule; some of those saved costs 
are expected to be shifted to monitoring and evaluation.


Risks:


The interim directive expires on March 7, 2008. If it is not finalized, 
the directive will not be coordinated with conceptual and terminology 
changes made in the other 11 planning directives for implementation of 
the 2005 National Forest System Land Management Planning regulation. 
This lack of coordination would cause public and employee confusion, 
delaying the agency's ability to respond quickly and effectively to 
land management plan revision, changing issues, or unforeseen plan 
implementation activities.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Directive         03/23/05                    70 FR 14637
Comment Period End              06/21/05
Final Action                    12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Andria D. Weeks
Regulatory Analyst
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
ATTN: ORMS, D&R Branch
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-0003
Phone: 202 205-3610
Fax: 202 260-6539
Email: aweeks@fs.fed.us
Related RIN: Related to 0596-AC02
RIN: 0596-AC57
BILLING CODE 3410-90-S

[[Page 72761]]

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 improved 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 undergirds our programs and by working closely with 
the President and the committees in Congress, which 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 the 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 directly tracks these policy and program 
priorities, only a few 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) and the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) plan 
actions that are considered the ``most important'' significant 
preregulatory or regulatory action for this Regulatory Plan year. 
During the next year, NOAA plans to complete one action entitled 
``Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Implement Speed Restrictions to Reduce 
the Threat of Ship Collisions with North Atlantic Right Whales,'' and 
NTIA plans to complete one action entitled ``Implement and Administer a 
Coupon Program for Digital-to-Analog Converter Boxes. '' Further 
information on these actions are provided below.
Though not principally a regulatory agency, the DOC has long been a 
leader

[[Page 72762]]

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 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 saving fisheries 
and confronting short-term economic dislocation, while boosting 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 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 
U.S. fisheries by refocusing policies and fishery management planning 
on increased scientific information; increasing the populations of 
depleted, threatened, or endangered species of 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 Act Rulemakings
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) rulemakings concern the conservation and management of 
fishery resources in the U.S. 3-to-200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone 
(EEZ). Among the several hundred rulemakings that NOAA plans to issue 
in the Regulatory Plan year, 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. Once a rulemaking is triggered by an FMC, the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act places stringent deadlines upon NMFS by which it must exercise its 
rulemaking responsibilities.
While most of these rulemakings will be minor, involving only the 
opening or closing of a fishery under an existing FMP, one action is of 
particular significance and has been designated as one of the most 
important regulatory actions undertaken by the Department. This rule is 
entitled ``Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Implement Speed Restrictions 
to Reduce the Threat of Ship Collisions with North Atlantic Right 
Whales.'' In this rulemaking, NOAA plans to implement a strategy to

[[Page 72763]]

reduce the known mortalities to North Atlantic right whales as a result 
of collisions with vessels, which account for more confirmed right 
whale deaths than any other human-related activity. The strategy 
addresses the lack of recovery of the endangered North Atlantic right 
whale by reducing the likelihood and threat of ship strike mortalities 
to the species. NOAA has developed a framework of proposed, new 
operational measures for the shipping industry as an element of this 
strategy, including consideration of routing and speed restrictions. 
These operational measures would be limited to areas and times when 
North Atlantic right whales and ships overlap to reduce the likelihood 
of ship strikes to the extent practicable.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, which is the primary legal authority for 
Federal regulation to conserve and manage fishery resources, 
establishes eight regional FMCs, responsible for preparing FMPs and FMP 
amendments. NMFS issues regulations to implement FMPs and FMP 
amendments. FMPs address a variety of fishery matters, including 
depressed stocks, overfished stocks, gear conflicts, and foreign 
fishing. One of the problems that FMPs may address is preventing 
overcapitalization (preventing excess fishing capacity) of fisheries. 
This may be resolved by limiting access to those dependent on the 
fishery in the past and/or by allocating the resource through 
individual transferable quotas, which can be sold on the open market to 
other participants or those wishing access. Quotas set on sound 
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 judged. 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.
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, Kazakstan, Belarus, Russia, and other newly 
            emerging countries develop effective export control 
            systems. The effectiveness of U.S. export controls can be 
            severely undercut if ``rogue states'' or terrorists gain 
            access to sensitive goods and technology from other 
            supplier countries.
<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.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) 
is the President's principal adviser on telecommunications and 
information policy issues. The advent of the telecommunications and 
information revolution is bringing dramatic growth and change to the 
Nation's economic, social, and political life, and as a result, NTIA's 
fundamental mission is to promote market-based policies which lower 
prices to consumers and encourage innovation, while harnessing the 
resources of the Federal Government to support spectrum-based 
technologies which enhance efficiency and productivity.

[[Page 72764]]

Major Programs and Activities
NTIA's main role is to provide advice to the President on 
telecommunications and information policy issues. In this role, NTIA 
frequently works with other Executive Branch agencies to develop and 
present the Administration's position on these issues. In addition to 
representing the Executive Branch in both domestic and international 
telecommunications and information policy activities, NTIA also:
<bullet> Manages the Federal use of spectrum;
<bullet> Performs cutting-edge telecommunications research and 
            engineering, including resolving technical 
            telecommunications issues for the Federal Government and 
            private sector; and
<bullet> Administers infrastructure and public telecommunications 
            facilities grants.
During the next year, NTIA will be completing one action that rises to 
the level of ``most important'' significant preregulatory or regulatory 
action. This rule is entitled ``Implement and Administer a Coupon 
Program for Digital-to-Analog Converter Boxes.'' In this action, NTIA 
would implement a digital-to-analog converter box coupon program 
pursuant to section 3005 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (the 
``Act''). The Act, among other things, requires the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) to require full-power television 
stations to cease analog broadcasting by February 18, 2009. Recognizing 
that consumers may wish to continue receiving broadcast programming 
over the air using analog-only televisions not connected to cable or 
satellite service, the Act authorizes NTIA to create an assistance 
program to provide $40 coupons to consumers for use toward the purchase 
of digital-to-analog converter boxes. Through this coupon program, NTIA 
will facilitate public access to full-power broadcasting program over 
the air using analog-only television sets. Without converter boxes, 
consumers with analog-only television sets will be unable to view full-
power television broadcasts unless they purchase digital television 
sets or subscribe to cable or satellite service.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

23. RIGHT WHALE SHIP STRIKE REDUCTION

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


16 USC 1361


CFR Citation:


50 CFR 224


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These regulations would implement a strategy to reduce the known 
mortalities to North Atlantic right whales as a result of collisions 
with vessels, which account for more confirmed right whale deaths than 
any other human-related activity. The strategy addresses the lack of 
recovery of the endangered North Atlantic right whale by reducing the 
likelihood and threat of ship strike mortalities to the species. The 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has developed a framework of 
proposed, new operational measures for the shipping industry as an 
element of this strategy, including consideration of routing and speed 
restrictions. These operational measures would be limited to areas and 
times when North Atlantic right whales and ships overlap to reduce the 
likelihood of ship strikes to the extent practicable.


Statement of Need:


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) proposes 
regulations to implement speed restrictions on vessels 65 ft (19.8m) or 
greater in overall length in certain locations and at certain times of 
the year along the East Coast of the United States. These regulations 
are needed as current efforts to reduce occurrence of North Atlantic 
right whale deaths and serious injury from ship strikes have not been 
sufficient to alter the trajectory of this species toward extinction. 
The purpose of these proposed regulatory measures is to reduce the 
likelihood of deaths and serious injuries to endangered North Atlantic 
right whales that result from collisions with ships. These measures are 
part of NMFS' Ship Strike Reduction Strategy to help recover the North 
Atlantic right whale.


Summary of Legal Basis:


NOAA is proposing these regulations pursuant to its rulemaking 
authority under Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) section 112(a) (16 
U.S.C. 1382(a)), and Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 11(f) (16 
U.S.C. 1540(f)). These proposed regulations also are consistent with 
the purpose of the ESA ``to provide a program for the conservation of 
[. . .] endangered species'' and ``the policy of Congress that all 
Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered 
species [. . .] and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of 
the purposes of [the ESA].'' 16 U.S.C. 1531(b),(c).


Alternatives:


NMFS identified five alternatives to the action being proposed. 
Alternative 1 is No Action (Status Quo) in which NMFS would continue to 
implement existing measures and programs, largely non-regulatory, to 
reduce the likelihood of mortality from ship strikes. Alternative 2 
includes all elements of Alternative 1 and involves use of Dynamically 
Managed Areas (DMA), which consists of certain vessel speed 
restrictions applying only when and where right whale sightings occur. 
Alternative 3 is vessel speed restrictions in designated areas. It 
includes all elements of Alternative 1 and implements large-scale speed 
restrictions throughout the range of North Atlantic right whales. 
Alternative 4 is the use of designated shipping routes. It includes all 
the elements of Alternative 1 and relies on altering some current 
vessel patterns to move vessels away from areas where whales are known 
to congregate. Alternative 5 is a combination that includes all 
elements of Alternatives 1 to 4. Alternative 6 (the preferred 
alternative and the approach that is the subject of the proposed rule) 
includes a combination of operational measures (routing measures and 
speed restrictions). The principal difference between Alternatives 5 
and 6 is that Alternative 6 does not include large-scale speed 
restrictions (as identified in Alternative 3) but instead relies on 
speed restrictions in much smaller Seasonally Managed Areas.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Benefits


The benefits of reducing the risk of right whale mortality caused by 
ship strikes are expected to be considerable.

[[Page 72765]]

Because ship strikes appear to be the leading anthropogenic cause of 
right whale mortalities, adopting measures to reduce the incidences of 
ship strikes will aid in the recovery of this highly endangered 
species. However, monetary estimates of these benefits are currently 
unavailable; therefore, the discussion of these benefits specific to 
right whales is descriptive. The full range of values of right whale 
recovery includes use values and nonuse values. Use values include 
those values associated with whale watching trips, or other viewing 
opportunities. Nonuse values include those values placed on knowing 
that right whales remain for future generations (bequest value) and 
values placed on knowing that right whales will continue to survive 
(existence value). The proposed action would be highly beneficial to 
the recovery of the right whale population as it also is designed to 
address the various ship strike scenarios that might occur.


Estimated Direct Economic Impact


Shipping Industry:


Direct annual economic impact to commercial shipping is estimated at 
$49.4 million at the 10 knot speed restriction. The following port 
areas may expect the greatest impact: New York/New Jersey ($11.2 
million), Hampton Roads, VA ($7.5 million), Savannah, GA ($5.3 million) 
and Charleston, SC ($5.2 million).


Multi-port calls:


The speed restriction component of the proposed action leads to 
additional impacts to vessels coming into at least two restricted 
ports. The 2004 vessel arrival database indicates that the total number 
of multi-port string restricted arrivals to be 5,147. The additional 
direct economic impact of multi-port strings on the shipping industry 
due to the 10 knot speed restriction in 2004 is estimated at $5.8 
million.


Rerouting of Southbound Coastwise Shipping:


The proposed speed restrictions in the Mid-Atlantic region would be 
implemented for a 30 nautical mile buffer zone radiating out from each 
port area. Hence, the additional distance incurred by southbound 
vessels would be 80 nautical miles (20 nautical miles per arrival and 
departure at intermediate port calls). The 2003 vessel traffic database 
indicated that 3,688 containerships and ro-ro cargo ships would have 
traveled through speed restricted U.S. East Coast port areas ranging 
from Baltimore through Port Canaveral had the restrictions been in 
place. Assuming half of these calls were in the southbound direction 
and that the typical vessel made calls at three U.S. East Coast ports 
per service, there would be about 615 southbound vessels that are 
likely to route outside of the seasonal speed restricted areas rather 
than proceed through the restricted areas at a lower speed. Based on an 
increase in routing of 80 nautical miles and an average operating speed 
of 20 knots, the containership would have increased sailing time of 4 
hours. Using an average hourly operating cost at sea of $1,000, the 
estimated economic impact for each southbound vessel would be $4,000. 
For 2003 and 2004, the additional economic impact for containerships 
for coastwise shipping under Alternative 6 was estimated at $2.5 
million.


Commercial fishing vessels:


Using 2003 data, the estimated impact at 10 knots on commercial fishing 
vessels due to the proposed action is estimated to be $686,000 for the 
Northeast Region and $348,000 for the Southeast Region. The combined 
Northeast and Southeast regional economic impact of slightly more than 
$1 million is approximately two-tenths of one percent of the U.S. East 
Coast commercial fishery landings of $628.2 million in 2003.


Charter fishing vessels:


It is estimated that annual economic impact of a speed restriction of 
10 knots for these vessels over 30 nautical miles for the proposed 
action would be approximately $1.2 million. This calculation assumes 40 
headboat vessels with 60 roundtrips per year and an hourly steaming 
operating cost of $200.


Passenger ferries:


Under the proposed action, speed restrictions for Cape Cod Bay are 
implemented from January 1 through May 15. As such, the fast ferry 
service from Boston to Provincetown would remain in operation. Speed 
restrictions for Block Island Sound would be from November 1 through 
April 30. However, the speed restricted area for Block Island Sound 
under the proposed action would not extend to the shoreline and hence 
would not impact fast ferry operations. DMAs would also be implemented 
under the proposed action. The estimated economic impact for fast ferry 
service under the proposed action due to the presence of DMAs is $2.6 
million. For regular ferries, the economic impact due to the proposed 
action is estimated to be $3.0 million for 10 knots speed restrictions. 
The combined impacts to the high-speed and regular-speed passenger 
ferries bring the total estimated economic impacts to $5.6 million.


Whale watching vessels:


Under the proposed action, speed restrictions for Cape Cod Bay are 
implemented from January 1 through May 15. Hence, the peak summer whale 
watching season would not be affected for high-speed or regular speed 
vessels. Similarly, the speed restrictions for the Off Race Point area 
are proposed for March through April would not impact the whale 
watching season. Accordingly, the economic impact due to DMAs under the 
proposed action is an estimated $0.9 million.


Indirect Economic Impacts of Port Diversions


Under the proposed action, speed restrictions for both Off Race Point 
area and the Great South Channel in the Northeast are in effect during 
the month of April causing many ships to route around this large area 
during that time. The diversion is assumed at 10 percent for 
containerships and ro-ro cargo ships during the restricted period. For 
port areas in Block Island Sound, two percent of containerships and ro-
ro cargo ships are assumed to divert to other port areas to avoid speed 
restricted areas. For the affected Mid-Atlantic ports, 0.5 percent of 
restricted period containership and ro-ro cargo ship vessel calls are 
assumed to divert to other port areas.


Additional diversions away from the port area of Providence may also 
occur under the proposed action. This port area has speed restrictions 
in effect for 181 days as compared to 61 days for the port area of 
Boston. Therefore, 15 percent of the containership and ro-ro cargo ship 
restricted period calls at Providence are assumed to divert to the 
nearby port area of Boston.


NMFS anticipates that the use of recommended routes into the 
Southeastern Region ports of Brunswick and Fernandina are likely to 
result in a diversion of two percent of containerships and ro-ro cargo 
ships from these ports to Savannah. As a result of these diversions, 
NMFS anticipates additional delays relative to Savannah. Finally, 30 
percent of the restricted period cruise vessel calls at Jacksonville 
are assumed to divert to Port Canaveral as that port is not affected by 
speed restrictions or the use of recommended routes.


The indirect economic impact of port diversions is estimated to be 
$49.7

[[Page 72766]]

million for the 10 knot speed restriction. The largest negative 
indirect impacts are generated in the port areas of New York/New Jersey 
($21.2 million), Jacksonville, FL ($15.5 million) and Hampton Roads, VA 
($12.4 million). The following port areas are expected to experience a 
positive indirect economic impact: Port Canaveral, FL ($2.2 million) 
and Savannah, GA ($1.7 million).


Risks:


The risk associated with not pursuing the proposed rulemaking is 
allowing the continued decline in the population of North Atlantic 
right whales. The North Atlantic right whale is in danger of 
extinction: some estimates have it on a trajectory of going extinct 
within 200 years if serious injury and death from certain human 
activities is not abated. NMFS conducts consultations under Section 7 
of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with other agencies with regard to 
activities undertaken or permitted by those agencies that may adversely 
affect North Atlantic right whales. NMFS routinely concludes that those 
activities, and the cumulative effect of other pressures on the 
population, will jeopardize the continued existence of the species in 
all or part of its range. The proposed regulations are expected to 
reduce or eliminate the threat of right whale deaths from collisions 
with ships, and, as a result, provide relief from a key threat to the 
species. NMFS is required under the ESA to take steps to recover the 
species. By failing to take adequate steps, including those identified 
in the rulemaking, NMFS would fail to meet its legal requirements under 
the ESA.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           06/01/04                    69 FR 30857
ANPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    07/09/04                    69 FR 41446
ANPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    09/13/04                    69 FR 55135
NPRM                            06/26/06                    71 FR 36299
NPRM Comment Period End         08/25/06
Comment Period Extended         08/14/06                    71 FR 46440
Comment Period End              10/05/06
Final Action                    12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Public Compliance Cost:
Initial Cost: $0
Yearly Recurring Cost: $116,000,000
Base Year for Dollar Estimates: 2005

URL For More Information:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pr2

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

Peter Robbins
Attorney Advisor
Department of Commerce
14th & Constitution Ave. NW.
Washington, DC 20230
Phone: 202 482-0846
Email: probbins@doc.gov
RIN: 0648-AS36
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

24. [bull] IMPLEMENT AND ADMINISTER A COUPON PROGRAM FOR DIGITAL-TO-
ANALOG CONVERTER BOXES

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


PL 109-171


CFR Citation:


47 CFR 301


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Pursuant to the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 
2005 (the Act), the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA) proposes to implement a digital-to-analog 
converter box coupon program. The Act, among other things, requires the 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to require full-power 
television stations to cease analog broadcasting by February 18, 2009. 
Recognizing that consumers may wish to continue receiving broadcast 
programming over the air using analog-only televisions not connected to 
cable or satellite service, the Act authorizes NTIA to create an 
assistance program to provide $40 coupons to consumers for use toward 
the purchase of digital-to-analog converter boxes. Without converter 
boxes, consumers with analog-only television sets will be unable to 
view full-power television broadcasts unless they purchase digital 
television sets or subscribe to cable or satellite service.


Statement of Need:


This action is necessary to provide guidance for the digital-to-analog 
converter box coupon program. Converter boxes are necessary for 
consumers who wish to continue receiving full-power broadcast 
programming over the air using analog-only television sets after 
February 18, 2009--the date that the law requires full-power television 
stations to cease analog broadcasting. With respect to consumers, this 
action provides eligibility requirements, application procedures, and 
guidance on the use, value, and restrictions of the coupons. This 
action also provides specifications on eligible converter boxes that 
will assist manufacturers in developing converter boxes. Finally, this 
action provides guidance and sets for the rights and responsibilities 
of retailers.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 3005 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 directs NTIA to 
implement and administer a program through which eligible U.S. 
households may obtain a maximum of two coupons of $40 each to be 
applied toward the purchase of a digital-to-analog converter box. See 
title III of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-171, 120 
Stat. 4, 21 (Feb. 8, 2006).


Alternatives:


NTIA considered various ways to implement the program. NTIA proposed 
that eligible households will be only those that receive over-the-air 
broadcasts, and that coupons will be distributed on a first-come, 
first-served basis. An alternative for which the agency sought public 
comment through the proposed rule was whether other eligibility 
factors, such as a means test, should be used. NTIA also considered 
various formats for the actual coupon. In its proposed rule NTIA 
proposed a paper coupon but requested comment on an electronic coupon 
card. NTIA proposed options for addressing the expiration requirement. 
In its proposed rule, NTIA proposed that the expiration date will be 
three months after the

[[Page 72767]]

coupon's issuance date, which would be the date upon which the coupon 
is placed in the U.S. mail. NTIA also requested comment on an 
alternative to the definition of the issuance date, which would be the 
date upon which a consumer receives a coupon. Finally, NTIA proposed to 
require manufacturers to self-certify that the converter boxes meet the 
standards outlined in the proposed rule. However, it requested comment 
on whether there are existing industry or government organizations 
engaged in activities that can help speed the development of testing/
certification processes within the allowed time frame of this program.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Act authorizes $1.5 billion to operate the coupon program. The Act, 
however, is part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 which the 
Congressional Budget Office predicts will reduce direct spending by 
about $39 billion over the 2006 to 2010 period and by about $99 billion 
over the 2006 to 2015 period. The direct costs to eligible households 
as a result of this rule is certainly less than if the coupon program 
was not instituted. Estimates of the cost of the converter box range 
between $50 and $70. Using the $40 coupon, consumers can then expect to 
pay between $10 and $30 for each converter box purchased. Without the 
coupons, consumers would have to pay the full retail price of the 
converter box, or purchase a digital television.


This program, if implemented, imposes certain requirements if retailers 
and manufacturers decide to participate in the coupon program. Besides 
the time that it takes to submit a certification form to NTIA, there 
will be actual costs associated with meeting compliance requirements. 
These costs, however, are difficult to quantify because of many varying 
factors. However, NTIA anticipates that the costs would be minimal 
because retailers and manufacturers may already have the ability to 
meet the requirements associated with participation in this program. 
For example, retailers would have to ensure that employees are capable 
of educating customers about the necessity for and installation of 
converter boxes. The costs for this compliance would be calculated by 
the number of hours it would take to train employees. The estimate 
would depend on a number of factors such as the existing sales force's 
expertise, number of employees, salary levels, type of converter box 
that is certified, and consumer knowledge.


This program, if implemented, would also require retailers to have 
systems in place that can be easily audited as well as systems that 
have the ability to prevent fraud and abuse in the coupon program. We 
assume that most businesses would have systems in place that can be 
easily audited, and therefore, we do not anticipate that businesses 
will have to assume a cost to purchase a new system for the coupon 
program. Retailers must also have systems in place that have the 
ability to prevent fraud and abuse in the coupon program. We assume 
that most retailers are familiar with and accept coupons for 
merchandise, and that they have in place systems to prevent fraud. The 
nature of this coupon program, however, may require participating 
retailers to assume additional costs associated with preventing fraud. 
These costs cannot be estimated at this point in the rulemaking 
process. There may be costs associated in complying with an audit. 
These costs would most likely be calculated in terms of employee hourly 
rates. The associated costs depend on the nature and extent of an 
audit.


There are also costs associated with handling coupons, that is, 
accepting the coupons, submitting the coupons for redemption, and 
retaining hard copies of the coupons. Again, these associated costs 
depend on a number of factors such as the particular systems that 
retailers currently have in place, as well as which of these costs can 
be absorbed within existing procedures that the retailer has in place.


Although there may be costs associated with accepting the coupons and 
selling the converter boxes, the coupon program does not restrict the 
retailer in pricing the converter box. Manufacturers and retailers may 
consider these associated costs and establish the wholesale and retail 
price of the converter boxes to recoup any associated costs. In fact, 
the coupon program anticipates that there will be a co-pay element to 
the purchase price. Thus, to the extent that a small retailer or 
manufacturer incurs costs as a result of this program, those costs can 
be recouped through the retail or wholesale price, which the retailer 
and manufacturer are at liberty to choose.


Risks:


One risk is that the final rule will not be promulgated in time for the 
manufacturers to build the converter boxes. The Act states that 
consumers must be able to apply for coupons between January 1, 2008, 
and March 31, 2009. The agency has been informed that the 
specifications for the converter box, as directed in the final rule, 
must be available at least one year in advance. To the extent that the 
final rule is not issued by January 2007, converter boxes may not be 
available when the statutory application period begins.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/25/06                    71 FR 42067
Final Action                    01/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


This action would establish the eligibility criteria, application 
process, coupon value and use restrictions, and manufacturer and 
retailer certification process. To implement this program, the Act 
authorizes NTIA to use up to $990 million to fund the program, 
including $100 million for program administration. NTIA is also 
authorized to expend up to $1.5 billion for the program, including $160 
million for administration, upon a 60-day notice and certification to 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives 
and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
Senate that the $990 million is insufficient to fulfill coupon requests 
for eligible U.S. households.


Agency Contact:
Milton Brown
Deputy Chief Counsel
Department of Commerce
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
14th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20230
Phone: 202 482-1816
Fax: 202 501-8013
Email: mbrown@ntia.doc.gov
RIN: 0660-AA16
BILLING CODE 3510-BW-S

[[Page 72768]]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Background
 The Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest Federal department, 
consisting of 3 military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force), 9 
unified combatant commands, 17 Defense agencies, and 11 DoD field 
activities. It has over 1,380,000 military personnel and 676,000 
civilians assigned as of June 30, 2006, 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 the 
Department of Defense, 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 regulating agencies and 
the affected Defense 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 issues regulations 
that have an affect 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.
 The regulatory program within DoD fully incorporates the provisions of 
the President's priorities and objectives under Executive Order 12866. 
Promulgating and implementing the regulatory program throughout DoD 
presents a unique challenge to the management of our regulatory 
efforts.
Coordination
Interagency
 DoD annually receives regulatory plans from those agencies that 
influence the operation of the Department through the issuance of 
regulations. A system for coordinating the review process is in place, 
regulations are reviewed, and comments are forwarded to the Office of 
Management and Budget. The system is working in the Department, and the 
feedback from the Defense components is most encouraging, since they 
are able to see and comment on regulations from the other agencies 
before they are required to comply with them. The coordination process 
in DoD continues to work as outlined in Executive Order 12866.
Internal
 Through regulatory program points of contact in the Department, we 
have established a system that provides information from the 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
(OIRA) to the personnel responsible for the development and 
implementation of DoD regulations. Conversely, the system can provide 
feedback from DoD regulatory personnel to the Administrator, OIRA. DoD 
continues to refine its internal procedures, and this ongoing effort to 
improve coordination and communication practices is well received and 
supported within the Department.
Overall Priorities
 The Department of Defense 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 the Department while it must react 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, adheres to the general principles set forth 
in Executive Order 12866 as amplified below.
Problem Identification
 Congress typically passes legislation to authorize or require an 
agency to issue regulations and often is quite specific about the 
problem identified for correction. Therefore, DoD does not generally 
initiate regulations as a part of its mission.
Conflicting Regulations
 Since DoD seldom issues significant regulations, the probability of 
developing conflicting regulations is low. Conversely, DoD is affected 
to a great degree by the regulating agencies. From that perspective, 
DoD is in a position to advise the regulatory agencies of conflicts 
that appear to exist using the coordination processes that exist in the 
DoD and other Federal agency regulatory programs. It is a priority in 
the Department to communicate with other agencies and the affected 
public to identify and proactively pursue regulatory problems that 
occur as a result of conflicting regulations both within and outside 
the Department.
Alternatives
 DoD will identify feasible alternatives that will obtain the desired 
regulatory objectives. Where possible, the Department encourages the 
use of incentives to include financial, quality of life, and others to 
achieve the desired regulatory results.
Risk Assessment
 Assessing and managing risk is a high priority in the DoD regulatory 
program. The Department is committed to risk prioritization and an 
``anticipatory'' approach to regulatory planning, which focuses 
attention on the identification of future risk. Predicting future 
regulatory risk is exceedingly difficult due to rapid introduction of 
new technologies, side effects of Government intervention, and changing 
societal concerns. These difficulties can be mitigated to a manageable 
degree through the incorporation of risk prioritization and 
anticipatory regulatory planning into DoD's decisionmaking process, 
which results in an improved regulatory process and increases the 
customer's understanding of risk.
Cost-Effectiveness
 One of the highest priority objectives of DoD is to obtain the desired 
regulatory objective by the most cost-effective method available. This 
may or may not be through the regulatory process. When a regulation is 
required, DoD considers incentives for innovation to achieve desired 
results, consistency in the application of the regulation, 
predictability of the activity outcome (achieving the expected 
results), and the costs for regulation development, enforcement, and 
compliance. These will include costs to the public, Government, and 
regulated entities, using the best available data or parametric 
analysis methods, in the

[[Page 72769]]

cost-benefit analysis and the decisionmaking process.
Cost-Benefit
 Conducting cost-benefit analyses on regulation alternatives is a 
priority in the Department of Defense so as to ensure that the 
potential benefits to society outweigh the costs. Evaluations of these 
alternatives are done quantitatively or qualitatively or both, 
depending on the nature of the problem being solved and the type of 
information and data available on the subject. DoD is committed to 
considering the most important alternative approaches to the problem 
being solved and providing the reasoning for selecting the proposed 
regulatory change over the other alternatives.
Information-Based Decisions
 The Defense Department uses the latest technology to provide access to 
the most current technical, scientific, and demographic information in 
a timely manner through the worldwide communications capabilities that 
are available on the Internet. Realizing that increased public 
participation in the rulemaking process improves the quality and 
acceptability of regulations, DoD is committed to exploring the use of 
information technology (IT) in rule development and implementation. IT 
provides the public with easier and more meaningful access to the 
processing of regulations. Furthermore, the Department endeavors to 
increase the use of automation in the Notice and Comment rulemaking 
process in an effort to reduce time pressures and increase public 
access in the regulatory process. Notable progress has been made in the 
Defense acquisition regulations area toward achieving the 
Administration's E-government initiative of making it simpler for 
citizens to receive high-quality service from the Federal Government, 
inform citizens, and allow access to the development of rules.
Performance-Based Regulations
 Where appropriate, DoD is incorporating performance-based standards 
that allow the regulated parties to achieve the regulatory objective in 
the most cost-effective manner.
Outreach Initiatives
 DoD endeavors to obtain the views of appropriate State, local, and 
tribal officials and the public in implementing measures to enhance 
public awareness and participation both in developing and implementing 
regulatory efforts. Historically, this has included such activities as 
receiving comments from the public, holding hearings, and conducting 
focus groups. This reaching out to organizations and individuals that 
are affected by or involved in a particular regulatory action remains a 
significant regulatory priority of the Department and, we feel, results 
in much better regulations.
 The Department is actively engaged in addressing the requirements of 
the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) in implementing 
electronic government and in achieving IT accessibility for individuals 
with disabilities. This is consistent with the Administration's 
strategy of advancing E-government as expressed in ``The President's 
Management Agenda.'' The Department is actively participating in the 
eRulemaking Initiative to implement a governmentwide docket management 
system that will provide the framework for wider citizen input and 
improve regulatory policies and outcomes by cultivating public 
participation in Federal decisionmaking.
Coordination
 DoD has enthusiastically embraced the coordination process between and 
among other Federal agencies in the development of new and revised 
regulations. Annually, DoD receives regulatory plans from key 
regulatory agencies and has established a systematic approach to 
providing the plans to the appropriate policy officials within the 
Department. Feedback from the DoD components indicates that this 
communication among the Federal agencies is a major step forward in 
improving regulations and the regulatory process, as well as in 
improving Government operations.
Minimize Burden
 In the regulatory process, there are more complaints concerning burden 
than anything else. In DoD, much of the burden is in the acquisition 
area. Over the years, acquisition regulations have grown and become 
burdensome principally because of legislative action. But, in 
coordination with Congress, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, 
and the public, DoD is initiating significant reforms in acquisition so 
as to effect major reductions in the regulatory burden on personnel in 
Government and the private sector. DoD has implemented a multi-year 
strategy for reducing the paperwork burden imposed on the public. This 
plan shows that DoD has met and will exceed the goals set forth in the 
Paperwork Reduction Act. It is the goal of the Department of Defense to 
impose upon the public the smallest burden viable, as infrequently as 
possible, and for no longer than absolutely necessary.
Plain Language
 Ensuring that regulations are simple and easy to understand is a high 
regulatory priority in the Department of Defense. All too often, the 
regulations are complicated, difficult to understand, and subject to 
misinterpretation, all of which can result in the costly process of 
litigation. The objective in the development of regulations is to write 
them in clear, concise language that is simple and easy to understand.
 DoD recognizes that it has a responsibility for drafting clearly 
written rules that are reader-oriented and easily understood. Rules 
will be written for the customer using natural expressions and simple 
words. Stilted jargon and complex construction will be avoided. Clearly 
written rules will tell our customers what to do and how to do it. DoD 
is committed to a more customer-oriented approach and uses plain 
language rules thereby improving compliance and reducing litigation.
 In summary, the rulemaking process in DoD should produce a rule that: 
Addresses an identifiable problem, implements the law, incorporates the 
President's policies defined in Executive Order 12866, is in the public 
interest, is consistent with other rules and policies, is based on the 
best information available, is rationally justified, is cost-effective, 
can actually be implemented, is acceptable and enforceable, is easily 
understood, and stays in effect only as long as is necessary. Moreover, 
the proposed rule or the elimination of a rule should simply make 
sense.
Rulemakings That Support the Administration's Regulation Agenda to 
Streamline Regulations and Reporting Requirements
 The Department will:
 Consolidate all of the existing emergency procurement authorities into 
Part 18 of the FAR and Part 218 of the DFARS;
 Direct use of electronic subcontracting and reporting system for both 
the summary and individual subcontract reporting, in conjunction with 
and as part of the integration with FPDS;
 Rewrite the rules on Government property to organize and streamline 
management of Government property. Emphasize contractor accountability 
while reducing contract clauses and

[[Page 72770]]

reporting requirements. Allow contractors to provide item unique 
identification (IUID) data electronically in the IUID Registry for all 
DoD personal property in possession of the contractor, rather than 
annual reporting;
 Simplify and clarify the coverage of multi-year acquisitions;
 Provide simplified criteria for the release of supplies by the 
contractor based on complexity and criticality;
 Finalize the rewrite of FAR Part 27, Patents, Data and Copyrights, to 
clarify, streamline, and update guidance and clauses on patents, data, 
and copyrights. Transform the DFARS regulations on patents, data and 
copyrights to clarify and simplify, dramatically reducing the amount of 
regulatory text and the number of required clauses;
 Implement DFARS transformation proposals relating to the Material 
Inspection and Receiving Report, acquisition planning, transportation, 
contract pricing and cost accounting standards, and protests, disputes, 
and appeals; and
 Delete obsolete restrictions on the acquisition of PAN Carbon Fiber.
Regulations of Particular Interest to Small Business
 Of interest to small businesses are regulations to:
 Permit subcontracts awarded to certain Alaska Native Corporations to 
be counted toward a contractor's goal for subcontracting with Small 
Business and Small Disadvantaged Business concerns and subcontracts to 
Indian tribes to be counted toward a contractor's goal for 
subcontracting with small business concerns, regardless of size, in 
accordance with section 702 of Pub. L. 107-117, as amended by section 
3003 of Pub. L. 107-206;
 Amend the FAR to address changes in the Small Business Administration 
regulations to implement changes in the HUBZone Program; and
 Implement DFARS transformation proposals relating to small business 
programs.
Suggestions From the Public for Reform--Status of DoD Items
Rulemaking Actions in Response to Public Nominations
The Army Corps of Engineers has not undertaken any rulemaking actions 
in response to the public nominations submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget in 2001, 2002, or 2004. Those nominations were 
discussed in Making Sense of Regulation: 2001 Report to Congress on the 
Costs and Benefits of Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, 
Local, and Tribal Entities, Stimulating Smarter Regulation: 2002 Report 
to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Regulations and Unfunded 
Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities, and 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 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, installations and the environment, and health affairs.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Directorate of Civil Works
Compensatory Mitigation in the Army Regulatory Program
 Section 314 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2004 (Public Law 108-136) requires the Secretary of the Army, acting 
through the Chief of Engineers, to issue regulations that establish 
performance standards and criteria for the use of compensatory 
mitigation for wetland functions lost as a result of activities 
authorized by Department of the Army (DA) permits. The statute also 
requires the regulation to contain provisions for the application of 
equivalent standards and criteria to each type of compensatory 
mitigation.
 The proposed rule was published for public comment on March 28, 2006 
(71 FR 15520). The comment period expired on June 30, 2006 (71 FR 
29604). The proposed regulation was developed by considering concepts 
in current Federal compensatory mitigation guidance documents, and 
updating and modifying those concepts to improve compensatory 
mitigation decisionmaking and processes. The proposed rule takes a 
watershed approach to compensatory mitigation for permitted impacts to 
wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources. Although the statute 
refers only to wetlands, the proposed rule is broader in scope, and 
addresses compensatory mitigation requirements for impacts to other 
aquatic resources, such as streams, in addition to wetlands. Comments 
received in response to the proposed rule are being evaluated, and a 
final rule will be prepared.
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. Those regulations were amended on 
July 6, 2004. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's 
regulations allow Federal agencies to utilize alternate procedures in 
lieu of the regulations at 36 CFR part 800. 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 plans on holding 
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. Also, our division offices will solicit information on 
topics that any new alternative procedure should address.

[[Page 72771]]

Defense Procurement and Acquisition
The Department continues its efforts to reengineer its acquisition 
system to achieve its vision of an acquisition system that is 
recognized as being the smartest, most efficient, most responsive buyer 
of best value goods and services, which meet the warfighter's needs 
from a globally competitive base. To achieve this vision, the 
Department will focus in the acquisition regulations during this next 
year on implementing and institutionalizing initiatives that may 
include additional changes to existing and recently modified 
regulations to ensure that we are achieving the outcomes we desire 
(continuous process improvement).
 The Department of Defense continuously reviews the Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and continues to lead 
Government efforts to:
<bullet> Improve the DFARS to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness 
            of the acquisition process, while allowing the acquisition 
            workforce flexibility to innovate. The DFARS contains only 
            requirements of law, DoD-wide policies, delegations of FAR 
            authorities, deviations from FAR requirements, and 
            policies/procedures that have a significant impact on 
            contractors, offerors, and/or the public.
<bullet> Revise the uniform treatment of contractor personnel who are 
            authorized to accompany the U.S. Armed Forces deployed 
            outside the United States in contingency operations, 
            humanitarian or peacekeeping operations, other military 
            operations, or training exercises designated by the 
            combatant commander, to implement the new DoD Instruction, 
            and require training for contractor personnel who interact 
            with detainees. Implement the DoD Law of War Program, 
            requiring contractors to report violations.
<bullet> Coordinate with the Department of State to finalize a FAR rule 
            to address uniform treatment of other contractor personnel 
            who are performing outside the United States in a theater 
            of operations during contingency operations; humanitarian 
            or peacekeeping operations; other military operations; or 
            military exercises designated by the combatant commander; 
            or at a diplomatic or consular mission, when designated by 
            the chief of mission.
<bullet> Finalize the FAR rule that authorizes set-asides for awards 
            based on specific geographic areas under the Robert T. 
            Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, in 
            order to implement the Local Community Recovery Act of 
            2006.
<bullet> Prohibit trafficking in persons by contractors, contractor 
            employees, and subcontractors.
<bullet> Address contractor notification requirements associated with 
            deficient processes or defective parts related to aviation 
            critical safety items.
<bullet> Phase in DFARS requirements for contractors to affix radio 
            frequency identification (RFID) tags to the exterior 
            packaging of items delivered under DoD contracts, adding 
            additional commodities and ship-to locations. This practice 
            will improve visibility of DoD assets in the supply chain, 
            increase the accuracy of shipment and receipt data, and 
            reduce the amount of time it takes to deliver material to 
            the warfighter.
<bullet> Improve debt collection by evaluating existing FAR controls 
            and procedures for ensuring contract debts are identified 
            and recovered in a timely manner, properly accounted for in 
            each agencies' books and records, and properly coordinated 
            with the appropriate Government officials.
Defense Installations and the Environment
 The Department is committed to reducing the total ownership costs of 
the military infrastructure while providing the Nation with military 
installations that efficiently support the warfighter in: Achieving 
military dominance, ensuring superior living and working conditions, 
and enhancing the safety of the force and the quality of the 
environment. DoD has focused its regulatory priorities on explosives 
safety, human health, and the environment. These regulations provide 
means for the Department to provide information about restoration 
activities at Federal facilities and to take public advice on the 
restoration activities.
Restoration Advisory Boards
The requirement for the establishment of Restoration Advisory Board 
(RABs) is grounded in Section 324(a) of Public Law 104-106, which 
requires the Secretary of Defense to ``prescribe regulations regarding 
the establishment, characteristics, composition, and funding of 
restoration advisory boards.'' Section 324(a) also stated that DoD's 
issuance of regulations shall not be a precondition to the 
establishment of RABs (amended Title 10 Section 2705(d)(2)(B)). In 
August 1996, the Department proposed and requested public comments on 
regulations regarding the characteristics, composition, funding, and 
establishment of RABs. These regulations were not finalized.
As a consequence of litigation in 2001, the Department substantially 
revised the regulations and shared a draft rule with RAB community 
members as part of the Department's outreach to affected members of the 
public. On March 26, 2003, OMB reviewed the draft proposed rule and 
agreed that it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under EO 
12866. The Department published the proposed rule in the Federal 
Register on January 28, 2005. The proposed rule addressed scope, 
characteristics, composition, funding, establishment, operation and 
adjournment. The public comment period ended on March 29, 2005. The 
Department received a total of 219 comments from 29 individuals and 
organizations.
The Department published final regulations governing the establishment 
and administration of Restoration Advisory Boards in the Federal 
Register on May 12, 2006 (71 FR 27610-27621). Corrections were 
published in the Federal Register on May 30, 2006 (71 FR 30719) and 
July 28, 2006 (71 FR 42756-42757).
Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol
 Section 2710(b)(1) of Title 10, United States Code, directed the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a protocol for prioritizing response 
actions for each defense site known or suspected to contain unexploded 
ordnance, discarded military munitions, or munitions constituents. 
Following required consultations with State and tribal representatives, 
the Department published the proposed rule for public review and 
comment on August 22, 2003. The Department reviewed comments received 
during the public comment period, which ended on November 19, 2003, and 
revised the rule accordingly. The most significant change pertained to 
the module that evaluates health hazards associated with munitions 
constituents and other chemical constituents. The Department published 
the final rule in the Federal Register on October 5, 2005 (70 FR 58016-
58054).
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

[[Page 72772]]

medical treatment facilities. This network includes DoD's own military 
treatment facilities supplemented by civilian healthcare 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> Interim Final Rule concerning Certain Survivors of Deceased 
            Active Duty Members and Adoption Intermediaries: The rule 
            addresses two provisions of the National Defense 
            Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (NDAA-06), Pub. L. 
            109-163. Section 715 of the NDAA-06 extends the time frame 
            that certain dependents of Active Duty Service Members 
            (ADSM) who die while on active duty for more than 30 days 
            shall receive TRICARE medical benefits at active duty 
            dependent payment rates. Second, Section 592 modifies the 
            requirement for intermediaries who provide adoption 
            placements. The economic impact of this rule is estimated 
            to be less than $100 million. It is anticipated that the 
            final rule will be published by May 1, 2007.
<bullet> Interim 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 economic impact of this rule is estimated to be less 
            than $100 million. It is anticipated that the final rule 
            will be published by April 1, 2007. It is anticipated that 
            an interim final rule will be required to be promulgated in 
            order to implement a provision of the National Defense 
            Authorization Act for FY07 to expand the TRICARE Reserve 
            Select program to allow all members of the Selected Reserve 
            to purchase their health care through the Military Health 
            System at the same low cost, regardless of the member's 
            duty status. The economic impact of this rule is estimated 
            to be less than $100 million. It is anticipated that the 
            interim final rule will be published by June 1, 2007.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOD--Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs (DODOASHA)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

25. [bull] TRICARE OUTPATIENT PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM (OPPS)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


10 USC Ch 55; 5 USC 301; 10 USC 1079(j)(2)


CFR Citation:


32 CFR 199


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The interim final 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.


Statement of Need:


The interim final rule is necessary to meet the standing Congressional 
mandate to adopt Medicare institutional payment methodologies whenever 
practicable.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Congress established enabling legislation 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) that TRICARE payment methods for institutional 
care be determined to the extent practicable, in accordance with the 
same reimbursement rules used by Medicare.


Alternatives:


The interim final rule implements statutorily required provisions for 
adoption and implementation of Medicare institutional reimbursement 
systems which are consistent with well established Congressional 
objectives. No other alternatives are applicable.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


It is projected that implementation of this rule will result in a 
health care dollar savings of $50 to $70 million per year with an 
estimated initial startup cost of $4 to $6 million and recurring 
administrative costs of approximately $1 million per year.


Risks:


The interim final rule implements statutorily required provisions for 
adoption and implementation of Medicare institutional reimbursement 
systems which are consistent with well established Congressional 
objectives. No risk to the public is applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              12/00/06
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          02/00/07
Final Action                    04/00/07
Final Action Effective          06/00/07

[[Page 72773]]

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


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-AB03
_______________________________________________________________________
DOD--DODOASHA
26. [bull] TRICARE; CERTAIN SURVIVORS OF DECEASED ACTIVE DUTY MEMBERS; 
AND ADOPTION INTERMEDIARIES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


10 USC Ch 55; 5 USC 301; PL 109-163


CFR Citation:


32 CFR 199


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, October 7, 2001, Public Law 109-163.


Abstract:


The interim final addresses two provisions of the NDAA-FY06, Pub. L. 
109-163. Section 715 of the NDAA-FY06 extends the time frame that 
certain dependents of Active Duty Service Members (ADSM) who die while 
on active duty for more than 30 days shall receive TRICARE medical 
benefits at active duty dependent payment rates. Second, Section 592 
modifies the requirement for intermediaries who provide adoption 
placements.


Statement of Need:


This rule is necessary to comply with the statutory requirement.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rule is required by the NDAA-FY06, Pub L 109-163.


Alternatives:


This rule is statutory. No other alternative is applicable.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Estimated costs for FY07 (includes retroactive years to 2001). Health 
care costs $533,000 and administrative costs of $774,000 (which 
includes total startup costs of $300,000). The benefit of this rule is 
that surviving children of ADSMs whose death occurs on or after October 
7, 2001, will receive TRICARE benefits at the AD family member rate for 
the duration of their TRICARE eligibility.


Risks:


This rule implements a statutory provision to extend the time frame 
that surviving children of deceased ADSM whose death occurred on or 
after October 7, 2001, can receive TRICARE at active duty family member 
rates. Not implementing this statutory provision creates additional 
out-of-pocket costs for surviving children.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              12/00/06
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          02/00/07
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   10/07/01
Final Action                    05/00/07
Final Action Effective          06/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Ann N. Fazzini
Department of Defense
Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs
1200 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301
Phone: 303 676-3803
RIN: 0720-AB04
_______________________________________________________________________
DOD--DODOASHA
27. [bull] EXPAND ELIGIBILITY OF SELECTED RESERVE MEMBERS UNDER THE 
TRICARE PROGRAM

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


10 USC Ch 55; 5 USC 301


CFR Citation:


32 CFR 199


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, October 1, 2007, NDAA for FY07.


Abstract:


The proposal would expand the recently enacted Reserve health care 
benefit for Reservists (called TRICARE Reserve Select) to allow all 
members of the Selected Reserve to purchase their health care through 
the Military Health System at the same low cost, regardless of the 
member's duty status. Only members who are eligible for the Federal 
Health Benefits program would be excluded from this benefit. 
Participating Reserve Component members would be required to pay a 
monthly premium of 28 percent of the cost of care for the TRICARE 
Reserve Select plan and would be subject to the same deductibles, 
copayments and other non-premium payments applicable to dependents of 
active duty members who selected the same TRICARE option.


Statement of Need:


The Department of Defense (DoD) interim final rule identifies a process 
to comply with the Congressional mandate that all members of the 
Selected Reserve may be able to purchase their health care through the 
Military Health System, regardless of the member's duty status.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This regulation is proposed under the authorities the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.


Alternatives:


The interim final rule complies with the Congressional mandate. No 
other alternatives are applicable.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


It is estimated that implementing the rule equates to national 
incremental costs totaling less than $100 million per year.


Benefits include: Access to health care for all Reservists, regardless 
of the member's duty status; however, at this time, the effect on 
readiness, recruitment, and retention are not known.


Risks:


The degree of risk to the public is low.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              06/00/07

[[Page 72774]]

Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          08/00/07
Final Action                    09/00/07
Final Action Effective          10/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Jody Donehoo
Department of Defense
Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs
Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301
Phone: 703 681-0039
RIN: 0720-AB05
BILLING CODE 5001-06-S

[[Page 72775]]

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. 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 ensuring that all students reach grade 
level standards in reading/language arts and mathematics; monitoring 
and enforcing 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 touch nearly every American at one point in 
their lives--nearly 54 million students attending 93,000 elementary and 
secondary schools in approximately 15,000 public school districts and 
almost 22 million postsecondary students.
We have forged effective partnerships with customers and others to 
develop policies, regulations, guidance, technical assistance, and 
approaches to compliance. We have a record of successful communication 
and shared policy development with affected persons and groups, 
including parents, students, and educators; State, local, and tribal 
governments; 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 customer 
participation in our rulemaking activities through the use of 
consensual rulemaking and new technology. If we determine that the 
development of regulations is necessary, we seek customer participation 
at all stages in the rulemaking process. We invite the public to submit 
comments on all proposed regulations through the Internet or by regular 
mail.
We are continuing our efforts to streamline information collections, 
reduce burden on information providers involved in our programs, and 
make information maintained by us easily available to the public.
Initiatives
Among our initiatives is bringing No Child Left Behind to the high 
school level. The President has called evidence of poor performance by 
America's high schools ``a warning and a call to action.'' The 
Administration's response is a comprehensive proposal that builds on 
the stronger accountability of No Child Left Behind to improve the 
quality of secondary education and ensure that every student not only 
graduates from high school, but, also, graduates prepared to enter 
college or the workforce with the skills to succeed. This initiative 
includes creation of several new programs and significant funding 
increases for existing programs that can have a major impact on 
secondary education. The actual appropriations will depend on 
congressional action. The appropriations may, in turn, result in 
additional regulatory activities by the Department.
No Child Left Behind
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which reauthorized the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, increases accountability for 
States, school districts, and schools; provides greater choice for 
parents and students, particularly those attending low-performing 
schools; provides more flexibility for States and local educational 
agencies in the use of Federal education dollars; and places a stronger 
emphasis on using scientifically based research to guide instruction, 
especially in reading for our youngest children.
Each State (including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia) has 
submitted an accountability plan, which the Department approved. Each 
State has used its respective plan to hold schools and school districts 
accountable since 2002-03 for the academic achievement of all their 
students, including students in specific subgroups such as students 
with disabilities and limited English proficient (LEP) students. 
Beginning with the 2005-06 school year, each State assessed students in 
each of grades 3 through 8 and high school and used those results for 
school and district accountability.
With respect to students with disabilities and LEP students, in 
particular, the Department has initiated regulatory actions to address 
unique issues in the implementation of No Child Left Behind. Our 
current regulations permit a State to: (1) develop alternate 
achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive 
disabilities; and (2) include those students' proficient and advanced 
scores in determinations of adequate yearly progress (AYP), subject to 
a cap of one percent of the number of students in a school district or 
State.
We are also working on developing final regulations that would provide 
further flexibility by permitting a State to develop modified 
achievement standards and assessments for some students with 
disabilities who are not included in the regulations that apply to 
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.
Finally, we have published final regulations to permit a State to: (1) 
exempt LEP students new to schools in the United States from one 
administration of the State's reading/language arts assessment, 
provided the student takes an English language proficiency assessment; 
and (2) include, for up to two years, former LEP students in the LEP 
subgroup when making determinations of AYP.
We are continuing to focus on helping States place a highly qualified 
teacher in every classroom; identifying schools and districts in need 
of improvement and making sure they are getting the assistance they 
need to get back on track; expanding the opportunities for eligible 
students to receive tutoring and other supplemental educational 
services; and helping districts create capacity in order to make public 
school choice available to all eligible students who wish to change 
schools.
We have recently peer-reviewed evidence of each State's standards and 
aligned assessment systems that implement No Child Left Behind's 
requirements for annual testing in reading/language arts and 
mathematics in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. These new 
reading/language arts and mathematics standards and assessments had to 
be in place by the end of the 2005-06 school year.
Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities for the Next Year
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 
(Pub. L. 108-446) made substantial changes to the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In addition to recently published 
final regulations designed to improve implementation of the education 
of children with disabilities program (including preschool services) 
under part B, we plan to issue in 2007 a notice of proposed rulemaking 
that would address issues in part B that were not covered by those 
final regulations. Also, in early 2007 we expect to issue proposed 
regulations to implement changes to the part C program--the

[[Page 72776]]

early intervention program for infants and toddlers with disabilities.
On July 3, 2006, we published interim final regulations, with a request 
for comments, and on November 1, 2006, we published final regulations 
implementing the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) and National 
Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant (National SMART 
Grant) programs. These regulations and amendments to regulations 
governing other higher education programs were needed to implement 
provisions of the HEA, as amended by the Higher Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2005 (HERA), enacted on February 8, 2006.
The regulations specify the eligibility requirements for a student to 
apply for and receive an award under these programs. The regulations 
also identify the roles of institutions of higher education, State 
educational agencies, and local educational agencies in administering 
the programs.
The interim final regulations are effective for the 2006-07 award year. 
The final regulations, which amend the interim final regulations, are 
effective for the 2007-08 award year.
In addition, we published on August 9, 2006, interim final regulations, 
with a request for comments, and on November 1, 2006, we published 
final regulations amending various regulations for Federal student aid 
programs authorized under title IV of the HEA. These regulations 
implement changes to the HEA resulting from the HERA and reflect 
provisions of the HERA that affect students, borrowers, and program 
participants.
On August 18, the Department announced in the Federal Register our 
intent to conduct negotiated rulemaking under title IV of the Higher 
Education Act. As we indicated when we announced the interim final 
regulations on July 3, we intend to develop proposed regulations for 
the new ACG and National SMART Grant programs for the third and 
subsequent years of implementation of these programs (that is, 
beginning July 1, 2008).
We also intend to consider the recommendations of the Secretary's 
Commission on the Future of Higher Education. The Commission released 
its report on September 19, 2006. To the extent possible within the 
existing statutory framework of the HEA, the negotiated rulemaking 
process could be used to address the recommendations of the Commission 
for changes that could reduce regulatory burden; improve the 
administration of the Department's programs authorized by title IV of 
the HEA, including the Federal student aid programs; and improve the 
quality of information on cost, price, and student outcomes available 
to students and their families.
We expect that the negotiated rulemaking process will address other 
regulatory issues, including issues raised by the public during the 
regional hearings; issues resulting from changes made, other than those 
relating to the ACG and National SMART Grant programs, by the HERA; and 
items that have been identified by the Department as needed to improve 
program administration and accountability.
Other Potential Regulatory Activities
Recent reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical 
Education Act of 1998 might result in regulatory activities by the 
Department. The reauthorization made changes designed to improve the 
State grant and other programs providing assistance under this statute 
and to help States and local communities strengthen career and 
technical education and improve educational opportunities for career 
and technical education students. In working with Congress on the 
reauthorization, the Administration has emphasized student achievement, 
particularly the academic achievement of career and technical education 
students, and increasing accountability and program quality.
Congress also 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.
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, learners of all ages. We will regulate 
only if absolutely necessary and then in the most flexible, most 
equitable, and least burdensome way possible.
When regulating, 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 does more harm than good.
How to regulate:
<bullet> Regulate no more than necessary.
<bullet> Minimize burden and promote multiple approaches to meeting 
            statutory requirements.
<bullet> Encourage federally funded activities to be integrated with 
            State and local reform activities.
<bullet> Ensure that benefits justify costs of regulation.
<bullet> Establish performance objectives rather than specify 
            compliance behavior.
<bullet> Encourage flexibility so institutional forces and incentives 
            achieve desired results.
BILLING CODE 4000-01-S

[[Page 72777]]

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 and the Unified Agenda contain the rulemakings the Department will 
be engaged in during the coming year to implement provisions of the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005). The Regulatory Plan and Unified 
Agenda also reflect the Department's continuing commitment to cut 
costs, reduce regulatory burden, and increase responsiveness to the 
public.
Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial 
Equipment
The Energy Policy Act of 2005, enacted on August 8, 2005, had a 
significant impact on the Department's priorities for its rulemaking 
activities related to energy efficiency standards, test procedures, and 
determinations. EPACT 2005 not only added new products to those already 
covered by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), but it also 
affects ongoing rulemakings. On October 18, 2005, DOE published a 
technical amendment to place in the Code of Federal Regulations the 
energy conservation standards, and related definitions, that Congress 
prescribed in EPACT 2005 for certain consumer products and commercial 
and industrial equipment. In addition, on July 25, 2006, DOE published 
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to provide for new Federal 
energy efficiency and water conservation test procedures, and related 
definitions, for certain consumer products and certain commercial and 
industrial equipment under EPACT 2005. Consistent with EPACT 2005, the 
Department intends to continue its work on adoption of amended energy 
efficiency standards for residential furnaces and boilers and on new 
standards for electric distribution transformers.
On January 31, 2006, the Department released a schedule for setting new 
appliance efficiency standards that will save American consumers 
billions of dollars in energy costs. The five-year plan outlines how 
DOE will address the appliance standards rulemaking backlog and meet 
the statutory requirements established in the EPCA and EPACT 2005. The 
statutes require DOE to set appliance efficiency standards at levels 
that achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 
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.
The five-year plan, which was developed considering the public comments 
received on the appliance standards program, provides for the issuance 
of one rulemaking for each of the 18 products in the backlog. The plan 
also provides for setting appliance standards for products required 
under EPACT 2005. The Department is aggressively implementing process 
improvements to speed up the development and issuance of appliance 
standards rules.
The overall plan for implementing the schedule is contained in the 
Report to Congress under section 141 of EPACT 2005, which was released 
January 31, 2006. The report and schedule is posted at: http://
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ appliance--standards/ 2006--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.). It also describes the reasons for such delays and the 
Secretary's plan for expeditiously prescribing new or amended 
standards. The first semi-annual update to the report was released 
August 10, 2006. Information and timetables concerning these actions 
can also be found in the Department's Regulatory Agenda, which appears 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
Nuclear Safety Regulations
 The Department is committed to openness and public participation as it 
addresses one of its greatest challenges--managing the environment, 
health, and safety risks posed by its nuclear activities. A key element 
in the management of these risks is to establish the Department's 
expectations and requirements relative to nuclear safety and to hold 
its contractors accountable for safety performance. The 1988 Price-
Anderson Amendments Act revisions to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
(AEA) provide for the imposition of civil and criminal penalties for 
violations of DOE nuclear safety requirements. As a result, new nuclear 
safety requirements were initiated with the publication of four notices 
of proposed rulemaking for review and comment in 1991. The Department's 
nuclear safety procedural regulations (10 CFR part 820) were published 
as a final rule in 1993. The Department's substantive nuclear safety 
requirements (10 CFR parts 830 and 835) were finalized in 2001 and 
1998, respectively. In February 2006, the Department issued a final 
rule adding a new part, 10 CFR 851, Worker Safety and Health, that 
established basic requirements to ensure workers are protected from 
safety and health hazards at DOE facilities. The remaining action, 10 
CFR part 834, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, 
is scheduled for completion in 2008.
Loan Guarantees
Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16511-16514) 
authorizes the Secretary of Energy to issue loan guarantees for energy 
related projects that ``avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or 
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases; and employ new or 
significantly improved technologies as compared to commercial 
technologies in service in the United States at the time the guarantee 
is issued.'' By reducing the financial risk of these innovative 
technologies, DOE hopes to facilitate their advancement to market. DOE 
believes that accelerated commercial use of new or improved 
technologies will help to sustain economic growth, yield environmental 
benefits, and produce a more stable and secure energy supply. DOE is 
committed to openness and public participation as it develops rules and 
criteria for loan guarantees and promptly will be taking action to

[[Page 72778]]

promulgate such rules. The Department intends to publish a notice of 
proposed rulemaking in December 2006.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

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

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


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


CFR Citation:


10 CFR 430


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, January 1, 1997.


Abstract:


The Department is committed to becoming current on all energy standards 
rulemakings, including the current standards for residential electric 
and gas ranges and ovens, microwave ovens, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, 
and commercial clothes washers. The EPACT 2005 amendments to EPCA, 
established initial energy efficiency standard level for commercial 
clothes washers.


Statement of Need:


The Department may determine that separate rulemakings may be warranted 
for some of these individual products or equipment.


Alternatives:


EPCA, as amended, requires DOE to conduct rulemaking to review 
standards and to revise standards to achieve the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technically feasible 
and economically justified. In making this determination, DOE conducts 
a thorough analysis of alternative standard levels, including the 
existing standard, based on criteria specified in the statute.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           08/00/07
NPRM                            07/00/08
Final Action                    03/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Additional Information:


Merged dishwashers from RIN 1904-AA89 and added residential 
dehumidifiers and commercial clothes washers.


Agency Contact:
Bryan Berringer, EE-2J
Office of Building Technologies Program
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-0371
Fax: 202 586-4617
Email: bryan.berringer@ee.doe.gov
Related RIN: Merged with 1904-AA89
RIN: 1904-AB49
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--EE
29. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 6313(c)


CFR Citation:


10 CFR 431


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, January 1, 2009.


Abstract:


The EPACT 2005 amendments to EPCA require that standards be established 
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, as amended, requires that DOE set energy efficiency standards 
that are technologically feasible and economically justified.


Summary of Legal Basis:


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


Alternatives:


EPCA, as amended, requires DOE to conduct rulemaking to review 
standards and to revise standards to achieve the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technically feasible 
and economically justified. In making this determination, DOE conducts 
a thorough analysis of alternative standard levels, based on criteria 
specified by statute.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           07/00/07
NPRM                            05/00/08
Final Action                    01/01/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Charles Llenza, EE-2J
Office of Building Technologies Program
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
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--EE

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

30. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL FURNACES AND BOILERS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 6295(f)


CFR Citation:


10 CFR 430


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, January 1, 1994.

[[Page 72779]]

Abstract:


The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, establishes 
initial energy efficiency standard levels for most 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.


This is the initial review of the statutory standards for residential 
furnaces and boilers.


Statement of Need:


Experience has shown that the choice of residential appliances and 
commercial equipment being purchased by both builders and building 
owners is generally based on the initial cost rather than on life-cycle 
costs. Thus, the law requires minimum energy efficiency standards for 
appliances to eliminate inefficient appliances and equipment from the 
market.


Summary of Legal Basis:


EPCA establishes initial energy efficiency standard levels for most 
types of major residential appliances and certain commercial equipment. 
EPCA generally requires DOE to undertake rulemakings, at specified 
times, to determine whether the standard for a covered product should 
be made more stringent. EPACT 2005 amended EPCA to authorize the 
Department to set standards for electricity used in furnaces to 
circulate air through duct work. Section 135(c).


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 criteria specified by 
statute.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The specific costs and benefits for this rulemaking have not been 
established because the final standard levels have not been determined. 
Nevertheless, existing analysis from the Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking for energy conservation standards for furnace and boilers 
projects saving between 0.28 and 9.29 quadrillion BTUs of energy from 
2012 to 2035, with a national financial impact on the consumer in terms 
of national Net Present Value (NPV) ranging from $0.1 to $3.2 billion. 
(69 FR 45420)


Risks:


At higher efficiency levels, consumers risk unintended condensation of 
flue gases, whereas, without changes to the existing furnace and boiler 
standards, energy use and energy costs for consumers will continue to 
increase. Enhancing appliance energy efficiency also reduces 
atmospheric emissions such as CO2 and NOx. Establishing standards that 
are too stringent could result in excessive increases in the cost of 
the product and possible reductions in product utility. It might also 
place an undue burden on manufacturers that could result in loss of 
jobs or other adverse economic impacts.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           09/08/93                    58 FR 47326
ANPRM                           07/29/04                    69 FR 45419
ANPRM Comment Period End        11/10/04
NPRM                            10/06/06                    71 FR 59204
NPRM Comment Period End         01/15/07
Final Action                    09/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Agency Contact:
Mohammed Kahn EE-2J
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Office of Building Technologies Program
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-7892
Email: mohammed.kahn@ee.doe.gov
RIN: 1904-AA78
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--EE

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

31. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 6317(a)(2)


CFR Citation:


10 CFR 431


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, October 24, 1996.


Abstract:


Prior to enactment of EPACT 2005, the Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act, as amended, (EPCA) did not establish energy efficiency standards 
for electric distribution transformers. EPCA directed DOE to determine 
whether standards for electric distribution transformers were 
warranted. However, as a result of amendments adopted in EPACT 2005, 
Public Law No. 109-58, section 135(c)(4), EPCA now contains standards 
for low voltage dry-type electric distribution transformers, but not 
other types of distribution transformers. This rulemaking will 
determine whether it is appropriate to establish standards for these 
other types of electric distribution transformers.


Statement of Need:


Experience has shown that the choice of residential appliances and 
commercial equipment being purchased by both builders and building 
owners is generally based on the initial cost rather than on life-cycle 
cost. Thus, the law requires minimum energy efficiency standards for 
appliances to eliminate inefficient appliances and equipment from the 
market.


Summary of Legal Basis:


EPCA authorizes the Department to establish energy conservation 
standards for various consumer products and commercial and industrial 
equipment, including distribution transformers, if DOE determines that 
energy conservation standards would be technologically feasible and 
economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. 
Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to 
improve energy efficiency. Part C of title III, 42 U.S.C. 6311 to 6317, 
establishes a program for ``Certain Industrial Equipment,'' similar to 
the one for consumer products in part B, and includes distribution 
transformers. Since EPACT 2005, Public Law No. 109-58, section 135(c), 
establishes energy conservation standards for one group of 
transformers, low-voltage, dry-type distribution transformers, that 
category will no longer be covered by this rulemaking.


Alternatives:


The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to review standards and 
to

[[Page 72780]]

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 alternative standard levels, 
including the existing standard, based on criteria specified by 
statute.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The specific costs and benefits for this rulemaking have not been 
established because the final standard levels have not been determined. 
Nevertheless, existing analysis from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
71 FR 44356, for energy conservation standards for distribution 
transformers projects savings of 2.4 quadrillion BTUs of energy from 
2010 to 2038, with a national financial impact on the consumer in terms 
of national Net Present Value (NPV) up to 2.5 billion dollars.


Risks:


At higher efficiency levels, the limited availability of some core 
steels is an important issue. Other issues that pose some risks include 
significant capital investment requirements, core processing equipment, 
retooling, and R&D. Establishing standards that are too stringent could 
result in excessive increases in the cost of the product, with possible 
reductions in product utility (larger/bulkier/heavier transformers), 
with additional pressure on some manufacturers to move production out 
of the U.S. and a possible risk that some small manufacturers would 
exit.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Determination Notice            10/22/97                    62 FR 54809
ANPRM                           07/29/04                    69 FR 45375
ANPRM Comment Period End        11/09/04
NPRM                            08/04/06                    71 FR 44356
NPRM Comment Period End         10/13/06
Final Action                    09/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Antonio Bouza, EE-2J
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-4563
Fax: 202 586-4617
Email: antonio.bouza@ee.doe.gov
RIN: 1904-AB08
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--EE
32. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR CEILING FAN LIGHT KITS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 6295(ff)(4)


CFR Citation:


10 CFR 430


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, January 1, 2007.


Abstract:


The EPACT 2005 amendments to EPCA require that DOE establish standards 
for ceiling fan light kits (other than those with prescribed standards 
in EPACT 2005) by January 1, 2007. If DOE does not meet this deadline, 
EPACT 2005 specifies that the energy consumption levels in 42 U.S.C. 
6295 (ff)(4)(C) go into effect for products manufactured after January 
1, 2009.


Statement of Need:


EPCA, as amended, require DOE to set appliance efficiency standards at 
technologically feasible and economically justified levels.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The EPACT 2005 amendments to EPCA authorize DOE to establish energy 
conservation standards for ceiling fan light kits.


Alternatives:


The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemaking to review standards and 
to revise standards to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. In making this determination, DOE conducts 
a thorough analysis of alternative standard levels, including the 
existing standard, based on criteria specified by statute. Pursuant to 
EPACT 2005, if DOE does not complete the required rulemaking by January 
1, 2007, energy efficiency levels specified in the statute go into 
effect for covered products manufactured after January 1, 2009.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Legislative Date for 
    Final Rule                  01/00/07
Standards Effective Date 
    (for products 
    manufactured after 
    01/01/2009)                 01/01/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


DOE will not complete the required rulemaking by January 1, 2007. Thus, 
the statutory standards specified in 42 U.S.C. 6295 (ff)(4)(C) will go 
into effect for products manufactured after January 1, 2009.


Agency Contact:
Linda Graves, EE-2J
Office of Building Technologies Program
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
RIN: 1904-AB61
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--Departmental and Others (ENDEP)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

33. [bull] LOAN GUARANTEES FOR PROJECTS THAT EMPLOY INNOVATIVE 
TECHNOLOGIES

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 16511; 42 USC 16514


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes the Secretary of

[[Page 72781]]

Energy, after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to make 
loan guarantees for projects that ``avoid, reduce, or sequester air 
pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases; and employ 
new or significantly improved technologies as compared to commercial 
technologies in service in the United States at the time the guarantee 
is issued.'' Following publication of guidelines to govern an initial 
solicitation of projects seeking Federal loan guarantees in August 
2006, this proposed rulemaking will establish policies and procedures 
applicable to all subsequent solicitations for project proposals. The 
default and audit provisions of the proposed rulemaking, however, will 
be applicable to all solicitations.


Statement of Need:


A principal purpose of the loan guarantee program is to encourage early 
commercial use in the United States of new or significantly improved 
technologies in energy projects. By facilitating the employment of such 
technologies, we can meet the principal energy challenges of enhancing 
energy security, repairing and modernizing our energy infrastructure, 
promoting energy conservation, and increasing our energy supplies in 
ways that protect and improve the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/06
Final Action                    10/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Warren Belmar
Deputy General Counsel for Energy Policy
Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-6758
Email: warren.belmar@hq.doe.gov
RIN: 1901-AB21
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--ENDEP

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

34. RADIATION PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7191


CFR Citation:


10 CFR 834


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action would add a new 10 CFR 834 to DOE's regulations 
establishing a body of rules setting forth the basic requirements for 
ensuring radiation protection of the public and environment in 
connection with DOE nuclear activities. These requirements stem from 
the Department's ongoing effort to strengthen the protection of health, 
safety, and the environment from the nuclear and chemical hazards posed 
by these DOE activities. Major elements of the proposal include a dose 
limitation system for protection of the public; requirements for 
application optimization (As Low As is Reasonably Achievable, ALARA) 
process; requirements for liquid discharges; reporting and monitoring 
requirements; and residual radioactive material requirements.


Statement of Need:


The purpose of this rule is to ensure that the Department's obligation 
to protect health and safety is fulfilled and to provide, if needed, a 
basis for the imposition of civil and criminal penalties consistent 
with the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988. This action is 
consistent with the Department's commitment to the issuance of nuclear 
safety requirements using notice and comment rulemaking.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Department of 
Energy has the authority to regulate activities at facilities under its 
jurisdiction. The Department is committed to honoring its obligation to 
ensure the health and safety of the public and workers affected by its 
operations and the protection of the environs around its facilities.


Alternatives:


The Department could continue to impose nuclear safety requirements 
through directives made applicable to DOE contractors through the terms 
of their contracts.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The incremental costs of the proposed rules should be minimal because 
contractors are currently bound by comparable contractual obligations. 
Full compliance by contractors with nuclear safety standards will 
result in substantial societal benefits.


Risks:


This rulemaking should reduce the risk of nuclear safety problems by 
clarifying safety requirements applicable to DOE contractors and 
improving compliance.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/25/93                    58 FR 16268
Second NPRM                     08/31/95                    60 FR 45381
Second NPRM Comment 
    Period End                  10/02/95
Integrate New EPA 
    Guidance                    12/00/06
Final Action                    10/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering revising the 
Federal Guidance for Radiation Protection of the Public. This 
Presidential-level guidance would refine the radiation protection and 
dose limitation framework for the public, and may include numerical 
Radiation Protection Goals (i.e., dose limits). Because it is DOE's 
preference to be consistent with Federal radiation protection policy, 
the Department is adjusting the schedule for part 834 in anticipation 
of revised Federal Guidance and will issue the rule following EPA 
action on the guidance. This will allow DOE to be consistent with the 
most current Presidential-level guidance upon its release.

[[Page 72782]]

Agency Contact:
Andrew Wallo III
Director, Office of Air, Water and Radiation Protection, Policy and 
Guidance
Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-4996
Fax: 202 586-3915
RIN: 1901-AA38
BILLING CODE 6450-01-S

[[Page 72783]]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) conducts a broad 
range of programs mandated by Congress to protect and promote the 
health and well-being of all Americans, focused especially on those 
least able to help themselves. HHS responsibilities include: Medicare, 
Medicaid, support for public health preparedness, biomedical research, 
substance abuse and mental health treatment, assurance of safe and 
effective drugs and other medical products, food safety, financial 
assistance to low income families, Head Start, services to older 
Americans, and direct health services delivery.
Since assuming the leadership of HHS, Secretary Michael O. Leavitt has 
consistently sought to make transparent his approach to overseeing the 
Department's programs, through his use of a 500-Day Plan and a recent 
statement of his nine major priorities. The 500-Day Plan and the 
statement of priorities are available for public review at http://
www.hhs.gov/secretaryspage.html. The regulatory actions noted below 
reflect this policy framework.
Health Information Technology
The Secretary's strategy for promoting improvements in the Nation's 
health sector stresses maximum use of electronic information 
technology. The FY 2007 Regulatory Plan accordingly includes a notice 
of proposed rulemaking to require that clinical study data be provided 
to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in electronic format, using 
standard data structures, terminology, and code sets. The change would 
further increase the efficiency of the agency's review processes, 
speeding up the availability of new therapies. Additionally, the Plan 
includes: proposed actions to require medical-device firms to register 
electronically with the FDA, as well as to report post-marketing 
information to the agency electronically; and a proposal for the 
adoption of final standards for the electronic transmission of basic 
prescription-drug data.
Medicare Modernization
The Secretary's statement of priorities includes a focus on Medicare 
modernization. The Regulatory Plan, accordingly, highlights:
<bullet> a proposal to institute competitive bidding procedures to 
            improve the effectiveness of Medicare's current methodology 
            for setting payment amounts for durable medical equipment; 
            and
<bullet> final rules for hospital inpatient services for fiscal year 
            2008 and for long-term-care hospital services for rate year 
            2008.
Medicare Part D
The Secretary believes that every senior must have access to affordable 
prescription drugs, and that a reinforced regulatory framework for 
implementing the Medicare prescription drug benefit can further connect 
beneficiaries with the Part D program. The Plan accordingly includes a 
proposal to clarify current provisions affecting Part D Prescription 
Drug Plan sponsors and Medicare Advantage organizations, and the above-
cited proposal for the adoption of final standards for the electronic 
transmission of basic prescription-drug data.
Disease Prevention
Also included among the Secretary's priorities is an emphasis on 
disease prevention and the need for individual responsibility for 
personal wellness. Three actions in the Plan reflect this concern:
<bullet> a final rule establishing good manufacturing practices for the 
            dietary-supplement products favored by many Americans;
<bullet> a proposal to modify prescription drug labeling so that health 
            care providers may better understand and communicate to 
            their patients the risks and benefits associated with the 
            use of prescribed medicines during pregnancy and lactation, 
            and
<bullet> a proposal to amend existing regulations governing 
            investigational new drugs -- the rule would delineate new 
            avenues of access for patients to obtain investigational 
            drugs for treatment use.
Food Safety
The Secretary's 500-Day Plan also embraces the need to secure the 
homeland. The Regulatory Plan thus includes:
<bullet> a proposal to require owners or consignees to label imported 
            food that has previously been refused entry into the United 
            States. This action would prevent the introduction of 
            unsafe food and facilitate the examination of imported 
            food; and
<bullet> a final rule completing the rulemaking process requiring that 
            the FDA be notified prior to the entry of imported food 
            into the United States.
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

35. CONTROL OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES, INTERSTATE AND 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; 42 CFR 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. The Secretary has delegated the 
authority to prevent the introduction of diseases from foreign 
countries to the Director, CDC. CDC maintains quarantine stations at 
eight major airports with quarantine inspectors 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, and Severe 
Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and influenza caused by novel or 
reemergent influenza virus that are causing, or have the potential to 
cause, a pandemic.


Statement of Need:


The quarantine of persons believed to be infected with communicable 
diseases is a long-term prevention measure that has been used 
effectively to contain the spread of disease. As diseases evolve due to 
natural

[[Page 72784]]

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 the rapidity with 
which disease may spread throughout the world, and the impact 
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. One of those tools is 
quarantine -- restricting the movement of persons exposed to infection 
to prevent them from infecting others, including family members, 
friends, and neighbors. Quarantine of exposed persons may be the best 
initial way to prevent the uncontrolled spread of highly dangerous 
biologic agents -- especially when combined with other health 
strategies such as vaccination, prophylactic drug treatment, patient 
isolation, 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 the collection 
and maintenance of crew and passenger manifest data by air and water 
carriers that are likely to modify computer systems and collect 
passenger information to come into compliance. The benefits of the rule 
would be measured in terms of the number of deaths and illnesses 
prevented by rapid intervention. When the costs and benefits of the 
rule are considered over a 20-year period benefits clearly outweigh 
costs.


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                    08/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Ram Koppaka M.D., Ph.D
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
MS-E-03
1600 Clifton Road
Atlanta, GA 30333
Phone: 404 498-2308
RIN: 0920-AA12
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

36. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF DATA FROM STUDIES EVALUATING HUMAN DRUGS 
AND BIOLOGICS

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


21 USC 355; 21 USC 371; 42 USC 262


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 314.50; 21 CFR 601.12; 21 CFR 314.94; 21 CFR 314.96


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food and Drug Administration is proposing to amend the regulations 
governing the format in which clinical study data and bioequivalence 
data are required to be submitted for new drug applications (NDAs), 
biological license applications (BLAs), and abbreviated new drug 
applications (ANDAs). The proposal would revise our regulations to 
require that data submitted for NDAs, BLAs, and ANDAs, and their 
supplements and amendments be provided in an electronic format that FDA 
can process, review, and archive. The proposal would also require the 
use of standardized data structure, terminology, and code sets 
contained in current FDA guidance (the Study Data Tabulation Model 
(SDTM) developed by the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium) 
to allow for more efficient and comprehensive data review.


Statement of Need:


Before a drug is approved for marketing, FDA must determine that the 
drug is safe and effective for its intended use. This determination is 
based in part on clinical study data and bioequivalence data that are 
submitted as part of the marketing application. Study data submitted to 
FDA in electronic format have generally been more efficient to process 
and review.


FDA's proposed rule would require the submission of study data in a 
standardized electronic format, and it provides that the specific 
format will be announced in FDA guidance. Electronic submission of 
study data would improve patient safety and enhance health care 
delivery by enabling FDA to process, review, and archive data more 
efficiently. Standardization would also enhance the ability to share 
study data and communicate results. Investigators and industry would 
benefit from the use of standards throughout the lifecycle of a study--
in data collection, reporting, and analysis. The proposal would work in 
concert with ongoing agency and national initiatives to support 
increased use of electronic technology as a means to improve patient 
safety and enhance health care delivery.

[[Page 72785]]

Summary of Legal Basis:


Our legal authority to amend our regulations governing the submission 
and format of clinical study data and bioequivalence data for human 
drugs and biologics derives from sections 505 and 701 of the act 
(U.S.C. 355 and 371) and section 351 of the Public Health Service Act 
(42 U.S.C. 262).


Alternatives:


FDA considered issuing a guidance document outlining the electronic 
submission and the standardization of study data, but not requiring 
electronic submission of the data in the standardized format. This 
alternative was rejected because the agency would not fully benefit 
from standardization until it became the industry standard, which could 
take up to 20 years.


We also considered a number of different implementation scenarios, from 
shorter to longer time-periods. The two-year time-period was selected 
because the agency believes it would provide ample time for applicants 
to comply without too long a delay in the effective date. A longer 
time-period would delay the benefit from the increased efficiencies, 
such as standardization of review tools across applications, and the 
incremental cost saving to industry would be small.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Approximately 70 percent of study data for NDAs and ANDAs are already 
submitted to FDA in electronic format consistent with our current 
guidance on electronic submission of data. The other 30 percent is 
either submitted on paper or in non-standardized electronic format. FDA 
estimates that the costs to industry resulting from the proposal would 
include some one-time costs and possibly some annual recurring costs. 
One-time costs would include, among other things, the cost of 
converting data to standard structures, terminology, and cost sets 
(i.e., purchase of software to convert data); the cost of submitting 
electronic data (i.e., purchase of file transfer programs); and the 
cost of installing and validating the software and training personnel. 
Additional annual recurring costs may result from software purchases 
and licensing agreements for use of proprietary terminologies.


The proposal could result in many long-term benefits for industry, 
including improved patient safety through faster, more efficient, 
comprehensive, and accurate data review; enhanced communication among 
sponsors and clinicians.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Martha Nguyen
Regulatory Counsel
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
Office of Regulatory Policy
5515 Security Lane, Suite 1101 (HFD-7)
Rockville, MD 20852
Phone: 301 594-2041
Fax: 301-827-5562
Email: martha.nguyen@fda.hhs.gov
RIN: 0910-AC52
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA
37. CONTENT AND FORMAT OF LABELING FOR HUMAN PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND 
BIOLOGICS; REQUIREMENTS FOR PREGNANCY AND LACTATION LABELING

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


21 USC 321; 21 USC 331; 21 USC 351 to 353; 21 USC 355; 21 USC 358; 21 
USC 360; 21 USC 360b; 21 USC 360gg to 360ss; 21 USC 371; 21 USC 374; 21 
USC 379e; 42 USC 216; 42 USC 241; 42 USC 262; 42 USC 264


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 201.56; 21 CFR 201.57; 21 CFR 201.80


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


To amend the regulations governing the format and content of labeling 
for human prescription drugs and biological products (21 CFR 201.56, 
201.57, and 201.80).


Statement of Need:


Under FDA's current regulations, labeling concerning the use of 
prescription drugs in pregnancy uses letter categories (A, B, C, D, X) 
to characterize the risk to the fetus of using the drug during 
pregnancy. Dissatisfaction with the category system has been expressed 
by health care providers, medical organizations, experts in the study 
of birth defects, women's health researchers, and women of childbearing 
age. These stakeholders have expressed the view that the current 
categories are confusing and overly simplistic and thus are not 
adequate to communicate risks effectively. One of the deficiencies of 
the category system is that drugs may be assigned to the same category 
when the severity, incidence, and types of risk are quite different.


Stakeholders consulted through a public hearing, several focus groups, 
and several advisory committees have recommended that FDA replace the 
category system with a concise narrative summarizing a product's risks 
to pregnant women and to women of childbearing age. It has also been 
strongly recommended that pregnancy labeling address the situation 
where a woman has taken drugs before she realizes she is pregnant. The 
labeling that would be required under the proposed rule would be 
responsive to the concerns discussed above, and others that have been 
expressed by critics of the current category system.


Summary of Legal Basis:


FDA has broad authority under sections 201, 301, 501, 502, 503, 505, 
and 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) (21 
U.S.C. 321, 331, 351,352, 353, 355, and 371) and section 351 of the 
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262) to help ensure that 
prescription drugs (including biological products that are regulated as 
drugs) are safe and effective for their intended uses. A major part of 
FDA's efforts concerning the safe and effective use of drug products 
involves review, approval, and monitoring of drug labeling. Under 
section 502(f)(1) of the Act, a drug is misbranded unless its labeling 
bears ``adequate directions for use'' or it is exempted from this 
requirement by regulation. Under section 201.100 (21 CFR 201.100), a 
prescription drug is exempted from the requirement in section 502(f)(1) 
of the Act only if, among other things, it contains the information 
required and in the format specified by sections 201.56 and 201.57.

[[Page 72786]]

Under section 502(a) of the Act, a drug product is misbranded if its 
labeling is false or misleading in any particular. Under section 505(d) 
and 505(e) of the Act, FDA must refuse to approve an application or may 
withdraw approval of an application if the labeling for the drug is 
false or misleading in any particular. Section 201(n) of the Act 
provides that in determining whether the labeling of a drug is 
misleading, there shall be taken into account not only representations 
or suggestions made in the labeling, but also the extent to which the 
labeling fails to reveal facts that are material in light of such 
representations or material with respect to consequences which may 
result from use of the drug product under the conditions of use 
prescribed in the labeling or under customary conditions of use.


These statutory provisions, combined with section 701(a) of the Act and 
section 351 of the Public Health Service Act, clearly authorize FDA to 
publish a proposed rule designed to help ensure that practitioners 
prescribing drugs (including biological products) to pregnant women and 
women of childbearing age would receive information essential to the 
safe and effective use of these drugs.


Alternatives:


The alternatives to the proposal include not amending our existing 
regulation governing the format and content of labeling for human 
prescription drugs and biological products. This alternative is 
inconsistent with widespread stakeholder dissatisfaction with the 
pregnancy labeling provided pursuant to the current regulation.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The proposed rule would impose one-time costs for firms to modify drug 
product labeling. The extent of these modifications would depend on 
whether a product's labeling is affected by the physician labeling 
final rule (PLR) and on the scope of the implementation.


The revised format and the information provided in the labeling would 
make it easier for health care providers to understand the risks and 
benefits of drug use during pregnancy and lactation. A better 
understanding of risks and benefits would help women and their 
healthcare providers make informed decisions about whether or not to 
use drugs during pregnancy and lactation. Labeling under the rule would 
also provide information geared to women who took drugs before they 
knew they were pregnant. Such information may often be reassuring to 
women and their health care providers.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Christine F. Rogers
Regulatory Counsel
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
5515 Security Lane
Rockville, MD 20852
Phone: 301 594-2041
Fax: 301 827-5562
Email: christine.rogers@fda.hhs.gov
RIN: 0910-AF11
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA
38. 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:


To amend the regulations governing investigational new drugs 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 proposed rule is needed to incorporate into 
FDA's regulations this and other provisions of the Modernization Act 
concerning access to investigational drugs.


In addition, by this proposed rule, the Agency seeks to increase 
awareness and knowledge of expanded access programs and the procedures 
for obtaining investigational drugs for treatment use. The proposed 
rule would 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 proposed rule explains 
procedures and criteria for obtaining FDA authorization for treatment 
uses of investigational drugs.


The Modernization Act provides significant additional authority for 
this proposed rule. 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

[[Page 72787]]

561(c) closely tracks existing FDA's existing regulation at 21 CFR 
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 proposed rule is expected to aid in the 
efficient enforcement of the Act.


Alternatives:


One alternative to the proposed rule that FDA considered was not to 
propose regulations implementing the expanded access provisions of the 
Modernization Act. However, the Agency believes that implementing 
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 to propose 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 total one-time costs of the proposed rule will be 
negligible. The Agency expects that the annual and annualized costs of 
the proposed rule will range from a low of about $130,000 to $260,000 
in the first year following publication of any final rule based on this 
proposal, to a high of about $350,000 to $690,000 in the 4th and 5th 
years. These estimates suggest that total annual and annualized costs 
for the proposed rule would be between $1.4 million and $2.7 million 
for the 5-year period following implementation of any final rule based 
on this proposal. The Agency also expects that the estimated 
incremental cost burdens associated with this proposed rule are likely 
to be widely dispersed among affected entities.


The benefits of the proposed 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 proposed rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Christine F. Rogers
Regulatory Counsel
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
5515 Security Lane
Rockville, MD 20852
Phone: 301 594-2041
Fax: 301 827-5562
Email: christine.rogers@fda.hhs.gov
RIN: 0910-AF14
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA
39. LABEL REQUIREMENT FOR FOOD THAT HAS BEEN REFUSED ADMISSION INTO THE 
UNITED STATES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 1453 to 1455 ; 21 USC 321; 21 USC 342; 21 USC 343; 21 USC 371; 
21 USC 374; 21 USC 381; 42 USC 216; 42 USC 264


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 1.98


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The proposed rule would require owners or consignees to label imported 
food that is refused entry into the United States. The label would 
read, ''UNITED STATES: REFUSED ENTRY.'' The proposal would describe the 
label's characteristics (such as its size) and processes for verifying 
that the label has been affixed properly. We are taking this action to 
prevent the introduction of unsafe food into the United States, to 
facilitate the examination of imported food, and to implement section 
308 of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and 
Response Act of 2002 (the Bioterrorism Act) (Pub. L. 107-188).


Statement of Need:


In 1998, the General Accounting Office issued a report titled, ``Food 
Safety: Federal Efforts to Ensure the Safety of Imported Foods Are 
Inconsistent and Unreliable.'' The report stated that some food 
importers evade import controls and are able to introduce contaminated, 
adulterated, or unsafe food into the United States even after FDA 
refused to admit the food and the Customs Service ordered the food to 
be reexported or destroyed.


Additionally, in 1998, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations conducted hearings on the safety of food imports. The 
subcommittee heard testimony about reimporting refused foods through 
another port (a practice known as ``port shopping''). On July 3, 1999, 
then-President Clinton issued a memorandum to the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services and the Secretary of the Treasury directing them, in 
part, to take all actions available to ``prohibit the reimportation of 
food that has been previously refused admission and has not been 
brought into compliance with United States laws and regulations'' by 
requiring the marking of shipping containers and/or papers of imported 
food that is refused admission for safety reasons.


Consequently, on January 22, 2001, FDA and the Department of the 
Treasury jointly issued a proposed rule (66 FR 6502) that would require 
that imported food that has been refused admission for safety reasons 
be marked as ``UNITED STATES: REFUSED ENTRY.'' The mark would make it 
easier to detect previously refused food and reduce, if not eliminate, 
``port shopping.'' However, on June 12, 2002, before FDA and Treasury 
could prescribe a final rule, the Bioterrorism Act became law. Section 
308(a) of the Bioterrorism Act created a new section 801(n) of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and

[[Page 72788]]

Cosmetic Act (the act) to clarify FDA's authority to require the owner 
or consignee of a food that had been refused admission into the United 
States to ``affix to the container of the food a label that clearly and 
conspicuously bears the statement: `UNITED STATES: REFUSED ENTRY'.'' 
Although section 308(c) of the Bioterrorism Act stated that ''nothing 
in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Secretary of the Treasury 
to require the marking of refused articles of food under any other 
provision of law,`` the new statutory provision differed from the 
January 22, 2001, proposed rule and prompted FDA to withdraw the 
proposal on August 21, 2002 (67 FR 54138).


The new proposal would describe the label requirements for imported 
food that has been refused admission into the United States.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 801(a) of the act authorizes FDA to refuse to admit imported 
food if the food has been manufactured, processed, or packed under 
insanitary conditions, is forbidden or restricted in sale in the 
country in which it was produced, or is adulterated or misbranded. 
Additionally, as explained earlier, section 801(n) of the act gives FDA 
express authority to require the owner or consignee of a food that had 
been refused admission into the United States to ``affix to the 
container of the food a label that clearly and conspicuously bears the 
statement: `UNITED STATES: REFUSED ENTRY'.''


Sections 402 and 403 of the act describe when a food is adulterated or 
misbranded respectively. Section 701(a) of the act authorizes FDA to 
issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of the Act, while 
section 701(b) of the act authorizes FDA and the Department of the 
Treasury to jointly prescribe regulations for the efficient enforcement 
of section 801 of the act.


The proposed rule is within FDA's authority at sections 402, 403, 701, 
and 801 of the act. In general, unsafe food is often adulterated under 
section 402 of the act, and may also be misbranded under section 403 of 
the act if the food purports to meet a particular definition, standard 
of identity, or standard of quality. Labeling refused foods will make 
it easier for FDA to refuse to admit previously-refused, adulterated or 
misbranded food imports into the United States.


Additionally, section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS act) 
authorizes FDA to ``render assistance'' to appropriate health 
authorities in the conduct of or to promote coordination of research, 
investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies relating to 
the causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of disease. 
Section 361 of the PHS act authorizes FDA to issue regulations to 
prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable 
diseases into the United States. Affixing a label to refused food 
products will help foreign health officials determine whether to take 
regulatory action against a particular product. It would also alert 
foreign officials to previously refused food and help prevent the 
introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases into the 
United States by making it more difficult for unsafe food to reenter 
the United States.


Alternatives:


FDA considered exempting small businesses from the rule, but, because 
most importers and consignees would qualify as small businesses, this 
would negate the rule's purpose.


The agency also considered ordering the destruction of all refused food 
imports, but this would not be feasible because it would divert Federal 
resources to supervising or otherwise ensuring that the refused food 
imports are stored until they can be destroyed and that they are 
destroyed.


FDA also rejected affixing the label on some, but not all, imported 
food refused entry for safety reasons. While this alternative would be 
less costly, it would also be less efficient because some refused food 
imports would be able to reenter the United States and because a 
previously-refused, but unlabeled, food would be difficult to detect 
compared to a previously-refused and labeled food. This alternative 
would also result in arguments as to the criteria to be applied and 
whether a particular food should be labeled.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Importers and consignees would bear the costs associated with affixing 
the label to refused food imports. The rule's costs would, therefore, 
consist of labor costs (to affix the mark) and equipment costs (the 
label equipment used). FDA will estimate these costs in the proposed 
rule.


The rule's principal benefit would be a reduction in the number of 
illnesses and injuries caused by unsafe imported food. The Agency is 
unable to quantify the amount of illegal importation of previously 
refused foods, so it cannot accurately predict the value of reduced 
illnesses and injury.


Risks:


There is a possible risk previously refused, unpackaged food (such as 
loose grain in a railroad car) would be able to enter the United States 
because the food itself cannot be labeled, although the proposed rule 
would require the importer or consignee to affix a label on papers 
accompanying the product.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Philip L. Chao
Senior Policy Analyst
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Office of Policy and Planning (HF-23)
5600 Fishers Lane, Room 14C-17
Rockville, MD 20857
Phone: 301 827-0587
Fax: 301 827-4774
Email: philip.chao@fda.hhs.gov
RIN: 0910-AF61
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA
40. [bull] 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

[[Page 72789]]

postmarket medical device reporting regulations to require that reports 
submitted to the agency by persons subject to mandatory reporting 
requirements be transmitted electronically in a form 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 send medical device adverse event 
reports electronically 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 electronically instead of using a hard copy form.


Alternatives:


The alternatives to this rulemaking include not updating the medical 
device reporting requirements and not requiring electronic submission 
of this information. 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.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FDA estimates that over 80 percent of the adverse event reports it 
receives come directly from the reporter's computer databases. Computer 
applications are available that would take the information from the 
corporate database and produce an electronic file that can be sent to 
the FDA. Once reporters have developed the electronic reporting 
capability, they would save significant mailing and adminstrative 
processing costs. FDA is developing an electronic system for reporters 
who do not have the capability to produce the required electronic file.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


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
41. [bull] ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION AND LISTING FOR DEVICES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 107-188, sec 321; 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 807 to reflect the new 
requirements in section 321 of the Public Health Security and 
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 and 21 USC 360(p). 
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 the registration and listing process 
to a paperless process. 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.


Statement of Need:


FDA is proposing to amend the medical device establishment registration 
and listing requirements under 21 CFR part 807 to reflect the new 
requirements in section 321 of the Public Health Security and 
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (BT Act) and Section 
207 of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 
(MDUFMA). This proposed rule would improve FDA's device establishment 
and 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 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
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                            02/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No

[[Page 72790]]

Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


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
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

42. CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE IN MANUFACTURING, PACKING, OR 
HOLDING DIETARY INGREDIENTS AND DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS

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 343; 21 USC 348; 21 USC 371; 21 USC 374; 
21 USC 381; 21 USC 393; 42 USC 264


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 111


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food and Drug Administration proposed in the Federal Register of 
March 13, 2003 (68 FR 12158), current good manufacturing practice 
(CGMP) regulations for dietary ingredients and dietary supplements. The 
proposed rule was published to establish the minimum CGMPs necessary to 
ensure that, if firms engage in activities related to manufacturing, 
packaging, or holding dietary ingredients or dietary supplements, they 
do so in a manner that will not adulterate and misbrand such dietary 
ingredients or dietary supplements. FDA also proposed to require 
manufacturers to evaluate the identity, purity, quality, strength, and 
composition of their dietary ingredients and dietary supplements. The 
proposed rule also responds to concerns that such regulations are 
necessary to ensure that consumers are provided with dietary supplement 
products which have not been adulterated as a result of manufacturing, 
packing, or holding, e.g., which have the identity and provide the 
quantity of dietary ingredients declared in labeling.


Statement of Need:


FDA intends to publish a final rule to establish CGMP for dietary 
supplements and dietary ingredients for several reasons. First, FDA is 
concerned that some firms may not be taking appropriate steps during 
the manufacture of dietary supplements and dietary ingredients to 
ensure that products are not adulterated as a result of manufacturing, 
packing, or holding. There have been cases of misidentified ingredients 
harming consumers using dietary supplements. FDA is also aware of 
products that contain potentially harmful contaminants because of 
apparently inadequate manufacturing controls and quality control 
procedures. The Agency believes that a system of CGMPs is the most 
effective and efficient way to ensure that these products will not be 
adulterated during manufacturing, packing, or holding.


Summary of Legal Basis:


If CGMP regulations were adopted by FDA, failure to manufacture, pack, 
or hold dietary supplements or dietary ingredients under CGMP 
regulations would render the dietary supplement or dietary ingredients 
adulterated under section 402(g) of the Act.


Alternatives:


The two principal alternatives to comprehensive CGMPs are end product 
testing and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP). The Agency 
asked whether different approaches may be better able to address the 
needs of the broad spectrum of firms that conduct one or more distinct 
operations, such as the manufacture of finished products, or solely the 
distribution and sale of finished products at the wholesale or retail 
level.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The costs of the regulation will include the value of resources devoted 
to increased sanitation, process monitoring and controls, testing, and 
written records. The benefits of the proposed regulation are to improve 
both product safety and quality. We estimate that the proposed 
regulation will reduce the number of sporadic human illnesses and rare 
catastrophic illnesses from contaminated products. The current quality 
of these products is highly variable, and consumers lack information 
about the potential hazards and variable quality of these products. The 
product quality benefits occur because there will be fewer product 
recalls and more uniform products will reduce consumer search for 
preferred quality products. The proposed rule will have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small businesses, so it will be 
significant under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We anticipate that 
small businesses will bear a proportionately larger cost than large 
businesses.


Risks:


Any potential for consumers to be provided adulterated (e.g., 
contaminated with industrial chemicals, pesticides, microbial 
pathogens, or dangerous misidentified ingredients or toxic components 
of ingredients) products must be considered a very serious risk because 
of the possibility that such contamination could be widespread, 
affecting whole segments of the population, causing some severe long-
term effects and even loss of life. Dietary supplements are used by a 
large segment of the American public. Moreover, they are often used by 
segments of the population that are particularly vulnerable to 
adulterated products, such as the elderly, young children, pregnant and 
nursing women, and persons who may have serious illnesses or are taking 
medications that may adversely interact with dietary supplements. FDA 
has adopted or proposed manufacturing controls for a number of foods 
and commodities that present potential health hazards to consumers if 
not processed properly, including seafood, juice products, and fruits 
and vegetables, and it is appropriate that FDA consider whether 
manufacturing controls are necessary to assure consumers that dietary 
supplements are not adulterated during the manufacturing, packing, or 
holding process.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           02/06/97                     62 FR 5700
ANPRM Comment Period End        06/06/97

[[Page 72791]]

NPRM                            03/13/03                    68 FR 12157
NPRM Comment Period End         08/11/03
Final Action                    12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Linda Kahl
Senior Policy Analyst
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
HFS-024
College Park, MD 20740
Phone: 301 436-1209
Fax: 301 436-2964
Email: linda.kahl@fda.hhs.gov
RIN: 0910-AB88
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA
43. PRIOR NOTICE OF IMPORTED FOOD UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH SECURITY AND 
BIOTERRORISM PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE ACT OF 2002

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 107-188, sec 307


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 1.276 et seq


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 12, 2003.


The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response 
Act of 2002, section 307, directs the Secretary, through FDA, to issue 
final regulations establishing prior notice requirements for all 
imported food by December 12, 2003. If FDA fails to issue final 
regulations by this date, the statute is self-executing on this date, 
and requires FDA to receive prior notice of not less than eight hours, 
nor more than five days until final regulations are issued.


Abstract:


This rulemaking is one of a number of actions being taken to improve 
FDA's ability to respond to threats of bioterrorism. Section 801(m) of 
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), which was added by 
section 307 of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness 
and Response Act of 2002 (the Bioterrorism Act), requires notification 
to FDA prior to the entry of imported food. The required prior notice 
would provide the identity of the article of food; the manufacturer; 
the shipper; the grower, if known at the time of notification; the 
originating country; the shipping country; and the anticipated port of 
entry. The regulation identifies the parties responsible for providing 
the notice and explains the information that the prior notice is 
required to contain, the method of submission of the notice, and the 
minimum and maximum period of advance notice required. Section 307 also 
states that if FDA does not receive prior notice or receives inadequate 
prior notice, the imported food shall be refused admission and held at 
the port of entry until proper notice is provided.


Section 307 authorizes the Secretary, through FDA, to promulgate final 
regulations by December 12, 2003. FDA and the Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) issued an interim final rule (IFR) on October 
10, 2003 (68 FR 58974). The IFR originally provided a 75-day comment 
period to ensure that those that comment on the IFR have the benefit of 
our outreach and educational efforts and have the experience with the 
systems, timeframes, and data elements. We reopened the comment period 
for an additional 90 days in April through July 2004 to allow for 
additional comment on the industry's experience with the prior notice 
system, and comment on the Joint FDA-CBP Plan for Increasing 
Integration and Assessing the Coordination of Prior Notice Timeframes. 
The final rule currently is under development, and it will confirm or 
amend the IFR, as appropriate. This final rule is not expected to have 
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.


Statement of Need:


This final rule is needed to complete the rulemaking process to 
implement section 307 of the Bioterrorism Act. The proposed rule was 
published on February 3, 2003 (68 FR 5428) and the interim final rule 
on October 10, 2003 (68 FR 58974).


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 307 of the Bioterrorism Act amended the act by adding section 
801(m), which authorizes the Secretary through FDA to establish by 
regulation requirements for the notification to FDA prior to the entry 
of imported food. In addition, section 307 of the Bioterrorism Act also 
amends section 301 of the act by making the offering of a food for 
import or the importing of a food without prior notification, as 
required by the new regulations, a prohibited act.


Alternatives:


An alternative is to leave the IFR in place and not to issue a final 
rule. However, we received numerous comments in response to the IFR 
that require a response. Finalizing this rule will assist industry and 
the public in better understanding and complying with the prior notice 
requirements.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The final rule will amend the interim final rule already in place. We 
do not expect the changes from the interim final rule to be 
economically significant.


This final rule will require that FDA be notified prior to the arrival 
of the food.


Having prior notice of imported food will help deter deliberate and 
accidental contamination of food shipments. Knowledge of when, where, 
and how imported food will enter the United States will help mitigate 
the effects of any potential food contamination issues.


Risks:


Regulations implementing legislation to protect the health of citizens 
against bioterrorism and other public health threats would advance the 
development, organization and enhancement of public health prevention 
systems and tools. The magnitude of the risks addressed by such systems 
and tools is at least as great as the other risk reduction efforts 
within HHS' jurisdiction. These regulations will improve the FDA's 
ability to address bioterrorism events and public-health threats 
associated with imported food.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/03/03                     68 FR 5428
Interim Final Rule              10/10/03                    68 FR 58974
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period 
    Reopened                    04/14/04                    69 FR 19763

[[Page 72792]]

Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period 
    Reopened End                07/13/04
Final Rule                      05/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
May Nelson
Regulatory Counsel
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 20740
Phone: 301 436-1722
Fax: 301 436-2637
Email: may.nelson@fda.hhs.gov
RIN: 0910-AC41
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

44. PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITALS RY 2008: 
ANNUAL PAYMENT RATE UPDATES (CMS-1529-P)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


PL 106-113 sec 123 ; PL 106-554 sec 307(b)


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 412


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, July 1, 2007.


Abstract:


This rule proposes the annual payment rate update for the 2008 
prospective payment system for Medicare long-term care hospitals and 
also presents proposed changes or revisions on LTCH PPS policy for 
public comment.


Statement of Need:


The statute requires that we annually update the annual payment rate 
amounts for Medicare long-term care hospitals and also presents 
proposed changes in long-term care policy. The Rate Year (RY) 2008 
proposed and final rules must be published by May 1, 2007 to be 
effective July 1, 2007. Under the Long-Term Care Hospitals Prospective 
Payment System (LTCH PPS), LTCHs are paid for each discharge based on 
the standard Federal rate, adjusted to reflect the resource 
utilization, as well as other facility-level and case-level 
adjustments. In addition to the update to the standard Federal rate, 
several of the other facility-level and case-level adjustments that 
affect LTCH PPS payments are updated or refined in the annual LTCH PPS 
proposed and final rules.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Medicare was granted the legal authority for payment to LTCHs under PL 
106-113, section 123, and PL 106-554, section 307(b).


Alternatives:


None. This is a statutory requirement.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We project expenditures of approximately $5.4 billion in RY 2007.


Risks:


If this regulation is not published timely, Medicare payments for 
inpatient hospitals services provided at LTCHs may not be paid 
appropriately.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Linda McKenna
Health Insurance Specialist
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-4537
Email: linda.mckenna@cms.hhs.gov
RIN: 0938-AO30
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--CMS
45. [bull] STANDARDS FOR E-PRESCRIBING UNDER MEDICARE PART D (CMS-0016-
P)

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect State, local or tribal governments and the 
private sector.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1395


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 423


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, April 1, 2008.


Abstract:


This rule proposes standards for electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) 
under Medicare Part D. This rule would require Medicare Part D and 
Medicare Advantage plans to support electronic transmission of basic 
prescription data to and from doctors and pharmacies and to adopt final 
standards for e-prescribing as required by section 101 of the MMA.


Statement of Need:


This rule would implement section 101 of the MMA which includes the 
requirement that the Secretary promulgate final uniform standards for 
the electronic transmission of prescriptions and certain other 
information for covered Part D drugs prescribed for Part D eligible 
individuals.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 101 of the MMA requires that the Secretary promulgate final 
uniform standards for the electronic transmission of prescriptions and 
certain other information for covered Part D drugs prescribed for Part 
D eligible individuals by no later than 4/1/2008.


Alternatives:


This is a statutory requirement.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


All Medicare drug plans would be required to implement the standards. 
We expect that the standards would include transactions for 
communicating medication history and formulary information to 
prescribes, which would result in fewer adverse drug events and 
increased formulary compliance.

[[Page 72793]]

Risks:


If this regulation is not published timely, plans may not be aware of 
the uniform standards.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State


Federalism:


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


Agency Contact:
Denise Buenning
Senior Advisor
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
S2-26-17
7500 Security Blvd
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-6711
Email: denise.buenning@cms.hhs.gov
RIN: 0938-AO66
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--CMS
46. [bull] CHANGES TO THE HOSPITAL INPATIENT PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT 
SYSTEMS AND FY 2008 RATES (CMS-1533-P)

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


Sec 1888(d) of the Social Security Act


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 412


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 2007.


Final, Statutory, August 1, 2007.


Abstract:


This 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:


The statute requires by law that we publish each year a proposed rule, 
followed by a final rule, on the acute care hospital inpatient 
prospective payment systems (IPPS) annual updates to the payment rates 
and related hospital inpatient policy changes under the Medicare 
program. Medicare pays for acute care hospital inpatient services under 
a prospective payment system (IPPS) in which payment is made at a 
predetermined rate for the operating and capital-related costs 
associated with each hospital discharge. Payment rates for IPPS 
hospitals and the payment limits for hospitals excluded from IPPS are 
updated each year to take into account changes in the cost of goods and 
services used by hospitals, as well as other factors.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 1886(d) of the Social Security Act establishes payment for 
inpatient hospital services. The statute requires that a proposed rule 
be published by 4/1/07. It also requires that the final rule be 
published by 8/1/07.


Alternatives:


None. This is a statutory requirement.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We project the payment rate updates to hospitals would increase by over 
$3.4 billion from FY 2007 to FY 2008.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Marc Hartstein
Acting Deputy Director
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Mail Stop C4-25-11
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244-1850
Phone: 410 786-4548
Email: marc.hartstein@cms.hhs.gov
RIN: 0938-AO70
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--CMS
47. [bull] REVISIONS TO THE MEDICARE ADVANTAGE AND PART D PRESCRIPTION 
DRUG CONTRACT CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLOSURE, DETERMINATIONS, APPEALS, 
AND INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS PROCESSES (CMS-4124-P)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1302; 42 USC 1395(hh); 42 USC 1395(w-101) to 1395(w-152)


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 401.134, 42 CFR 422.506, 42 CFR 422.50; 42 CFR 423.509, 42 CFR 
422.644 to 658, 42 CFR; 42 CFR 422.660 to 664; 42 CFR 423.650 to 652


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This proposed rule would clarify and modify the Medicare Advantage (MA) 
program provisions relating to disclosure of information, and contract 
determinations by MA Organizations and Part D Prescription Drug Plan 
sponsors. This proposed rule would also revise requirements concerning 
the reconsideration of determinations and clarifies the schedule for MA 
organizations and Part D plan sponsors to complete corrective action 
plans. In addition, it would clarify the intermediate sanction and 
civil money penalty (CMP) provisions relating to MA Organizations and 
Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Plan sponsors.


Statement of Need:


With the increase from 160 Managed Care Organizations (MCOs) to over 
500 in 2006, CMS needs to strengthen both its methodology and available 
tools to oversee this extremely augmented program. In an effort to 
strengthen the Agency's compliance oversight, this rule would ensure 
effective management and enforcement of program objectives.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This proposed rule would clarify and modify provisions relating to 
disclosure of information, and contract determinations of Medicare 
Advantage (MA) Organizations and Part D Prescription Drug Plan 
sponsors. It also would revise requirements concerning the 
reconsideration of such determinations and to clarify the schedule for 
MA organizations and Part D plan sponsors to complete corrective

[[Page 72794]]

action plans. In addition, it would clarify the intermediate sanction 
and civil money penalty provisions relating to MA Organizations and 
Part D Prescription Drug Plan sponsors.


Alternatives:


None. Given the fact that CMS' compliance authorities are vested in 
Federal regulations, we do not see viable legal alternatives to 
revising existing Federal regulations to accomplish stated goals.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We do not estimate any costs to the Government associated with 
promulgating and implementing this regulation. There is the potential 
for increased costs to Medicare managed care organizations as they 
change existing compliance infrastructures to accommodate these revised 
rules. This rule will benefit CMS in that it will strengthen the 
Agency's compliance authorities and in so doing, benefit Medicare 
beneficiaries who will have greater confidence that Medicare managed 
care organizations comply with Federal Medicare program requirements.


Risks:


If this regulation is not finalized, program objectives may not be 
effectively managed and enforced.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State


Agency Contact:
Kevin Stansbury
Health Insurance Specialist
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
C4-23-07
7500 Security Blvd
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-2570
Email: kevin.stansbury@cms.hhs.gov
RIN: 0938-AO78
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--CMS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

48. COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION FOR CERTAIN DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 
(DME), PROSTHETICS, ORTHOTICS, AND SUPPLIES (CMS-1270-F)

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


PL 108-173, MMA; Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, PL 109-171, sec 5101


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 414.1; 42 CFR 424.1; 42 CFR 424.57


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 31, 2007.


Abstract:


Section 302 of the Medicare Modernization Act establishes DME 
competitive bidding. National competitive bidding will provide a 
program for using market forces to set Medicare payment amounts. This 
will create incentives for suppliers to provide quality items and 
services while at the same time providing Medicare with reasonable 
prices for payment. This rule also incorporates provisions from section 
5105 of the DRA of 2005, which concerns beneficiary ownership of 
certain DMEs.


Statement of Need:


The statute requires that we establish and implement a new competitive 
bidding program for certain Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, 
Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) items in the Medicare program. This 
program changes the way that Medicare pays for these items under Part B 
of the Medicare program by utilizing bids submitted by DMEPOS suppliers 
to establish payment amounts. The final rule must be published timely 
to ensure that competition under the Medicare DMEPOS competitive 
bidding program begins in 10 of the largest metropolitan statistical 
areas (MSAs) in 2007.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 1847 of the Social Security Act (the Act) requires the 
Secretary to establish and implement competitive acquisition programs 
for certain items of DMEPOS. Section 1847(a)(1)(B) of the Act requires 
phased-in implementation so that competition under the programs occurs 
in 10 of the MSAs in 2007, 80 of the largest MSAs in 2009, and 
additional areas after 2009.


Alternatives:


None. This is a statutory requirement.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The projected annual Medicare program savings from DMEPOS competitive 
bidding over the first 4 years of the program are estimated to be 
approximately $110 million the first year and increasing to over $1.2 
billion by the fourth year.


Risks:


If this regulation is not published timely, we will be unable to meet 
the statutory implementation schedule and receive the anticipated 
savings.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            05/01/06                    71 FR 25654
Final Action                    03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Agency Contact:
Ralph Goldberg
Health Insurance Specialist
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Mailstop C5-08-27
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244-1850
Phone: 410 786-4870
Email: ralph.goldberg@cms.hhs.gov
RIN: 0938-AN14
BILLING CODE 4150-24-S

[[Page 72795]]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or the Department) was created 
in 2003 pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-
296. DHS is comprised of 22 Federal agencies brought together for the 
common mission of preventing terrorist attacks in the United States, 
reducing the vulnerability of the United States to terrorist attacks, 
and minimizing damage and assisting in recovery from acts of terrorism, 
natural disasters, or other emergencies that might occur in the United 
States. The Department's Strategic Plan governs the development of DHS' 
strategies, programs and projects, and ultimately is reflected in the 
Department's budget and regulatory agenda. DHS' Strategic Plan is 
posted on the Department's Web site: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/
assets/ DHS--StratPlan-- FINAL--spread.pdf.
DHS' Strategic Goals are:
AWARENESS --Identify and understand threats, assess vulnerabilities, 
determine potential impacts, and disseminate timely information to our 
homeland security partners and the American public.
PREVENTION --Detect, deter, and mitigate threats to our homeland.
PROTECTION --Safeguard our people and their freedoms, critical 
infrastructure, property, and the economy of our Nation from acts of 
terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies.
RESPONSE --Lead, manage, and coordinate the national response to acts 
of terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies.
RECOVERY --Lead national, state, local, and private sector efforts to 
restore services and rebuild communities after acts of terrorism, 
natural disasters, or other emergencies.
SERVICE --Serve the public effectively by facilitating lawful trade, 
travel, and immigration.
ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE --Value our most important resource, our 
people. Create a culture that promotes a common identity, innovation, 
mutual respect, accountability, and teamwork to achieve efficiency, 
effectiveness, and operational synergies.
In 2005, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a six-point 
agenda to ensure that the Department's policies, operations, and 
structures are aligned in the best way to address the potential threats 
that face our nation. The Secretary's six-point agenda is intended to:
<bullet> Increase overall preparedness, particularly for catastrophic 
            events;
<bullet> Create better transportation security systems to move people 
            and cargo more securely and efficiently;
<bullet> Strengthen border security and interior enforcement and reform 
            immigration processes;
<bullet> Enhance information sharing with our partners;
<bullet> Improve DHS financial management, human resource development, 
            procurement and information technology; and
<bullet> Realign the DHS organization to maximize mission performance.
The regulations summarized in the Department's Fall Regulatory Program 
and in the Unified Agenda support the Department's Strategic Goals and 
the Secretary's six-point agenda and will improve the Department's 
ability to accomplish its primary missions.
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 also is committed to ensuring that all of its regulatory 
initiatives are aligned with its guiding principles to protect civil 
rights and civil liberties, integrate our actions, build coalitions and 
partnerships, develop human resources, innovate and be accountable to 
the American public. 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 better understanding of regulations and increased public 
participation in the Department's rulemakings.
The Fall 2006 Regulatory Plan for DHS includes regulations issued by 
the Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security that are sponsored by 
the Department's major divisions or directorates, including the Office 
of Information Analysis, DHS's Office of Policy and the US-VISIT 
program. Additionally, several DHS components are authorized to 
promulgate regulations. Those components include, but are not limited 
to: the United States Coast Guard, United States Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the 
Transportation Security Administration, and the Bureau of Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement. The Fall 2006 Regulatory Plans for the Office 
of the Secretary and those DHS regulatory components with submissions 
for the 2006 Plan are discussed below.
Office of the Secretary
During fiscal year 2007, DHS will be initiating a rulemaking action to 
establish minimum standards for State-issued driver's licenses and 
identification cards that Federal agencies would accept for official 
purposes as required under the REAL ID Act of 2005.\1\ The REAL ID Act, 
effective May 18, 2008, prohibits Federal agencies from accepting a 
driver's license or personal identification card (license) for an 
``official purpose'' unless it has been issued by a State that has 
certified to, and been determined by DHS to meet, the requirements of 
the Act. The Act sets forth minimum document requirements, minimum 
issuance standards, and other requirements, including the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Division B--REAL ID Act of 2005, the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami 
Relief, 2005, Pub. L. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, 302 (2005) (codified at 49 
U.S.C. 30301 note).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Information and features that must appear on the face of the 
            license, and inclusion of a common machine readable portion 
            of a driver's license or identification card;
<bullet> Presentation and verification of information an applicant must 
            provide before a license may be issued, including evidence 
            that the applicant is a U.S. citizen or has lawful status 
            in the United States;
<bullet> Physical security of locations where licenses are produced, 
            the security of document materials and papers from which 
            licenses are produced, and the background check of certain 
            employees involved in the manufacture and production of 
            licenses; and

[[Page 72796]]

<bullet> Physical security of the licenses to prevent tampering, 
            counterfeiting, and duplication of the documents for a 
            fraudulent purpose.
DHS is issuing this rule in consultation with the Department of 
Transportation, other representatives of the Federal Government, and 
representatives from many States, as required under the Act.
The Department also will be issuing regulations to establish security 
requirements for chemical facilities. Section 550 of the Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act of 2007 (October 4, 2006), directs the 
Department of Homeland Security to issue interim final regulations no 
later than six months after the date of enactment, establishing risk-
based performance standards for the security of chemical facilities and 
requiring vulnerability assessments and the development and 
implementation of site security plans for chemical facilities. These 
regulations will apply to chemical facilities that present high levels 
of security risk, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. 
DHS will be issuing an interim final rule in early 2007 to comply with 
the requirements of section 550 of the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act of 2007.
DHS recently finalized the final rule on Procedures for Handling 
Critical Infrastructure Information (CII). This rule establishes 
uniform procedures for the receipt, care, and storage of CII 
voluntarily submitted to the Federal Government. The procedures apply 
to all Federal agencies that receive, care for, or store CII 
voluntarily submitted to the Federal Government. This rule supports the 
Department's Strategic Goals of awareness, prevention, protection, and 
response by identifying and assessing the vulnerability of critical 
infrastructure and key assets.
During fiscal year 2007, the Office of the Secretary expects to expand 
the scope of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator 
Technology (US-VISIT) program. 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 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. For fiscal year 
2007, DHS plans to further expand the classes of aliens that will be 
subject to US-VISIT requirements to eventually encompass all aliens, 
with certain limited exceptions. This regulatory program supports the 
Department's Strategic Goals of awareness, prevention, and protection 
by securing our borders against terrorists who intend to harm the 
United States.
United States Coast Guard
The United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) is a military, multi-
mission, and maritime agency. Our statutory responsibilities 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 goal of mobilizing and 
organizing our nation to secure the homeland from terrorist attacks, 
natural disasters, and 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. The rulemaking projects identified for the Coast 
Guard in the Unified Agenda, and the rule appearing in the Fall 2006 
Regulatory Plan below, support these strategic goals and reflect our 
regulatory policies. Further, although the Coast Guard has placed an 
emphasis on maritime security and national defense since September 11, 
2001, our emphasis on these vital issues has not prevented the Coast 
Guard from carrying out its other important regulatory 
responsibilities. The Coast Guard has issued many rules that are not 
security-related as indicated by the wide range of topics covered in 
its 54 rulemaking projects in this Unified Agenda.
``Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure (NOAD), and 
Automatic Identification System (AIS)'' is a regulatory action of 
particular importance to the Coast Guard in the Department's Fall 2006 
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 plans to issue ``Vessel Requirements for 
Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification 
System,'' a rule that would expand the applicability of these 
requirements to 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 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 Commandant's 
strategic goals of maritime safety and maritime security.
The Coast Guard has supported the e-rulemaking initiative and, starting 
on the day of the first Federal Register publication in a rulemaking 
project, the public can submit comments electronically and view Agency 
documents and public comments on the Department of Transportation's 
Document Management System, which is available online at http://
dms.dot.gov. The Coast Guard endeavors to reduce the paperwork burden 
it places on the public and strives to issue only necessary regulations 
that are tailored to impose the least burden on society.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
The mission of the 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' key regulatory initiatives for the 
2007 President's Agenda are aligned with these strategic priorities and 
our mission. Key regulations focus on withholding adjudication in 
security sensitive cases, replacing non-secure identity cards, 
increasing flexibility in filing options to improve customer service 
and securing appropriate fees to ensure the soundness of our 
organization.
These key initiatives directly advance the President's policies and 
priorities, the mission and the core values of the Department of 
Homeland Security and DHS Objectives 2.6, 6.2, 7.2 and 7.7. USCIS seeks 
to welcome lawful immigrants while preventing 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

[[Page 72797]]

legal immigration system, and also to assisting those in need of 
humanitarian protection against harm.
Based on a comprehensive review of the USCIS planned regulatory agenda, 
several rulemakings will be promulgated to directly support the 
aforementioned core priorities as delineated below.
National Security
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. To further our national security objectives, USCIS is 
pursuing regulatory initiatives that will disallow the granting of 
immigration benefits while an applicant has an ongoing investigation. 
These regulatory initiatives include the following:
USCIS plans to issue a rule, ``Special Immigrant and Nonimmigrant 
Religious Workers,'' proposing to amend its regulations regarding the 
special immigrant and nonimmigrant religious worker visa 
classifications. This rule addresses concerns about the integrity of 
the religious worker program by proposing a petition requirement for 
religious organizations seeking to classify an alien as an immigrant or 
nonimmigrant religious worker. This rule also proposes including an on-
site inspection for religious organizations to ensure the legitimacy of 
petitioner organizations and employment offers made by such 
organizations. USCIS is proposing to establish a fee, in addition to 
the standard fee required for special immigrant or nonimmigrant visa 
petitions, to cover the cost of the on-site inspections.
This rule also would clarify several substantive and procedural issues 
that have arisen since the religious worker category was created. This 
rule proposes new definitions that describe more clearly the regulatory 
requirements, as well as add specific evidentiary requirements for 
petitioning employers and prospective religious workers.
USCIS also is issuing an interim rule ``Withholding of Adjudication of 
Petitions and Applications for Immigration and Naturalization Benefits 
(Abeyance),'' to amend USCIS regulations to allow the adjudication of a 
petition or application to be withheld until any pending investigations 
or required background and security checks are completed and resolved 
to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Homeland Security or his 
delegate. The rule also modifies the regulations governing the 
adjudication of naturalization applications to ensure that background 
and security checks are completed before an alien may be naturalized.
Customer Service
USCIS strives to provide efficient, courteous, accurate and responsive 
services to those who seek and qualify for admission into our country 
as well as providing seamless, transparent and dedicated customer 
support services within the agency. To improve our customer service 
goals, USCIS is pursuing regulatory initiatives that will make 
immigration procedures consistent with new laws, improve interpretive 
services, standardize adjudication and filing procedures, and modernize 
application processing to facilitate effective data collection and 
reporting.
These regulatory initiatives include:
USCIS final rule ``Removal of the Standardized Request for Evidence 
Processing Timeframe,'' which amends USCIS regulations to allow USCIS 
to set flexible times for requesting evidence based on the types and 
complexity of applications or petitions. This rule will remove the 
absolute requirement for, and the fixed regulatory time limitations on 
responses to, requests for evidence and notices of intent to deny. 
These changes will enable USCIS to set an appropriate deadline for 
responding to a request for evidence (RFE) or notice of intent to deny 
(NOID), specific to the type of case, benefit category, or 
classification, and thus improve the process of adjudication of 
applications and petitions by reducing the time a case is held awaiting 
evidence, and by reducing average case processing time. This rule will 
result in improved efficiency in the USCIS adjudication process.
USCIS also plans to issue a rule, ``Implementation of Amendments 
Affecting Petitions for Employment Creation Aliens EB-5,'' to amend its 
regulations to implement changes made by the 21st Century Department of 
Justice Appropriations Authorization Act of 2001 (the Act). This 
legislation made various changes to the EB-5 Alien Entrepreneur 
immigrant classification.
The ``New `U' Nonimmigrant Classification for Victims of Certain 
Criminal Activity'' rule will implement provisions of the Victims of 
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 and other related 
legislation. It will establish procedures for application and issuance 
of U nonimmigrant status for victims of certain statutorily enumerated 
crimes. Similarly, the ``Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent 
Resident for Aliens in T and U Nonimmigrant Status'' rule will 
implement provisions created by the Victims of Trafficking and Violence 
Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA) that allow for the adjustment of status 
to lawful permanent resident for aliens who have completed three years 
in lawful T or U nonimmigrant status.
USCIS also plans to initiate a rulemaking action, ``Petition to 
Classify Alien as Immediate Relative of a U.S. Citizen or as a 
Preference Immigrant; Self-Petitioning for Certain Battered or Abused 
Alien Spouses and Children,'' to implement provisions of the Battered 
Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000 and the Violence Against Women 
and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. Those provisions 
amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act provisions that allow 
battered spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens and lawful 
permanent residents to petition for immigrant classification without 
the assistance or consent of the abuser.
USCIS also is restructuring its entire business processes to implement 
new procedures for the filing, processing, and adjudication of all 
benefit applications and petitions. USCIS is moving toward complete 
electronic filing and adjudication of benefits to streamline 
processing, modernize adjudications, and facilitate efficient and 
effective data collection and reporting.
USCIS will be issuing a rulemaking action ``New Electronic Account, 
Adjudication, and Reporting System; New Procedures for Filing and 
Processing of Fiscal Year 2007 H-1B Petitions Subject to Annual Cap'' 
as part of this business restructuring process.
Overall Excellence
USCIS seeks to optimize mission performance by consolidating and 
integrating roles and responsibilities, and creating better operating 
processes and procedures while using the latest technology. To achieve 
these goals, USCIS is pursuing regulatory initiatives that will adjust 
fees for certain applications in order to guarantee sufficient funding 
to process incoming applications/petitions and provide biometric 
services while ensuring national security, enhancing customer

[[Page 72798]]

service, and maintaining standard processing times.
The proposed rule ``Adjustment of the Immigration Benefit Application / 
Petition and Biometric Fee Schedule'' proposes to adjust the 
immigration benefit application and petition fees of the Immigration 
Examinations Fee Account (IEFA), and the biometric fee for applicants/
petitioners who apply for certain immigration benefits for the fiscal 
year FY 2008 and FY 2009 biennial period. Fees collected from persons 
filing these benefits are deposited into the IEFA and used to fund the 
full cost of processing immigration benefit applications/petitions, 
biometric services, associated support services, and the cost of 
providing similar services to asylum and refugee applicants and other 
immigrants, at no charge.
``Adjustment of the Premium Processing Fee for Inflation'' proposes to 
adjust the premium processing fee for employment-based petitions and 
applications according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). USCIS uses 
this fee to provide certain premium-processing services to business 
customers, and to make infrastructure improvements in the adjudications 
and customer-service processes.
USCIS also plans to issue a rule, ``Adding a Filing Fee for Re-
registration and Extension of Temporary Protected Status,'' proposing 
to require each TPS initial registrant, re-registrant, or applicant for 
extension of temporary treatment benefits to submit a filing fee or a 
fee waiver request with their Form I-821, Application for Temporary 
Protected Status.
Customs and Border Protection
Under section 403(1) of the Homeland Security Act (HSA), the former 
U.S. Customs Service, including functions of the Secretary of the 
Treasury relating thereto, transferred to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security. As part of the initial organization of DHS, the Customs 
Service inspection and trade functions were combined with the 
immigration and agricultural inspection functions and the Border Patrol 
and transferred into the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 
It is noted that certain regulatory authority of the United States 
Customs Service relating to customs revenue functions was retained by 
the Department of the Treasury (see the Department of the Treasury 
Regulatory Plan).
CBP is the federal agency principally responsible for the security of 
our Nation's borders, both at and between the ports of entry and at 
official crossings into the United States. CBP must accomplish its 
border security and enforcement mission without stifling the flow of 
legitimate trade and travel. The primary mission of CBP is its homeland 
security mission, that is, to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons 
from entering the United States. An important aspect of this priority 
mission involves improving security at our borders and ports of entry, 
but it also means extending our zone of security beyond our physical 
borders.
CBP also is 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 American 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. During the past fiscal year, consistent with its 
primary mission of homeland security, CBP issued a rule, ``Passenger 
Manifests for Commercial Aircraft Arriving in and Departing from the 
United States,'' proposing to require transmission of manifest 
information for arriving and departing passengers and for departing 
vessel passengers and crewmembers at an earlier point in time than is 
now required. This proposed regulation is consistent with the 
legislative mandate of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 
Act of 2004 (IRTPA) to perform vetting of passenger or crew information 
prior to the departure of an aircraft or vessel. In addition, 
submission of this manifest information at an earlier point in time to 
CBP is a necessary component of the nation's continuing program of 
ensuring aviation and vessel safety and protecting national security. 
The new requirement also would assist in the efficient inspection and 
control of passengers and crewmembers and would facilitate the 
effective enforcement of the customs, immigration and transportation 
security laws. CBP plans to issue the final rule in fiscal year 2007.
Also during fiscal year 2007, CBP plans to enhance homeland security 
further by issuing the following regulatory actions:
CBP is working with the State Department on a joint rulemaking 
initiative (``Documents Required for Travel in the Western 
Hemisphere'') under section 7209 of the IRTPA, as amended by section 
546 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, 
which provides that travelers (including U.S. citizens) may enter the 
United States only with passports or such alternatives as the Secretary 
of Homeland Security may designate as satisfactorily establishing 
identity and citizenship. In the future, as a result of the 
implementation of the statute, as amended, travel to the United States 
by United States citizens and others from Western Hemisphere countries, 
including Canada and Mexico, will require a passport or acceptable 
alternative documents in circumstances where travel was previously 
permitted without such documents. DHS and the State Department jointly 
issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on September 1, 2005, 
to announce the travel initiative and to solicit public comments on the 
implementation of these requirements. On August 11, 2006, DHS and the 
State Department published a joint notice of proposed rulemaking 
announcing proposed travel document requirements for air and sea 
travel. CBP anticipates issuing a final rule for air travel in early 
fiscal year 2007 and a separate rulemaking action to implement the 
travel document requirements at sea ad land border ports of entry 
throughout the fiscal year.
All the rules discussed above foster DHS' Strategic Goals of awareness 
and prevention.
In addition to its plans to continue issuing regulations to enhance 
border security, CBP, during fiscal year 2007, expects to continue to 
issue regulatory documents that will facilitate legitimate trade and 
implement trade benefit programs. Discussion of CBP regulations 
regarding the customs revenue function is contained in the regulatory 
plan of the Department of the Treasury.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
The mission of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
is to prevent acts of terrorism by

[[Page 72799]]

targeting the people, money, and materials that support terrorist and 
criminal activities. Established to combat the criminal and national 
security threats emergent in a post 9/11 environment, ICE combines a 
new investigative approach with new resources to provide unparalleled 
investigation, interdiction and security services to the public and our 
law enforcement partners in the federal and local sectors.
During fiscal year 2007, ICE will be pursuing rulemaking actions to 
implement major components of the President's and Department's 
strategic goals. ICE will continue to promulgate regulations as 
necessary to improve control of the reporting requirements for over 
500,000 international students attending colleges and universities in 
the United States and a similar number of exchange visitors entering 
the United States through regulatory amendments to the Student Exchange 
Visitor Information System (SEVIS) and Student Exchange Visitor Program 
(SEVP). These actions will foster the Department's strategic goals of 
awareness and prevention.
In an effort to facilitate ICE's ability to carry out its legal 
obligation to remove aliens who have been issued a final order of 
removal, ICE is working to promulgate a joint final rule with the 
Department of Justice establishing that aliens who are not already in 
ICE custody at the time they become subject to a final order of 
removal, deportation or exclusion, have an affirmative obligation to 
surrender themselves to ICE after an order of removal becomes final. 
The rule limits the exercise of discretion in the consideration of 
applications for discretionary forms of relief within the authority of 
the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General with 
respect to aliens who have failed to surrender to ICE as required by 
the rule. This regulatory initiative promotes the Department's 
strategic goals of awareness and prevention.
In an effort to provide guidance to employers on employing legally 
authorized workers, ICE also will promulgate a final rule to reconcile 
millions of earnings reports (W-2 Forms) in which the name and social 
security number (SSN) of the employee do not match Social Security 
Administration (SSA) records. In some of these cases, SSA sends a 
letter that informs the employer of this fact. The letter is commonly 
referred to as a ``no-match letter.'' There are many causes for such a 
no-match, but one common cause is that the employee is an alien who is 
not authorized to work in the United States and is using a SSN that is 
false or was assigned to someone else. In addition to the SSA ``no-
match letters,'' ICE sends similar letters after it has inspected an 
employer's I-9 Forms and unsuccessfully attempted to confirm, in agency 
records, that an immigration status document or employment 
authorization document presented or referenced by an employee was 
assigned to that person. The amended rule will clarify whether an 
employer will be found to have constructive knowledge of the false SSN. 
This regulatory initiative promotes the Department's Secure Border 
Initiative.
Transportation Security Administration
The Transportation Security Administration's (TSA's) mission is to 
protect the nation's transportation systems by ensuring the freedom of 
movement for people and commerce. As we work to meet the immediate 
needs of the transportation sector, we continue to develop and 
implement the strategies, through its people, processes, and 
technology, which enable us to perform our daily activities while 
ultimately preparing us for the future.
In fiscal year 2007, TSA will promote 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 to the domestic transportation system, while 
facilitating the efficient movement of transportation workers, cargo, 
and the traveling public.
In furtherance of this goal, TSA and the U.S. Coast Guard will issue a 
joint Final Rule to begin implementation of the Transportation Worker 
Identification Credential (TWIC) program, which will allow TSA to 
perform security threat assessments and issue biometric credentials to 
individuals requiring unescorted access to secure areas of maritime 
transportation facilities and vessels. The objective of the TWIC 
program is to reduce the threat of terrorism by preventing unauthorized 
persons from gaining access to secure areas.
In addition, TSA plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
that would propose security requirements for rail transportation. This 
rulemaking would enhance security in the rail transportation mode by 
proposing requirements on freight and passenger railroads and on 
facilities with rail connections that ship certain hazardous materials. 
The rulemaking would augment regulations issued by the Department of 
Transportation.
TSA will also continue testing and begin implementation of the Secure 
Flight program, in accordance with Sec. 4012(a)(1) of the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) (Pub. L. 108-458, 
118 Stat. 3638, 3714, Dec. 17, 2004). Through rulemaking, TSA will 
begin to assume from aircraft operators the function of comparing 
passenger information to the consolidated and integrated watch list 
maintained by the Federal Government.
In addition, TSA will continue to facilitate the development of the 
Registered Traveler (RT) program through a new pilot program and 
rulemaking to establish the final program. The Registered Traveler 
program is expected to afford expedited security screening for 
passengers who have voluntarily submitted background information and 
biometric data, such as fingerprints or an iris scan, and have 
successfully undergone a security threat assessment. Major components 
of the RT program will be implemented by the private sector in 
accordance with TSA-issued standards. TSA will conduct the security 
threat assessments on individuals who wish to become RT members. In the 
next fiscal year, TSA plans to issue an NPRM proposing the program's 
process and eligibility requirements.
TSA will also propose to amend the current aviation security rules 
applicable to foreign air carriers to make them more consistent with 
the rules applicable to domestic air carriers and to add a new 49 CFR 
part 1554 regulation to improve the security of domestic and foreign 
aircraft repair stations, as required by Sec. 611(b)(1) of Vision 100 
Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176, 117 Stat. 
2490, 2571, Dec. 12, 2003).
DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2007
A more detailed description of the priority regulations that comprise 
DHS' Fall 2006 Regulatory Plan follows.

[[Page 72800]]

_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--Office of the Secretary (OS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

49. [bull] MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSES AND IDENTIFICATION 
CARDS ACCEPTABLE TO FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR OFFICIAL PURPOSES

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


Division B--REAL ID Act of 2005; The Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act for Defense; The Global War on Terror and Tsunami 
Relief, 2005; PL 109-13, 119 Stat 231, 302 (May 11, 2005) (codified at 
49 USC 30301 note)


CFR Citation:


6 CFR 37, et seq (New)


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, May 11, 2008.


Abstract:


This regulation is designed to implement the REAL ID ACT. The Act 
prohibits Federal agencies from accepting a driver's license or 
personal identification card (license) for an ``official purpose'' 
unless it has been issued by a State that has certified to, and been 
determined by DHS to meet, the requirements of the Act. The Act sets 
forth minimum document requirements, minimum issuance standards, and 
other requirements, including: information and security features that 
must be incorporated into each card; the information that must be 
provided by an applicant to establish identity and immigration status 
before a card can be issued; physical security standards for locations 
where licenses are produced.


Statement of Need:


DHS will be initiating a rulemaking action to establish minimum 
standards for State-issued driver's licenses and identification cards 
that Federal agencies would accept for official purposes as required 
under the REAL ID Act of 2005. The REAL ID Act prohibits Federal 
agencies, effective May 18, 2008, from accepting a driver's license or 
personal identification card (license) for an ``official purpose'' 
unless it has been issued by a State that has certified to, and been 
determined by DHS to meet, the requirements of the Act. The Act sets 
forth minimum document requirements, minimum issuance standards, and 
other requirements, including the following--


<bullet> Information and features that must appear on the face of the 
license, and inclusion of a common machine readable portion of a 
driver's license or identification card;


<bullet> Presentation and verification of information an applicant must 
provide before a license may be issued, including evidence that the 
applicant is a U.S. citizen or has lawful status in the United States;


<bullet> Physical security of locations where licenses are produced, 
the security of document materials and papers from which licenses are 
produced, and the background check of certain employees involved in the 
manufacture and production of licenses and;


<bullet> Physical security of the licenses to prevent tampering, 
counterfeiting, and duplication of the documents for a fraudulent 
purpose.


DHS is issuing this rule in consultation with the Department of 
Transportation, other representatives of the Federal government, and 
representatives from many States, as required under the Act.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Darrell Williams
Department of Homeland Security
Office of the Secretary
Washington, DC 20528
Phone: 202 282-8000
RIN: 1601-AA37
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--OS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

50. 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 very few exceptions, such as diplomats and Canadian 
visitors.


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

[[Page 72801]]

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, with the exception of Canadian citizens entering the United 
States as either B-1 visitors for business or B-2 visitors for 
pleasure.


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

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

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Transferred from RIN 1650-AA06.


Agency Contact:
Michael Hardin
Senior Policy Advisor, US-VISIT
Department of Homeland Security
18th Floor
1616 N. Fort Myer Drive
Arlington, VA 22209
Phone: 202 298-5200
Fax: 202 298-5201
Email: usvisitregs@dhs.gov
RIN: 1601-AA35
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--OS
51. [bull] CHEMICAL SECURITY ANTI-TERRORISM STANDARDS

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


Section 550 of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, Pub. 
L. No. 109-295, Sec.  550 (Oct. 4, 2006)


CFR Citation:


6 CFR 27


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, April 4, 2007, Section 550 of the Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act of 2005.


Section 550 of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2005 directs 
DHS to issue interim rules no later than 6 months after the effective 
date of the Act. The Act became effective on October 4, 2006 and so the 
statutory deadline for issuance of the interim rules under this 
provision is April 4, 2007.


Abstract:


Section 550 of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 
provided the Department of Homeland Security with authority to 
promulgate ``interim final regulations'' for the security of certain 
chemical facilities in the United States. See Pub. L. No. 109-295, 
Sec.  550 (Oct. 4, 2006). In accordance with section 550, these 
regulations will establish risk-based performance standards and require 
vulnerability assessments and the development and implementation of 
site security plans. DHS currently plans to issue an advanced notice of 
rulemaking seeking comment both on practical and policy issues integral 
to the development of a chemical facility security program. The interim 
rule will follow.


Statement of Need:


Voluntary security programs have resulted in significant capital 
investments and implementation of responsible security measures by many 
companies in the chemical industry. The Secretary of Homeland Security, 
however, has concluded that voluntary efforts alone cannot provide 
sufficient security for the chemical sector.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This interim rule implements the requirements of section 550 of the 
Homeland Security Appropriation Act of 2007.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Department is developing a cost benefit analysis that will be 
published with the interim rules.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              04/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Dennis Deziel
Deputy Director, Chemical and Nuclear Preparedness and Protection 
Division
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528
Phone: 703 605-1213
RIN: 1601-AA41
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

52. SPECIAL IMMIGRANT AND NONIMMIGRANT RELIGIOUS WORKERS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1151; 8 USC 1153; 8 USC 1154; 8 USC 1182; 
8 USC 1186a; 8 USC 1255; 8 CFR 2


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 204

[[Page 72802]]

Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule proposes to amend U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) regulations regarding the special immigrant and nonimmigrant 
religious worker visa classifications. This rule addresses concerns 
about the integrity of the religious worker program by proposing a 
petition requirement for religious organizations seeking to classify an 
alien as an immigrant or nonimmigrant religious worker. This rule also 
proposes including an on-site inspection for religious organizations to 
ensure the legitimacy of petitioner organizations and employment offers 
made by such organizations. USCIS is proposing to establish a fee, in 
addition to the standard fee required for special immigrant or 
nonimmigrant visa petitions, to cover the cost of the on-site 
inspections.


This rule would also clarify several substantive and procedural issues 
that have arisen since the religious worker category was created. This 
rule proposes new definitions that describe more clearly the regulatory 
requirements, as well as add specific evidentiary requirements for 
petitioning employers and prospective religious workers.


Finally, this rule also proposes to amend how USCIS regulations 
reference the sunset date, the statutory deadline by which special 
immigrant religious workers, other than ministers, must immigrate or 
adjust status to permanent residence, so that regular updates to the 
regulations are not required each time Congress extends the sunset 
date.


Statement of Need:


This rule is needed to implement the recommendations contained in the 
GAO report Issues Concerning the Religious Worker Visa Program, Report 
GAO/NSIAD-99-67 (March 26, 1999). Finally, USCIS wishes to make the 
nonimmigrant religious worker regulations consistent with the rules 
governing the immigrant religious worker category to the extent 
possible, and this rule is necessary to achieve that objective.


The changes proposed in this rule, if implemented, would decrease the 
opportunity for fraud in the religious worker program. Moreover, this 
rulemaking will further enhance the Department's efforts in deterring 
fraud and domestic security.


Summary of Legal Basis:


While this action revises the regulations to reflect Congressional 
extension of this program, this action is not required in order to give 
effect to that extension.


Alternatives:


None because the Department has agreed to implement the recommendations 
contained in the aforementioned GAO report. Also the risk section below 
provides further reasons why there are no alternatives.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


A detailed cost benefit analysis will be included in the regulatory 
analysis in the proposed rule.


Risks:


Failure to promulgate this rule change leaves the religious worker 
program vulnerable to fraud and compromises DHS and USCIS national 
security goals.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM (CIS No. 1436-94)          01/00/07
NPRM Comment Period End         03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


CIS No. 1436-94


Transferred from RIN 1115-AF12


Agency Contact:
Efren Hernandez
Chief, Business and Trade Branch
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Service Center Operations
2nd Floor
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8411
Email: efren.hernandez@dhs.gov
RIN: 1615-AA16
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

53. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT FOR ALIENS IN T 
AND U NONIMMIGRANT STATUS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101 to 1104; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184; 8 
USC 1187; 8 USC 1201; 8 USC 1224; 8 USC 1225; 8 USC 1226; 8 USC 1227; 8 
USC 1252; 8 USC 1252a; 8 USC 1255; 22 USC 7101; 22 USC 7105; . . .


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 245


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, January 5, 2006, Regulations need to be promulgated 
by July 5, 2006.


Abstract:


This rule sets forth measures by which certain victims of severe forms 
of trafficking who have been granted T nonimmigrant status and victims 
of certain criminal activity who have been granted U nonimmigrant 
status may apply for adjustment to permanent resident status in 
accordance with Public Law 106-386, Victims of Trafficking and Violence 
Protection Act of 2000, and Public Law 109-162, Violence Against Women 
and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005.


Statement of Need:


This rule is necessary to establish how an eligible alien with T 
nonimmigrant status can adjust his or her status to that of lawful 
permanent resident. Those with T nonimmigrant status are eligible to be 
granted lawful permanent residency if they can demonstrate they have 
complied with any reasonable request for assistance in the 
investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking or that they will 
face extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm if they were 
removed from the United States.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Public Law 106-386, Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act 
of 2000.


Alternatives:


None.

[[Page 72803]]

Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


While there is no precise formula for determining anticipated costs, 
there will be additional costs for adjudicating applications and 
investigating cases deemed fraudulent. There may be applications that 
will not be approved for a variety of reasons, including failure to 
meet basic adjustment of status requirements. All applications will be 
reviewed and some will require extensive investigation both here and 
abroad to determine whether the applicant has complied with any 
reasonable request for assistance in the investigation and prosecution 
of the acts of trafficking.


The anticipated benefits of these expenditures include: Continued 
assistance to trafficked victims and their families, increased 
investigation and prosecution of traffickers in persons, and the 
elimination of abuses caused by trafficking activities.


Benefits that may be attributed to the implementation of this rule are 
expected to be:


--an increase in the number of cases brought forward for investigation 
and/or prosecution;


--heightened awareness of trafficking-in-persons issues by the law 
enforcement community; and


--enhanced ability to develop and work cases in trafficking in persons 
cross-organizationally and multi-jurisdictionally which may begin to 
influence changes in trafficking patterns.


Risks:


Risks associated with the implementation of the congressionally 
mandated new nonimmigrant classification include:


--increased workload for adjudicators which may impact overall 
efficiency and productivity; and


--increases in fraudulent applications/claims of such victimization in 
order to obtain lawful permanent residence.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              04/00/07
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          06/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


CIS No. 2134-01


Transferred from RIN 1115-AG21


Agency Contact:
Pearl Chang
Chief
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Regulations and Product Management Division
3rd Floor
111 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8350
Email: pearl.chang@dhs.gov
RIN: 1615-AA60
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
54. NEW CLASSIFICATION FOR VICTIMS OF CERTAIN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY; 
ELIGIBILITY FOR THE U NONIMMIGRANT STATUS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1101 note; 8 USC 1102; . . .


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 299


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, January 5, 2006, Regulations need to be promulgated 
by July 5, 2006.


Public Law 109-162, Violence Against Women and Department of Justice 
Reauthorization Act of 2005.


Abstract:


This rule sets forth application requirements for a new nonimmigrant 
status. The U classification is for non-U.S. Citizen/Lawful Permanent 
Resident victims of certain crimes who cooperate with an investigation 
or prosecution of those crimes. There is a limit of 10,000 principals 
per year.


This rule establishes the procedures to be followed in order to 
petition for the U nonimmigrant classifications. Specifically, the rule 
addresses: The essential elements that must be demonstrated to receive 
the nonimmigrant classification; procedures that must be followed to 
make an application; and evidentiary guidance to assist in the 
petitioning process. Eligible victims will be allowed to remain in the 
United States.


Statement of Need:


This rule is necessary to establish the procedure for an eligible alien 
to obtain temporary immigration benefits as a victim of certain 
qualifying criminal activity while providing assistance to law 
enforcement officials at the Federal, State, and local levels 
investigating and prosecuting these crimes.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Public Law 106-386, Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act 
of 2000; Public Law 109-162, Violence Against Women and Department of 
Justice Reauthorization Act.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


While there is no precise formula for determining anticipated costs, 
there have been and will be additional costs for adjudicating benefits 
and investigating claims, particularly those deemed fraudulent. Also, 
there are training costs for DHS staff. The U nonimmigrant 
classification allows victims of certain qualifying criminal activity 
to remain in the United States past the time of their assistance to law 
enforcement if their presence in the United States is justified on 
humanitarian grounds, to ensure family unity, or is otherwise in the 
public interest.


There may be applications that will not be approved for a variety of 
reasons, including failure to meet the basic U nonimmigrant status 
eligibility requirements. All applications will be reviewed and some 
will require investigation to determine whether they are fraudulent.


The anticipated benefits of these expenditures include: Assistance to 
victims of criminal activity and their families, and an increase in the 
number of cases brought forward for investigation and prosecution (and 
possible deportation) of the perpetrators of the criminal activity.


Risks:


Risks associated with the implementation of the congressionally 
mandated new nonimmigrant classification include:


--increased workload for adjudicators and investigators, which may 
impact overall efficiency and productivity; and

[[Page 72804]]

--increases in fraudulent applications/claims of such victimization in 
order to obtain U nonimmigrant status.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              01/00/07
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          02/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State


Additional Information:


Transferred from RIN 1115-AG39


Agency Contact:
Pearl Chang
Chief
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Regulations and Product Management Division
3rd Floor
111 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8350
Email: pearl.chang@dhs.gov
RIN: 1615-AA67
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
55. REMOVAL OF STANDARDIZED REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE PROCESSING TIMEFRAME

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1103


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 103


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, September 1, 2003, NPRM Comment Period Ends January 
31, 2005.


Abstract:


This rule proposes to amend Department of Homeland Security regulations 
by removing the absolute requirement for, and the fixed regulatory time 
limitations on responses to a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
issued Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID). 
These changes will enable USCIS to set an appropriate deadline for 
responding to an RFE or NOID, specific to the type of case, benefit 
category, or classification, and thus improve the process of 
adjudication of applications and petitions by reducing the time a case 
is held awaiting evidence, and by reducing average case processing 
time. This rule will result in improved efficiency in the USCIS 
adjudication process.


In addition, this rule includes certain organizational changes 
necessitated by the implementation of the Homeland Security Act of 
2002, Public Law 107-296. This rule also removes obsolete regulatory 
language related to the Replenishment Agricultural Worker (RAW) program 
under section 210A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), which 
was repealed by section 219(ee)(1) of the Immigration and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1994, Public Law 103-416. The rule further removes 
references to the use of qualified designated entities for filing of 
applications for adjustment of status in the Seasonal Agricultural 
Workers (SAW) and legalization programs under section 210 and 245A of 
the Act. By including the organizational changes, the rule will also 
assist the public in understanding the delegation of authority for 
adjudicating cases.


Statement of Need:


In adjudicating an application or petition for benefits, USCIS often 
issues a Request for Evidence (RFE). This request may address 
documentary or evidentiary deficiencies in the case. Under current 
regulations, there are certain situations in which USCIS must issue an 
RFE, and in all cases in which an RFE is issued, USCIS must provide a 
standard 12-week response time. USCIS will replace the current 12-week 
response period reflected in 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8) with a more flexible 
approach, setting response periods based on various factors such as the 
type of benefit sought; the type of application or petition filed; the 
type of evidence needed for adjudication; the source and availability 
of documentation (both foreign and domestic); etc. USCIS will remove 
most provisions that require issuance of an RFE or Notice of Intent to 
Deny (NOID) in order to allow USCIS greater flexibility in deciding 
cases based on the information received, including initial evidence and 
other relevant materials.This rule amends 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8) by removing 
the mandatory requirement that USCIS issue an RFE for initial evidence. 
Instead, USCIS, in its discretion, may deny a petition or application 
when required initial evidence is missing. If an applicant or 
petitioner fails to submit the required initial evidence, and USCIS 
decides to deny the application or petition rather than issue an RFE, 
the applicant or petitioner may file a motion to reopen, with fee, as 
provided under 8 CFR 103.5 or file a new application or petition. The 
applicant or petitioner may also file an appeal of the denial if other 
regulatory or statutory authority exists for such appeal.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This action is not required by court order or statute.


Alternatives:


The alternative is not promulgating a final rule and maintaining the 
mandatory 12-week response period. This would further exacerbate the 
current backlogged adjudication process by impeding timely approval of 
applications and petitions.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Department of Homeland Security has assessed both the costs and 
benefits of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866, section 
1(b)(6) and has concluded that there are minimal costs to the 
Department associated with instructing adjudicators about the options 
for dealing with inadequate information. There are benefits to both 
USCIS and the public. USCIS will reduce the number of RFEs and NOIDs 
and the cycle time for responses to such notices, potentially reducing 
the pending backlog of cases. The public will receive fewer and more 
specific RFE or NOID notices and benefit from faster approval of 
applications and petitions.


Risks:


While there are no major risks associated with not promulgating this 
rule, the current process of RFE issuance sometimes slows the 
adjudication process. Some RFEs are simple enough to require 
resubmission within a few weeks; others may require more time. A fixed, 
standard response time does not make the most efficient use of 
adjudicative resources. In addition, there are circumstances in which 
USCIS is required by regulation to issue an RFE, even though it is 
apparent from the record that the application or petition must be 
denied. This forces the USCIS to focus time and

[[Page 72805]]

resources on RFEs in cases that are clearly not of merit.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/30/04                    69 FR 69549
NPRM Comment Period End         01/31/05
Final Action                    02/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


CIS No. 2287-03


Agency Contact:
Pearl Chang
Chief
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Regulations and Product Management Division
3rd Floor
111 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8350
Email: pearl.chang@dhs.gov
RIN: 1615-AB13
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

56. 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, 1225, 1231; 46 USC 3716, 8502 and Chapter 701; sec 102 of 
PL 107-295


CFR Citation:


33 CFR 160; 33 CFR 161; 33 CFR 164


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.


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 expect vessel owners to incur costs from the additional NOA 
requirements in order to comply with the mandatory requirement of 
submitting notices by utilizing the Coast Guard's electronic Notice of 
Arrival and Departure (eNOAD) system.


Currently, vessels greater than 300 gross tons, foreign commercial and 
recreational vessels less than 300 gross tons entering the 7th Coast 
Guard District, and all vessels carrying certain dangerous cargoes 
(CDCs) are required to submit NOAs.


This rulemaking will 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.


From the Coast Guard's database, we believe that we have an accurate 
estimate of the number of vessels greater than 300 gross tons 
submitting NOAs and the approximate number of voyages they make. These 
vessels are currently required to submit NOAs and will be required to 
submit NOAs/NODs through a mandatory submission method. Approximately 
20,000 vessels greater than 300 gross tons, with foreign vessels 
comprising nearly 17,000 of this amount, and U.S. vessels comprising 
the balance, are currently affected. We, however cannot at this time 
provide an estimate of the number of vessels less than 300 gross tons 
that will be affected by this rulemaking or

[[Page 72806]]

the number of U.S. vessels coming from a foreign port since these 
vessels are not required to report nor do we have an effective means to 
capture this information. We will determine the affected population and 
include that information in the detailed regulatory analysis.


We anticipate unquantified benefits will be associated with both 
portions of this rulemaking. We anticipate that quantified benefits 
derived from marine casualty cases will be associated with the AIS 
portion of this rulemaking. A detailed benefit analysis will be 
included in the regulatory analysis.


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                            02/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


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).


Agency Contact:
LTJG Julie Miller
Project Manager, Office of Vessel Activities, Foreign and Offshore 
Vessel Activities Div. (G-PCV-2)
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593
Phone: 202 372-1244

Jorge Arroyo
Project Manager, Office of Navigation Systems (G-PWN)
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone: 202 372-1563
RIN: 1625-AA99
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (BCBP)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

57. PASSENGER MANIFEST FOR COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT ARRIVING IN AND 
DEPARTING FROM THE UNITED STATES; PASSENGERS AND CREW MANIFESTS FOR 
COMMERCIAL VESSELS DEPARTING FROM THE UNITED STATES

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


5 USC 301; 19 USC 58b; 19 USC 66; 19 USC 1431; 19 USC 1433; 19 USC 
1434; 19 USC 1436; 19 USC 1448; 19 USC 1459; 19 USC 1590; 19 USC 1594; 
19 USC 1623; 19 USC 1624; 19 USC 1644; 19 USC 1644a; 19 USC 2071 note; 
46 USC app 3; 46 USC 91; . . .


CFR Citation:


19 CFR 4; 19 CFR 122


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Amendment of parts 4 and 122 of the Customs and Border Protection 
regulations to require the electronic transmission of manifest 
information relating to passengers on arriving and departing aircraft 
and for passengers and crew on departing vessels prior to the departure 
of the vessels or aircraft.


Statement of Need:


Current Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) regulations require 
air carriers to electronically transmit passenger arrival manifests to 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) no later than 15 minutes after the 
departure of the aircraft from any place outside the United States and 
passenger departure manifests no later than 15 minutes prior to 
departure of the aircraft from the United States. Manifests for crew 
members on passenger and all-cargo flights and non-crew members on all-
cargo flights must be electronically transmitted to CBP no later than 
60 minutes prior to the departure of any covered flight to, continuing 
within, or overflying the United States (19 CFR 122.49b(b)(2)) and no 
later than 60 minutes prior to the departure of any covered flight from 
the United States. The current regulations require vessel carriers to 
electronically transmit arrival passenger and crew member manifests at 
least 24 hours and up to 96 hours prior to the vessel's entry at a U.S. 
port or place of destination, depending on the length of the voyage. 
Also, a vessel carrier must electronically transmit passenger and crew 
member departure manifests to CBP no later than 15 minutes prior to the 
vessel's departure from the United States. These regulations serve to 
provide the nation, the carrier industries, and the international 
traveling public, additional security from the threat of terrorism and 
enhance CBP's ability to carry out its border enforcement mission.


The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) 
requires DHS to issue regulations and procedures to allow for pre-
departure vetting of passengers onboard aircraft arriving in and 
departing from the United States and of passengers and crew onboard 
vessels arriving in and departing from the United States. This 
rulemaking is designed to implement these important IRTPA requirements 
and to further enhance national security and the security of the air 
and vessel travel industries in accordance with the Aviation and 
Transportation Security Act (ATSA) and Enhanced Border Security and 
Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (EBSA), both of which formed the 
statutory basis for the APIS regulations.


This proposed rule would require transmission of, as appropriate, 
passenger and/or crew member

[[Page 72807]]

information early enough in the process to prevent a high-risk 
passenger from boarding an aircraft and to prevent the departure of a 
vessel with such a passenger or crew member onboard. CBP's purpose in 
proposing this change is to place itself in a better position to: (1) 
Fully vet passenger and crew member information with sufficient time to 
effectively secure the aircraft or vessel, including time to coordinate 
with carrier personnel and domestic or foreign government authorities 
in order to take appropriate action warranted by the threat; (2) 
identify high-risk passengers and prevent them from boarding aircraft 
bound for or departing from the United States; and (3) identify high-
risk passengers and crew members to prevent the departure of vessels 
from the United States with a high-risk passenger or crew member 
onboard. Achieving these goals would permit CBP to more effectively 
prevent an identified high-risk traveler from becoming a threat to 
passengers, crew, aircraft, vessels, or the public and would ensure 
that the electronic data transmission and screening process required 
under CBP regulations comports with the purposes of ATSA, EBSA, and 
IRTPA.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The APIS program is based on Congressional authority provided in the 
Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) and Enhanced Border 
Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (EBSA). The amendments made 
by this rulemaking are based on Congressional authority provided in the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA).


Alternatives:


CBP considered a number of regulatory alternatives to the proposed 
rule.


(1) Do not promulgate any further manifest transmission requirements 
(No Action)--the baseline case where carriers would continue to submit 
APIS manifests for arriving aircraft passengers 15 minutes after 
departure and, for departing aircraft passengers, 15 minutes prior to 
departure. This alternative is inconsistent with the protective 
security objectives of ATSA, EBSA, and IRTPA.


(2) A pre-departure transmission requirement--this would require 
carriers to submit manifests earlier than is required under the status 
quo requirements for flights to and from the United States. 
Transmission of manifest information would be made at least 30 minutes 
prior to departure. For large carriers, this alternative would not 
provide enough of a window for CBP to respond to a hit on the watch 
lists.


(3) A 60-minute transmission requirement only during periods of 
heightened threat conditions--this rule would require carriers to 
submit manifest data 60 minutes prior to departure only during periods 
of heightened threat conditions. This alternative would probably cause 
a great deal of disruption due to the unanticipated need to provide 
information earlier at irregular intervals. Additionally, the threat of 
terrorism is continuous, and specific threat information on flights may 
not emerge. Thus, the risks would not likely be diminished sufficiently 
to justify the costs. Finally, an alternating system of manifest 
transmission timing would likely affect carrier performance, with 
performance ratings suffering during the infrequent, non-routine 
elevations in threat level, the more critical period.


(4) A 120-minute transmission requirement--this rule would require 
carriers to submit manifests 120 minutes prior to departure. The costs 
would be higher than under the proposed rule because originating 
passengers, not just connecting passengers, would now be affected. 
High-risk passengers would be prevented from boarding aircraft. CBP 
would be able to more easily coordinate and plan a response to a hit on 
the watch lists well before the boarding process began. This 
alternative would be quite disruptive because even though passengers 
and carriers would have the predictability of a pre-determined 
transmission time, passenger check-in at the original departure airport 
would be greatly affected.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We expect that air carriers and air passengers will be the parties 
primarily affected by the proposed rule. For APIS 60, costs will be 
driven by the number of air travelers that will need to arrive at their 
originating airports earlier and the number of air travelers who miss 
connecting flights and require rerouting as a result. For APIS Quick 
Query (AQQ), costs will be driven by implementation expenses, data 
transmission costs, and a small number of air travelers who miss 
connecting flights. For the high end of the range (i.e., under the APIS 
60 procedure), CBP anticipates that passengers will provide APIS data 
upon check-in for their flights and that all carriers will transmit 
that data, as an entire passenger and crew manifest, to CBP at least 60 
minutes prior to departure of the aircraft. CBP estimates that this 
will result in 2 percent of passengers on large carriers and 0.25 
percent of passengers on small carriers missing connecting flights and 
needing to be rerouted, with an average delay of 4 hours. Additionally, 
we estimate that 15 percent of passengers will need to arrive at the 
airport an average of 15 minutes earlier in order to make their 
flights. For the low end of the range (under the AQQ procedure), we 
assume that all large air carriers will implement AQQ to transmit 
information on individual passengers as each checks in. CBP estimates 
that this will significantly drive down even further the percentage of 
passengers requiring rerouting on large carriers to 0.5 percent. 
Travelers will not need to modify their behavior to arrive at the 
airport earlier. The percentage on small carriers remains 0.25 percent 
because we assume that small carriers will not implement AQQ; rather, 
they will continue to submit manifests at least 60 minutes prior to 
departure through eAPIS, CBP's web-based application for small 
carriers. Thus, costs for small air carriers are the same regardless of 
the regulatory option considered. The present value (PV) costs of the 
rulemaking are estimated to range from $612 million to $1.9 billion 
over the next 10 years (2006-2015, 2005 dollars, 7 percent discount 
rate).


We estimate four categories of benefits, or costs that could be 
avoided, under the APIS 60 procedure: (1) Costs for conducting 
interviews with identified high-risk individuals upon arrival in the 
United States; (2) costs for deporting a percentage of these 
individuals; (3) costs of delaying a high-risk aircraft at an airport; 
and (4) costs of rerouting aircraft if high-risk individuals are 
identified after takeoff. Monetizing the benefits of avoiding an actual 
terrorist incident has proven difficult because the damages caused by 
terrorism are a function of where the attack takes place, the nature of 
the attack, the number of people affected, the casualty rates, the 
psychological impacts of the attack, and, perhaps most importantly, the 
``ripple effects'' as damages permeate throughout our society and 
economy far beyond the initial target. The average recurring benefits 
of the proposed rule are an estimated $15 million per year. This is in 
addition to the non-quantified security benefits, which are the primary 
impetus for this rule. Over the 10-year period of analysis, PV benefits 
are an

[[Page 72808]]

estimated $105 million at a 7 percent discount rate ($128 million at a 
3 percent discount rate).


Given the quantified costs and benefits of the proposed rule, we can 
determine how much non-quantified security benefits would have to be 
for this rule to be cost-beneficial. The 10-year costs range from $612 
million to $1.9 billion, and the benefits are an estimated $103 million 
(all at the 7 percent discount rate). Thus, the non-quantified security 
benefits would have to be $509 million to $1.8 billion over the 10-year 
period in order for this proposed rule to be cost-beneficial. In one 
hypothetical security scenario involving only one aircraft and the 
people aboard, estimated costs of an incident could exceed $790 
million. This rule may not prevent such an incident, but if it did, the 
value of preventing such a limited incident would outweigh the costs at 
the low end of the range.


Risks:


Promulgation of this rule would increase CBP's ability to effectively 
prevent an identified high-risk traveler from becoming a threat to 
passengers, crew, aircraft, vessels, or the public. Failure to do so 
would compromise DHS and CBP's national security goals by not providing 
CBP with a valuable tool in securing the international transportation 
system.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/14/06                    71 FR 40035
NPRM Comment Period End         08/14/06
Other/NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    08/02/06                    71 FR 43681
NPRM Comment Period End         10/12/06
Final Action                    02/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Charles Perez
Program Manager, Office of Field Operations
Department of Homeland Security
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20229
Phone: 202 344-1983
Related RIN: Related to 1651-AA37
RIN: 1651-AA62
BILLING CODE 4410-10-S

[[Page 72809]]

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), as the nation's 
housing agency, is committed to increasing homeownership, particularly 
among minorities; creating affordable housing opportunities for low-
income Americans; and supporting the homeless, elderly, people with 
disabilities, and people living with AIDS. HUD is also committed to 
promoting economic and community development, and enforcing the 
nation's fair housing laws.
Each year, through its programs and initiatives, HUD enables millions 
of individuals and families, including increasing numbers of 
minorities, to become homeowners or to obtain safe, decent, and 
affordable rental housing. HUD helps communities improve economic 
conditions and infrastructure in distressed areas, thereby making these 
communities more livable. HUD increases public awareness of fair 
housing laws, and it is through this awareness, coupled with 
enforcement of fair housing laws, that HUD reduces incidents of housing 
discrimination. Each year, HUD also continues to strengthen its 
partnerships with other federal agencies, state and local governments, 
and private sector organizations, including for-profit, nonprofit, 
faith-based, and community-based organizations. These partnerships help 
HUD advance its mission to increase homeownership, support community 
development, and increase access to affordable housing free from 
discrimination.
HUD's three programmatic strategic goals, embodied in HUD's mission 
statement -- increasing homeownership, promoting access to decent 
affordable housing, and strengthening communities, form the foundation 
each fiscal year for the majority of HUD's proposals for new or revised 
regulatory programs and initiatives, and that is true for Fiscal Year 
(FY) 2007.
The regulatory plan for HUD for FY 2007 highlights certain significant 
regulatory policy proposals that are designed to advance HUD's mission.
Priority: Increasing Homeownership
Opening doors to homeownership has been a core aspect of HUD's mission 
stemming from the 1930s, when Congress created the Federal Housing 
Administration (FHA). HUD's primary programs for offering homeownership 
opportunities are administered by FHA. By insuring mortgage loans, FHA 
allows lenders to offer lower down payments than would otherwise be 
available, low closing costs, and easy credit qualifying.
One way that HUD will expand homeownership opportunities in FY2007 is 
to make it easier for FHA to serve purchasers of affordable housing, 
such as manufactured homes. FHA would eliminate a feature of its 
Manufactured Housing program that contain prescriptive requirements 
pertaining to permanent foundations that do not provide for flexibility 
of design. The proposed amendment would promote affordable housing and 
the uniform quality and safety of manufactured homes.
Regulatory Action: Permanent Foundations For Manufactured Housing
This proposed rule would amend HUD's regulations governing manufactured 
homes erected on a permanent foundation that are to be the security for 
a Title II FHA-insured mortgage. In addition, this proposed rule would 
amend HUD's regulations governing manufactured homes erected on a 
permanent foundation that are to be security for a Title I FHA- insured 
mortgage. Current regulations contain prescriptive requirements 
pertaining to permanent foundations that do not provide for flexibility 
of design. HUD proposes to remove these requirements for both existing 
and newly constructed manufactured homes by instead deferring to the 
requirements established by the Model Manufactured Home Installation 
Standards (Model Installation Standards). A separate rule would 
establish the minimum acceptable standards nationwide for the 
installation and set-up of manufactured homes.
Priority: Improving the Quality of Public and Assisted Housing
Promoting decent affordable housing is a central part of HUD's mission. 
To this end, HUD seeks to improve the quality of the housing 
opportunities provided to families in public and assisted housing. 
Public housing is an important asset in which the federal government 
has invested for more than 7 decades. Throughout America, public 
housing provides homes for millions of Americans who have serious 
housing needs due to age, income, or disability. For many very low-
income families and individuals, public housing represents the line 
between decent shelter and homelessness. To ensure that those of lesser 
means are well-housed in decent, safe, and viable communities, HUD 
provides capital funds to maintain this asset. Capital funds are 
intended to cover modernization of public housing, as well as the costs 
of normal wear and tear. Through the use of capital funds, public 
housing agencies (PHAs) are able to undertake activities to modernize 
units, renovate properties, improve the safety and security of public 
housing, and make public housing accessible to persons with 
disabilities. HUD's goal is to ensure that PHAs can address their most 
serious capital issues when the need arises in order to avoid more 
costly and extensive renovations after need accrues for several years.
To accomplish these goals, HUD will focus on improving the management 
accountability and physical conditions of public and assisted housing 
through the following regulations.
Regulatory Action: Capital Fund Program
Section 519 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act amended 
section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act) by 
providing for a Capital Fund that would make assistance available to 
PHAs to carry out capital and management improvement activities. The 
regulations implementing the new Capital Fund formula were promulgated 
in 2000. This proposed rule would establish the full regulatory 
framework for the Capital Fund Program. The Capital Fund Program 
addresses the capital and management improvement needs of PHAs and 
replaces the Comprehensive Grant Program and the Comprehensive 
Improvement Assistance Program. The proposed rule would complement the 
final rule that ensures the effective and timely obligation and 
expenditure of funds under the Public Housing Capital Fund Program.
While HUD provides assistance that helps to ensure that PHAs can 
address their most serious capital issues, HUD holds PHAs accountable 
for providing safe and decent housing, and protecting the federal 
investment in their properties. HUD does this by measuring the 
performance of PHAs and using this information to assist those PHAs 
that need improvement and holding those that do not improve 
accountable. HUD is committed to ensuring that PHAs perform 
effectively, particularly as they move to project-based funding.
Regulatory Action: Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) Revision
This proposed rule would revise the PHAS regulation at 24 CFR part 902 
to provide additional information, revise certain procedures, and 
establish other

[[Page 72810]]

procedures for the assessment of the physical condition, financial 
condition, management operations, resident services, and resident 
satisfaction. The rule would provide assessments of PHAs on a project 
level rather than on an entity-wide basis for all four of the PHAS 
indicators and would assess the management of PHA properties according 
to an asset management model, consistent with the management norms in 
multifamily, including project-based budgeting, and project-based 
accounting. The purpose of the PHAS is to function as a management tool 
that effectively and fairly measures a PHA's performance based on 
standards that are uniform and verifiable.
The Priority Regulations That Comprise HUD's FY 2007 Regulatory Plan
A more detailed description of the priority regulations that comprise 
HUD's FY 2007 Regulatory Plan follows.
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--Office of Housing (OH)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

58. [bull] PERMANENT FOUNDATIONS FOR MANUFACTURED HOUSING (FR-5075)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


12 USC 1703; 42 USC 3535(d); 42 USC 5301 to 5320


CFR Citation:


24 CFR 201; 24 CFR 203


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule would amend HUD's regulations governing manufactured homes 
erected on a permanent foundation that are to be the security for a 
title II Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured mortgage. The 
current regulations contain prescriptive requirements pertaining to 
permanent foundations that do not provide for flexibility of design. 
HUD proposes to remove these requirements for both existing and new 
construction manufactured homes and instead defer to the requirements 
established by the Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards 
(Model Installation Standards). (A separate rule would establish the 
minimum acceptable standards nationwide for the installation and set-up 
of manufactured homes.) This rule will not supplant the current 
installation requirements entirely, but will permit them to be used in 
cases of FHA refinance transactions for any existing manufactured home 
that is currently security for an FHA-insured loan and which met FHA 
requirements at the time of the original endorsement. The rule would 
also amend HUD's regulations governing manufactured homes erected on a 
permanent foundation that are to be security for a title I FHA-insured 
mortgage. The proposed rule would promote affordable housing and the 
uniform quality and safety of manufactured homes.


Statement of Need:


The current regulations governing permanent foundations for 
manufactured housing may be too prescriptive in that they do not allow 
for flexibility of design. This rule is also necessary to avoid HUD 
having two inconsistent foundation standards for the installation of 
manufactured homes. The Manufactured Housing Improvements Act of 2000 
amended the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Act 
of 1974 (the Act) by establishing new requirements pertaining to the 
installation of manufactured homes. Among the requirements was a 
provision that HUD must promulgate Model Manufactured Installation 
Standards. FHA regulations need to be modified to reflect the new 
installation compliance standards under the Act for manufactured homes 
that are to be security for title I and title II FHA-insured mortgages.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The National Housing Act at 12 U.S.C. 1703 authorizes the Secretary to 
insure approved lenders against losses sustained as a result of 
borrower default on, among other things, manufactured home loans.


Alternatives:


The changes made by this proposed rule would modify an existing 
regulatory requirement and, therefore, must also be promulgated through 
regulation.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This rule would require that the Minimum Property Standards applicable 
to the installation of manufactured homes meet or exceed the Model 
Installation Standards, as will be codified at 24 CFR part 3285. This 
rule would increase flexibility of design, resulting in reduced cost to 
builders and consumers. Such a change would also serve to protect the 
health and safety of occupants of manufactured homes and FHA's interest 
in the property. Overall, this change would promote affordable housing 
and conform FHA's installation requirements to nationwide minimum 
standards. Further, manufactured homes that already securitize FHA-
insured loans would not be affected by the regulatory change, and, 
therefore, would bear no compliance costs.


Risks:


This rule poses no threat to public safety, health, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Joyce Richardson
Director, Home Valuation Policy Division
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Housing
Washington, DC
Phone: 202 708-2121
RIN: 2502-AI45
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

59. CAPITAL FUND PROGRAM (FR-4880)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1437g; 42 USC 1437z-7; 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


24 CFR 905


Legal Deadline:


None

[[Page 72811]]

Abstract:


This rule will implement the new Capital Fund Program for the capital 
and management improvement needs of public housing agencies (PHAs). 
This rule will implement the regulatory framework for the Capital Fund 
Program that will govern the use of the assistance made available from 
the Capital Fund formula. The new rule at part 905 will replace and 
remove several other rules that currently govern a PHA's use of HUD 
assistance including part 941 - Public Housing Development and part 968 
- Public Housing Modernization. This rule will continue and expand the 
streamlining of procedures and requirements initiated under the 
Comprehensive Grant and Comprehensive Improvement programs at part 968.


Statement of Need:


Assistance under the Capital Fund Program is the primary, regular 
source of funding made available by HUD to a PHA for its capital 
activities, including modernization and development of public housing. 
This rule will implement the requirements for the use of assistance 
made available under the Capital Fund Program. The regulations will 
provide the appropriate notice of the legal framework for the program, 
and clear and uniform guidance for program operation.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Sections 518, 519, and 539 of the Quality Housing and Work 
Responsibility Act, which amended sections 9 and 5 of, and added 
section 35(g) to, the U.S. Housing Act of 1937.


Alternatives:


The amendments to the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 made by the Quality 
Housing and Work Responsibility Act regarding the Capital Fund Program 
required a formula system to be established to govern funding of PHAs' 
public housing capital needs. This formula was established by final 
rule issued on March 16, 2000. Guidance for administration of these 
funds necessitates a permanent legal framework rather than informal and 
sporadic HUD notices.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The costs of the program as administered with one fund from which a PHA 
would fund all of its capital needs is the same as under existing 
provisions. The benefits of having one funding mechanism for all such 
needs, and the provision of additional flexibility to PHAs to manage 
their physical assets, would provide increased benefits to the PHAs. 
Likewise, uniform program administration of these funds would provide 
increased benefits to the PHAs.


Risks:


This rule poses no threat to public safety, health, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Jeffrey Riddel
Acting Director, Office of Capital Improvements
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Phone: 202 401-8812
RIN: 2577-AC50
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--PIH
60. [bull] REVISIONS TO THE PUBLIC HOUSING ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (PHAS) 
(FR-5094)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1437d(j); 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


24 CFR 902


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will revise the regulations for the Public Housing Assessment 
System (PHAS) to reflect the asset-based management requirements for 
public housing. The purpose of the PHAS is to provide a management tool 
for effectively and fairly measuring the performance of a public 
housing agency (PHA) in essential housing operations, based on 
standards that are uniform and verifiable. On September 19, 2005, HUD 
published a final rule amending the regulations for the Public Housing 
Operating Fund Program to provide a new formula for distributing 
operating subsidies to PHAs and to establish requirements for PHAs to 
convert to asset management. The rule would revise the PHAS regulations 
to reflect the new asset-based management requirements of the September 
19, 2005, Operating Fund final rule. In particular, the rule would 
provide for the assessment of PHAs on a project-level, rather than on 
an entity-wide level. Further, the rule would revise the PHAS 
regulations to assess PHAs according to an asset management model, 
consistent with the norms of multifamily housing rental management, 
including the use of project-based budgeting and project-based 
accounting.


Statement of Need:


The September 19, 2005, Operating Fund Program final rule redirected 
the focus of the public housing program to a property-based management 
model. This change adopted the recommendations of the congressionally 
mandated study of the costs of operating well-run public housing. 
However, the PHAS regulations are currently not reflective of this 
significant change in the direction and management of public housing, 
but rather reflect the former agency-centric public housing management 
model. The PHAS regulations must be updated to incorporate the asset-
based management requirements. Updating of the regulations will help to 
ensure that the PHAS continues to provide appropriate standards for the 
fair and effective evaluation of PHA performance in the management of 
public housing.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 6(j) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
1437d(j)) requires the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to 
develop and publish, in the Federal Register, indicators to assess the 
management performance of PHAs and resident management corporations. 
Section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 
U.S.C. 3535(d)) establishes the Department's general rulemaking 
authority, authorizing the Secretary to make such rules and regulations 
as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Department.


Alternatives:


As noted above, HUD is statutorily required to publish the indicators 
for assessing public housing management

[[Page 72812]]

performance. The policies and procedures governing the measurement of 
public housing performance under the PHAS are codified in HUD's 
regulations at 24 CFR part 902. Accordingly, any revisions to these 
policies and requirement must also be implemented through notice and 
comment rulemaking. Promulgation of these changes through other, non-
rulemaking means (such as through notice of handbook) would not be 
enforceable.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The rule would not impose any new significant costs on PHAs. As noted 
above, the proposed regulatory changes costs update the indicators for 
assessing PHA performance to reflect the existing asset-based 
management requirements established by the September 19, 2005, 
Operating Fund Program final rule. The benefit of the regulatory 
changes will be to update and conform the PHAS requirements with the 
asset-based management requirement, thereby helping to ensure the 
continued validity, fairness, and effectiveness of the performance 
indicators.


Risks:


This rule poses no threat to public safety, health, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Elizabeth Hanson
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Departmental Real Estate Assessment Center 
(REAC)
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Phone: 202 475-7949
RIN: 2577-AC68
BILLING CODE 4210-67-S

[[Page 72813]]

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 390 park units, 545 wildlife 
refuges, and approximately 1.7 billion acres submerged in offshore 
waters. 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
All of the Department's bureaus and offices have significant regulatory 
responsibilities.
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), in 
partnership with the States and Indian tribes, establishes and enforces 
environmental standards for coal mining and reclamation operations. In 
addition, OSM administers the abandoned mine land reclamation program, 
which is funded by a fee assessed on each ton of coal produced. Money 
from these fees is placed in a fund that, subject to appropriation, is 
used to reclaim lands and waters impacted by historic mining activities 
conducted before the enactment of the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1977. The collection of the fee for reclamation 
purposes was originally scheduled to expire in 1992 and has been 
extended through September 2007.
Other 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 decisionmaking 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 included:
<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 the 
            use of plain language;
<bullet> Issuance of new guidance in the Departmental Manual to ensure 
            that National Environmental Policy Act policies that 
            streamline decisionmaking and enhance citizen participation 
            are institutionalized;
<bullet> Issuance of revised procedures in the Departmental Manual to 
            clarify the 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 decisionmaking pertaining to fuels-reduction 
            projects under the Healthy Forests Initiative

[[Page 72814]]

            and Healthy Forests Restoration Act; and
<bullet> Promulgated hydropower license rules jointly with the 
            Departments of Agriculture and Commerce, in consultation 
            with FERC, that streamline the licensing and appeals 
            process as called for in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
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.
Through over 100 actions, the Department is implementing the 
President's energy policy and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, including 
numerous regulatory actions. The Bureau of Land Management and the 
Minerals Management Service are developing proposed rules to implement 
the Energy Policy Act. The Office of Surface Mining is developing 
regulations that will promote better mining and reclamation practices 
while maintaining a stable regulatory framework conducive to coal 
production. OSM anticipates that Congress will reauthorize the 
Abandoned Mine Land Fee. However, OSM has published contingency 
rulemaking plans should Congress decide otherwise. These and other 
regulatory actions within the Department will streamline permitting 
processes and encourage energy production while maintaining 
environmental protections.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed Interior to promulgate 
regulations regarding tar sands leasing, geothermal leasing and oil and 
gas lease acreage. These were all issued this fiscal year. Further, 
other energy-related regulations were issued. The Minerals Management 
Service, for example, issued final regulations regarding geological and 
geophysical exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), incident 
reporting, data release definitions, and cost recovery.
The Bureau of Land Management 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. With these tools, BLM will further reduce and 
ultimately eliminate the backlog of pending permits while allowing the 
development of energy resources in an environmentally responsible 
manner.
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
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 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.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is developing 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 will be informed of their obligation to follow this 
policy and 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 will 
complete 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), NFPORS (a 
comprehensive interagency fuels treatment, community assistance, and 
post-fire rehabilitation tracking system), 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.

[[Page 72815]]

Since the President announced the Healthy Forests Initiative in 2002, 
the Department has made extensive progress in reducing hazardous fuels. 
From 2003 to 2005, 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. 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 is developing a new winter use plan and EIS 
for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the John D. 
Rockefeller, Jr, Memorial Parkway. NPS received nearly 33,000 comments 
as a result of preliminary public outreach in summer 2005 and has been 
briefing cooperating agencies and stakeholders since July 2005 as part 
of a public engagement plan that calls for informing interested parties 
of the status of the plan and soliciting stakeholder input. Our public 
engagement plan has also included the following:
<bullet> Pre-alternative concepts were presented to cooperating 
            agencies and stakeholder groups beginning in November 2005.
<bullet> Open houses were held in Bozeman, Montana and Jackson, Wyoming 
            in March 2006 to announce emerging alternatives for the 
            Draft EIS, and a cooperating agency workshop on the 
            preliminary alternatives occurred in April in Idaho Falls, 
            Idaho.
<bullet> The parks shared draft winter monitoring reports with the 
            cooperating agencies for technical review, and the parks 
            provided draft air quality, soundscapes, and economic 
            modeling analysis of the preliminary alternatives for 
            review by cooperating agencies. The cooperating agencies 
            will also have the opportunity to review the preliminary 
            draft EIS, and the preliminary document will be posted on 
            the parks' web sites for technical review.
<bullet> By late winter 2007, the Draft EIS will be available for 
            public review, and the proposed rule will be published.
NPS has also completed final personal watercraft rules for 12 park 
areas. Rules for the last two park areas are in the final rule stages 
and will be completed by the end of 2006.
On August 31, Park Service management approved the 2006 edition of the 
National Park Service Management Policies. This edition has received 
extensive review and comment from the Service's career employees, as 
well as from tens of thousands of citizens who care deeply about the 
national park system.
The Bureau of Land Management has published a grazing administration 
rule ensuring that grazing decisions comply with the Administrative 
Procedure Act, removing provisions on conservation use permits found 
unlawful in Federal Court decisions, requiring BLM to consider social 
and economic factors when considering changes to grazing use, and 
promulgating other improvements in the regulations on grazing on public 
lands that will allow more effective and efficient management of the 
grazing program.
In December 2004, President Bush issued the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, in 
response to the U.S. 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 Northwestern 
Hawaiian Islands National Marine Monument; development of a seamless 
network to protect and conserve the Nation's ocean and coastal refuges, 
reserves, parks and sanctuaries; and creation of a National Water 
Quality Network.
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.
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 40 species for which delisting or downlisting 
(reclassification from endangered to threatened) may be appropriate.
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. As a result of 
the recently enacted energy legislation, the Administration developed a 
joint rule involving the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and the 
Interior that establishes a trial-type hearing for a review of disputes 
over ``material facts'' included in hydropower licenses.
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 now publishing these 
procedures for codification in the Code of Federal Regulations. The 
proposed regulations supplement the CEQ regulations and must be used in

[[Page 72816]]

conjunction with them. The regulations will ensure that field staff 
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, requires that the Forest Service and BLM establish 
Recreation Resource Advisory Committees (RRACs), or use existing BLM 
RACs to perform the duties of RRACs. These committees will 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. After 
holding numerous ``listening sessions'' across the country in order to 
hear recommendations from the public on the appropriate configuration 
of the RRACs, the agencies established an organizational structure that 
was approved by both the Department of the Interior and the Department 
of Agriculture. The Departments signed an Interagency Agreement 
establishing the framework, processes, and collaborative RRAC approach 
the two agencies will use to comply with the REA's public participation 
requirements. The RRACs are expected to begin 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;
<bullet> Through a negotiated rulemaking process, the Bureau of Indian 
            Affairs has finalized its roads program rule, which 
            reflects the importance of the roads program to the 
            individual tribes and the varying needs of the tribal 
            governments;
<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. 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 rule.
Regulatory Actions Related to the Events of September 11, 2001
The Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for protecting 348 reservoirs 
and more than 500 Federal dams, 58 hydroelectric plants, and over 8 
million acres of Federal property. Public Law 107-69 granted 
Reclamation law enforcement authority for its lands. On April 17, 2006, 
Reclamation finalized its rules implementing this authority.
Rules of Particular Interest to Small Businesses
The NPS snowmobiling rule for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National 
Parks and the John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway is of great interest 
to small businesses in the area of the parks, in particular those who 
rent snowmobiles. An initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis points 
toward economic benefits to businesses in gateway communities, with 
some costs incurred by non-snowmobile users of the parks.
The NPS rules to allow personal watercraft (PWC) use are also of great 
interest to small businesses that rent or sell PWC in the vicinity of 
the 15 park units involved in the rulemakings. The rulemaking process 
has been underway for a number of years and there are currently rules 
allowing PWC use in 12 park units and rulemaking actions for 2 
additional units are in final stages of completion.
The 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. As a result of the 9th Circuit's ruling on 
``Gifford Pinchot,'' invalidating the FWS's regulatory definition of 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, the Department 
is considering a rulemaking.
The 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 is in the process of updating 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 were engaged in the revision process since last 
Fall. Senior Departmental leadership were 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 are 
expected to be completed and the final plan published by the end of the 
calendar year.
The revised GPRA Strategic Plan will:
<bullet> Incorporate key Administration and Secretarial priorities into 
            Interior's goals and performance measures
<bullet> Provide for more ``results-oriented'' goals for Interior 
            programs
<bullet> Provide 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 managing trust 
responsibilities to the Indian tribes and encouraging tribal 
governments to assume responsibility for BIA programs.
The BIA's rulemaking and policy development processes foster public and 
tribal awareness of the standards and procedures that directly affect 
them. The processes also encourage the public and the tribes to 
participate in developing these standards and procedures. The goals of 
BIA regulatory policies are to: (a) ensure consistent policies within 
BIA that result in uniform interactions with the tribal governments; 
(b) facilitate tribal involvement in managing, planning, and evaluating 
BIA programs and services; and (c) ensure continued protection of 
tribal treaties and statutory rights.
Title V, Section 503 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, requires the 
Secretary of the Interior to promulgate

[[Page 72817]]

regulations that implement new provisions concerning energy resource 
development on tribal lands. Specifically, the Indian Energy 
Development and Self-Determination Act, Title XXVI, Section 2604 of the 
Energy Policy Act, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to enter into 
Tribal Energy Resource Agreements (TERA) with Indian tribes. The intent 
of these agreements is to promote tribal oversight and management of 
energy and mineral resource development on tribal lands and further the 
goal of Indian self-determination. A TERA offers a tribe an entirely 
new alternative for entering into energy-related business agreements 
and leases and for granting rights-of-way for pipelines, electric 
transmission and distribution lines without the Secretary's review and 
approval.
The Department held a series of public meetings and tribal 
consultations in January 2006 to solicit stakeholder and tribal comment 
on the implementation of the Act. In addition, the Department, in two 
letters to tribal leaders, solicited direct involvement of tribes in 
drafting a framework for development of the proposed regulations.
The implementation of these regulations will further the Federal 
Government's policy of providing enhanced self-determination and 
economic development opportunities for American Indian tribes and 
support the Administration's National Energy Policy by increasing 
utilization of domestic energy resources. The proposed rule was 
published in the Federal Register on August 21, 2006.
The Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management manages about 262 million acres of land 
surface 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 Agency 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.
BLM's Regulatory Program mirrors statutory responsibilities and Agency 
objectives, including the following:
<bullet> Supporting the objectives of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by 
            developing regulations that will facilitate the domestic 
            production of energy, including renewable energies such as 
            biomass, wind, solar, and other alternative sources of 
            energy;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> Understanding the needs of the people who use the BLM-managed 
            public lands and providing them with quality service;
<bullet> Securing the recovery of a fair return for using publicly-
            owned resources and avoiding the creation of long-term 
            liabilities for American taxpayers; and
<bullet> Resolving problems and implementing decisions in cooperation 
            with other agencies, States, tribal governments, and the 
            public.
The objectives of the Regulatory Program include preparing regulations 
that:
<bullet> Are the product of communication, coordination, and 
            consultation with all affected interests and the public;
<bullet> Are easy for the public to understand, especially those who 
            would be most affected by them; and
<bullet> Are subject to periodic review to determine whether the rules 
            require updating to reflect statutory or policy changes, 
            and whether they are achieving desired results.
The BLM's regulatory priorities include:
<bullet> Completing rules to facilitate implementation of the Energy 
            Policy Act of 2005 in order to encourage domestic 
            production of energy;
<bullet> Completing amendments of the recreation permit regulations in 
            order to bring them into conformance with new governing 
            law, including the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 
            Act; and
<bullet> Completing the reorganization and updating of the regulations 
            on locating, recording, and maintaining mining claims and 
            mill and tunnel sites to eliminate obsolete provisions and 
            make the regulations easier to follow.
Most BLM regulations affect small business. Many business entities that 
operate on public lands qualify as small businesses as the term is 
defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA). The BLM's 
regulations do not specifically target small businesses. The BLM 
strives to ensure that regulations do not unduly burden business 
entities whether or not they are considered small businesses.
The BLM's mining and grazing rules have traditionally generated the 
greatest concern for small businesses, because most livestock operators 
and mining companies are small entities, as classified by the SBA.
Minerals Management Service
Minerals Management Service (MMS) has two major responsibilities. The 
first, administered by the Minerals Revenue Management program (MRM), 
is timely and accurate collection, distribution, accounting for, and 
substantiating of revenues associated with mineral production from 
leased Federal and Indian lands. The second, administered by the 
Offshore Minerals Management program (OMM), is management of the 
resources of the Outer Continental Shelf 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.
The MMS regulatory philosophy is to develop clear, enforceable rules 
that support the missions of each program.
This year, through MRM, the MMS published proposed rules for Indian Oil 
Valuation (February 13, 2006) and Geothermal Valuation (July 21, 2006). 
The Indian Oil rule proposed to establish value for oil produced from 
wells on Indian leases. The Geothermal Valuation proposed rule complied 
with a Congressional mandate under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The 
Federal Gas Valuation rule established what transportation deductions 
are allowed in determining royalties. The Indian Oil Valuation rule 
will establish value for oil produced from wells on Indian lands. These 
two rules will benefit the

[[Page 72818]]

Government and citizens by establishing clear rules to determine 
royalties oil produced from Indian leases and geothermal resources from 
Federal lease lands. Clear rules will reduce the number of disputes and 
lower the costs to the Government of collecting royalties. Furthermore, 
they support the mission of MMS by promoting timely and accurate 
collection of royalties from Federal and Indian mineral leases.
Through OMM, the MMS published a final rule to recover costs for 
certain services MMS provides the oil and gas industry (July 19, 2006). 
This rulemaking implemented the President's policy, as outlined in OMB 
Circular No. 25, that when a service provides special benefits to an 
identifiable recipient, beyond those that accrue to the general public, 
the Federal government should impose a charge for the service to 
recover the cost of providing the service. The Department of the 
Interior mirrors this policy (330 DM 1.3A). MMS is also preparing a 
proposed rule on non-discriminatory access to pipelines. These rules 
support the mission of MMS to manage the resources in the Outer 
Continental Shelf in a manner that provides for safety, protection of 
the environment, and conservation of natural resources.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 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, OSM is 
the primary enforcer of SMCRA's provisions until the States achieve 
``primacy''; that is, until they demonstrate that their regulatory 
programs meet all the specifications in SMCRA and have regulations 
consistent with those issued by OSM.
When a primacy State 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 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, 
under cooperative agreements, some primacy States have agreed to 
regulate mining on Federal lands within their borders. Thus, OSM 
regulates mining directly only in nonprimacy States, on Federal lands 
in States where no cooperative agreements are in effect, and on Indian 
lands.
OSM has sought to develop and maintain a stable regulatory program for 
surface coal mining that 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 objectives for 2006 include:
<bullet> Maintaining regulatory certainty so that coal companies know 
            what is expected of them and citizens know what is intended 
            and how they can participate;
<bullet> Ensuring an affordable, reliable energy supply while 
            protecting the environment;
<bullet> Continued consultation, cooperation, and communication with 
            interested groups during the rulemaking process in order to 
            increase the quality of the rulemaking, and, to the 
            greatest extent possible, reflect consensus on regulatory 
            issues; and
<bullet> Completion of ongoing rulemaking initiatives resulting from 
            litigation by the coal industry and environmental groups, 
            efforts by OSM to address areas of concern that have arisen 
            during the course of implementing its regulatory program, 
            and legislative requirements.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to work with 
others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and 
their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Four 
principal mission goals include:
The sustainability of fish and wildlife populations. FWS conserves, 
protects, restores, and enhances fish, wildlife, and plant populations 
entrusted to its care. FWS carries out this mission goal through 
migratory bird conservation at home and abroad; native fisheries 
restoration; recovery and protection of threatened and endangered 
species; prevention and control of invasive species; and work with our 
international partners.
Habitat conservation through a network of lands and waters. Cooperating 
with others, FWS strives to conserve an ecologically diverse network of 
lands and waters of various ownership that provide habitat for fish, 
wildlife, and plant resources. This mission goal emphasizes two kinds 
of strategic actions: (1) The development of formal agreements and 
plans with partners who provide habitat for multiple species, and (2) 
the actual conservation work necessary to protect, restore, and enhance 
those habitats vital to fish and wildlife populations. The FWS's 
habitat conservation strategy focuses on the interaction and balance of 
people, lands and waters, and fish and wildlife through an ecosystem 
approach.
Public use and enjoyment. FWS provides opportunities to the public to 
enjoy, understand, and participate in the use and conservation of fish 
and wildlife resources. The Service directs activities on national 
wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries that increase 
opportunities for public involvement with fish and wildlife resources. 
Such opportunities include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 
photography, and environmental education and interpretation, as well as 
hands-on experiences through volunteer conservation activities on FWS-
managed lands.
Partnerships in natural resources. FWS supports and strengthens 
partnerships with tribal, State, and local governments and others in 
their efforts to conserve and enjoy fish, wildlife, and plants and 
habitats, consistent with the President's Executive Order on 
Cooperative Conservation. FWS administers Federal grants to States and 
territories for restoration of fish and wildlife resources and has a 
continuing commitment to work with tribal governments. FWS also 
promotes partnerships with other Federal agencies where common goals 
can be developed. The Service carries out these mission goals through 
several types of regulations. While carrying out its responsibility to 
protect the natural resources entrusted to its care, FWS works 
continually with foreign and

[[Page 72819]]

State governments, affected industries and individuals, and other 
interested parties to minimize any burdens associated with its 
activities. In carrying out its assistance programs, the Service 
administers regulations to help interested parties obtain Federal 
assistance and then comply with applicable laws and Federal 
requirements.
Some Service regulations permit activities otherwise prohibited by law. 
These regulations allow possession, sale or trade, scientific research, 
and educational activities involving fish and wildlife and their parts 
or products. In general, these regulations supplement State regulations 
and cover activities that involve interstate or foreign commerce.
FWS enforces regulations that govern public access, use, and recreation 
on 545 national wildlife refuges and in national fish hatcheries. The 
Service authorizes only uses compatible with the purpose for which each 
area was established, are consistent with State and local laws where 
practical, and afford the public appropriate economic and recreational 
opportunity.
FWS administers regulations to manage migratory bird resources. 
Annually, the Service issues a regulation on migratory bird hunting 
seasons and bag limits that is developed in partnership with the 
States, tribal governments, and the Canadian Wildlife Service. These 
regulations are necessary to permit migratory bird hunting that would 
otherwise be prohibited by various international treaties.
Finally, FWS implements regulations under the Endangered Species Act to 
fulfill its statutory obligation to identify and conserve species faced 
with extinction and to conserve certain mammals under the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act. The ESA dictates that the basis for determining 
endangered and threatened species must be limited to biological 
considerations. Regulations enhance the conservation of ESA-listed 
species and help other Federal agencies comply with the ESA. Under 
section 7 of the ESA, all Federal agencies must consult with the 
Service on actions that may jeopardize the continued existence of 
endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or 
adverse modification of their critical habitats. In designating 
critical habitat for listed species, the Service considers biological 
information and economic and other impacts of the designation. Areas 
may be excluded if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion, provided that such exclusion will not result in the 
extinction of the species.
Within the next year the Service will develop and begin implementation 
of a number of policy initiatives aimed at facilitating meaningful 
conservation of listed species and guide our efforts towards 
conservation goals. These policies approach conservation challenges 
informed by the experiences and lessons learned from over 30 years of 
implementation and infuse a strong dose of common sense to our 
approach. The ultimate goal is to facilitate meaningful participation 
of the public and the pursuit of cooperative conservation approaches, 
as well as removing obstacles by exploiting inherent and unexplored 
flexibilities in the statute and existing regulations.
FWS is working in partnership with NOAA and the State of Hawaii to 
develop joint measures for implementing the Northwestern Hawaiian 
Islands National Marine Monument. Initial regulations incorporating the 
President's directions to the Interior and Commerce Secretaries for 
management of the Monument were published in the Federal Register on 
August 29, 2006. Additionally, the Service is working with its partners 
to develop unified permits for administrative and general uses, such as 
transporting materials and supplies to Midway Atoll.
National Park Service
The National Park Service conserves 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 also 
manages 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 390 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: the State portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 
Nationwide Outdoor Recreation coordination and information and State 
comprehensive outdoor recreation planning, planning and technical 
assistance for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and the 
National Trails System; natural area programs; Preserve America grant 
program; the National Register of Historic Places; national historic 
landmarks; historic preservation; technical preservation services; 
Historic American Buildings survey; Historic American Engineering 
Record; and 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.
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 has implemented its law 
enforcement authorization received in November 2001.
Reclamation's regulatory program is designed to ensure that its mission 
is carried out expeditiously, efficiently, and with an emphasis on 
cooperative problem solving.

[[Page 72820]]

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 has established of the Natural Resources Damage Assessment and 
Restoration Program Advisory Committee that will provide advice and 
recommendation on DOI's authorities and responsibilities, including its 
responsibility to promulgate regulations in the implementation of the 
National Resource Damage provisions of CERCLA.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOI--Minerals Management Service (MMS)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

61. VALUATION OF OIL FROM INDIAN LEASES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


25 USC 2101 et seq; 25 USC 396 et seq; 25 USC 396a et seq; 30 USC 1701 
et seq


CFR Citation:


30 CFR 206


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule would modify the regulations that establish royalty value for 
oil produced from Indian leases and create a new form for collecting 
value and differential data. These changes would decrease reliance on 
oil posted prices and make Indian oil royalty valuation more consistent 
with the terms of Indian leases.


Statement of Need:


Current oil valuation regulations rely on posted prices and prices 
under arm's-length sales to value oil that is not sold at arm's length. 
Over time, posted prices have become increasingly suspect as a fair 
measure of market value. This rulemaking would modify valuation 
regulations to place substantial reliance on the higher of crude oil 
spot prices, major portion prices, or gross proceeds, and eliminate any 
direct reliance on posted prices. This rulemaking would also add more 
certainty to valuation of oil produced from Indian leases.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The primary legal basis for this rulemaking is the Federal Oil and Gas 
Royalty Management Act of 1982, as amended, which defines the Secretary 
of the Interior's (1) authority to implement and maintain a royalty 
management system for oil and gas leases on Indian lands, and (2) trust 
responsibility to administer Indian oil and gas resources.


Alternatives:


We considered a range of valuation alternatives such as making minor 
adjustments to the current gross proceeds valuation method, using 
futures prices, using index-based prices with fixed adjustments for 
production from specific geographic zones, relying on some type of 
field pricing other than posted prices, and taking oil in-kind. We 
chose the higher of the average of the high daily applicable spot 
prices for the month, major portion prices in the field or area, or 
gross proceeds received by the lessee or its affiliate. We chose spot 
prices as one of the three value measures because: (1) They represent 
actual trading activity in the market; (2) they mirror New York 
Mercantile Exchange futures prices; and (3) they permit use of an index 
price for the market center nearest the lease for oil most similar in 
quality to that of the lease production.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We estimate compliance with this rulemaking would cost the oil industry 
approximately $5.4 million the first year and $4.9 million each year 
thereafter. These estimates include the up-front computer programming 
and other administrative costs associated with processing the new form. 
The monetary benefits of this rulemaking are an estimated $4.7 million 
increase in annual royalties collected on oil produced from Indian 
leases. Additional benefits include simplification and increased 
certainty of oil pricing, reduced audit efforts, and reduced valuation 
determinations and associated litigation.


Risks:


The risk of not modifying current oil valuation regulations is that 
Indian recipients may not receive royalties based on the highest price 
paid or offered for the major portion of oil produced--a common 
requirement in most Indian leases. These modifications ensure that the 
Department fulfills its trust responsibilities for administering Indian 
oil and gas leases under governing mineral leasing laws, treaties, and 
lease terms.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           12/20/95                    60 FR 65610
NPRM                            02/12/98                     63 FR 7089
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    04/09/98
NPRM Comment Period End         05/13/98
Comment Period Extended 
    to 03/20/2000               02/28/00                    65 FR 10436
Supplemental NPRM               02/13/06                     71 FR 7453
Supplemental NPRM Comment 
    Period End                  04/14/06
Final Action                    12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Tribal


Agency Contact:
Sharron Gebhardt
Lead Regulatory Specialist
Department of the Interior
Minerals Management Service
MS 302B2, P.O. Box 25165
Denver, CO 80225-0165
Phone: 303 231-3211
Fax: 303 231-3781
Email: sharron.gebhardt@mms.gov
Related RIN: Previously reported as 1010-AC24
RIN: 1010-AD00

[[Page 72821]]

_______________________________________________________________________
DOI--Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

62. PLACEMENT OF EXCESS SPOIL

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


30 USC 1201 et seq


CFR Citation:


30 CFR 701; 30 CFR 773; 30 CFR 780; 30 CFR 781; 30 CFR 785; 30 CFR 816; 
30 CFR 817


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will establish permit application requirements and review 
procedures for applications that propose to place excess spoil from 
surface coal mining operations into waters of the United States. In 
addition, it will modify the backfilling and grading regulations to 
minimize the creation of excess spoil and it will revise the 
regulations governing surface coal mining operations within 100 feet of 
a perennial or intermittent stream to more closely track the underlying 
statutory provisions.


Statement of Need:


This rule will modify the backfilling and grading regulations to 
minimize the creation of excess spoil and it will revise the 
regulations governing surface coal mining operations within 100 feet of 
a perennial or intermittent stream to more closely track the underlying 
statutory provisions.


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.


Excess Spoil rulemaking authority: Section 515(b)(3) of SMCRA, 30 
U.S.C. 1265(b)(3) requires that all surface coal mining and reclamation 
operations backfill, compact (if necessary to ensure stability and to 
prevent leaching of toxic materials), and grade to restore the 
approximate original contour of the land unless an alternative post-
mining land use requires a level or gently rolling contour. The 
provision also provides for exceptions to this requirement stating that 
there are situations when it may not be possible to return all the 
spoil to the mined area, particularly if the volume of overburden is 
large relative to the thickness of coal. In those situations, the 
operator is required to demonstrate that due to volumetric expansion 
the amount of overburden and other spoil and waste material is more 
than sufficient to restore the approximate original contour. The 
operator is also required to backfill, grade, and compact (where 
advisable) any excess overburden and other spoil and waste material to 
obtain the lowest possible grade but not more than the angle of repose 
in order to achieve an ecologically sound land use compatible with the 
surrounding region and to prevent slides, erosion and water pollution.


Section 515(b)(22) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1265(b)(22) imposes specific 
controls for the disposal of excess spoil to assure mass stability and 
to prevent mass movement and erosion. Among the various controls, 
section 515(b)(22)(D) requires that the excess spoil disposal area 
should not contain springs, natural water courses, or wet weather seeps 
unless lateral drains are constructed from the wet areas to the main 
underdrain. Section 515(b)(22)(I) requires that all other related 
provisions of SMCRA be met.


Section 515(b)(21), 30 U.S.C. 1265(b)(21), requires the protection of 
offsite areas from slides and damage by among other requirements not 
depositing spoil material outside the permit area.


Special requirements for spoil handling are also provided for those 
surface coal operations located in steep slope areas. Section 
515(d)(1), 30 U.S.C. 1265(d)(1), requires that no spoil material . . . 
be placed on the downslope below the mine bench or mining cut: 
Provided, That spoil material in excess of that required for the 
reconstruction of the approximate original contour under the provisions 
of paragraph 515(b)(3) or 515(d)(2) shall be permanently stored 
pursuant to section 515(b)(22).


Stream Buffer Zone rulemaking authority: Section 515(b)(10) of SMCRA, 
30 U.S.C 1265(b)(10), requires coal operations to minimize the 
disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance at the mine-site and 
in associated offsite areas and to the quality and quantity of water in 
surface and ground water systems both during and after surface coal 
mining operations and during reclamation. Section 515(b)(10)(B)(i) 
specifies that coal operations must prevent, to the extent possible 
using the best technology currently available, additional contributions 
of suspended solids to streamflow, or runoff outside of the permit area 
but in no event shall the contributions be in excess of requirements 
set by applicable State or Federal law.


Section 515(b)(24) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1265(b)(24), requires that coal 
operations use best technology currently available to minimize 
disturbances and adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, and related 
environmental values; and enhance such resources where practicable.


Alternatives:


Alternatives being considered include:


A. No Action Alternative


This alternative would result in no changes to the excess spoil and 
stream buffer zone regulations as they currently exist in the Federal 
program.


B. Strengthening the Excess Spoil Requirements


We are considering changes to the excess spoil regulations that would 
add the following: Require the applicant to demonstrate that the volume 
of excess spoil generated has been minimized, that fills would be no 
larger than necessary, and to submit alternative spoil disposal plans 
in order to identify the plan that minimizes adverse environmental 
effects.


C. Clarifying the Stream Buffer Zone Requirements


We are considering revising the stream buffer zone regulation at 30 CFR 
816.57 and 817.57 to clarify under which circumstances the regulatory 
authority can allow surface coal mining activities within 100 feet of 
an intermittent or perennial stream. We will consider a clarification 
that would closely follow our historic interpretation and 
implementation of the current stream buffer zone rule.


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. Preliminary estimates indicate that the total annual 
increase for operators would be approximately $240,000, and for the 
primacy States the total annual increase is estimated

[[Page 72822]]

at approximately $25,000. These increases are due to 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 slop 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.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/07/04                     69 FR 1036
Second NPRM                     03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Dave Hartos
Physical Scientist
Department of the Interior
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
Three Parkway Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15220
Phone: 412 937-2902
Email: dhartos@osmre.gov
RIN: 1029-AC04
_______________________________________________________________________
DOI--Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

63. [bull] OIL SHALE LEASING AND OPERATIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


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 three-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 2 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.


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 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                            12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Ted A. Murphy
Division Chief - Solid Minerals - WO-320
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
1620 L Street NW.
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202 452-0350
Fax: 202 653-7397
Email: ted--murphy@blm.gov
RIN: 1004-AD90
BILLING CODE 4310-RK-S

[[Page 72823]]

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 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. 
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 is planning 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 will propose to adopt revised ADA Standards for Accessible 
Design that are consistent with the revised ADA Accessibility 
Guidelines.
 The Department also plans to review 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 review and 
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 is planning 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 will simplify and clarify 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 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 will be 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 will also offer proposed answers to the interpretive 
questions raised in the advance notice and present 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 will prepare an additional 
regulatory assessment of the estimated annual cost of compliance with 
regard to existing facilities. In this process, the Department will 
give 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. 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

[[Page 72824]]

authorization was transferred from the Justice Department's Immigration 
and Naturalization Service (INS) to the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS). However, 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. 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.
2. 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. However, other components do make use of 
the rulemaking process in certain significant respects.
 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 2007, to seek 
modifications to its regulations governing commerce in explosives. ATF 
continues analysis of its regulations governing storage requirements 
for explosives, including fireworks explosive materials. 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).
 The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is responsible for 
controlling abuse of narcotics and dangerous drugs, while ensuring 
adequate supplies for legitimate medical purposes, by regulating the 
aggregate supply of those drugs. However, now, the growing combination 
of drug trafficking and terrorism serves to call us even more urgently 
to action. 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, as well as the requirements of the Combat Methamphetamine 
Epidemic Act of 2005, which further regulates the importation, 
manufacture, and sale of drug products containing the scheduled listed 
chemical products ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine.
 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 limiting the 
communications of inmates identified as having an identifiable link to 
terrorist-related activities.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOJ--Civil Rights Division (CRT)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

64. 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

[[Page 72825]]

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 will be 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 will 
simplify and clarify the preparation of the proposed rule to follow. 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 will 
accompany 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 will 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 will issue as the second step of the 
above described title III rulemaking. This notice of proposed 
rulemaking will be issued under both title II and title III. For 
purposes of the title III regulation, this notice will propose to adopt 
revised ADA Standards for Accessible Design consistent with the minimum 
guidelines of the revised ADAAG. The second stage will initiate 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. The Department's proposed procedural amendments will not 
have a significant impact on small entities.


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 Access Board's regulatory assessment will also apply 
to the Department's proposed adoption of revised ADAAG as ADA standards 
insofar as the standards apply to new construction and alteration. The 
Department will also prepare an additional regulatory assessment of the 
estimated annual cost of compliance with the revised standards with 
regard to existing facilities that are subject to title III of the ADA.


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                            08/00/07
NPRM Comment Period End         12/00/07

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).

[[Page 72826]]

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
65. 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)) 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 will simplify and clarify 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 will accompany 
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 will 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 will issue as the second step of the 
above-described title II rulemaking. This notice of proposed rulemaking 
will be issued under both title II and title III. For purposes of the 
title II regulation alone, this notice will also propose 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 regulation 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

[[Page 72827]]

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. The Department's proposed procedural amendments will not 
have a significant impact on small entities.


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 Access Board's regulatory assessment will also apply 
to the Department's proposed adoption of revised ADAAG as ADA standards 
insofar as the standards apply to new construction and alteration. The 
Department will also prepare an additional regulatory assessment of the 
estimated annual cost of compliance with the revised standards with 
regard to existing facilities that are subject to title III of the ADA.


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 effects. These affects are 
discussed in the Access Board's regulatory assessment, which also 
applies to the Department's proposed rule.


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                            08/00/07
NPRM Comment Period End         12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


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 72828]]

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL)
2006 Regulatory Plan
Executive Summary: Protecting America's Workers
Since its creation in 1913, the Department of Labor has been guided by 
the idea that workers deserve safe and healthy workplaces, as well as 
protection of their wages and pensions. The Secretary of Labor has made 
protecting America's workers 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 workers 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 workers 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 workers need constant updating of skills to compete in 
a changing marketplace. DOL helps employers and workers 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
DOL has identified 19 high priority items for regulatory action. Ten 
items address health and safety issues, which are central to DOL's 
mission and which represent a major focus of the Secretary. Two 
agencies, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), are responsible 
for these initiatives.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) administers the 
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act). MSHA is 
undertaking a number of significant regulatory actions to provide 
increased protection to miners from accidents and assist in their 
evacuation from the mine should a mine emergency occur. In addition, 
the Agency is strengthening its procedures for assessing and collecting 
civil penalties, and in some cases, increasing the penalty amount 
proposed. MSHA is implementing major portions of the Mine Improvement 
and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (MINER Act) through portions of 
these rulemakings.
On March 9, 2006, MSHA published an Emergency Temporary Standard on 
Emergency Mine Evacuations (ETS) (1219-AB46), to protect miners from 
the grave danger that they face when they must evacuate a mine after an 
emergency occurs. The ETS contains provisions for immediate accident 
notification applicable to all underground and surface mines. In 
addition, the ETS addresses self-contained self-rescuer storage and 
use; evacuation and self-rescuer training; and the installation and 
maintenance of lifelines in underground coal mines. By December 8, 
2006, MSHA will promulgate a Final Rule on Emergency Mine Evacuations.
MSHA is proposing to amend 30 CFR part 100 Criteria and Procedures for 
Proposed Assessment of Civil Penalties (1219-AB51) to strengthen 
criteria for assessing proposed civil monetary penalties and increase 
the amounts MSHA may propose for some penalties. These changes are 
intended to improve the safety and health of miners by assuring greater 
compliance with the Mine Act and MSHA's safety and health standards.
In mid 2007, MSHA will propose separate rulemakings to address Mine 
Rescue Teams (1219-AB53) in underground mines and Sealing of Abandoned 
Areas (1219-AB52) in underground coal mines, both to be completed in 
2007. The Mine Rescue Team rule will include provisions for the number, 
training, composition and certification of mine rescue teams. The rule 
for Sealing of Abandoned Areas will address the pressure value 
requirement for seals.
In addition to these and other important safety initiatives, MSHA also 
remains committed to ensuring healthier workplaces for the nation's 
miners. MSHA plans to publish a Request for Information on the use of 
the personal continuous dust monitor upon completion of a research 
report from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 
This new technology is designed to continuously measure a coal miner's 
exposure to respirable coal mine dust. Such information, available 
immediately at the miner's work location has the potential to reduce 
the occurrence of respirable lung disease among coal miners.
On May, 18, 2006, MSHA promulgated its final rule on Diesel Particulate 
Matter Exposure of Underground Metal and Nonmetal Miners (1219-AB55), 
phasing in the final diesel particulate matter (DPM) exposure limit 
over a two-year period, with the final limit of 160TC [micro]g/m\3\ to 
become effective on May 20, 2008. The 160TC [micro]g/m\3\ exposure 
limit is expressed in terms of a ``TC'' or ``total carbon'' limit. MSHA 
is initiating a new rulemaking to convert the total carbon or ``TC'' 
limit to a comparable elemental carbon or ``EC'' limit.
Finally, MSHA is continuing work on its final rule on Asbestos Exposure 
(1219-AB24), a rule that will provide increased protection to miners 
potentially exposed to health hazards associated with asbestos.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration 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 may cause silicosis, a debilitating respiratory 
disease, and perhaps cancer as well. OSHA has obtained input from

[[Page 72829]]

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 April 2007.
OSHA has initiated rulemaking to revise its Hazard Communication 
Standard (HCS) 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 using the recommendations of a negotiated rulemaking 
committee. The committee submitted its recommendations in July 2004. 
OSHA has convened a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
panel to obtain input from small businesses and expects to receive the 
panel's report in October 2006.
Protection of pension and health benefits continues to be a priority of 
the Secretary of Labor. Consistent with the Secretary's priorities for 
FY 2007, 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 Health Insurance 
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) access, portability and 
renewability provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
(ERISA) (RIN 1210-AA54). With respect to pension plans, the Department 
will be developing guidance to encourage the automatic enrollment of 
participants in 40l(k) plans and the use of default investment options 
that will enhance retirement savings (RIN 1210-AB10). The Department 
also 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 initiating a review of the ``independence'' 
standards applicable to qualified public accountants engaged on behalf 
of participants and beneficiaries in ERISA-covered employee benefit 
plans (RIN 1210-AB09).
ERISA's requirements affect an estimated 733,000 private sector 
employee pension benefit plans (covering approximately 107 million 
participants); an estimated 2.5 million group health benefit plans 
(covering 135 million participants and dependents); and 3.5 million 
other welfare benefits plans (covering approximately 190 million 
participants).
The Secretary's emphasis on meeting the needs of the 21\st\ century 
workforce is reflected in the plan of the Employment and Training 
Administration (ETA) to issue regulations reflecting changes to the 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, as enacted in the Trade Act 
of 2002. The regulations will be issued in three parts: (1) a 
regulation covering the TAA program benefits (RIN 1205-AB32); (2) a 
regulation covering the new Alternative TAA program for Older Workers 
(RIN 1205-AB40); and (3) a regulation covering petition filings and 
investigations (RIN 1205-AB44). The proposed rules would address the 
many new features of the TAA program: consolidation of the TAA and 
NAFTA-TAA programs; rapid response services for workers to facilitate 
more rapid reemployment; expanded eligibility; increased benefits, 
including health care insurance assistance; and Alternative TAA for 
Older Workers program. The new regulations will be written in plain 
English, making them easier to read and use.
ETA's second priority is the Labor Certification for the Permanent 
Employment of Aliens in the United States; Reducing the Incentives and 
Opportunities for Fraud and Abuse and Enhancing Program Integrity (RIN 
1205-AB42). This regulation implements changes to reduce the incentives 
and opportunities for employer fraud and abuse related to the permanent 
employment of aliens in the United States.
The Employment Standards Administration (ESA) has one priority 
regulatory initiative. ESA's initiative pertains to regulations issued 
under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that were also discussed 
in OMB's 2001, 2002 and 2004 Reports to Congress on the Costs and 
Benefits of Regulations. ESA continues to review the issues raised by 
the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Ragsdale v. Wolverine World 
Wide, Inc., 122 S. Ct. 1155 (2002), and the decisions of other courts, 
for possible revisions to the FMLA regulations.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Employment Standards Administration (ESA)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

66. FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993; CONFORM TO THE SUPREME 
COURT'S RAGSDALE DECISION

Priority:


Other Significant


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


29 USC 2654


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 825


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The U.S. Supreme Court, in Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 122 
S. Ct. 1155 (2002), invalidated regulatory provisions issued under the 
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) pertaining to the effects of an 
employer's failure to timely designate leave that is taken by an 
employee as being covered by the FMLA. The Department intends to 
request information on the FMLA regulations.

[[Page 72830]]

Statement of Need:


The FMLA requires covered employers to grant eligible employees up to 
12 workweeks of unpaid, job-protected leave a year for specified family 
and medical reasons, and to maintain group health benefits during the 
leave as if the employees continued to work instead of taking leave. 
When an eligible employee returns from FMLA leave, the employer must 
restore the employee to the same or an equivalent job with equivalent 
pay, benefits, and other conditions of employment. FMLA makes it 
unlawful for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the 
exercise of any right provided by the FMLA.


The FMLA regulations require employers to designate if an employee's 
use of leave is counting against the employee's FMLA leave entitlement, 
and to notify the employee of that designation (29 CFR 825.208). 
Section 825.700(a) of the regulations provides that if an employee 
takes paid or unpaid leave and the employer does not designate the 
leave as FMLA leave, the leave taken does not count against the 
employee's 12 weeks of FMLA leave entitlement.


On March 19, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in 
Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 122 S. Ct. 1155 (2002). In that 
decision, the Court invalidated regulatory provisions pertaining to the 
effects of an employer's failure to timely designate leave that is 
taken by an employee as being covered by the FMLA. The Court ruled that 
29 CFR 825.700(a) was invalid absent evidence that the employer's 
failure to designate the leave as FMLA leave interfered with the 
employee's exercise of FMLA rights. The Department is requesting 
information to address issues raised by this and other judicial 
decisions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rule is issued pursuant to section 404 of the Family and Medical 
Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2654.


Alternatives:


After completing a review and analysis of the Supreme Court's decision 
in Ragsdale and other judicial decisions, regulatory alternatives may 
be developed for notice-and-comment rulemaking.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
RFI                             12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Paul DeCamp
Administrator, Wage and Hour Division
Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
S3502
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-0051
Fax: 202 693-1302
RIN: 1215-AB35
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Employment and Training Administration (ETA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

67. ALTERNATIVE TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE BENEFITS; AMENDMENT OF 
REGULATIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


19 USC 2320; Secretary's Order No. 3-81, 46 FR 31117


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 90; 20 CFR 618; 20 CFR 665; 20 CFR 671


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002, enacted on August 
6, 2002, contains provisions amending title 2, chapter 2 of the Trade 
Act of 1974, entitled Adjustment Assistance for Workers. The 
amendments, generally effective 90 days from enactment (November 4, 
2002), make additions to where and by whom a petition may be filed, 
expand eligibility to workers whose production has been shifted to 
certain foreign countries and to worker groups secondarily affected, 
and make substantive changes regarding Trade Adjustment Assistance 
(TAA) program benefits. They also create the Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) program for older workers, which was 
effective no later than one year after the enactment of the amendments 
on August 6, 2002.


It is the Department's intention to create a new 20 CFR part 618 to 
incorporate the amendments and write it in plain English, while 
amending the WIA regulations at 20 CFR parts 655 and 671 regarding 
Rapid Response and National Emergency Grants as they relate to the TAA 
program.


The proposed part 618 consists of 9 subparts: Subpart A-General; 
subpart B-Petitions and Determinations of Eligibility to Apply for 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (and alternative TAA); subpart C- Delivery 
of Services throughout the One-Stop Delivery System; subpart D- Job 
Search Allowances; subpart E- Relocation Allowances; subpart F- 
Training Services; subpart G- Trade Readjustment Allowances (TRA); 
subpart H- Administration by Applicable State Agencies; and subpart I-
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) for Older Workers.


Because of the complexity of the subject matter and the States' needs 
for definitive instructions on providing TAA benefits, the rulemaking 
for part 618 was originally divided into two parts: the first covering 
TAA benefits (subpart A and subparts C through H); and the second 
covering petitions and certifications (subpart B and certain 
definitions in subpart A) and ATAA (subpart I). To expedite the 
publication of guidance on ATAA, this second NPRM is divided, and ATAA 
will proceed under this original RIN 1205-AB40.


This proposed rulemaking covers the issuance of ATAA benefits for older 
workers (subpart I). Separate notices of proposed rulemaking cover 
benefits (subpart A and subparts C through H) and petitions and 
determinations (subpart B and certain definitions in subpart A).


Statement of Need:


The Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002, enacted August 6, 
2002, repeals the North American Free Trade Agreement-Transitional 
Adjustment Assistance provisions for workers affected by the NAFTA 
Implementation Act and adds significant amendments to worker benefits 
under Trade Adjustment

[[Page 72831]]

Assistance for Workers, as provided for in the Trade Act of 1974.


The 2002 Trade Act amends where and by whom a petition may be filed. 
Program benefits for TAA--eligible recipients are expanded to include 
for the first time a health care tax credit, and eligible recipients 
now include secondarily affected workers impacted by foreign trade. 
Income support is extended by 26 weeks and by up to one year under 
certain conditions. Waivers of training requirements in order to 
receive income support are explicitly defined. Job search and 
relocation benefit amounts are increased. Within one year of enactment, 
the amendments offer an Alternative TAA for Older Workers program that 
targets older worker groups who are certified as TAA eligible and 
provides the option of a wage supplement instead of training, job 
search, and income support.


The Department was required to implement the amendments within 90 days 
from enactment (November 4, 2002), and it issued operating instructions 
in a guidance letter on October 10, 2002, and later published in the 
Federal Register (67 FR 69029-41). State agencies rely on the 
regulations to make determinations as to individual eligibility for TAA 
program benefits. TAA program regulations as written have been 
described as complicated to interpret. With the new TAA program benefit 
amendments contained in the Trade Act of 2002, it is imperative that 
the regulations be in an easy-to-read and understandable format.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These regulations are authorized by 19 U.S.C. 2320 due to the 
amendments to the Trade Act of 1974 by the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Reform Act of 2002.


Alternatives:


The public will be afforded an opportunity to provide comments on the 
ATAA program changes when the Department publishes the proposed rule in 
the Federal Register.


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                            10/18/06                    71 FR 61618
NPRM Comment Period End         12/18/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Agency Contact:
Erica Cantor
Administrator, Office of National Response
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N5422
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2757
Email: cantor.erica@dol.gov
Related RIN: Related to 1205-AB32
RIN: 1205-AB40
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ETA
68. [bull] REVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR REGULATIONS FOR 
PETITIONS AND DETERMINATIONS OF ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY FOR TRADE 
ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR WORKERS

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


19 USC 2320; Secretary's Order 3-81; 46 FR 31117


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 90; 20 CFR 617; 20 CFR 618; 20 CFR 665; 20 CFR 671


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002, enacted on August 
6, 2002, contains provisions amending title 2, chapter 2 of the Trade 
Act of 1974, entitled Adjustment Assistance for Workers. The 
amendments, effective 90 days from enactment (November 4, 2002), make 
additions to where and by whom a petition may be filed, expand 
eligibility to workers whose production has been shifted to certain 
foreign countries and to worker groups secondarily affected, and make 
substantive changes regarding Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program 
benefits. They also create the Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance 
(ATAA) program for older workers, which was effective no later than one 
year after the enactment of the amendments on August 6, 2002.


It is the Department's intention to create a new 20 CFR part 618 to 
incorporate the amendments and write it in plain English, while 
amending the WIA regulations at 20 CFR parts 655 and 671 regarding 
Rapid Response and National Emergency Grants as they relate to the TAA 
program.


The proposed part 618 consists of 9 subparts; subpart A-General; 
subpart B-Petitions and Determinations of Eligibility to Apply for 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (and Alternative TAA); subpart C-Delivery 
of Services throughout the One-Stop Delivery System; subpart D-Job 
Search Allowances; subpart E-Relocation Allowances; subpart F-Training 
Services; subpart G-Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA); subpart H-
Administration by Applicable State Agencies; subpart I-Alternative 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) for Older Workers.


Because of the complexity of the subject matter of the States' needs 
for definitive instructions on providing TAA benefits, the rulemaking 
for part 618 was originally divided into two parts: the first covering 
TAA benefits (subpart A and subparts C through H); and the second 
covering petitions and certifications (subpart B and certain 
definitions in subpart A) and ATAA (subpart I). To expedite the 
publication of guidance on ATAA, this second NPRM is divided, and ATAA 
proceeded under its original RIN 1205-AB40.


This proposed rulemaking covers petitions and determinations (subpart B 
and certain definitions in subpart A) of the regulations. Separate 
notices of proposed rulemaking cover remaining (subpart A and subparts 
C through H) and the issuance of ATAA benefits for older workers 
(subpart I).


Statement of Need:


The Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002, enacted August 6, 
2002, repeals the North American Free Trade Agreement-Transitional 
Adjustment Assistance provisions for workers affected by the NAFTA 
Implementation Act and adds significant amendments to worker benefits 
under Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers, provided for the Trade 
Act of 1974.

[[Page 72832]]

The 2002 Trade Act amends where and by whom a petition may be filed. 
Program benefits for TAA-eligible recipients are expanded to include 
for the first time a health care tax credit, and eligible recipients 
now include secondarily affected workers impacted by foreign trade. 
Income support is extended by 26 weeks and by up to one year under 
certain conditions. Waivers of training requirements in order to 
receive income support are explicitly defined. Job search and 
relocation benefits amounts are increased. Within one year of 
enactment, the amendments offer an Alternative TAA for Older Workers 
program that targets older worker groups who are certified as TAA 
eligible and provides the option of a wage supplement instead of 
training, job search and relocation allowances, and income support.


The Department was required to implement the amendments within 90 days 
from enactment (November 4, 2002), and it issued operating instructions 
in a guidance letter on October 10, 2002, and later published in the 
Federal Register (67 FR 69029-41). State agencies rely on the 
regulations to make determinations as to individual eligibility for TAA 
program benefits. TAA program regulations as written have been 
described as complicated to interpret. In light of changes in the 
petition process made by the Reform Act, as well as the need to clearly 
spell out that process for the public and the courts, it is imperative 
that the regulations be in an easy to read and understandable format.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The regulation is authorized by 19 USC 2320 due to the amendments to 
the Trade Act of 1974 by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 
2002.


Alternatives:


The public will be afforded an opportunity to provide comments on the 
TAA program changes when the Department publishes the proposed rule in 
the Federal Register.


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                            04/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Erica Cantor
Administrator, Office of National Response
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N5422
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2757
Email: cantor.erica@dol.gov
Related RIN: Related to 1205-AB32, Related to 1205-AB40
RIN: 1205-AB44
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ETA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

69. REVISION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BENEFIT REGULATIONS FOR TRADE 
ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR WORKERS UNDER THE TRADE ACT OF 1974, AS 
AMENDED

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


19 USC 2320; Secretary's Order No. 3-81, 46 FR 31117


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 90; 20 CFR 617; 20 CFR 618; 20 CFR 665; 20 CFR 671; . . .


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002, enacted on August 
6, 2002, contains provisions amending title 2, chapter 2, of the Trade 
Act of 1974, entitled Adjustment Assistance for Workers. The 
amendments, effective 90 days from enactment (November 4, 2002), make 
additions to where and by whom a petition may be filed, expand 
eligibility to workers whose production has been shifted to certain 
foreign countries and to worker groups secondarily affected, and make 
substantive changes regarding trade adjustment assistance (TAA) program 
benefits.


It is the Agency's intention to create a new 20 CFR part 618 to 
incorporate the amendments and write it in plain English, while 
amending the WIA regulations at 20 CFR parts 665 and 671 regarding 
Rapid Response and National Emergency Grants as they relate to the TAA 
program.


The proposed part 618 consists of 9 subparts: subpart A--General; 
subpart B--Petitions and Determinations of Eligibility to Apply for 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (and Alternative TAA); subpart C---Delivery 
of Services throughout the One-Stop Delivery System; subpart D--Job 
Search Allowances; subpart E--Relocation Allowances; subpart F--
Training Services; subpart G--Trade Readjustment Allowances (TRA); 
subpart H--Administration by Applicable State Agencies; and subpart I--
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance for Older Workers. Because of 
the complexity of the subject matter and the States' needs for 
definitive instructions on providing TAA benefits, the rulemaking for 
part 618 is divided into three parts. This notice of proposed 
rulemaking covers the general provisions (most of subpart A) and TAA 
benefits portions (subpart C through subpart H) of the regulations. 
Separate notices of proposed rulemaking will cover the two remaining 
subparts and reserved definitions in subpart A. One NPRM, subpart I 
will cover benefits under the alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance 
program. The other NPRM, subpart B will cover the petitions and 
certification process.


Statement of Need:


The Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002, enacted August 6, 
2002, repeals the North American Free Trade Agreement-Transitional 
Adjustment Assistance provisions for workers affected by the NAFTA 
Implementation Act and adds significant amendments to worker benefits 
under Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers, as provided for in the 
Trade Act of 1974.


The 2002 Trade Act amends where and by whom a petition may be filed. 
Program benefits for TAA--eligible recipients are expanded to include 
for the first time a health care tax credit,

[[Page 72833]]

and eligible recipients now include secondarily affected workers 
impacted by foreign trade. Income support is extended by 26 weeks and 
by up to one year under certain conditions. Waivers of training 
requirements in order to receive income support are explicitly defined. 
Job search and relocation benefit amounts are increased. Within one 
year of enactment, the amendments offer an Alternative TAA for Older 
Workers program that targets older worker groups who are certified as 
TAA eligible and provides the option of a wage supplement instead of 
training, job search, and income support.


The Department is mandated to implement the amendments within 90 days 
from enactment (November 4, 2002), and it issued operating instructions 
in a guidance letter on October 10, 2002, and later published in the 
Federal Register (67 FR 69029-41). State agencies rely on the 
regulations to make determinations as to individual eligibility for TAA 
program benefits. TAA program regulations as written have been 
described as complicated to interpret. With the new TAA program benefit 
amendments contained in the Trade Act of 2002, it is imperative that 
the regulations be in an easy-to-read and understandable format.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These regulations are authorized by 19 U.S.C. 2320 due to the 
amendments to the Trade Act of 1974 by the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Reform Act of 2002.


Alternatives:


The public was afforded an opportunity to provide comments on the TAA 
program changes when the Department published the proposed rule in the 
Federal Register.


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                            08/25/06                    71 FR 50760
NPRM Comment Period End         10/24/06
Final Action                    04/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Agency Contact:
Erica Cantor
Administrator, Office of National Response
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N5422
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2757
Email: cantor.erica@dol.gov
Related RIN: Related to 1205-AB40
RIN: 1205-AB32
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ETA
70. LABOR CERTIFICATION FOR THE PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS IN THE 
UNITED STATES; REDUCING THE INCENTIVES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR FRAUD AND 
ABUSE AND ENHANCING PROGRAM INTEGRITY

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1182(a)(5)(A)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 656


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department of Labor proposed changes to reduce the incentives and 
opportunities for fraud and abuse related to the permanent employment 
of aliens in the United States. Among other key changes, the Department 
is eliminating the current practice of allowing the substitution of 
alien beneficiaries on applications and approved labor certifications. 
DOL proposed to further reduce the likelihood of the submission of 
fraudulent applications for the permanent employment of aliens in the 
United States by proposing a 45-day deadline for employers to file 
approved permanent labor certifications in support of a petition with 
the Department of Homeland Security. The Final Rule expressly prohibits 
the sale, barter, or purchase of permanent labor certifications or 
applications, as well as related payments. The proposed rule also 
addresses enforcement mechanisms to protect program integrity, 
including debarment with appeal rights. These amendments would apply to 
employers using both the Application for Alien Employment Certification 
(Form ETA 750) or the Application for Permanent Employment 
Certification (Form ETA 9089).


Statement of Need:


The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, established 
the permanent labor certification (PERM) program. Through this program, 
an employer submits a petition to the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) requesting a visa to admit a certain immigrant alien to work 
permanently in the United States. This petition process requires the 
Secretary of the Department of Labor (DOL) to certify specific 
information to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of 
State before DHS may approve the employer's petition request and the 
Department of State (DOS) may issue a visa to admit such alien.


Specifically, DOL must certify that there is not a U.S. worker able, 
available, willing and qualified at the time of an application for a 
visa, and that the employment of the alien will not adversely affect 
the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. If 
DOL determines that there is no able, available, willing and qualified 
U.S. worker and employment of the immigrant alien will not adversely 
affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. 
workers, then a permanent labor certification is granted. If DOL cannot 
make both of the above findings, then the application is denied.


This proposed regulation is intended to enhance program integrity and 
reduce the incentives and opportunities for fraud and abuse. First, the 
regulation would eliminate the current practice of allowing 
substitution of alien beneficiaries on the certification applications. 
Second, the regulation would implement a 45-day period for employers to 
file approved certifications with DHS. Third, the regulation would 
expressly prohibit the sale, barter, or purchase of PERM applications 
and certifications and other related payments. Finally, the regulation 
would highlight existing law regarding fraudulent activity or 
falsifying information and

[[Page 72834]]

corresponding sanctions for such findings.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This regulation is authorized by 8 USC 1182(a)(5)(A); INA 
Sec. 212(a)(5)(A).


Alternatives:


The public was afforded an opportunity to provide comments on the Fraud 
and Abuse rule implementation when the Department published the 
proposed rule in the Federal Register (71 FR 7656).


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Department believes any potential increase in applications filed as 
a result of either employers withdrawing and then filing a corrected 
application or employers allowing a certification to expire and then 
filing a new application or recruitment costs associated with this rule 
would be more than offset by an anticipated reduction in average 
processing time because the Department will not expend resources to 
process as many fraudulent applications. Aliens will save money if they 
are not forced to pay employer expenses nor provide kickbacks to 
certain agents and employers. Any cost savings realized, however, will 
not be greater than $100 million.


Risks:


This action does not affect public health, safety or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/13/06                     71 FR 7656
NPRM Comment Period End         04/14/06
Final Action                    04/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
William Carlson
Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor Certification
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room C- 4312
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-3010
Email: carlson.william@dol.gov
RIN: 1205-AB42
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

71. AMENDMENT OF REGULATION RELATING TO DEFINITION OF PLAN ASSETS--
PARTICIPANT CONTRIBUTIONS

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


29 USC 1135


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 2510.3-102


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking will amend the regulation that defines when participant 
monies paid to or withheld by an employer for contribution to an 
employee benefit plan constitute ``plan assets'' for purposes of title 
I of ERISA and the related prohibited transaction provisions of the 
Internal Revenue Code. The regulation contains an amendment to the 
current regulation that will establish a safe harbor period of a 
specified number of business days during which certain monies that a 
participant pays to, or has withheld by, an employer for contribution 
to a plan would not constitute ``plan assets.''


Statement of Need:


This amendment of the participant contribution regulation would, upon 
adoption, establish a ``safe harbor'' period of a specified number of 
days during which certain monies that a participant pays to, or has 
withheld from wages, by an employer for contribution to an employee 
benefit plan, would not constitute plan assets for purposes of title I 
of ERISA and the related prohibited transaction provisions of the 
Internal Revenue Code. The amendment is needed to provide greater 
certainty to employers, participants and beneficiaries, service 
providers and others concerning when participant contributions to a 
plan constitute plan assets.


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. Regulation 29 CFR 2510.3-102 provides 
that the assets of an employee benefit plan covered by title I of ERISA 
include amounts (other than union dues) that a participant or 
beneficiary pays to an employer, or has withheld from wages by an 
employer, for contribution to the plan as of the earliest date on which 
such contributions can reasonably be segregated from the employer's 
general assets; the regulation also specifies the maximum time period 
for deposit of such contributions by the employer.


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.


Risks:


Failure to provide the safe harbor that would be afforded by the 
proposed amendment with regard to monies contributed to employee 
benefit plans would deprive employers, other plan fiduciaries, and 
service providers of the certainty they need to optimize compliance 
with the law. Also, any risk of loss or lost earnings resulting from 
permitting employers who would otherwise transmit contributions to the 
plan sooner than the time specified in the safe harbor should be 
minimal, while the benefits attendant to encouraging employers to 
review and modify their systems or practices to take advantage of the 
safe harbor may be significant.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Federalism:


 Undetermined

[[Page 72835]]

Agency Contact:
Louis J. Campagna
Chief, Division of Fiduciary Interpretations, Office of Regulations and 
Interpretations
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N5669
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8512
Fax: 202 219-7291
RIN: 1210-AB02
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--EBSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

72. REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HEALTH CARE ACCESS, PORTABILITY, AND 
RENEWABILITY PROVISIONS OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND 
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1996

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


29 USC 1027; 29 USC 1059; 29 USC 1135; 29 USC 1171 to 1172; 29 USC 
1191c


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 2590


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) 
amended title I of ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code, and the Public 
Health Service Act with parallel provisions designed to improve health 
care access, portability and renewability. The Departments of Labor, 
the Treasury, and the Health and Human Services are mutually dependent 
due to shared interpretive jurisdiction and are proceeding concurrently 
to provide additional regulatory guidance regarding these provisions.


Statement of Need:


In general, the health care portability provisions in part 7 of ERISA 
provide for increased portability and availability of group health 
coverage through limitations on the imposition of any preexisting 
condition exclusion and special enrollment rights in group health plans 
after loss of other health coverage or a life event. Plan sponsors, 
administrators and participants need guidance from the Department with 
regard to how they can fulfill their respective obligations under these 
statutory provisions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Part 7 of ERISA specifies the portability and other requirements for 
group health plans and health insurance issuers. Section 734 of ERISA 
provides that the Secretary may promulgate such regulations as may be 
necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of part 7 of 
ERISA. In addition, section 505 of ERISA authorizes the Secretary to 
issue regulations clarifying the provisions of title I of ERISA.


Risks:


Failure to provide guidance concerning part 7 of ERISA may impede 
compliance with the law.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              04/08/97                    62 FR 16894
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   06/07/97
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          07/07/97
Request for Information         10/25/99                    64 FR 57520
Comment Period End              01/25/00
NPRM                            12/30/04                    69 FR 78800
Request for Information         12/30/04                    69 FR 78825
Final Rule                      12/30/04                    69 FR 78720
Final Action Effective          02/28/05
Request for Information/ 
    Comment Period End          03/30/05
NPRM Comment Period End         03/30/05
Final Action                    09/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Amy Turner
Senior Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8335
RIN: 1210-AA54
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--EBSA
73. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES 
BASED ON HEALTH STATUS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


29 USC 1027; 29 USC 1059; 29 USC 1135; 29 USC 1182; 29 USC 1191c; 29 
USC 1194


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 2590.702


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) 
amended title I of ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code, and the Public 
Health Service Act with parallel provisions to prohibit discrimination 
by a group health plan or a health insurance issuer based on any health 
status-related factor. The Departments of Labor, the Treasury, and 
Health and Human Services are mutually dependent due to shared 
interpretive jurisdiction and are proceeding concurrently to provide 
final regulatory guidance regarding these provisions.


Statement of Need:


Part 7 of ERISA provides that group health plans and health insurance 
issuers may not establish rules for eligibility (including continued 
eligibility) of any individual to enroll under the terms of the plan 
based on any health status-related factor. Plan sponsors, 
administrators, and participants need additional guidance from the 
Department with regard to how they can fulfill their respective 
obligations under these statutory provisions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 702 of ERISA specifies the respective nondiscrimination 
requirements for group health plans and health insurance issuers. 
Section 734 of ERISA provides that the Secretary may promulgate such 
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the 
provisions of part 7 ERISA. In addition, section 505 of ERISA 
authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations clarifying the provisions 
of title I of ERISA.

[[Page 72836]]

Risks:


Failure to provide guidance concerning part 7 of ERISA may impede 
compliance with the law.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              04/08/97                    62 FR 16894
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          07/07/97
NPRM                            01/08/01                     66 FR 1421
NPRM Comment Period End         04/09/01
Second Interim Final Rule       01/08/01                     66 FR 1378
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          04/09/01
Final Rule                      12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


This item has been split off from RIN 1210-AA54.


Agency Contact:
Amy Turner
Senior Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8335
RIN: 1210-AA77
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--EBSA
74. SECTION 404 REGULATION--DEFAULT INVESTMENT ALTERNATIVES UNDER 
PARTICIPANT DIRECTED INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT PLANS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


29 USC 1104(c)(5); 29 USC 1135


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 2550


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, February 19, 2007.


Abstract:


This rulemaking would establish a relief under which a fiduciary of a 
participant directed individual account pension plan will be deemed to 
have satisfied his or her fiduciary responsibilities with respect to 
investment and asset allocation decisions made on behalf of individual 
participants and beneficiaries who fail to give investment direction. 
This rulemaking will describe the types of investments that qualify as 
default investments in order to obtain fiduciary relief. As with other 
investment alternatives available under the plan, fiduciaries will 
continue to be responsible for the prudent selection and monitoring of 
qualifying default investment alternatives.


Statement of Need:


Section 404(c)(1) of ERISA provides that, where a participant or 
beneficiary of an employee pension benefit plan exercises control over 
assets in an individual account maintained for him or her under the 
plan, the participant or beneficiary is not considered a fiduciary by 
reason of his or her exercise of control and other plan fiduciaries are 
relieved of liability under part 4 of title I of ERISA for the results 
of such exercise of control. As part of the Pension Protection Act of 
2006, section 404(c) was amended to provide relief accorded by section 
404(c)(1) to fiduciaries that invest participant assets in certain 
types of investment alternatives in the absence of participant 
investment direction. The Pension Protection Act directed the 
Department to issue final default investment regulations under section 
404(c)(5)(A) of ERISA no later than 6 months of the date of enactment 
of the Pension Protection Act. This rulemaking responds to a need on 
the part of plan sponsors and fiduciaries for guidance on the selection 
of default investments for plan participants who fail to make an 
investment election. Such guidance would also improve retirement 
savings for millions of American workers.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Promulgation of this regulation is authorized by sections 505 and 
404(c) of ERISA.


Alternatives:


Regulatory alternatives were considered in developing the proposed rule 
and published in the Federal Register.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs and benefits of regulatory alternatives were estimated and taken 
into account in developing the proposed rule and published in the 
Federal Register.


Risks:


Failure to provide guidance on default investment options for 
individual account plans may result in diminished retirement savings 
for the many participants who fail to make an investment election with 
regard to their accounts. In addition, failure to issue final default 
investment regulations under section 404(c)(5)(A) of ERISA no later 
than 6 months of the date of enactment of the Pension Protection Act 
would contravene section 624 of the Pension Protection Act.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/27/06                    71 FR 56806
NPRM Comment Period End         11/13/06
Final Action                    02/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Erin Sweeney
Senior Pension Law Specialist, ORI
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N5669
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8500
RIN: 1210-AB10
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

75. [bull] PERSONAL CONTINUOUS DUST MONITORS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


30 USC 811


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None

[[Page 72837]]

Abstract:


On June 24, 2003, MSHA announced that all work on its Plan Verification 
and Single-Sample Respirable Coal Mine Dust final rules would cease and 
the rulemaking record would remain open in order to obtain information 
concerning Personal Continuous Dust Monitors (PCDMs) currently being 
tested by NIOSH. A Federal Register notice was published on July 3, 
2003, extending the comment periods indefinitely. All detailed field 
and laboratory testing on the PDM by NIOSH and MSHA has now been 
successfully completed, and NIOSH has completed the final report 
documenting the results of the collaborative research to date. NIOSH 
and MSHA conducted joint PCDM workshops to explore options and related 
implementation issues for maximizing the PCDM technology in prevention 
of ``black lung'' disease among coal miners. Once the public has had an 
opportunity to review the NIOSH report, MSHA will solicit public input 
on potential applications of this new monitoring technology in coal 
mines.


Statement of Need:


Respirable coal mine dust levels in this country are significantly 
lower than they were over two decades ago. Despite this progress, there 
continues to be concern about our current sampling programs' ability to 
accurately measure and maintain respirable coal mine dust at or below 
the applicable standard. The new PCDM, unlike the technology that has 
been employed since 1970 to measure concentrations of respirable coal 
mine dust, offers the capability to provide accurate and timely 
continuous readings of the dust level during the shift. Responses to 
this Request for Information (RFI) will assist the Agency in 
determining: (1) How to deploy the PCDM in coal mines and utilize its 
coal dust monitoring capability to further improve miner health 
protection from disabling occupational lung disease; and (2) the 
regulatory and non-regulatory actions that are needed to promote its 
use for exposure monitoring and control.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This RFI is authorized by sections 101 and 103 of the Federal Mine 
Safety and Health Act of 1977.


Alternatives:


This RFI would explore options for amending and improving health 
protection from that afforded by the existing standards.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


MSHA will develop a preliminary economic analysis to accompany any 
proposed rule that may be developed.


Risks:


Respirable coal dust is one of the most serious occupational hazards in 
the mining industry. Occupational exposure to excessive levels of 
respirable coal mine dust can cause black lung, which is potentially 
disabling and can cause death. MSHA is pursuing both regulatory and 
nonregulatory actions to eliminate this disease through the control of 
coal mine respirable dust levels in mines and reduction of miners' 
exposure.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Request for Information         01/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Patricia W. Silvey
Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
1100 Wilson Boulevard
Room 2350
Arlington, VA 22209-3939
Phone: 202 693-9440
Fax: 202 693-9441
Email: silvey.patricia@dol.gov
RIN: 1219-AB48
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

76. [bull] SEALING OF ABANDONED AREAS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


30 USC 811; Section 10 of MINER Act


CFR Citation:


30 CFR 75.335


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 15, 2007.


Abstract:


On June 15, 2006, Public Law 109-236, the Mine Improvement and New 
Emergency Response Act (MINER Act) of 2006 became effective. Section 10 
of the MINER Act requires that the Secretary of Labor finalize 
mandatory health and safety standards relating to the sealing of 
abandoned areas in underground coal mines no later than 18 months after 
enactment. Such health and safety standards shall provide for an 
increase in the 20 pounds per square inch standard currently set forth 
in section 75.335(a) (2) of title 30, Code of Federal Regulations.


Statement of Need:


Section 10 of the MINER Act requires the Secretary of Labor to finalize 
mandatory standards relating to the sealing of abandoned areas in 
underground coal mines no later than December 15, 2007, and that 
provide for an increase in the 20 psi standard currently in effect. 
Adequate seals are crucial to containing explosions and preventing the 
migration of potentially explosive methane-air mixtures from worked out 
areas to the working areas of an underground coal mine. The MINER Act 
as well as data from MSHA's evaluation of alternative seals in 
underground coal mines has led the Agency to determine that revisions 
to existing standards for alternative seals are necessary.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Promulgation of this regulation is authorized by the Federal Mine 
Safety and Health Act of 1977 and the MINER Act of 2006.


Alternatives:


The Mine Safety and Health Administration is reviewing the information 
from the Darby No. 1 Mine and Sago Mine accidents to determine if the 
use of alternative seal techniques contributed to those accidents. The 
Agency is also conducting test explosions in experimental mines to 
determine the relationships between seal design and construction and 
the ability to withstand explosive forces. This information will assist 
the Agency in developing new standards consistent with the requirements 
of the MINER Act.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


MSHA will develop a preliminary regulatory economic analysis to 
accompany any rule that may be developed.

[[Page 72838]]

Risks:


Recent accidents and MSHA data show that there are problems with the 
construction and use of alternative methods and materials to create 
seals. Properly constructed seals are crucial to containing explosions 
and preventing the migration of potentially explosive methane-air 
mixtures from worked out areas to the working areas of an underground 
coal mine. The exact scope of the problem is unknown at this time. 
However, the reliability of at least 30,000 seals in underground coal 
mines is in question because of their potential to endanger miners who 
work in mines with sealed areas.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            05/00/07
Final Action                    12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Patricia W. Silvey
Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
1100 Wilson Boulevard
Room 2350
Arlington, VA 22209-3939
Phone: 202 693-9440
Fax: 202 693-9441
Email: silvey.patricia@dol.gov
RIN: 1219-AB52
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA
77. [bull] MINE RESCUE TEAMS

Priority:


Other Significant


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


30 USC 957; 30 USC 811; 30 USC 825; Section 4 of the MINER Act


CFR Citation:


30 CFR 49; 30 CFR 57; 30 CFR 75


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 15, 2007.


Abstract:


On June 15, 2006 Public Law 109-236 or the Mine Improvement and New 
Emergency Response Act (MINER Act) of 2006 became effective. This 
rulemaking will implement section 4 of the MINER Act by amending 
existing standards and developing new standards to provide for 
increased availability of mine rescue teams and to specify additional 
training and qualification requirements for teams and team members. 
Currently, requirements for mine rescue teams are set forth in 30 CFR 
part 49.


Statement of Need:


Section 4 of the MINER Act requires that the Secretary of Labor 
finalize mandatory health and safety standards relating to mine rescue 
teams in underground coal mines no later than December 15, 2007. 
Current standards require properly trained mine rescue teams to be 
immediately available to assist in rescue of miners during mine 
emergencies. In almost all cases, because of the inherent dangers of 
roof or rib falls, fires, explosions, and gas or water inundations in 
underground coal mining, local fire and rescue personnel are not 
qualified for rescue operations in underground coal mines. Unqualified 
rescuers can pose an even graver danger to themselves and other 
rescuers. The increased mechanization of underground coal mining, the 
reduction in hiring, and the rising cost of training mine rescue teams 
have resulted in a wide variety of alternative arrangements, especially 
for small mine operators. The MINER Act requires team members to have 
underground coal mining experience and instruction in specific topics, 
and requires teams to participate in mine rescue contests and to 
periodically renew their qualifications. The MINER Act also provides 
mine operators options for using multi-employer teams, State-sponsored 
teams, and commercial teams to ensure the availability of qualified 
mine rescue teams.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Promulgation of this regulation is authorized by the Federal Mine 
Safety and Health Act of 1977 and the MINER Act of 2006.


Alternatives:


MSHA is considering amendments, revisions, and additions to existing 
standards to implement the provisions of the MINER Act.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


MSHA will develop a preliminary regulatory economic analysis to 
accompany any proposed rule that may be developed.


Risks:


The two mine explosions at the Sago Mine in January, 2006 and the Darby 
No. 1 Mine in May, 2006 resulted in the deaths of 17 underground coal 
miners. Explosions, fires, and the migration of potentially explosive 
methane-air mixtures from worked out areas to the working areas of an 
underground coal mine endanger all miners who work in the mine, 
including potential rescuers.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/07
Final Action                    12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Patricia W. Silvey
Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
1100 Wilson Boulevard
Room 2350
Arlington, VA 22209-3939
Phone: 202 693-9440
Fax: 202 693-9441
Email: silvey.patricia@dol.gov
RIN: 1219-AB53
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA
78. [bull] DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER: CONVERSION FACTOR FROM TOTAL 
CARBON TO ELEMENTAL CARBON

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


30 USC 811; 30 USC 813


CFR Citation:


30 CFR 57


Legal Deadline:


None

[[Page 72839]]

Abstract:


On May, 18, 2006, MSHA promulgated its final rule on Diesel Particulate 
Matter Exposure of Underground Metal and Nonmetal Miners (71 FR 28924), 
phasing in the final diesel particulate matter (DPM) exposure limit 
over a two-year period, with the final limit of 160TC [micro]g/
m<SUP>3</SUP> to become effective on May 20, 2008. The DPM exposure 
limit is expressed in terms of a ``TC'' or ``total carbon'' limit. MSHA 
is initiating a new rulemaking to establish the most appropriate 
measure for determining compliance with the final DPM exposure limit. 
Using the latest available evidence, MSHA will be examining the most 
appropriate conversion factor for a comparable elemental carbon (EC) 
limit.


Statement of Need:


The May 18, 2006 final rule at 30 CFR 57.5060(b)(3) requires mine 
operators to ensure that the miners' personal exposures to diesel 
particulate matter (DPM) in an underground mine do not exceed an 
airborne concentration of 160 micrograms of total carbon per cubic 
meter of air during an average eight-hour equivalent full shift, 
effective May 20, 2008. This rulemaking proposes the EC conversion 
factor for the 160 TC [micro]g/m<SUP>3</SUP> limit, which would allow 
mine operators to implement the requirements of the May 18, 2006 final 
rule.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Promulgation of this regulation is authorized by section 101 of the 
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.


Alternatives:


This rulemaking would amend and improve health protection from that 
afforded by the existing standard.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


MSHA will prepare estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits 
associated with the selected conversion factor.


Risks:


A number of epidemiological studies have found that exposure to diesel 
exhaust presents potential health risks to miners. These potential 
adverse health effects range from headaches and nausea to respiratory 
disease and cancer. In the confined space of the underground mining 
environment, occupational exposure to diesel exhaust may present a 
greater hazard due to ventilation limitations and the presence of other 
airborne contaminants, such as toxic mine dusts or mine gases. MSHA 
believes that the health evidence forms a reasonable basis for reducing 
miners' exposure to diesel particulate matter. Proceeding with a 
separate rulemaking to determine the correct TC to EC conversion factor 
for the phased-in final limits will more effectively reduce miners' 
exposures to DPM.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            05/00/07
Final Action                    05/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Patricia W. Silvey
Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
1100 Wilson Boulevard
Room 2350
Arlington, VA 22209-3939
Phone: 202 693-9440
Fax: 202 693-9441
Email: silvey.patricia@dol.gov
RIN: 1219-AB55
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

79. ASBESTOS EXPOSURE LIMIT

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


30 USC 811; 30 USC 813


CFR Citation:


30 CFR 56; 30 CFR 57; 30 CFR 71


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


MSHA's permissible exposure limit (PEL) for asbestos applies to surface 
(30 CFR part 56) and underground (30 CFR part 57) metal and nonmetal 
mines and to surface coal mines and surface areas of underground coal 
mines (30 CFR part 71). A report by the Office of the Inspector General 
(OIG) recommended that MSHA lower its PEL for asbestos to a more 
protective level, and address take home contamination from asbestos. It 
also recommended that MSHA use Transmission Electron Microscopy to 
analyze fiber samples that may contain asbestos. MSHA proposed a rule 
to lower its permissible exposure limit for asbestos to reduce the 
occurrence of asbestos-induced occupational disease.


Statement of Need:


Current scientific data indicate that the existing asbestos PEL is not 
sufficiently protective of miners' health. MSHA's asbestos regulations 
date to 1967 and are based on the Bureau of Mines (MSHA's predecessor) 
standard of 5 mppcf (million particles per cubic foot of air). In 1969, 
the Bureau proposed a 2 mppcf 12fibers/ml) standard. This standard was 
promulgated in 1969. In 1970, the Bureau proposed to lower the standard 
to 5 fibers/ml, which was promulgated in 1974. MSHA issued its current 
standard of 2 fibers/ml in 1976 for coal mining (41 FR 10223) and in 
1978 for metal and nonmetal mining (43 FR 54064). During inspections, 
MSHA routinely takes samples, which are analyzed for compliance with 
its standard.


Other Federal agencies have addressed this issue by lowering their PEL 
for asbestos. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, working in conjunction with the Environmental 
Protection Agency, enacted a revised asbestos standard in 1994 that 
lowered the permissible exposure limit to an 8-hour time-weighted 
average of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air and the excursion 
limit to 1.0 fiber per cubic centimeter of air (1 f/cc) as averaged 
over a sampling period of 30 minutes. These lowered limits reflected 
newer information and studies on the asbestos-related disease risk to 
asbestos-exposed workers.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Promulgation of this regulation is authorized by section 101 of the 
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.


Alternatives:


The Agency has increased sampling efforts in an attempt to determine 
current miners' exposure levels to asbestos, including taking samples 
at all existing vermiculite, taconite, talc, and other mines to 
determine whether asbestos is present and at what levels. In early 
2000, MSHA began an intensive sampling effort at operations

[[Page 72840]]

with potential asbestos exposure. While sampling, the MSHA staff also 
discussed with miners and mine operators the potential hazards of 
asbestos and the types of preventive measures that could be implemented 
to reduce exposures.


MSHA's proposed rule did not include standards to address take-home 
contamination from asbestos nor did MSHA propose to change its 
analytical method for asbestos. The final rule will be based, in part, 
on comments and testimony to the proposed rule, as well as MSHA 
sampling and inspection experience.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


MSHA is developing a regulatory economic analysis to accompany the 
final rule.


Risks:


Miners could be exposed to the hazards of asbestos during mine 
operations where ore body contains asbestos. There is also potential 
for exposure at facilities in which installed asbestos-containing 
material is present. Overexposure to asbestos causes asbestosis, lung 
cancer, mesothelioma, and other forms of cancers.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           03/29/02                    67 FR 15134
Notice of Change to 
    Public Meetings             04/18/02                    67 FR 19140
ANPRM Comment Period End        06/27/02
NPRM                            07/29/05                    70 FR 42950
NPRM Comment Period End         11/21/05                    70 FR 43950
Public Hearing                  10/18/05                    70 FR 43950
Final Action                    03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


The Office of the Inspector General's ``Evaluation of MSHA's Handling 
of Inspections at the W.R. Grace & Company Mine in Libby, Montana,'' 
was issued in March 2001.


URL For More Information:
www.msha.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.msha.gov

Agency Contact:
Patricia W. Silvey
Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
1100 Wilson Boulevard
Room 2350
Arlington, VA 22209-3939
Phone: 202 693-9440
Fax: 202 693-9441
Email: silvey.patricia@dol.gov
RIN: 1219-AB24
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA
80. EMERGENCY MINE EVACUATION

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


30 USC 811; 30 USC 813; 30 USC 825; 30 USC 876


CFR Citation:


30 CFR 48; 30 CFR 50; 30 CFR 75


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 9, 2006.


Abstract:


The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) published an emergency 
temporary standard on March 9, 2006. Under section 101(b) of the 
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) the emergency 
temporary standard was effective immediately. MSHA, however, must 
publish a final rule no later than nine months after publication of an 
emergency temporary standard in accordance with section 101(b) of the 
Mine Act. Therefore, MSHA is issuing a final rule. In addition, the 
final rule will incorporate relevant requirements of the Mine 
Improvement and Emergency Response Act (MINER Act). This final rule 
will include requirements for immediate accident notification 
applicable to all underground and surface mines. In addition, this 
final rule also will address requirements for self-contained self-
rescuer storage and use; emergency evacuation and self-rescuer training 
and drills; and the installation and maintenance of lifelines that are 
applicable to all underground coal mines.


Statement of Need:


MSHA issued the emergency temporary standard, which focused on the 
evacuation of underground coal mines and immediate accident 
notification, applicable to all underground and surface mines, to fill 
a critical need when a mine emergency occurs. Because the emergency 
temporary standard was immediately effective, MSHA has gained 
experienced with the rule. MSHA affirms that the requirements 
implemented under the emergency temporary standard provide all miners 
additional critical protection through prompt accident reporting, and 
in addition provide all underground coal miners additional critical 
tools and training to complete a successful mine evacuation.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Promulgation of this regulation is authorized by section 101 of the 
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and the Mine Improvement and 
New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-236).


Alternatives:


This final rule would provide: (1) the safety protections afforded to 
miners by the existing temporary standard; and (2) additional 
protections through implementation of parts of the MINER Act.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The anticipated costs and benefits of the final rule focus on miners 
having the tools to successfully escape a serious mine accident that 
requires emergency evacuation of the mine. MSHA will prepare a 
regulatory economic analysis for the final rule.


Risks:


Mining continues to be one of the most hazardous occupations in the 
United States. In calendar year 2004, there were 634 underground coal 
mine operators employing 33,490 miners and 3,697 contractor workers who 
work underground in coal mines. In total, there were 214,450 miners and 
72,739 contract workers who work in the 14,480 U.S. mines. In 2004, 56 
miners died in mining accidents, over 8,000 miners suffered nonfatal 
injuries resulting in lost work days; and over 3,400 miners suffered 
injuries that resulted in no lost work days. The final rule 
requirements, once implemented, will give underground coal miners 
necessary tools to successfully escape a serious mine accident.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Emergency Temporary 
    Standard                    03/09/06                    71 FR 12252

[[Page 72841]]

Emergency Temporary 
    Standard Effective          04/10/06
Change of Public Hearing 
    Dates                       03/27/06                    71 FR 15028
Emergency Mine Evacuation 
    Public Hearing              04/24/06
Emergency Mine Evacuation 
    Public Hearing              04/26/06
Emergency Mine Evacuation 
    Public Hearing              04/28/06
Emergency Mine Evacuation 
    Public Hearing              05/09/06
Civil Penalties NPRM            09/08/06                    71 FR 53054
Civil Penalties-NPRM 
    Comment Period End          10/23/06
Final Action                    12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Patricia W. Silvey
Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
1100 Wilson Boulevard
Room 2350
Arlington, VA 22209-3939
Phone: 202 693-9440
Fax: 202 693-9441
Email: silvey.patricia@dol.gov
RIN: 1219-AB46
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA
81. CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


30 USC 815; 30 USC 820; 30 USC 957; Section 8 of the MINER Act


CFR Citation:


30 CFR 100


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


MSHA is proposing to amend its civil penalty regulations to increase 
penalty amounts, to revise the process for proposing civil penalties 
and to implement requirements of the Mine Improvement and New Emergency 
Response Act (MINER Act) of 2006. The key civil penalty provisions of 
the MINER Act are: minimum penalties of $2,000 and $4,000, 
respectively, for unwarrantable failure citations and orders; penalties 
of not less than $5,000 and not more than $60,000 for failure to timely 
notify MSHA of a death or an injury or entrapment with a reasonable 
potential to cause death; and penalties of up to $220,000 for 
``flagrant'' violations -- those involving ``a reckless or repeated 
failure to make reasonable efforts to eliminate a known violation of a 
mandatory health or safety standard that substantially and proximately 
caused, or reasonably could have been expected to cause, death or 
serious bodily injury.'' Updating these regulations will strengthen 
incentives for compliance.


Statement of Need:


A recent upward trend in citations for violations of MSHA's safety and 
health regulations, coupled with a high number of fatalities at mines 
this year, have called into question the effectiveness of the current 
civil penalty regulations. Congress responded by passing the MINER Act 
to provide MSHA with statutory authority for some of the needed changes 
to the civil penalty regulations. MSHA is proposing additional changes 
to strengthen existing regulations, which will be an important tool in 
the reduction of fatalities and improvement in miner safety and health.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Promulgation of this regulation is authorized by the Federal Mine 
Safety and Health Act of 1977 and the MINER Act of 2006.


Alternatives:


The Agency considered a variety of approaches to calculating civil 
penalties and is proposing the approach that it believes best achieves 
the objectives of the Agency.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Using 2005 violation and assessment data as a baseline, MSHA estimates 
that all violations in 2005, if assessed under the proposed rule, would 
result in approximately $68 million in penalties annually, which is an 
increase of $43 million. However, MSHA projects that the higher 
penalties will induce operators to increase compliance efforts, thereby 
decreasing the number of violations by about 19% and resulting in 
increased penalties of $21 million.


MSHA believes the projected increased compliance with health and safety 
regulations would result in fewer injuries and fatalities, but such 
benefits have not been scientifically established. Accordingly, MSHA 
has not prepared a quantitative estimate of the expected reduction in 
injuries and fatalities.


Risks:


The Mine Act imposes civil penalties as a means of ensuring compliance 
with the requirements of the Act. The Congress intended that the 
imposition of civil penalties would induce mine operators to be 
proactive in their approach to mine safety and health, and take 
necessary action to prevent safety and health hazards before they 
occur. MSHA's regulations apply to 14,480 mine operators and 6,693 
independent contractors, as well as the 214,450 miners and 72,739 
contract workers they employ.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/08/06                    71 FR 53054
NPRM Comment Period End         11/09/06                    71 FR 62572
Final Action                    12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Patricia W. Silvey
Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
1100 Wilson Boulevard
Room 2350
Arlington, VA 22209-3939
Phone: 202 693-9440
Fax: 202 693-9441
Email: silvey.patricia@dol.gov
RIN: 1219-AB51

[[Page 72842]]

_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

82. 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 a 50ug/m3 exposure limit 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 comprehensive program standard. These standards include 
provisions for methods of compliance, exposure monitoring, training, 
and medical surveillance.


Statement of Need:


Over two 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, 
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             04/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Dorothy Dougherty
Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room 3718
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov
RIN: 1218-AB70
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
83. HAZARD COMMUNICATION

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657

[[Page 72843]]

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, and 
training for employees. Within the United States (US), 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.


Several nations, as well as the European Union, are preparing proposals 
for adoption of the GHS. US manufacturers, employers, and employees 
will be 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 USC 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
Review Comments                 02/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Dorothy Dougherty
Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
FP Building
Room 3718
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov
RIN: 1218-AC20
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

84. CRANES AND DERRICKS

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


29 USC 651(b); 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333

[[Page 72844]]

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)


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 Comment 
    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                            10/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


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
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2020
Fax: 202 693-1689
RIN: 1218-AC01
BILLING CODE 4510-23-S

[[Page 72845]]

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, mass 
transit, 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, mass transit, the maritime 
industry, railroads, and motor vehicle safety. It writes regulations 
carrying out such disparate 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 acquisition 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.
An important initiative of the Department has been to increase the 
timeliness of DOT rulemaking actions and address the large number of 
old rulemakings. To implement this, the following actions have been 
required (1) regular meetings of senior DOT officials to ensure 
effective scheduling of rulemakings 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. 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 are a few examples of this.
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 if 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 rules are either completed in a timely 
manner or that 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 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.
During fiscal year 2007, OST will continue its efforts to complete work 
on an NPRM that will propose accessibility

[[Page 72846]]

requirements for vessels which involves complex issues unlike those 
affecting land transportation. This NPRM will propose feasible 
requirements to make passenger vessels accessible to, and usable by, 
individuals with disabilities.
OST also is helping to 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. 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. 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 
            operations. 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 2006-2007 include a proposal concerning 
commuter operations in very light jets, a rulemaking to address Fuel 
Tank Flammability Reduction in Transport Category Airplanes, and 
several rulemaking projects known collectively as the FAA's Aging 
Airplane Program. The FAA developed the Aging Airplane Program to 
address structural and non-structural system safety issues that may 
arise as airplanes age and in response to:
(1) Airplanes being operated beyond their original design service 
            goals;
(2) The 1988 Aloha Boeing 737 accident; and
(3) The Aging Airplane Safety Act of 1991.
Other significant rulemakings included in the Aging Airplane Program 
are:
(1) Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Aging Systems/Fuel Tank Safety; 
            and
(2) Widespread Fatigue Damage Program.
FAA also is taking actions to advance the Department's congestion 
initiative. FAA is currently working on a congestion management rule 
for La Guardia Airport in New York (2120-AI87) and previously issued a 
similar rule for O'Hare Airport in Chicago.
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 safety, quality and performance of our Nation's highway 
system.
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. FHWA intends to 
implement this legislation:
<bullet> in the least burdensome and restrictive way possible;
<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; and
<bullet> to encourage significantly greater participation by the 
            private sector in financing and operating highway 
            infrastructure, and increase State and local emphasis on 
            operational and system pricing improvements than can reduce 
            congestion.
Consistent with this mission, the FHWA will continue to advance the 
Department's congestion initiative that was announced in May, 2006. 
There are several regulations that impact this initiative, including:
<bullet> Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program (2125-
            AF13);
<bullet> Design Build (2125-AF12);
<bullet> Express Lane Demonstration Project (2125-AF07);
<bullet> Projects of National and Regional Significance (2125-AF08);
<bullet> Metropolitan Transportation Planning (2125-AF09)
<bullet> Environmental Review of Activities that Support the Deployment 
            of ITS Projects (2125-AF15).
In addition to these congressionally directed rulemakings the FHWA has 
also been directed to complete the following rules:
(1) Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and 
            Historic Sites (2125-AF14);
(2) Worker Visibility (2125-AF11); and
(3) Temporary Traffic Control Devices (2125-AF10).
These rulemakings are the FHWA's top regulatory priorities for 2006-
2007. 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 the recently 
enacted legislation.
Finally, the FHWA continues to work to complete the rulemaking that 
proposes to amend the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 
to include a standard for minimum maintained levels of traffic sign 
retroreflectivity and methods to 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

[[Page 72847]]

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, amended, and more effective safety regulations 
is key to achieving increased safety on our Nation's highways. FMCSA 
regulations establish standards for drivers, carriers, States, and 
others that create improved safety conditions and operating practices. 
In its first 6 years of operation, FMCSA has responded to Congress' 
concerns over delays in timely rulemaking, as expressed in the Motor 
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA). FMCSA is making steady 
progress in systematically addressing this backlog.
First, FMCSA developed a directive establishing standard rulemaking 
procedures with ongoing oversight and involvement by senior agency 
leaders to lend structure and accountability to the rulemaking process. 
It continues to monitor the process and update the directive when 
additional issues are identified.
Second, FMCSA has made significant progress in reducing the backlog of 
rules including those not mandated by Congress but initiated by FMCSA 
itself to increase safety. FMCSA has completed all required MCSIA 
rulemakings, except ``Medical Certification as Part of the Commercial 
Driver's License'' (RIN 2126-AA10), which is among its highest 
priorities and is included in the Regulatory Plan. It will serve as a 
significant step in a comprehensive update of how FMCSA addresses the 
medical condition of drivers who operate commercial motor vehicles 
(CMVs). Also, the ``Unified Registration System'' rulemaking (RIN 2126-
AA22) remains in the Agency's Regulatory Plan. This rule would create a 
new, unified and updated registration system that benefits both the 
users with simplified processes and FMCSA with better data. This new 
rule will include new provisions added by our reauthorization 
legislation, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
SAFETEA-LU added a significant number of new regulatory projects to 
FMCSA's docket. The Agency is committed to using its resources and 
personnel in the most effective manner to promulgate these additional 
rules while still completing an already challenging rulemaking agenda. 
FMCSA has already completed one SAFETEA-LU rule this year, ``Commercial 
Driver's License Standards; School Bus Endorsement'' (RIN 2126-AA94). 
Additionally, FMCSA has added to its Regulatory Plan the ``National 
Registry of Certified Medical Examiners'' rulemaking (RIN 2126-AA97). 
This latter rulemaking would provide for a database or ``National 
Registry'' of medical examiners and would establish training, testing, 
and certification standards for the medical examiners who certify that 
interstate commercial motor vehicle drivers meet the FMCSA's physical 
qualifications standards.
FMCSA also continues work on its ``Electronic On-Board Recorders for 
Hours-of-Service Compliance'' (RIN 2126-AA89) rulemaking. This rule 
would implement performance standards for the use of electronic on-
board recording devices and ensure that these standards reflect state-
of-the art information and management technologies.
In addition, under the Manufacturing Regulatory Reform Agenda, FMCSA 
continues work on its ``Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe 
Operations; Surge Brake Requirements'' rulemaking. This rulemaking 
would allow the use of automatic hydraulic inertia brake systems (surge 
brakes) on trailers operated in interstate commerce.
In the past year, FMCSA issued a final rule on hours of service (HOS). 
This rule responded to both the concerns of the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the D.C. Circuit and the action of Congress, which extended the 
effective date of the April 2003 HOS final rule until September 30, 
2005. The new HOS final rule became effective on October 1, 2005. In 
addition, the Agency continues work on its Comprehensive Safety 
Analysis 2010 (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 full deployment of this new 
operational model. The Agency anticipates that the results of CSA 2010 
and its associated rulemakings will contribute further to the Agency's 
overall goal of decreasing CMV-related fatalities and injuries.
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 
vehicle compatibility. In FY 2007, a final rule is planned for a 
significant upgrade to the side impact standard, FMVSS No. 214. A 
notice of proposed rulemaking was published for the side impact upgrade 
in 2004. Publication of this final rule also will meet a regulatory 
requirement in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (SAFETEA-LU). Significant actions in 
crash avoidance will include a final rule aimed at shortening heavy 
truck stopping distances. A notice of proposed rulemaking was published 
in 2005 for heavy truck stopping distances. A rulemaking notice is 
planned for FY 2007 that would propose requiring Electronic Stability 
Control (ESC) systems on all newly-manufactured passenger cars and 
light trucks. Publication of this notice also will meet a regulatory 
requirement in SAFETEA-LU. In addition, the Agency will publish an 
update to the NHTSA Vehicle Safety Rulemaking Priorities and Supporting 
Research plan, originally published in FY 2003 and updated in FY 2005. 
The plan highlights the agency's priority rulemaking actions to help 
address the most significant vehicle safety needs.
Relative to the Manufacturing Regulatory Reform Agenda, NHTSA is

[[Page 72848]]

engaged in two rulemaking activities that will be addressed in 2007. 
First, in response to requests from industry to organize FMVSS No. 108 
in a more understandable way, a final rule is planned for an 
administrative rewrite of the standard. This action presents the newly 
organized text of FMVSS No. 108, including importing referenced 
requirements from applicable SAE standards directly into the text of 
FMVSS No. 108. Secondly, as part of the agency's comprehensive approach 
to occupant ejection mitigation, NHTSA plans to publish final rules for 
the FMVSS No. 214 side impact upgrade as well as the FMVSS No. 206 door 
retention performance upgrade. The latter rulemaking will be the first 
standard to harmonize with the first global technical regulation, and 
will respond to the requirements mandated in Title X, Subtitle C, Sec. 
10301, section 30128 (c) (2) of SAFETEA-LU.
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. In 2003, it 
released a report analyzing safety belt use problems and describing 
actions to address them. A separate report analyzed and described 
actions to address the problem of impaired driving. To address this 
problem, 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 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; and (3) the development of passenger 
train emergency systems. Recently, FRA published a final rule on 
locomotive crashworthiness that establishes comprehensive, minimum 
crashworthiness protection standards to reduce crew injuries and 
fatalities as a result of locomotive collisions.
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 will include 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.
FTA participates in the Department's congestion initiative. Current 
projects that will advance the initiative include Metropolitan 
Transportation Planning (2132-AA82) and New/Small Starts (2132-AA81).
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
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's 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, when 
appropriate, in order to provide a net benefit to the U.S. maritime 
industry.
MARAD's regulatory priorities are to update existing regulations and to 
reduce unnecessary burden on the public.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA) has 
responsibility for rulemaking under two programs. Through the Associate 
Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, PHMSA administers 
regulatory programs under Federal hazardous materials transportation 
law and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990. Through the Associate Administrator for Pipeline 
Safety, PHMSA administers regulatory programs under the Federal 
pipeline safety laws and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
A significant priority in the coming year will be an initiative to 
enhance the safety and security of hazardous materials transported by 
rail. Working

[[Page 72849]]

with the Department of Homeland Security's Transportation Security 
Administration and FRA, PHMSA is considering revising the Hazardous 
Materials Regulations to require rail carriers to (1) compile annual 
data on certain shipments of hazardous materials and use the data to 
analyze safety and security risks along rail transportation routes 
where those materials are transported; and (2) assess alternative 
routing options and make routing decisions based on those assessments. 
We may also address measures to enhance the safety and security of 
hazardous materials rail shipments stored during transportation.
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> 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 Volpe National Transportation 
            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 and operating 
statistical data, covering both passenger and cargo traffic. 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.
RITA's regulatory priorities are to assist OST and all DOT modal 
administrations in updating existing regulations by applying research 
and technology results, and to provide information to transportation 
system decision makers.
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC)
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) is a wholly 
owned Government corporation created by Congress in 1954. The primary 
operating service of the SLSDC is to ensure the safe transit of 
commercial and noncommercial vessels through the two U.S. locks and 
navigation channels of the Saint Lawrence Seaway System. The SLSDC 
works jointly with its Canadian counterpart to operate and maintain 
this deep draft waterway between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic 
Ocean. The SLSDC also works jointly with its Canadian counterpart on 
all matters related to rules and regulations, overall operations, 
vessel inspection, traffic control, navigation aids, safety, operating 
dates, and trade development programs.
The regulatory priority of the SLSDC is to provide its customers with 
the safest, most reliable, and most efficient Seaway System possible.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

85. [bull] [rplus]COMMUTER OPERATIONS IN VERY LIGHT JETS (VLJS)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 1155; 49 USC 40103; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 40119; 
49 USC 40120; 49 USC 44101; 49 USC 44111; 49 USC 44701 to 44702 ; 49 
USC 44705; 49 USC 44709 to 44711; 49 USC 44711; 49 USC 44712; 49 USC 
44713; 49 USC 44715; 49 USC 44716 to 44717; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 44901; 
49 USC 44903 to 44904; 49 USC 44912; 49 USC 46105; 49 USC 46306; 49 USC 
46316; 49 USC 46504; 49 USC 46506 to 46507; 49 USC 47122; 49 USC 47508; 
49 USC 47528 to 47531


CFR Citation:


14 CFR 1; 14 CFR 119; 14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 125; 14 CFR 135; 14 CFR 21; 14 
CFR 23; 14 CFR 27; 14 CFR 29; 14 CFR 61; 14 CFR 91


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking proposes changes to the certification and operation 
regulations to accommodate the entry into the airspace system of very 
light jets. These proposed regulations are necessary because of the 
introduction of a new type of airplane as a result of significant 
changes in the aviation industry. The proposals originated, in part, 
from recommendations from the Aviation Rulemaking Committee for Parts 
135/125. The rulemaking will include aircraft certification, pilot 
crew, equipment, training, and dispatch requirements for the safe 
operation of this new type of airplane.


Statement of Need:


Several models of very light jets are currently under certification and 
are expected to start production late 2006. Current rules for on-demand 
and commuter operations do not adequately address these airplanes nor 
address the safety implications of the introduction of a new generation 
of aircraft fleet.


There also exists a regulatory barrier to using these airplanes in 
scheduled service. Some air carriers have proposed business models for 
use of these airplanes in scheduled service. Part 119 requires all 
turbojets used in scheduled service to operate under part 121. It also 
requires newly certificated (after March 1995) airplanes to be type 
certificated under part 25 if they are used in part 121 operations. 
These new generation turbojets are type certificated under part 23 and 
therefore cannot be used in scheduled service under either part 135 or 
121.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 44701, Title 49 of the United States Code, states that the 
Administrator shall promote safety of flight of civil aircraft in air 
commerce by prescribing minimum standards required in the interest of 
safety.


Alternatives:


The FAA could ignore the opportunity to codify the special conditions 
under which these airplanes were certificated, but that would be an 
undesirable alternative as various versions of special conditions could 
be developed.


Maintaining the current rules regarding scheduled operations is not in 
the public interest and deprives the public of a viable transportation 
option. In addition, the current rules do not adequately address the 
introduction of these new generation airplanes. The status quo on the 
additional safety

[[Page 72850]]

criteria could have a negative impact on safety.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


If the FAA requires two pilots for the initial operation of the VLJ, 
there obviously will be added costs. However, if these airplanes were 
operated in scheduled service under part 121, two pilots would be 
required. In addition, the requirement for dispatch for scheduled 
operations could be potentially very costly. Again, if these airplanes 
were operated under part 121 in scheduled operations, dispatch would be 
required. This rule provides a business opportunity to operate in 
scheduled service under part 135 which has lower operating and 
certification costs than part 121. There are costs for additional 
equipment and other safety enhancements; however, these are mitigated 
by the fact that the airplanes currently under certification will meet 
many of these items as part of their certification. The additional 
safety requirements will reduce the anticipated spike in number of 
accidents historically shown with the introduction of a new generation 
aircraft.


Risks:


The risk of not doing the rulemaking is that the airplanes would be 
operated under the unscheduled rules of part 145, which allow a single 
pilot. It would also create numerous petitions for exemption.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


URL For More Information:
dms.dot.gov

URL For Public Comments:
dms.dot.gov

Agency Contact:
Ida Klepper
Federal Aviation Administration
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Ave SW
Washington, DC 20591
Phone: 202-267-9677
Email: ida.klepper@faa.gov
RIN: 2120-AI84
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FAA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

86. [rplus]AGING AIRCRAFT PROGRAM (WIDESPREAD FATIGUE DAMAGE)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 40119; 49 USC 41706; 49 USC 44101; 
49 USC 44701 to 44702; 49 USC 44705; 49 USC 44709 to 44711; 49 USC 
44713; 49 USC 44716 to 44717; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 46105; 49 USC 1372; 
Pub L 107-71 sec 104; . . .


CFR Citation:


14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 129


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action is intended to prevent widespread fatigue damage by 
proposing to require that design approval holders establish operational 
limits on transport category airplanes. Design approval holders would 
also be required to determine if maintenance actions are needed to 
prevent widespread fatigue damage before an airplane reaches its 
operational limit. Operators of any affected airplane would be required 
to incorporate the operational limit and any necessary service 
information into their maintenance programs. Operation of an affected 
airplane beyond the operational limit would be prohibited, unless an 
operator has incorporated an extended operational limit and any 
necessary service information into its maintenance program.


Statement of Need:


History has shown that widespread fatigue damage (WFD) is a significant 
safety risk for transport category airplanes. The Aloha B-737 accident 
in 1988 showed FAA and industry that WFD could be a problem that could 
lead to catastrophic failure of airplane structure. Numerous widespread 
fatigue damage incidents since then have confirmed that it is a threat 
common to all aging airplanes. Because widespread fatigue damage 
results from the interaction of many small cracks, existing inspection 
methods are inadequate to reliably detect and prevent it.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 44701, Title 49 of the United States Code states that the 
Administrator shall promote safety of flight of civil aircraft in air 
commerce by prescribing minimum standards required in the interest of 
safety.


Alternatives:


The FAA acknowledges the proposed rule may have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. We conclude the current 
proposal is the preferred alternative because it provides for a common 
WFD system for all operators who fly in the same airspace under the 
same operating environment.


We considered the following alternatives:


1. Exclude small entities


2. Extend the compliance deadline for small entities


3. Establish lesser technical requirements for small entities


4. Expand the requirements to cover more airplanes


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The cost of this proposal is $358.1 million. The benefits of this 
proposal consist of $654 million in accident prevention benefits and 
$74 million in detection benefits, for total benefits of $728 million.


Risks:


Because widespread fatigue damage problems will occur as airplanes 
operate beyond their initial operational limit, operators are likely to 
detect such problems over the 20-year forecast period. The FAA has 
assumed that there is a probability of widespread fatigue damage 
problems occurring for each fuselage type of five percent in each year. 
Under this assumption, there is a 35 percent chance that there will be 
zero WFD problems detected for a particular fuselage type over a 20-
year period.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/18/06                    71 FR 19927

[[Page 72851]]

NPRM Comment Period End         07/17/06
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    07/17/06                    71 FR 38540
NPRM Extended Comment 
    Period End                  09/18/06
Final Rule                      09/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
dms.dot.gov

URL For Public Comments:
dms.dot.gov

Agency Contact:
Walter Sippel
ANM-115
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
1601 Lind Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98039-4056
Phone: 425-227-2774
Fax: 425-227-1232
Email: walter.sippel@faa.gov
RIN: 2120-AI05
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FAA
87. [rplus]TRANSPORT AIRPLANE FUEL TANK FLAMMABILITY REDUCTION

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 44701 to 44702; 49 USC 44704


CFR Citation:


14 CFR 25


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking will require that flammability reduction means be 
incorporated into existing airplanes, newly manufactured airplanes, and 
new designs. It establishes new design standards for future and pending 
applications for type certification as well as new operating rules for 
retrofitting existing airplanes.


Statement of Need:


There have been four accidents caused by fuel tank explosions since 
1989. Two occurred during flight and two others occurred on the ground. 
Terrorists caused one of the four. In the other three cases, no 
ignition source was identified as the cause of the explosion. In all 
four cases, however, investigators concluded that the center wing fuel 
tank in these airplanes contained flammable vapors when the fuel tanks 
exploded and the accidents occurred.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 44701, title 49 of the United States Code states that the 
Administrator shall promote safety of flight of civil aircraft in air 
commerce by prescribing minimum standards required in the interest of 
safety.


Alternatives:


1. Require flammability reduction means on new production and new 
designs without requiring retrofit. The risk analysis for this option 
predicted an unacceptable high number of future accidents due to the 
high number of airplanes within the current fleet that would remain in 
service for many years. 2. Require inerting of all fuel tanks on 
existing airplanes in the fleet and new type designs. 3. Exclude all 
cargo operators. 4. Address unsafe condition through airworthiness 
directive. 5. Impose changes on operators as opposed to requiring OEMs 
to develop design changes. Past experience on similar safety 
initiatives shows the OEMs do not consistently support these efforts 
and places an undue burden on the operators.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The FAA is conducting a regulatory evaluation using various 
combinations of the value of a human life, the timing of the next 
accidents, the passenger load on the next accident airplane, and the 
effectiveness of SFAR 88. We anticipate costs and benefits will vary 
based upon assumptions used in calculating these values. Using a value 
of 3 million per life, average airplane size, average time for the next 
accident, the costs could exceed $1 billion and quantitative benefits 
will be less than $1 billion.


Risks:


The FAA believes at least one and as many as five accidents will happen 
in the next 50 years.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/23/05                    70 FR 70922
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    03/21/06                    71 FR 14122
Comment Period End              05/08/06
Final Rule                      09/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
dms.dot.gov

URL For Public Comments:
dms.dot.gov

Agency Contact:
Mike Dostert
Federal Aviation Administration
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
1601 Lind Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98055-4056
Phone: 425 227-2132
Fax: 425-227-1320
Email: mike.dostert@faa.gov
RIN: 2120-AI23
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

88. [rplus]MEDICAL CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AS PART OF THE COMMERCIAL 
DRIVER'S LICENSE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


sec 215, PL 106-159; 113 Stat 1748, 1767 (1999); 49 USC 31305 note and 
31502


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 383, 384, and 391


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would require those commercial drivers license (CDL) 
drivers who are required to obtain a Federal medical certification, to 
make

[[Page 72852]]

the current status of that certification part of the commercial drivers 
licensing and renewal process, as required by section 215 of the Motor 
Carrier Safety Improvement Act. Incorporating the current medical 
certification status information into the State-administered Commercial 
Drivers License Information System (CDLIS) driver record would improve 
highway safety by requiring those drivers who are federally required to 
obtain a medical certificate to provide proof of that medical 
certification in order to obtain or retain a CDL. It would enable 
electronic verification of the current medical certification status as 
part of existing employer and enforcement programs. It is proposed to 
eliminate the requirement for this portion of CDL operators to carry 
their medical examiners certificate in addition to their CDL since an 
electronic record would verify that there is a valid medical 
certificate.


Statement of Need:


This rule is required by Public Law 106-159. Section 215 of the Act 
requires that medical certification information be made part of the 
CDL. When applying for (or renewing) a CDL, 49 CFR part 383 requires 
drivers to self-certify whether they are subject to part 391 
(Qualifications of Drivers). If they operate in interstate commerce and 
are not excepted, then part 383 requires these drivers to self-certify 
whether they meet the physical qualification requirements of part 391. 
Part 383 does not currently require drivers to provide any proof 
regarding their physical qualification to operate a CMV in order to 
obtain or retain a CDL. This rulemaking would require interstate CDL 
drivers who are not excepted to begin providing to their State driver-
licensing agency (SDLA) an original or copy (at the States discretion) 
of each medical examiners certificate they obtain. The SDLA would 
modify their implementation of CDLIS and record information on that 
drivers Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS) individual 
driver record maintained by the State. The new required information 
would include both the self-certification regarding applicability of 
part 391, and for interstate drivers who are not excepted, the current 
medical certification status information. This combination of 
information about the applicability of part 391 and medical 
certification status would determine whether a CDL could be issued, 
transferred, upgraded, renewed, or retained.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 215 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) 
directed the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to initiate a 
rulemaking to provide for a Federal medical qualification certificate 
to be made a part of commercial drivers licenses. The physical 
qualifications requirements in 49 CFR part 391 are based on 49 U.S.C. 
31136 and 31502. The physical qualifications standards are at 49 CFR 
391.11. Part 391 regulations are applicable only to drivers who operate 
CMVs, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 31132. Thus, FMCSA interprets section 215 
of MCSIA applicable only to interstate CDL holders.


The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 directed the Secretary 
to establish licensing standards for drivers that operate CMVs, as 
defined in 49 U.S.C. 31301. Those operators of CMVs as defined in 49 
U.S.C. 31301, who are engaged solely in intrastate commerce, must 
obtain a CDL but are not required by current Federal regulations to 
obtain a medical certificate as proof of their physical qualifications 
to operate commercial vehicles. [49 CFR 383.71(a)(1)]. The Secretary 
delegated these authorities to FMCSA. [49 CFR Sec.  1.73].


Alternatives:


All alternatives require SDLAs to modify CDLIS and record self-
certification whether part 391 is applicable, i.e., whether or not 
driver operates in interstate commerce and is not excepted. If part 391 
applicable, SDLA would record medical certification status. Under 
alternatives 1 and 2, SDLAs receive paper and perform data input. Under 
alternative 3, SDLAs would receive an electronic CDLIS transaction.


Under all three alternatives, the CDLIS driver record maintained by 
SDLA would serve as official record of whether driver is authorized to 
operate in interstate commerce and thus is required to be currently 
medically certified.


For drivers subject to part 391 and not excepted, employers would 
obtain medical certification status on the CDLIS motor vehicle record 
(MVR) from SDLA, as well as license status. Enforcement personnel would 
obtain current license status, whether driver operates in interstate 
commerce, and medical certification status via electronic checks.


1. CDL Renewal Cycle Same as Medical Certificate.


Driver provides each medical examiner's certificate to SDLA, which 
issues new CDL expiring same day as certificate. CDLs issued more 
often, and drivers pay fees States assess.


2. No Change in CDL Renewal Cycle-Distributed.


As in alternative 1, CDL drivers provide each medical examiner's 
certificate to SDLA. SDLAs develop capability to downgrade CDL if new 
certification not received by expiration.


3. No Change in CDL Renewal Cycle-Centralized.


Certificates go to central location. Status information electronically 
transmitted to SDLA, which develops capability to electronically 
receive and record on CDLIS driver record. As in alternative 2, SDLA 
downgrades CDL if new certificate not received by expiration.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


A preliminary regulatory evaluation for this rule was prepared and will 
be placed in the docket when the NPRM is published.


Risks:


In addition to assessing costs, the agency is assessing the safety 
benefits.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           07/15/94                    59 FR 36338
ANPRM Comment Period End        11/14/94
NPRM                            12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State


Additional Information:


Docket No. FMCSA-97-2210.


URL For More Information:
dms.dot.gov

URL For Public Comments:
dms.dot.gov

[[Page 72853]]

Agency Contact:
Dr. Mary D. Gunnels
Chief, Physical Qualifications Division
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4001
Email: maggi.gunnels@dot.gov
RIN: 2126-AA10
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FMCSA
89. [rplus]UNIFIED REGISTRATION SYSTEM

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 13908, as amended by sec 4304 of PL 109-159, 119 Stat 1144, 1763


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 360, 365, 366, 368, 387, and 390


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, August 10, 2006.


Abstract:


This rulemaking would replace three current identification and 
registration systems: the US DOT number identification system, the 
commercial registration system, and the financial responsibility 
system, with an online Federal unified registration system. This 
program would serve as a clearinghouse and depository of information 
on, and identification of, brokers, freight forwarders, and others 
required to register with the Department of Transportation. The Agency 
is revising this rulemaking to address amendments directed by SAFETEA-
LU. The replacement system for the Single State Registration System, 
which the ICC Termination Act originally directed be merged under URS, 
will be addressed separately.


Statement of Need:


As a result of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 [Public Law 104-88, 
December 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 888] (ICCTA), Congress terminated the 
Interstate Commerce Commission and transferred its functions concerning 
licensing and financial responsibility requirements to DOT. Congress 
mandated that the Agency consider unifying the four current systems 
with a single, on-line Federal system. SAFETEA-LU [Pub. L. 109-159, 119 
Stat. 2955, August 10, 2005] imposed new requirements for the Federal 
on-line replacement system.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The ICCTA created a new 49 U.S.C. 13908 directing ``[t]he Secretary, in 
cooperation with the States, and after notice and opportunity for 
public comment,'' . . . to ``issue regulations to replace the current 
DOT identification number system, the single State registration system 
under section 14504, the registration system contained in this chapter, 
and the financial responsibility information system under section 13906 
with a single, on-line, Federal system.''


Alternatives:


FMCSA considered several alternatives to the proposal discussed here, 
in an effort to minimize the potential new filing burden on small 
entities which comprise 80% of motor carriers. For instance, we 
considered exempting existing carriers from certain new filing 
requirements (via a grandfather clause), with the view that it would 
minimize the compliance costs of this proposal. However, while reducing 
compliance costs (and thereby improving filing efficiency), it would 
also reduce, not enhance, the fairness of the motor carrier 
registration process relative to the status quo by placing higher 
burdens on new entrants than existing carriers. As such, it would act 
as a barrier to entry to small new entrants to the benefit of existing 
carriers.


Conversely, we also considered exempting new entrants from these 
requirements, but dismissed this on the grounds that it too would 
reduce the fairness of the registration process. Additionally, either 
option would reduce safety relative to the proposal discussed here.


The agency also considered removing the process agent designation 
filing requirement on the grounds that it was the most costly of the 
initiatives in this proposal. However, the agency dismissed this option 
because FMCSA division administrators felt that this particular filing 
requirement had the best potential to increase industry safety by 
improving the productivity of the agency's safety investigators 
(thereby allowing them to initiate additional compliance reviews). 
Additionally, the process agent designation filing requirement also 
enhances the fairness of the agency's registration process.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The regulatory evaluation for the NPRM is in the docket.


Risks:


The proposed rule is intended to streamline the registration process 
and ensure that FMCSA can more efficiently track CMVs and ensure their 
safe operation. The Unified Registration System imposes no operational 
responsibilities on drivers. Therefore, the proposed regulation would 
not impair a driver's ability to operate vehicles safely; would not 
impact the physical condition of drivers; and would not have a 
deleterious effect on the physical condition of drivers, in accordance 
with the statutory mandate of 49 U.S.C. 31136 (a).


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           08/26/96                    61 FR 43816
ANPRM Comment Period End        10/25/96
NPRM                            05/19/05                    70 FR 28990
NPRM Comment Period End         08/17/05
Supplemental NPRM               06/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Additional Information:


Docket No. FMCSA-97-2349.


URL For More Information:
dms.dot.gov

URL For Public Comments:
dms.dot.gov

Agency Contact:
Patricia Savage
Information Technology Specialist
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202-366-0077
Email: patricia.savage@dot.gov
RIN: 2126-AA22
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FMCSA
90. [rplus]NATIONAL REGISTRY OF CERTIFIED MEDICAL EXAMINERS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

[[Page 72854]]

Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


Sec. 4116 of PL 109-59 (2005)


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 390; 49 CFR 391


Legal Deadline:


None


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 drivers 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 
SAFETEA-LU.


Statement of Need:


In enacting the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) [PL 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 the National Registry of Certified Medical 
Examiners (NRCME) (once established) 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 impact will result from removing drivers who are not 
medically qualified to drive from interstate driving, and also from 
requiring drivers to seek medical treatment for conditions (such as 
hypertension) that are likely to impact safety and driver health. FMCSA 
has determined that focusing on driver factors, including their medical 
fitness, is one strategy for improving safety and reducing fatalities 
on our highways.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The fundamental legal basis for the NRCME program comes from 49 U.S.C. 
31149(d), which authorizes FMCSA to establish and maintain a current 
national registry of medical examiners. FMCSA is also directed to 
determine which medical examiners are qualified to perform examinations 
of CMV drivers and to issue medical certificates. FMCSA is authorized 
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. 3113(a).


Alternatives:


FMCSA is considering how best to address the concerns expressed by 
Congress. In doing so, we are exploring several options. We will 
discuss the various alternatives in a planned notice of proposed 
rulemaking.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Because FMCSA has not yet published a notice of proposed rulemaking, 
the anticipated costs and benefits have not yet been fully explored.


Risks:


FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the risks that might be associated 
with this activity.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
dms.dot.gov

URL For Public Comments:
dms.dot.gov

Agency Contact:
Dr. Mary D. Gunnels
Chief, Physical Qualifications Division
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4001
Email: maggi.gunnels@dot.gov
RIN: 2126-AA97
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

91. [rplus]ROOF CRUSH RESISTANCE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 322; 49 USC 30111; 49 USC 30115; 49 USC 30117; 49 USC 30166


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 571.216


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, July 1, 2008.


Abstract:


Mitigation of rollover fatal and serious injuries is one of the 
Agency's highest priorities. Rollover crashes constitute about 3 
percent of passenger vehicle crashes, but about 1/3 of the fatalities. 
Since light trucks are more prone to rollover, and as their percentage 
of the U.S. fleet continues to increase, this crash mode continues to 
constitute a disproportionate segment of the Nation's highway safety 
problem. As part of the Agency's comprehensive approach to rollover, 
the Agency is considering whether an upgrade to the roof crush 
requirements is warranted. This rulemaking is significant because of 
public interest in vehicle safety.


Statement of Need:


Rollovers are especially lethal crashes. While rollovers comprise just 
3% of all light passenger vehicle crashes, they account for almost one-
third of all occupant fatalities in light vehicles, and more than 60 
percent of occupant deaths in the SUV segment of the light vehicle 
population.


Agency data show that nearly 24,000 occupants are seriously injured and 
10,000 occupants are fatally injured in approximately 273,000 non-
convertible

[[Page 72855]]

light vehicle rollover crashes that occur each year. In order to 
identify how many of these occupants might benefit from the proposed 
upgrade, the agency analyzed real-world injury data in order to 
determine the number of occupant injuries that could be attributed to 
roof intrusion. The agency examined front outboard occupants who were 
belted, not fully ejected from their vehicles, whose most severe injury 
was associated with roof contact, and whose seating position was 
located below a roof component that experienced vertical intrusion as a 
result of a rollover crash. NHTSA estimates that there are about 807 
seriously and approximately 596 fatally injured occupants per year that 
fit these criteria. The agency believes that some of these occupants 
would benefit from this upgrade.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 30111, title 49 of the USC, states that Secretary shall 
prescribe motor vehicle safety standards.


Alternatives:


The agency will consider alternative performance criteria and test 
procedures suggested by various organizations in response to the NPRM. 
Alternative performance criteria include a platen displacement criteria 
on one (or both) sides of the vehicle, as well as combinations of 
headroom and platen displacement criterion. Alternative test procedures 
included: the Jordan Rollover System, the Controlled Rollover Impact 
System, the FMVSS No. 208 dolly rollover test, the inverted drop test, 
and the weight drop onto the roof test. The agency will also keep 
abreast of the latest developments in structural roof strength 
materials, and tooling technologies.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


In the NPRM, the agency estimated benefits of this proposal to range 
from 498 to 793 non-fatal injuries and 13 to 44 fatalities. The annual 
equivalent lives saved were estimated at 39 to 55.


The estimated average cost in 2003 dollars, per vehicle, of meeting the 
proposed requirements would be $10.67 per affected vehicle. Added 
weight from design changes is estimated to increase lifetime fuel costs 
by $5.33 to $6.69 per vehicle. The cost per year for the vehicle fleet 
is estimated to be $88-$95 million. The cost per equivalent life saved 
is estimated to range from $2.1 to $3.4 million.


Risks:


Current motor vehicles provide numerous occupant protection systems, 
such as side curtain air bags, upper interior padding, and advanced 
safety belt systems, that mitigate occupant head-to-roof contact 
injuries. Nevertheless, an estimated 498-793 non-fatal injuries and 13-
44 fatalities will continue to occur annually, absent the proposed 
change in regulation. Potential adverse risks the agency is also 
evaluating include a causal increase in rollover propensity that could 
overwhelm the anticipated benefits from this upgrade.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Request for Comments            10/22/01                    66 FR 53376
RFC Comment Period End          12/06/01
NPRM                            08/23/05                    70 FR 49223
NPRM Comment Period End         11/21/05
Final Rule                      08/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
dms.dot.gov

URL For Public Comments:
dms.dot.gov

Agency Contact:
George Mouchahoir
Team Leader, Special Vehicles and Systems Division
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4919
Fax: 202 366-4329
Email: gmouchahoir@nhtsa.dot.gov
Related RIN: Related to 2127-AH74
RIN: 2127-AG51
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--NHTSA
92. [rplus]SIDE IMPACT PROTECTION UPGRADE--FMVSS NO. 214

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 322; 49 USC 30111; 49 USC 30115; 49 USC 30117; 49 USC 30166


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 571.214


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, July 1, 2008.


Abstract:


Two Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) -- No. 201, 
``Occupant Protection in Interior Impact'' and No. 214, ``Side Impact 
Protection'' -- specify requirements for side impact protection. At 
present, FMVSS No. 214 specifies a moving deformable barrier (MDB) test 
addressing mainly the chest injury problem. The head injury reduction 
is partially addressed in FMVSS No. 201. This rulemaking would require 
in FMVSS No. 214 a vehicle-to-pole oblique impact test to reduce the 
number of fatal and serious head injuries, which are not addressed in 
FMVSS No. 201.


Statement of Need:


While the side impact protection standard currently specifies a MDB 
test for the purpose of reducing chest injuries, the head injury 
problem in side crashes is not addressed by the standard. In 1990, when 
the standard was published, no safety countermeasures were available to 
address this problem effectively. In 1995, the agency amended the 
occupant protection in the interior impact standard (FMVSS No. 201) to 
add an in-vehicle component test for enhanced upper interior head 
impact protection. However, head impacts with exterior objects, such as 
trees, poles, and narrow rigid structures, are not addressed in the 
requirements of FMVSS No. 201. These head impacts constitute a serious 
safety problem today. On the other hand, there are readily available 
countermeasures now, such as advanced inflatable head protection 
systems, which would provide occupant protection in these crashes. The 
agency has proposed to address this safety problem by amending the side 
impact protection standard (FMVSS No. 214) to add a vehicle-to-pole 
test.

[[Page 72856]]

Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 30111, title 49 of the USC, states that Secretary shall 
prescribe motor vehicle safety standards.


Alternatives:


The agency will examine existing test procedures developed by various 
organizations, conduct research on the development of a new MDB and 
advanced dummy test devices, and keep abreast of the development of new 
head protection systems.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The agency is evaluating the benefits and costs associated with 
requiring a vehicle-to-pole test in FMVSS No. 214.


Risks:


Current motor vehicles provide numerous occupant protection systems, 
such as air bags, safety seat belts, and strategically placed energy 
absorption padding. Nevertheless, approximately 2,311 fatalities and 
5,891 non-fatal serious to critical injuries involving nearside 
occupants occur annually in non-rollover side crashes without full 
occupant ejections in our target population. ``Nearside occupants'' are 
those sitting on the struck side of the vehicle in which they are 
riding.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            05/14/04                    69 FR 27990
Comment Period End              10/14/04
Comment Period Extended         01/12/05                     70 FR 2105
End of Extended Comment 
    Period                      04/12/05
Final Rule                      05/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
dms.dot.gov

URL For Public Comments:
dms.dot.gov

Agency Contact:
Lori Summers
Chief, Light Duty Vehicle Division
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4917
Fax: 202 366-4329
Email: lori.summers@dot.gov
Related RIN: Related to 2127-AJ16, Related to 2127-AI89
RIN: 2127-AJ10
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--NHTSA
93. [rplus]REDUCED STOPPING DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR TRUCK TRACTORS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 CFR 1.50; 49 USC 30111; 49 USC 30115; 49 USC 30117; 49 USC 30166; 49 
USC 322


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 571.121


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would reduce stopping distance requirements for truck 
tractors equipped with air brake systems. Advances in heavy vehicle 
braking systems show that improved stopping performance is attainable 
for these vehicles. Such improvements would reduce the stopping 
distance disparity with light vehicles, and would result in fewer 
deaths and injuries and reduce property damage due to fewer crashes 
between truck tractors and light vehicles.


Statement of Need:


Large trucks have longer stopping distances than light vehicles, 
increasing the chance of crashes in panic stopping situations. Crash 
data show that combination unit trucks (e.g., tractor-trailers) are 
highly involved in large truck fatal crashes with light vehicles. 
Agency test results indicate that significantly reduced tractor 
stopping distances may be achieved by using current-technology brake 
systems. The agency believes that sufficient test data exists to move 
forward with a proposal.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 30111, Title 49 of the USC, states that the Secretary shall 
prescribe motor vehicle safety standards.


Alternatives:


The agency is not pursuing any alternatives to reduce stopping 
distances for this type of vehicle other than changes in the 
requirements in FMVSS No. 121.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Reducing the stopping distance requirements (service brakes and/or 
emergency brakes) for tractors in FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, by 
20 to 30 percent is expected to reduce unable-to-stop-in-time 
collisions between combination-unit trucks and light vehicles. Test 
data has indicated that stopping distance reductions of up to 30 
percent may be achievable for all tractors in FMVSS No. 121. Evaluation 
is underway to determine the reductions in deaths, injuries, and 
property damage that could result from reductions in tractor stopping 
distances.


Risks:


The agency believes there are no substantial risks to this rulemaking, 
and that only beneficial outcomes will occur as the industry moves to 
improved tractor braking systems.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/15/05                    70 FR 74270
NPRM Comment Period End         04/14/06
Final Rule                      05/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
dms.dot.gov

URL For Public Comments:
dms.dot.gov

[[Page 72857]]

Agency Contact:
Jeffrey Woods
Safety Standards Engineer Office of Crash Avoidance Standards
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Vehicle Dynamics Division 400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-6206
Fax: 202 366-7002
RIN: 2127-AJ37
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--NHTSA
94. [rplus]ELECTRONIC STABILITY CONTROL (ESC)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


49 USC 30111; 49 USC 30115; 49 USC 30117; 49 USC 30166; 49 USC 322


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 571.126


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, October 1, 2006.


Final, Statutory, April 1, 2009.


In the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity 
Act of 2005: Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Congress directed NHTSA to 
establish performance criteria to reduce the occurrence of rollovers 
consistent with stability enhancing technologies.


Abstract:


This rulemaking would establish a new Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard to require electronic stability control (ESC) systems on all 
newly-manufactured passenger cars and light trucks. The vast majority 
of rollovers occur in single-vehicle crashes involving loss of control. 
Crash data studies by NHTSA and other organizations worldwide show that 
ESC causes a dramatic reduction in single-vehicle crashes by assisting 
drivers in maintaining control in critical driving situations. NHTSA 
studies show a reduction in single-vehicle crashes of 34 percent to 59 
percent and a reduction in single-vehicle crashes with rollover of 71 
percent to 84 percent. The requirement of ESC on cars and trucks could 
save thousands of lives annually.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is part of a comprehensive plan to reduce the serious 
risk of rollover crashes and the risk of death and serious injury in 
those crashes. Electronic Stability Control (ESC) systems use automatic 
computer-controlled braking of individual wheels to assist the driver 
in maintaining control in critical driving situations in which the 
vehicle is beginning to lose directional stability at the rear wheels 
(spin out) or directional control at the front wheels (plow out). Based 
on our own crash data studies, NHTSA estimates that the installation of 
ESC will reduce single-vehicle crashes of passenger cars by 34 percent 
and single vehicle crashes of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) by 59 
percent, with a much greater reduction of rollover crashes.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 30111, title 49 of the USC, states that Secretary shall 
prescribe motor vehicle safety standards.


Alternatives:


The agency is not pursuing any alternatives to requiring ESC, which 
would be a new FMVSS No. 126.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Vehicle costs are estimated to be $368 (in 2005 dollars) for anti-lock 
brakes and an additional $111 for electronic stability control for a 
total system cost of $479 per vehicle. The total incremental cost of 
the proposal (over the MY 2011 installation rates and assuming 17 
million passenger vehicles sold per year) are estimated to be $985 
million to install antilock brakes, electronic stability control, and 
malfunction lights. The average incremental cost per passenger vehicle 
is estimated to be $58 ($90 for the average passenger car and $29 for 
the average light truck), a figure which reflects the fact that many 
baseline MY 2011 vehicles are projected to already come equipped with 
ESC components (particularly ABS).


We estimate that the proposal would save 1,536 to 2,211 lives and 
prevent 50,594 to 69,630 MAIS 1-5 injuries annually once all passenger 
vehicles have ESC. Fatalities and injuries associated with rollovers 
are a significant portion of this total; we estimate that the proposal 
would reduce 1,161 to 1,445 fatalities and 43,901 to 49,010 MAIS 1-5 
injuries associated with single-vehicle rollovers.


Risks:


The agency believes there are no substantial risks to this rulemaking, 
and that only beneficial outcomes will occur as the industry moves to 
installing Electronic Stability Control systems.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/18/06                    71 FR 54711
NPRM Comment Period End         11/17/06
Final Action                    09/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
dms.dot.gov

URL For Public Comments:
dms.dot.gov

Agency Contact:
Patrick Boyd
Division Chief, NVS-123
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh St. SW
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202-366-6346
Fax: 202-366-7002
Email: pat.boyd@nhtsa.dot.gov
RIN: 2127-AJ77
BILLING CODE 4910-62-S

[[Page 72858]]

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 our financial system by enforcing laws relating 
            to Federal Government securities and developing regulations 
            to combat money laundering.
 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. Unless 
circumstances require otherwise, it is the policy of the Department 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, and holds public 
hearings to discuss proposed rules.
 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.
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 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions is 
responsible for developing and promulgating regulations implementing 
TRIA, as extended and amended TRIEA. 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 
continued the ongoing work of implementing TRIA. The Office has issued 
interim guidance and regulations implementing Program changes 
authorized by TRIEA, and is developing regulations for recouping the 
Federal share of compensation to insurers through risk-spreading 
premiums. The issuance of final regulations for recoupment is expected 
in 2007.
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 now known as the 
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 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-approved CBP customs-
revenue function regulations issued were: an interim rule regarding 
procedures on the refund of excess customs duties paid on entries of 
textile or apparel goods entitled to retroactive application of 
preferential tariff treatment under the Dominican Republic-Central 
America-United States Free Trade Agreement; an interim rule on the 
Country of Origin of Textile and Apparel Products that 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; and a final rule, ``Single Entry for Unassembled or 
Disassembled Entities Imported on Multiple Conveyances,'' which 
provides importers with more flexibility and implements the statutory 
changes made to the merchandise entry laws by the Tariff Suspension and 
Trade Act of 2000. CBP also finalized the interim regulations on the 
Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act which implemented the 
trade benefit provisions contained in Title XXXI of the Trade Act of 
2002.
During fiscal year 2007, Treasury and CBP plan to finalize several 
other interim regulations involving the customs revenue functions not 
delegated to DHS. Among these are the

[[Page 72859]]

following interim regulations that implement the trade benefit 
provisions of the Trade Act of 2002:
<bullet> The Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act
<bullet> The African Growth and Opportunity Act
 CBP plans to finalize interim regulations to implement the 
preferential trade benefit provisions of the United States-Chile Free 
Trade Agreement Implementation Act. CBP also expects to issue interim 
regulations implementing the United States-Singapore Free Trade 
Agreement Implementation Act and the United States-Australia Free Trade 
Agreement Implementation Act.
In addition, Treasury and CBP plan to propose uniform rules governing 
the determination of the country of origin of imported merchandise. The 
uniform rules would extend the application of the North American Free 
Trade Agreement country of origin rules to all trade.
 Another project Treasury and CBP will work to finalize is a proposal 
that would allow CBP to be more responsive to claims of piracy of 
copyrighted works. This rule would allow sound recordings and motion 
pictures or similar audio-visual works to be recorded with CBP while 
pending registration with the U.S. Copyright Office, and would allow 
recordation of all non-U.S. works without requiring registration with 
the U.S. Copyright Office.
 Treasury and CBP also plan to continue developing amendments to 
improve regulatory procedures begun under the authority granted by the 
Customs Modernization provisions of the North American Free Trade 
Implementation Act (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 permanently establish the 
programs. Consistent with this practice, we expect to publish a 
proposal to permanently establish the remote location filing program, 
which has been a test program under the Customs Mod Act. These 
regulations will allow remote location filing of electronic entries of 
merchandise from locations other than at the port of arrival of the 
merchandise or the location of examination of the merchandise.
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 2007, the Fund will provide financial assistance awards 
and technical assistance grants through the CDFI Program. Through the 
NACA Program, 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.
 Through 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.
 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, the Office of Tax Policy and the Internal 
Revenue Service jointly administer the NMTC Program.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is the administrator 
of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and FinCEN's regulations constitute the 
core of the Department's anti-money laundering initiatives and are an 
essential component of the Department's anti-terrorist financing and 
anti-narcotics efforts. FinCEN's responsibilities and objectives are 
keyed to, and flow from, that role.
The BSA authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations 
requiring financial institutions to keep records and file reports 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, and 
to require the establishment of anti-money laundering programs and 
compliance procedures. FinCEN has established regulatory objectives and 
priorities that implement its mission to safeguard the financial system 
from the abuses of financial crime, including terrorist financing, 
money laundering, and other illicit activity. These objectives include: 
issuing, interpreting, and enforcing compliance with regulations 
implementing the BSA; supporting, working with, and, as appropriate, 
overseeing compliance examination functions delegated to other federal 
regulators; managing the collection, processing, storage, and 
dissemination of data related to the BSA; maintaining a governmentwide 
access service to that same data, and for network users with 
overlapping interests; conducting analysis in support of policymakers, 
law enforcement, regulatory and intelligence agencies, and the 
financial sector; and coordinating with and collaborating on anti-
terrorism and anti-money laundering initiatives with domestic law 
enforcement and intelligence agencies, and with foreign financial 
intelligence units.
 During fiscal year 2006, FinCEN issued the following final rules: a 
final rule implementing section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which 
requires certain financial institutions to implement appropriate, 
specific, and, where necessary, enhanced due diligence policies, 
procedures, and controls in connection with correspondent accounts 
established or maintained for certain foreign financial institutions, 
and appropriate due diligence and, where necessary, enhanced scrutiny 
in connection with private banking accounts established or maintained 
for non-U.S. persons; a final rule requiring mutual funds to report 
suspicious activity; final rules requiring certain insurance companies 
to establish anti-money laundering programs and report suspicious 
activity; and two final rules imposing special measures against foreign 
financial institutions deemed to be of primary money laundering concern 
pursuant to Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act.
 FinCEN's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2007 include the 
following projects:
<greek-D> Anti-Money Laundering Programs. Pursuant to section 352 of 
            the USA PATRIOT Act, certain financial institutions are 
            required to establish

[[Page 72860]]

            anti-money laundering programs. To the extent that final 
            rules have not been adopted by the end of fiscal year 2006, 
            FinCEN expects to finalize the anti-money laundering 
            program rule for dealers in precious metals, precious 
            stones, or jewels and the anti-money laundering program 
            rules proposed in May 2003 for investment advisers, 
            commodity trading advisors, commodity pool operators, and 
            unregistered investment companies. FinCEN will continue to 
            research and analyze issues regarding potential regulation 
            of the loan and finance industry (including pawnbrokers). 
            FinCEN also will continue to consider regulatory options 
            regarding certain corporate and trust service providers. 
            Finally, FinCEN will determine whether to issue proposed 
            rules for other financial institutions --vehicle sellers, 
            persons involved in real estate closings and settlements, 
            and travel agencies--after reviewing comments received in 
            response to a series of advance notices of proposed 
            rulemaking.
<greek-D> Money Services Businesses. FinCEN will continue to implement 
            and refine its strategy with regard to money services 
            businesses, including: using analytical tools and 
            establishing partnerships with law enforcement to identify 
            unregistered money services businesses; continuing to 
            revise, simplify, and clarify the regulatory framework for 
            money services businesses; and developing and delivering 
            internal and external education, outreach, and training on 
            relevant regulatory topics regarding the money services 
            business industry for both the money services business and 
            banking industries, law enforcement, and other regulatory 
            agencies.
<greek-D> Wire Transfers. FinCEN will proceed with the rulemaking 
            process to consider lowering the current $3,000 
            recordkeeping and ``travel rule'' thresholds; collaborate 
            with the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and NACHA 
            (the Electronic Payments Association) regarding the 
            availability of originator information on automated 
            clearing house wire transfers; collaborate with OFAC, law 
            enforcement, the federal banking agencies (the Board of 
            Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal 
            Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union 
            Administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the 
            Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision) and 
            industry to address potential abuse of cover payments; and 
            work with law enforcement to assess the relative value of 
            postal address vs. e-mail address information or telephone 
            numbers as required fields under the recordkeeping and 
            travel rules.
<greek-D> Other Requirements. FinCEN will also continue to explore 
            issuing a proposed rule that would require all financial 
            institutions that file BSA reports to do so electronically. 
            FinCEN will also consider the need for regulatory action in 
            conjunction with the feasibility study being 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. Additionally, FinCEN 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.
Internal Revenue Service
The Internal Revenue Service, 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 2007 the Internal Revenue Service will accord 
priority to the following regulatory projects:
<greek-D> 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 interim measures 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. During fiscal year 2007, the IRS and Treasury 
            intend to propose a unified approach to addressing both 
            concerns.
<greek-D> Safe Harbor Methodology for Determining the Fair Market Value 
            of Financial Instruments that are Marked to Market. Section 
            475 of the Internal Revenue Code requires dealers in 
            stocks, debt, certain derivative financial instruments, or 
            other securities to mark their securities to market at the 
            end of each tax year. That is, those dealers must compute 
            their taxable income by including their securities in 
            inventory at their fair market value and, if their 
            securities are not inventory, recognizing gain or loss as 
            if their securities had been sold for their fair market 
            value at the end of the tax year. Dealers and traders in 
            commodities, and securities traders are not required to use 
            mark-to-market accounting but may elect to do so. The IRS 
            and Treasury issued proposed regulations on May 24, 2005, 
            that allow dealers in securities (and electing dealers in 
            commodities or traders in securities or commodities) to use 
            the safe harbor method to satisfy the statutory requirement 
            to determine the fair market value of items marked to 
            market. The safe harbor method set forth in the proposed 
            regulations permits taxpayers to use as fair market value 
            for section 475 purposes the value used on certain 
            financial statements, if certain conditions are met. In 
            addition, there are some limitations on the use of the safe 
            harbor method in situations where fair market value and 
            financial accounting fair value principles are not 
            sufficiently consistent. The IRS and Treasury intend to 
            finalize these regulations during fiscal year 2007.

[[Page 72861]]

<greek-D> Charitable Contributions of Vehicles. Section 170(a) of the 
            Internal Revenue Code allows as an income tax deduction any 
            charitable contribution paid within the taxable year, 
            subject to the terms and limitations of section 170. 
            Section 170(f)(12), which was added to the Code by the 
            American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (AJCA), provides new 
            rules for the deduction of a charitable contribution of a 
            vehicle, and requires charities that accept vehicle 
            contributions to report those contributions to the IRS. 
            Section 6720, which was also added to the Code by the AJCA, 
            imposes a penalty on charities that do not (1) properly 
            report vehicle contributions to the IRS, or (2) provide 
            adequate substantiation of vehicle contributions to donors. 
            The new rules under both sections have generated many 
            questions from stakeholders. Charities have questions 
            concerning their fundraising practices; compliance with the 
            new rules; and how to avoid the imposition of the penalty. 
            Donors have questions concerning what is needed to claim a 
            deduction for a donated vehicle, and how to calculate the 
            deduction. During fiscal year 2007, the IRS and Treasury 
            intend to issue temporary and proposed regulations to 
            provide understandable rules and clarify this area of the 
            law.
<greek-D> Deduction and Capitalization of Costs for Tangible Assets. 
            Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code generally 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 property having a 
            useful life substantially beyond the taxable year, 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 nor 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. During fiscal year 2007, the IRS 
            and Treasury intend to finalize those regulations.
<greek-D> Transfer Pricing Initiatives. On August 22, 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. On August 1, 2006, the IRS and Treasury issued 
            proposed and 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 2007. 
            Additionally, proposed regulations will be issued under 
            section 367(d) of the Code, which provides that a transfer 
            by a U.S. person of an intangible to a foreign corporation 
            in certain nonrecognition transactions will be treated as a 
            sale of that property for a series of payments contingent 
            on the property's productivity, use, or disposition. The 
            IRS and Treasury will coordinate the provisions to prevent 
            intangible value going to offshore affiliates without arm's 
            length consideration, whether intangibles are transferred 
            directly, embedded in the performance of services, 
            contributed via incorporation or reorganization, or 
            conveyed in the course of a cost sharing arrangement.
<greek-D> Foreign Tax Credit Guidance Initiatives. The IRS and Treasury 
            anticipate issuing guidance under section 901 and other 
            provisions of the Internal Revenue Code to address 
            inappropriate use of the foreign tax credit. On August 3, 
            2006, the IRS and Treasury issued proposed regulations to 
            address the operation of the foreign tax credit rules in 
            the context of foreign consolidated regimes and with 
            respect to so-called hybrid entities, entities that are 
            treated as separate taxable entities under either U.S. or 
            foreign law but as transparent entities under the other 
            country's tax law. The IRS and Treasury expect to issue 
            final regulations in this area and also expect to issue 
            guidance addressing the inappropriate creation or transfer 
            of foreign tax liability in order to obtain foreign tax 
            credits. Additional guidance will provide rules relating to 
            the reduction in the number of foreign tax credit 
            categories and other provisions added by the AJCA. The 
            guidance will provide for tax treatment that is consistent 
            with the policies of the foreign tax credit provisions and 
            applicable law.
<greek-D> Transactions Involving Foreign Corporations. The IRS and 
            Treasury anticipate issuing guidance during fiscal year 
            2007 to address various issues in connection with 
            acquisitions, dispositions and other transactions involving 
            foreign corporations. The guidance will include a third set 
            of regulations that address the application of the 
            inversion rules of section 7874 of the Internal Revenue 
            Code to acquisitions by a foreign corporation of a domestic 
            corporation (or a trade or business of a domestic 
            partnership). The first two sets of regulations under 
            section 7874 were issued in fiscal year 2006. The guidance 
            will also address the treatment of nonrecognition 
            transactions on gain recognition agreements entered into by 
            U.S. persons as a result of stock transfers made to foreign 
            corporations. Additional guidance will be issued to address 
            certain reorganizations involving foreign corporations to 
            ensure that international tax policies are taken into 
            account. Finally, guidance will be issued to address 
            payments and distributions involving controlled foreign 
            corporations, including the treatment of distributions 
            involving previously taxed earnings, and an exception to 
            the ``subpart F'' anti-deferral rules,

[[Page 72862]]

            added by the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act 
            of 2005 (TIPRA), for certain dividends, interest, rents and 
            royalties.
<greek-D> Deduction for Qualified Production Activities Income. Section 
            199, which was added to the Internal Revenue Code by the 
            AJCA, allows taxpayers to deduct a percentage of income 
            derived from qualified production activities performed in 
            the United States. The IRS and Treasury issued temporary 
            and proposed regulations on June 1, 2006, that provide 
            guidance on the application of section 199 to transactions 
            involving computer software provided over the Internet. The 
            IRS and Treasury intend to finalize those regulations and 
            issue temporary and proposed regulations on the application 
            of section 199, as amended by TIPRA.
<greek-D> Accuracy-Related Penalties on Understatements. Section 6662A, 
            which was added to the Internal Revenue Code by the AJCA, 
            provides a new penalty for understatements with respect to 
            reportable transactions. Section 6664(d), which was also 
            added to the Code by the AJCA, provides a defense to the 
            penalty under section 6662A if the taxpayer acted with 
            reasonable cause and in good faith. Additionally, section 
            6662(d) of the Code was amended by the AJCA to modify the 
            accuracy-related penalty for substantial understatements of 
            income tax. In January 2005, the IRS and Treasury issued 
            Notice 2005-12 to provide interim guidance relating to 
            these provisions. The IRS and Treasury intend to issue 
            regulations providing further guidance relating to these 
            provisions. The IRS and Treasury also intend to provide 
            further guidance regarding the administration of these 
            penalties.
<greek-D> Inclusion in Gross Income of Deferred Compensation Under 
            Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plans. Section 409A was 
            added to the Internal Revenue Code by the AJCA. It provides 
            that unless certain requirements are met, all amounts 
            deferred under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan 
            for all taxable years are currently includible in gross 
            income to the extent not subject to a substantial risk of 
            forfeiture and not previously included in gross income, and 
            are subject to certain additional taxes. The IRS and 
            Treasury issued proposed regulations on October 4, 2005, 
            that provided guidance on a broad range of issues under 
            section 409A. During fiscal year 2007, the IRS and Treasury 
            intend to finalize those regulations.
Additionally, the recently enacted Pension Protection Act of 2006 will 
certainly merit significant regulatory attention during the coming 
fiscal year but the specific regulations under that Act that will be 
top priorities are currently being determined.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 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, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the 
Office of Thrift Supervision (Federal banking agencies), is conducting 
a review of its regulations to identify opportunities to streamline our 
regulations and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. To date, the 
banking agencies' review has included: (1) issuing six notices, 
published in the Federal Register, that solicit comment from the 
industries we 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 review process and 
outreach meetings have generated a number of suggestions, which we, 
along with the other agencies, are evaluating. The agencies have 
fulfilled the statutory requirement to publish all categories of their 
regulations for public comment and are preparing a summary of the 
comments and recommendations received together with a report to 
Congress on our conclusions.
Much of the OCC's regulatory activity in fiscal year 2006 focused on 
the implementation of new statutes. For example, significant final 
rules issued during fiscal year 2006 include:
<greek-D> One-Year Post-Employment Restrictions for Senior Examiners 
            (12 CFR Parts 4 and 19). The Federal banking agencies 
            issued a final rule on November 17, 2005 (70 FR 69633) to 
            implement section 6303(b) of the Intelligence Reform and 
            Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which imposes a one-year 
            post-employment restriction on ``senior examiners'' of 
            depository institutions and depository institution holding 
            companies. A senior examiner employed or commissioned by an 
            agency may not knowingly accept compensation as an 
            employee, officer, director, or consultant from certain 
            depository institutions or depository institution holding 
            companies they examined, or from certain related entities, 
            for one year after the examiner leaves the employment or 
            service of the agency. Violation results in the examiner 
            being subject to an order of removal and prohibition from 
            the relevant bank and all insured depository institutions 
            for up to 5 years, a civil money penalty of up to $250,000, 
            or both.
<greek-D> Fair Credit Reporting Regulations; Use of Medical Information 
            (12 CFR Part 41). The Office of the Comptroller of the 
            Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 
            Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of Thrift 
            Supervision, and National Credit Union Administration 
            (agencies) issued a final rule on November 22, 2005 (70 FR 
            70664) to implement section 411 of the Fair and Accurate 
            Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act). Section 411(a) 
            requires the agencies to prescribe regulations that permit 
            creditors to obtain or use medical information for certain 
            credit eligibility purposes. Additionally, section 411(b) 
            authorizes the agencies to issue rules to allow additional 
            sharing of information determined by the agencies to be 
            appropriate or necessary.
 The OCC's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2007 principally 
include the completion of rulemakings required by the FACT Act, the 
implementation of new regulatory capital standards and, consistent with 
the interagency EGRPRA project, revising our rules to reduce regulatory 
burden. The OCC plans to issue the following:
<greek-D> Identity Theft Detection, Prevention, and Mitigation Program 
            for Financial

[[Page 72863]]

            Institutions and Creditors (12 CFR Parts 30 and 41). The 
            Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board of 
            Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit 
            Insurance Corporation, Office of Thrift Supervision, 
            National Credit Union Administration, and Federal Trade 
            Commission (the agencies) are planning to issue a rule to 
            establish guidelines and regulations to implement sections 
            114 and 315 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions 
            Act of 2003. Section 114 requires the agencies to issue 
            jointly guidelines for financial institutions and creditors 
            identifying patterns, practices, and specific forms of 
            activity that indicate the possible existence of identity 
            theft. In addition, the agencies must issue regulations 
            requiring each financial institution and creditor to 
            establish reasonable policies and procedures to implement 
            the guidelines. The regulations must contain a provision 
            requiring a card issuer to notify the cardholder if the 
            card issuer receives a notice of change of address for an 
            existing account and a short time later receives a request 
            for an additional or replacement card. Section 315 requires 
            the agencies to jointly issue regulations providing 
            guidance regarding reasonable policies and procedures that 
            a user of consumer reports should employ when such 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 proposed 
            rules implementing this section require users of consumer 
            reports to validate the identity of the consumer upon 
            receipt of a notice of address discrepancy and provide 
            consumer reporting agencies with updated information about 
            a consumer's address. The agencies issued a notice of 
            proposed rulemaking on July 18, 2006. 71 FR 40786.
<greek-D> Fair Credit; Affiliate Marketing Regulations (12 CFR Part 
            41). The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board 
            of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit 
            Insurance Corporation, Office of Thrift Supervision, and 
            National Credit Union Administration (the agencies) are 
            planning to issue a rule to implement the affiliate sharing 
            provisions of section 214 of the Fair and Accurate Credit 
            Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act). The rule would 
            implement the consumer notice and opt-out provisions of the 
            FACT Act regarding the sharing of consumer information 
            among affiliates for marketing purposes. The agencies 
            issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on July 15, 2004. 69 
            FR 42502.
<greek-D> Fair Credit Reporting, Accuracy and Integrity of Information 
            Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies (12 CFR part 41). 
            The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board of 
            Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit 
            Insurance Corporation, Office of Thrift Supervision, 
            National Credit Union Administration, Federal Trade 
            Commission, and Securities and Exchange Commission (the 
            agencies) are planning to issue a joint rule to implement 
            section 312 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions 
            Act of 2003. 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 prescribe regulations jointly 
            that identify the circumstances under which a furnisher of 
            information to a consumer reporting agency shall be 
            required to reinvestigate a dispute concerning the accuracy 
            of information contained in a consumer report based on the 
            consumer's direct request to the furnisher. The agencies 
            issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on March 
            22, 2006. 71 FR 14419.
<greek-D> Risk-Based Capital Guidelines: Implementation of New Basel 
            Capital Accord (12 CFR Part 3). The banking agencies issued 
            a notice of proposed rulemaking based on the International 
            Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards: A 
            Revised Framework, the new capital adequacy standards, 
            commonly known as Basel II. The banking agencies published 
            the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on September 25, 
            2006 at 71 FR 55830 soliciting industry comments on a 
            proposal for implementing Basel II in the United States. In 
            particular, the NPRM 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 NPRM 
            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 their regulatory capital requirements. The OCC has 
            included this rulemaking project in Part II of the 
            Regulatory Plan.
<greek-D> Risk-Based Capital Guidelines; Capital Adequacy Guidelines; 
            Capital Maintenance: Domestic Capital Modifications (Basel 
            IA) (12 CFR Part 3). The banking agencies plan to issue a 
            notice of proposed rulemaking to amend various provisions 
            of the capital rules for those banks that will not be 
            subject to the new Basel Capital Accord (Basel II) capital 
            framework as an alternative. The banking agencies issued an 
            advance notice of proposed rulemaking on October 20, 2005. 
            70 FR 61068. The OCC has included this rulemaking project 
            in Part II of the Regulatory Plan.
<greek-D> Risk-Based Capital Standards: Market Risk (12 CFR Part 3). 
            The OCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to 
            amend the current market risk capital requirements for 
            national banks. The NPRM is part of a rulemaking with the 
            other banking agencies and was published on September 25, 
            2006 at 71 FR 55958. The NPRM 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. Specifically, the 
            Federal banking agencies propose to require banks to hold 
            additional capital for the risk of default of trading 
            positions beyond the 10-day horizon required by the current 
            market risk capital requirement.
<greek-D> Regulatory Burden Reduction and Technical Amendments. The OCC 
            plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to further 
            the goal of reducing regulatory burden for national banks. 
            These proposed changes would 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

[[Page 72864]]

            rules to reflect changes in the law or in other 
            regulations. In a few cases, proposed revisions also would 
            be made to add or enhance requirements for safety and 
            soundness reasons.
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. 
Significant capital rules issued during FY 2006 include two notices of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) that implement revisions to the 
International Convergence of Capital Management and Capital Standards: 
A Revised Framework (Basel II). These rules are:
<greek-D> Risk-Based Capital Guidelines: Implementation of New Basel 
            Capital Accord. This joint NPRM prescribes a new risk-based 
            capital adequacy framework that would require some, and 
            permit other, qualifying banks, savings associations, and 
            bank holding companies to use an internal ratings-based 
            approach (IRB) to calculate regulatory credit risk capital 
            requirements, and to use advanced measurement approaches to 
            calculate regulatory operational risk capital requirements. 
            The NPRM specifies the criteria that a banking organization 
            must meet to use these advanced approaches. 71 FR 55830 
            (Sept. 25, 2006). As a related matter, the banking agencies 
            shortly will publish proposed guidance on credit risk, 
            operation risk and internal economic capital maintenance. 
            The OTS has included this rulemaking project in Part II of 
            the Regulatory Plan.
<greek-D> Risk-Based Capital Standards; Market Risk. In this joint 
            NPRM, which was issued simultaneously with the Basel II 
            NPR, OTS proposed to require savings associations to 
            measure and hold capital to cover their exposure to market 
            risk. The other banking agencies are proposing to revise 
            their existing market risk capital rules to implement 
            changes to the market risk framework in Basel II. These 
            changes would enhance risk sensitivity of the existing 
            market risk capital rules and introduce requirements for 
            public disclosure of certain qualitative and quantitative 
            information about market risk. The proposed texts of the 
            agencies' rules are substantively identical. 71 FR 55958 
            (Sept. 25, 2006). As a related matter, the banking agencies 
            plan to issue a NPRM to increase the risk sensitivity of 
            the existing risk-based capital rules currently applicable 
            to all U.S. banks, savings associations, and bank holding 
            companies. The banking agencies published an ANPRM on this 
            issue on October 20, 2005 (70 FR 61068), and will issue the 
            NPRM in early FY 2007.
Significant final rules issued during fiscal year 2006 include:
<greek-D> One-Year Post-Employment Restrictions for Senior Examiners. 
            The banking agencies issued a joint final rule implementing 
            section 6303(b) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
            Prevention Act of 2004. The final rule imposes a one-year 
            post-employment restriction on ``senior examiners'' of 
            depository institutions and depository institution holding 
            companies. A senior examiner employed or commissioned by a 
            banking agency may not knowingly accept compensation as an 
            employee, officer, director, or consultant from certain 
            depository institutions or depository institution holding 
            companies that he or she examined, or from certain related 
            entities, for one year after the examiner leaves the 
            employment or service of the banking agency. 70 FR 69633 
            (Nov. 17, 2005).
<greek-D> Fair Credit Reporting - Medical Information. The banking 
            agencies and the National Credit Union Administration 
            (NCUA) issued an interim final rule implementing section 
            411 of the FACT Act, which amended the Fair Credit 
            Reporting Act (FCRA) by (1) prohibiting creditors from 
            obtaining or using medical information pertaining to a 
            consumer in connection with any determination of the 
            consumer's eligibility or continued eligibility for credit, 
            and (2) creating limited exceptions to permit affiliates to 
            share medical information with each other without becoming 
            consumer reporting agencies. The final rule was published 
            on November 22, 2005 at 70 FR 70664.
<greek-D> Community Reinvestment Act - Community Development. OTS 
            issued a final rule revising the definition of ``community 
            development'' for CRA purposes. The revised definition adds 
            activities that revitalize or stabilize designated disaster 
            areas or distressed or underserved, nonmetropolitan middle-
            income geographies OTS designates under criteria the rule 
            establishes. The final rule was published on April 12, 
            2006, at 71 FR 18614.
Moreover, as part of its review of regulations under section 2222 of 
the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996, OTS 
plans to finalize its current interim final rule to reduce regulatory 
burden on savings associations by updating and revising various 
application and reporting requirements.
Other significant proposed rules issued in fiscal year 2006 include:
<greek-D> Subordinated Debt Securities and Mandatorily Redeemable 
            Preferred Stock. OTS issued a NPRM updating rules governing 
            the inclusion of subordinated debt and mandatorily 
            redeemable stock in supplementary capital. The proposed 
            rule deleted unnecessary and outdated requirements and 
            conformed OTS rules more closely to the other banking 
            agencies. 71 FR 27862 (July 3, 2006).
OTS anticipates implementing sections of the Fair and Accurate Credit 
Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act) as follows:
<greek-D> Fair Credit Reporting Affiliate Marketing Regulations. The 
            banking agencies and the NCUA plan to issue a final rule 
            implementing section 214 of the FACT Act, which amended the 
            FCRA. The rule would implement the consumer notice and opt-
            out provisions of the FACT Act regarding the sharing of 
            consumer information among affiliates for marketing 
            purposes. The agencies published a proposed rule on July 
            15, 2004, at 69 FR 42502.
<greek-D> Fair Credit Reporting - Accuracy and Integrity of Information 
            Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies. The banking 
            agencies and the NCUA,

[[Page 72865]]

            Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Federal Trade 
            Commission (FTC) are planning to issue a joint 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 concerning the accuracy of 
            information contained in a consumer report based on the 
            consumer's direct request to the furnisher. The agencies 
            published an ANPRM on March 22, 2006, at 71 FR 14419.
<greek-D> Fair Credit Reporting - Identity Theft Red Flags and Address 
            Discrepancies. The banking agencies, NCUA, and FTC also 
            plan to issue a proposed rule implementing section 114 and 
            315 of the FACT Act, which requires the agencies to develop 
            guidelines for use in identifying patterns, practices, and 
            specific forms of activity that indicate the possible 
            existence of identity theft. The agencies are also required 
            to issue regulations requiring each financial institution 
            and creditor to establish reasonable policies and 
            procedures to implement such guidelines. The regulations 
            must contain a provision requiring a card issuer to notify 
            the cardholder if the card issuer receives a notice of 
            change of address for an existing account, and a short time 
            later receives a request for an additional or replacement 
            card. Section 315 requires the agencies to jointly issue 
            regulations providing guidance regarding reasonable 
            policies and procedures that a user of consumer reports 
            should employ when such 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 agencies published a proposed rule on July 18, 2006.
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 the manufacture and commerce of 
alcohol products, tobacco products, and the Federal excise tax on 
firearms and ammunition. TTB's mission and regulations are designed to:
<bullet> Regulate the alcohol and tobacco industries, including systems 
            for licenses and permits;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> Suppress commercial bribery, consumer deception, and other 
            prohibited practices in the alcohol beverage industry; and
<bullet> Assist the States and other Federal agencies in their efforts 
            to eliminate interstate trafficking in, and the sale and 
            distribution of, cigarettes in avoidance of State taxes.
 In 2007, 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 $14.6 billion in FY 2004. 
Work has begun on parts 19 and 25. 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 - Exportation of Tobacco Products and Cigarette 
Papers and Tubes), the American Viticultural Area program (Part 9), and 
TTB procedures (Part 70).
In addition to TTB's modernization updates, in FY 2007 the Bureau will 
conclude its alcohol beverage allergen rulemaking initiative and will 
publish proposed regulatory changes regarding serving facts for alcohol 
beverage labels and advertisements. In 2007, TTB will also publish 
regulations changes to clarify the distinction between cigars and 
cigarettes for excise tax purposes.
Bureau of the Public Debt
The Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD) administers the following 
regulations:
<bullet> Governing transactions in Government securities by Government 
            securities brokers and dealers under the Government 
            Securities Act of 1986 (GSA), as amended.
<bullet> Implementing Treasury's borrowing authority, including rules 
            governing the sale and issue of savings bonds, marketable 
            Treasury securities, and State and local Government 
            securities.
<bullet> Setting out the terms and conditions by which Treasury may 
            redeem (buy back) outstanding, unmatured marketable 
            Treasury securities through debt buyback operations.
<bullet> 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, recordkeeping, reporting, audit, and 
large position reporting for all government securities brokers and 
dealers, including financial institutions.
The rules setting out the terms and conditions for the sale and issue 
of marketable book-entry Treasury bills, notes, and bonds are known as 
the Uniform Offering Circular. During fiscal year 2007, BPD plans to 
issue rules to implement a paperless process for Treasury auctions. A 
streamlined electronic form will replace the paper agreement for 
electronic access now in use; certain provisions from the paper 
agreement would be incorporated into the Uniform Offering Circular.

[[Page 72866]]

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 2007, FMS's regulatory plan includes the 
following projects:
<greek-D> Management of Federal Agency Disbursements (31 CFR Part 208). 
            Near the end of fiscal year 2006, FMS issued an interim 
            final rule amending 31 CFR Part 208 to facilitate the 
            delivery of Federal payments to victims of disasters and 
            emergencies. This amendment provides Treasury the authority 
            to establish accounts at financial institutions to allow 
            for the electronic delivery of Federal payments for victims 
            of disasters and emergencies. FMS requested comments on 
            this interim final rule and will review whether any 
            clarifications should be added to the rule in light of any 
            comments received.
<greek-D> Administrative Offset Under Reciprocal Agreements With States 
            (31 CFR Part 285). FMS plans to issue an interim rule 
            amending 31 CFR Part 285 to implement a provision of the 
            Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA) that 
            authorizes Treasury to offset certain Federal payments to 
            collect delinquent debts owed to States, provided that the 
            States enter into a reciprocal agreement with Treasury. 
            After consulting with the States, FMS has developed an 
            operational program to accomplish such offsets. This rule 
            sets forth the requirements for States to submit debts to 
            Treasury for collection by offset, and it sets parameters 
            for the reciprocal agreements.
<greek-D> Collection and Cash Management Modernization. FMS, as part of 
            its Enterprise Architecture, plans to implement a 
            Collection and Cash Management Modernization program, which 
            will restructure the Treasury's collections, settlement, 
            cash concentration/reporting, forecasting, investment, and 
            collateral management programs. This effort will likely 
            require revisions to 31 CFR Parts 202 and 203.
_______________________________________________________________________
TREAS--Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

95. IMPLEMENTATION OF A REVISED BASEL CAPITAL ACCORD (BASEL II)

Priority:


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


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


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


As part of OCC's ongoing efforts to develop and refine capital 
standards to ensure the safety and soundness of the national banking 
system and to implement statutory requirements, OCC is amending various 
provisions of the capital rules for national banks. This change 
involves the implementation of the new framework for the Basel Capital 
Accord (Basel II). OCC is conducting this rulemaking jointly with the 
other Federal Banking Agencies.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is necessary to implement an international initiative 
regarding the capital adequacy regulation of certain domestic financial 
institutions. Specifically, this rulemaking implements the 
``International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital 
Standards'' (Basel II), which comprehensively revises the 1988 
``International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital 
Standards'' into the standards and requirements that will govern the 
largest banks in the United States.


Summary of Legal Basis:


OCC is implementing the Basel II capital framework for certain domestic 
financial institutions. 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 
OCC to establish minimum capital levels for financial institutions that 
OCC, in its discretion, deems necessary or appropriate.


Alternatives:


Not yet determined.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Not yet determined.


Risks:


Not yet determined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           08/04/03                    68 FR 45900
NPRM                            09/25/06                    71 FR 55830
NPRM Comment Period End         01/23/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Ron Shimabukuro
Special Counsel
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: ron.shimabukuro@occ.treas.gov
Related RIN: Split from 1557-AB14
RIN: 1557-AC91
_______________________________________________________________________
TREAS--OCC
96. RISK-BASED CAPITAL GUIDELINES; CAPITAL ADEQUACY GUIDELINES; CAPITAL 
MAINTENANCE: DOMESTIC CAPITAL MODIFICATIONS (BASEL IA)

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


12 USC 93a; 12 USC 3907; 12 USC 3909


CFR Citation:


12 CFR 3


Legal Deadline:


None

[[Page 72867]]

Abstract:


As part of OCC's ongoing efforts to develop and refine the capital 
standards to enhance their risk sensitivity and ensure the safety and 
soundness of the national banking system, OCC is proposing to amend 
various provisions of the capital rules. This change involves amending 
the current risk-based capital rules for those banks that will not be 
subject to the new Basel Capital Accord (Basel II) capital framework. 
OCC is conducting this rulemaking jointly with the other Federal 
banking agencies.


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 IA capital framework for domestic 
financial institutions that chose 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.


Alternatives:


Not yet determined.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Not yet determined.


Risks:


Not yet determined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           10/20/05                    70 FR 61068
ANPRM Comment Period End        01/18/06
NPRM                            12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


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-AC95
_______________________________________________________________________
TREAS--Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

97. IMPLEMENTATION OF A REVISED BASEL CAPITAL ACCORD (BASEL II)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


12 USC 1462; 12 USC 1462a; 12 USC 1463; 12 USC 1464; 12 USC 1467a; 12 
USC 1828 (note)


CFR Citation:


12 CFR 567


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In 2003, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, and the Office of Thrift Supervision (collectively, the 
``Federal Banking Agencies'') sought industry comment on a proposed 
framework for implementing the New Basel Capital Accord in the United 
States. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) 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 ANPRM specified criteria 
that would be used to determine banking organizations that would be 
required to use the advanced approaches, subject to meeting certain 
qualifying criteria, supervisory standards, and disclosure 
requirements. Other banking organizations that would meet the criteria, 
standards, and requirements also would be eligible to use the advanced 
approaches. Under the advanced approaches, banking organizations would 
use internal estimates of certain risk components as key inputs in the 
determination of their regulatory capital requirements.


In the fourth quarter of 2004, the Federal Banking Agencies began a 
quantitative impact study to help determine the potential impact of 
implementing the capital framework set forth in the ``International 
Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards: A Revised 
Framework,'' which updates and makes some significant revisions to the 
preliminary New Basel Capital Accord document from 2003, upon which the 
above ANPRM was based.


After review of the results of the quantitative impact study and after 
further review and full consideration of public comments received on 
the ANPRM, the Federal Banking Agencies plan to publish a notice of 
proposed rulemaking for implementation of this capital framework.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is necessary to implement an international initiative 
regarding the capital adequacy regulation of certain domestic financial 
institutions. Specifically, this rulemaking implements the 
``International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital 
Standards'' (Basel II), which comprehensively revised the 1988 
``International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital 
Standards'' into the standards and requirements that will govern the 
largest savings associations in the United States.


Summary of Legal Basis:


OTS is implementing the Basel II capital framework for certain domestic 
financial institutions. This initiative is based on the OTS's general 
rulemaking authority under the Home Owners' Loan Act, and its authority 
under 12 USC 1464(t). 12 USC 1464(t)(1) specifically authorizes OTS to 
establish minimum capital levels for savings associations, including 
risk-based capital standards.


Alternatives:


Not yet determined.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Not yet determined.


Risks:


Not yet determined.

[[Page 72868]]

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           08/04/03                    68 FR 45900
ANPRM Comment Period End        11/03/03
NPRM                            09/25/06                    71 FR 55830
NPRM Comment Period End         01/23/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Michael D. Solomon
Director, Capital Policy
Department of the Treasury
Office of Thrift Supervision
1700 G Street NW.
Washington, DC 20552
Phone: 202 906-5654

Karen Osterloh
Special Counsel, Regulations and Legislation Division
Department of the Treasury
Office of Thrift Supervision
1700 G Street NW.
Washington, DC 20552
Phone: 202 906-6639

David Riley
Senior Analyst, Capital Policy
Department of the Treasury
Office of Thrift Supervision
1700 G Street NW.
Washington, DC 20552
Phone: 202 906-6669
Related RIN: Related to 1550-AB11
RIN: 1550-AB56
BILLING CODE 4811-42-S

[[Page 72869]]

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 72870]]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
Statement of Priorities
OVERVIEW
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary 
Federal agency charged with safeguarding the quality of the natural 
environment and protecting human health from deleterious pollutants. 
For over 35 years, the Agency has been working to provide improvements 
in cleaner air, purer water, and better-protected land. The actions 
taken by EPA have led to measurable improvement in air and water 
quality, significant reductions in solid and hazardous wastes, and 
limitations on the use of harmful chemicals and pesticides.
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.
Results and Accountability
In order to be an effective steward in protecting the environment and 
responsive to national priorities, EPA uses tools aimed at achieving 
results and demonstrating accountability. To this end, the Agency uses 
transparent management tools and measures to provide the public with 
results as efficiently and effectively as possible. EPA continues to 
vigorously enforce environmental laws using both compliance assistance 
and strong enforcement programs. This is a key focus of the resident's 
Management Agenda, which is designed to make Government citizen-
centered, results-oriented, and market-based.
Innovation and Collaboration
In facing complex environmental challenges, the Agency values new 
strategic approaches. By collaborating with other Federal, State, 
tribal, and local governments and engaging private-sector entities, 
stakeholders, and the public, the Agency aims to solve problems using 
innovative methods that go beyond conventional regulatory controls. The 
expertise, perspectives, and resources of EPA's partners allow it to 
foster new approaches and develop new initiatives to expand 
environmental protection.
Best Available Science
EPA maintains its commitment to sound science and uses the best 
information available in decisionmaking while anticipating potential 
environmental threats, evaluating risks, identifying solutions, and 
developing protective standards. It is crucial to the success of the 
Agency to respond to emerging information in order to gain new 
understanding, reduce uncertainties, and, if necessary, change 
approaches concerning how they should be addressed.
Accelerating Environmental Protection
Using these principles as its framework, EPA is focused on accelerating 
environmental protection while maintaining the nation's economic 
competitiveness. Part of this focus centers on maintaining and 
supporting successful measures already taken.
Cleaner air and affordable energy: Since 1970, EPA has been working to 
provide cleaner, healthier air to all Americans by collaborating with 
partners and stakeholders to implement the Clean Air Act and subsequent 
amendments. The Agency's strategy for protecting human health relies on 
national regulatory, voluntary, and market-based programs carried out 
in combination with State, tribal, and local efforts. For example, the 
Agency is currently seeking to expand the use of biofuels and promote 
diesel emission reductions. Meanwhile, EPA promotes clean air and 
energy security through voluntary conservation programs like Energy 
Star and SmartWay transport. Additionally, the Agency will continue to 
make timely permitting decisions and foster technological innovations 
to support the clean development of domestic energy resources.
Clean and safe water: The EPA and its state, tribal, and local partners 
have made significant improvements in protecting and restoring the 
nation's waters. The Agency's goals, stemming from the Clean Water Act 
and the Safe Drinking Water Act, include the improvement of the quality 
of drinking water, and the protection and restoration of waters and 
beaches for fishing, swimming, and recreation. The importance of safe 
drinking water supplies was never more evident than in the aftermath of 
Hurricane Katrina. The strength of the Agency's initiative was evident 
as EPA, State, and local officials, systems operators, and volunteers 
dedicated their efforts around the clock to assist affected communities 
in repairing the infrastructure of drinking water systems and restoring 
sources of safe drinking water. EPA will continue to develop 
innovative, market-based, and sustainable solutions for water 
infrastructure financing and management while advancing regional 
collaborations for the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and Gulf of Mexico 
and working on restoring and protecting America's wetlands and 
watersheds.
Healthy communities and ecosystems: In keeping with its role of 
stewardship in an ever-changing global environment and working in 
service to both human health and the quality of the environment, EPA 
will continue efforts to improve communities by restoring contaminated 
properties, including brownfields, to environmental and economic 
vitality and encouraging voluntary community clean-up of potentially 
dangerous abandoned mine sites. These efforts will be paired with the 
promotion of community-level activities through increased resource 
conservation, including waste minimization through source reduction and 
recycling.
Global environment: As the EPA works to improve its role as steward to 
local communities, it serves as a participant in global activity to 
protect and restore the shared resources and the environment. To that 
end, the Agency is dedicated to finding solutions to issues that have 
far-reaching, global implications. EPA strives to promote energy 
security, and simultaneously advances international collaboration on 
environmental issues, such as reduction of air pollution and greenhouse 
gas emissions. The means to achieving these results include agreements 
like the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and the Methane-
to-Market Partnership.
Stronger EPA: As the Agency continues to uphold the President's 
Management Agenda, it could not ensure its success without a diverse, 
talented, and highly-skilled workforce. Equipped with the energy, 
intensity, and vitality of its professional staff, EPA is better able 
to devote prevention,

[[Page 72871]]

preparedness, and research efforts toward national security and respond 
to natural disasters.
Rules Expected to Impact Small Entities
EPA continues to focus on implementing its Small Business Strategy. 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 may be of particular interest to small businesses (and for a 
more extensive list of rules affecting small businesses, please see 
appendices B and C to the Regulatory Agenda which is available at 
www.epa.gov/regagenda). The priority items that are expected to have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities include:
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (2060-AK70)
Control of Emissions from Spark-Ignition Engines and Fuel Systems from 
Marine Vessels and Small Equipment (2060-AM34)
Lead-Based Paint Activities; Amendments for Renovation, Repair and 
Painting (2070-AC83)
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. 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
A principal regulatory priority of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation 
(OAR) in 2006 is to protect public health and the environment from the 
harmful effects of fine particulate matter and ozone, the two air 
pollutants that persist widely in the Nation's air in amounts that 
exceed Clean Air Act health standards. Exposure to these pollutants is 
associated with numerous harmful effects on human health, including 
respiratory problems, heart and lung disease, and premature death. 
These pollutants also degrade visibility, an effect of particular 
concern in national parks and other scenic areas. In addition to ozone 
and particulate pollution, OAR is continuing to address toxic air 
pollution by controlling toxic emissions from both stationary sources 
and mobile sources such as cars and trucks. OAR is also working to 
increase the effectiveness and efficiency of its permitting and 
monitoring programs, which are among the main mechanisms through which 
clean-air protections are implemented. Finally, OAR is revising 
previously-issued safety standards for nuclear-waste storage in 
response to a court decision. These efforts are described briefly 
below.
To help control ozone and particulate pollution, OAR continues to 
develop rules as part of its program to reduce emissions from mobile 
sources. These rules will require additional emission reductions from 
certain marine vessels, locomotives, and small equipment, and will add 
requirements for fuel economy labeling and renewable-fuel content in 
gasoline. These rules will enhance the overall mobile-source control 
program that has already set stringent standards for most categories of 
vehicles, engines, and their fuels.
Even though these Federal rules will go a long way toward reducing the 
ozone and particulate pollution in America's cities, they can't do the 
job alone. Additional state and local control programs under the Clean 
Air Act will need to be instituted or enhanced in many of the most 
polluted areas. To help and guide the States and local governments in 
these efforts, EPA has been developing implementation rulemakings for 
both ozone and particulates that will provide technical help and policy 
guidance crucial to assuring that State and local efforts achieve their 
pollution-control goals. The ozone implementation rule was finalized 
last year; the particulate implementation rule will be finalized this 
fall.
OAR also continues to assess new scientific information that underlies 
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which are the 
centerpiece of the Clean Air Act and the foundation of OAR's program. 
In October, EPA promulgated a rule revising the existing NAAQS for 
particulates. A rule to either revise or reaffirm the current ozone 
NAAQS will be proposed and promulgated in 2007. Rules addressing lead 
and carbon monoxide will follow in 2008 and 2009, respectively.
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 entering its second phase consisting of evaluation of the 
effectiveness of work done so far, and assessment of the need for 
additional controls. Rulemakings are currently underway covering 
industries dealing with hazardous organic chemical production and 
halogenated solvent cleaning. We are also developing a rulemaking 
requiring additional reductions in toxic emissions from mobile sources 
such as cars and trucks.
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. 
Currently, 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. OAR is also developing a rulemaking to clarify 
and better define the kinds of monitoring required in Federal and State 
operating permit programs.
In 2006, EPA also expects to complete a rulemaking amending the 
radiation standards governing the development of the Yucca Mountain 
site in Nevada, the nation's designated geologic repository for spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. These standards were 
initially issued in 2001 and were partially remanded by a Federal court 
in 2004. To address the remand, EPA must reassess the time frame for 
compliance in light of the National Academy's recommendation that 
compliance must be addressed at the time of peak dose, which may be as 
long as several hundred thousand years into the future.

[[Page 72872]]

Office of Environmental Information
EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI) ensures that EPA 
collects and provides access to high quality environmental information 
and data to our partners, stakeholders, and the public. In keeping with 
this mandate, one of OEI's top regulatory priorities will be the 
finalization of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Burden Reduction 
Rule.
The TRI program collects chemical release and other waste management 
data on over 650 chemicals from over 24,000 facilities across the U.S. 
each year. To provide TRI reporters with appropriate burden relief, EPA 
initiated two rulemakings to address both short-term and longer-term 
reporting requirement modifications while maintaining the practical 
utility of the TRI data. The TRI Reporting Forms Modification Rule, 
which addressed relatively minor modifications to the TRI reporting 
forms, was published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2005 (70 FR 
39931). TRI continued its efforts to reduce the TRI reporting burden 
and published the TRI Burden Reduction Proposed Rule in October 2005 
(70 FR 57822). The second regulatory proposal examines more significant 
reporting modifications with greater potential impact on reporting 
burden. The TRI Burden Reduction Rule offers burden reduction options 
that are technically, practically and legally feasible in order to meet 
the goals and statutory obligations set forth for TRI reporting. The 
rule will reduce burden associated with TRI reporting while maintaining 
EPA's commitment to providing valuable information to the public.
Through the Central Data Exchange (CDX) system, EPA is also committed 
to providing electronic access to its stakeholders to meet EPA's 
reporting requirements. CDX is an integrated system that provides 
electronic reporting services to more than 30,000 users for 16 data 
flows in six major EPA media programs. CDX is on track to provide 
electronic reporting services for all significant environmental data 
collections over the next two years. CDX enables EPA and participating 
program offices to work with stakeholders - including State, tribal and 
local governments and regulated industries - to enable streamlined, 
electronic submission of data via the Internet.
By enabling the regulated community to utilize CDX as a reporting tool, 
the TRI Program received about 60% of its submissions on line for 
Reporting Year (RY) 2005. To take advantage of CDX's paperless 
reporting feature, TRI reporters must use the EPA-provided TRI Made-
Easy (TRI-ME) Software. For RY 2005, over 95 percent of all facilities 
used TRI-ME to prepare their reports. This reflects an upward trend 
toward greater Internet reporting via CDX and is great news for the TRI 
program. Money saved from processing more-costly hard-copy paper 
submissions to TRI can now be reinvested in helpful tools and automated 
data quality checks to assist facilities and provide greater electronic 
means of accessing TRI data.
Over the past several years, CDX also added a number of new data flows, 
including the Office of Water's Stormwater Electronic Notice of Intent 
(an electronic permit application), the Office of Solid Waste and 
Emergency Response's Risk Management Plan WebRC (electronic updates of 
emergency contact information), and the Office of Prevention, 
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances' Lead Request for Certification 
(payment transactions online).
CDX is EPA's point of presence on the Environmental Exchange Network, 
known as the ``Node.'' Using CDX, EPA has worked with States to provide 
the technical specifications and exchange protocols for the Network. 
CDX provides support services, including node building, security and 
authentication and help desk. OEI is working with the major programs to 
deploy their data flows as ``node'' exchanges, using XML and web 
services. These efforts are some examples of EPA's commitment to the 
collection and dissemination of the highest quality of environmental 
information.
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 
chemical risks to humans, communities and ecosystems. OPPTS employs a 
mix of regulatory and non-regulatory methods to achieve this goal. 
During the past fiscal year, OPPTS proposed and finalized a number of 
significant regulatory actions that are briefly highlighted below. For 
more information about these regulatory actions, as well as information 
about our other programs and activities, please visit our Web site at 
www.epa.gov/oppts. Looking forward to the coming fiscal year, OPPTS 
expects to issue several significant regulatory actions that are also 
highlighted below.
In late 2006 EPA will complete a 10-year review of food-use pesticides, 
as mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). The 
changes in pesticide use patterns resulting from this review have 
included outright phase-out of hundreds of pesticides, elimination of 
certain uses, stricter use provisions, and establishment of food 
tolerances. Americans today can be confident that pesticides used in 
the United States meet the highest health and safety standards.
Associated with this review of food-use chemicals, early in 2006, EPA 
issued a final rule that significantly strengthened and expanded the 
protections for participants in environmental research in three ways. 
The rule categorically banned intentional dosing human testing for 
pesticides when the subjects are pregnant women, nursing women or 
children. The rule also formalized and further strengthened existing 
protections for subjects in human research conducted or supported by 
EPA, as well as to intentional dosing human studies for pesticides 
conducted by others who intend to submit the research to EPA. This 
action assures that the best available, ethically sound science is used 
in our decisionmaking processes.
To ensure that pesticides are continuously reviewed against the latest 
health and safety standards, in August of 2006, OPPTS began 
implementing a new program, mandated by section 3(g) of the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), to review the 
registrations of all pesticides at least once each 15 years. The 
registration review program will replace the tolerance reassessment 
program in 2006 and reregistration program in 2008.
Also in 2006, EPA published a final rule to revise the regulations 
governing emergency exemptions that allow unregistered uses of 
pesticides to address emergency pest conditions for a limited time. 
These revisions reduced the burden to both applicants and EPA, provided 
for consistent determinations of ``significant economic loss'' as the 
basis for an emergency, and updated and clarified the regulations to be 
consistent with the requirements of FQPA. As a result, the final rule 
is expected to allow EPA to respond to these emergencies more quickly 
without compromising existing protections for human health and the 
environment.
In 2007, EPA will continue its work towards the Administration goal of 
eliminating childhood lead poisoning as

[[Page 72873]]

a national health concern by 2010 by developing a comprehensive program 
for the management of renovation, repair and painting activities 
involving lead-based paint hazards. The program will be comprised of a 
combination of approaches including an extensive education and outreach 
campaign for lead-safe work practices and training for industry, an 
outreach campaign designed to expand consumer awareness and create 
demand for the use of lead-safe work practices, and the establishment 
of final regulatory requirements. As a part of this effort, EPA issued 
a proposed rule on January 10, 2006, that would minimize the 
introduction of lead hazards resulting from the disturbance of lead-
based paint during renovation, repair, and painting activities in most 
housing built before 1978 by requiring that all persons and firms who 
conduct such work for compensation follow lead-safe work practice 
standards and be trained and certified in the use of lead-safe work 
practices, and that providers of renovation training be accredited.
In 2006 and 2007, EPA will continue working collaboratively with 
stakeholders to better understand the sources and exposure pathways 
leading to the presence of PFOA in humans and the environment. EPA 
works with multiple parties to produce missing information on PFOA 
through enforceable consent agreements, memoranda of understanding, and 
voluntary commitments, continues to provide data to help answer many 
important questions about these chemicals. PFOA or perfluorooctanoic 
acid, a synthetic (man-made) chemical that does not occur naturally in 
the environment, is used to make fluoropolymers, substances with 
special properties that have thousands of important manufacturing and 
industrial applications. Consumer products made with fluoropolymers 
include non-stick cookware, and breathable, all-weather clothing. EPA 
began its investigation because PFOA is persistent in the environment 
and was being found at very low levels both in the environment and in 
the blood of the general U.S. population. EPA summarized its concerns 
and identified data gaps and uncertainties about PFOA in a notice 
published in the Federal Register on April 16, 2003.
EPA continues to implement the voluntary HPV Challenge Program, a 
collaborative partnership between EPA and industry stakeholders, to 
develop health and safety screening information on sponsored high 
production volume chemicals. To complement this voluntary effort, OPPTS 
expects to issue a second proposed test rule under the Toxic Substances 
Control Act (TSCA) in early 2007 that will require testing for a number 
of the HPV chemicals that were not sponsored as part of the voluntary 
HPV Challenge Program in order to develop critical information about 
the environmental fate and potential hazards of those chemicals. When 
combined with information about exposure and uses, the information 
developed will allow the Agency and others to evaluate potential health 
and environmental risks, and take appropriate actions.
EPA thoroughly evaluates pesticides to ensure that they will meet 
Federal safety standards to protect human health and the environment 
before they can be marketed and used in the United States. EPA uses 
data submitted by pesticide producers to form the basis for the 
pesticide risk assessments and decisions as to whether pesticides meet 
the safety standards. Although the Agency has kept pace with evolving 
scientific understanding of pesticide risks by requiring the submission 
of the data needed on a case-by-case basis, OPPTS expects to issue 
final rules in 2007 that update the data requirements for biochemical, 
microbial, and conventional chemical pesticides to formally reflect 
evolving data needs. EPA also intends to propose in 2007 additional 
data requirements for antimicrobial pesticides and plant-incorporated 
protectants.
To update and strengthen the protections for pesticide applicators and 
agricultural workers, in late 2007, OPPTS expects to propose changes to 
the Federal regulations for the certified pesticide applicator program 
(CPAP). Many changes in State programs have occurred since the CPAP 
regulations were promulgated in the 1970s, such that State programs go 
beyond the current Federal regulations in training and certifying 
pesticide applicators. The Agency anticipates revisions that will 
broaden the scope of the certification program to include additional 
occupational users, and strengthen the demonstration of competency as a 
requirement of certification. In conjunction with the applicator 
certification improvements, OPPTS will also propose improvements to the 
agricultural worker protection program in a separate but related 
proposed rule. The Agency expects these changes will strengthen the 
regulations to better protect pesticide applicators, agricultural 
workers, the public, and the environment.
To further waste minimization and recycling goals, OPPTS intends to 
propose that manufacturers of agricultural and professional specialty 
pesticides support pesticide container recycling by either managing and 
operating their own programs, or contracting with a recycling 
organization. This proposal is intended to bolster current voluntary 
programs that have demonstrated that pesticide containers can be safely 
and efficiently recycled.
Evidence suggests that environmental exposure to man-made chemicals 
that mimic hormones (endocrine disruptors) may cause adverse health 
effects in human and wildlife populations. The Food Quality Protection 
Act directed EPA to develop a chemical screening program (the Endocrine 
Disruptor Screening Program, EDSP), using appropriate validated test 
systems and other scientifically relevant information, to determine 
whether certain substances may have hormonal effects in humans. OPPTS 
is implementing recommendations from a scientific advisory committee, 
which was established to advise EPA on the EDSP, by developing and 
validating test systems for determining whether a chemical may have 
effects similar to those produced by naturally occurring hormones. As 
part of this program EPA is also designing a framework for procedures 
and processes to use when implementing the EDSP, and will develop an 
initial list of chemicals for which testing will be required. In 2007, 
EPA anticipates publishing the preliminary procedures for use in 
implementing the screening and testing phase of the EDSP.
In response to comments submitted to OMB as part of OMB's Regulatory 
Reform of the U.S. Manufacturing Sector (2005) report, EPA issued a 
proposed rule on February 9, 2006, to streamline the TSCA section 12(b) 
export notification requirement in terms of the exporter's activities, 
as well as streamlining the Agency's procedures to notify foreign 
governments. OPPTS also proposed to eliminate reporting for de minimis 
concentration levels and proposed other improvement to the export 
notification regulations. EPA expects to issue a final rule early in 
FY2007.
In addition, in response to another comment submitted to OMB as part of 
OMB's Regulatory Reform of the U.S. Manufacturing Sector (2005) Report, 
about the use of mercury-containing

[[Page 72874]]

switches in convenience lights and braking systems installed in new 
cars, EPA proposed a TSCA Section 5 Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) on 
July 11, 2006, to ensure that the Agency is notified and provided the 
opportunity to evaluate and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit the use 
of mercury in automobiles switches before U.S. manufacture, import or 
processing occurs for that purpose in order to prevent unreasonable 
risk of injury to human health or the environment. EPA expects to 
finalize this SNUR in 2007.
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 the safe management of wastes; preparing 
for, preventing and responding to chemical and oil spills, accidents, 
and emergencies; enhancing homeland security; 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.
EPA is considering expanding the comparable fuels program. This program 
currently allows specific industrial wastes to be excluded from the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste 
requirements when they are used as a fuel and do not contain hazardous 
constituent levels exceeding those in a typical benchmark fuel that 
facilities could otherwise use. If EPA is successful in finding 
additional industrial wastes that could be used safely for their energy 
value without the expense of a RCRA permit, it would promote the use of 
these industrial wastes as a renewable domestic source of energy and 
reduce our use of fossil fuels. It also could significantly reduce the 
cost of recovering the energy from some hazardous wastes already used 
as fuels.
The ``definition of solid waste'' determines the recyclable secondary 
materials that are regulated under the RCRA hazardous waste regulations 
and those that are not. The RCRA regulatory definition of solid waste 
classifies recyclable hazardous secondary materials as either regulated 
hazardous wastes or unregulated materials. Many materials that are 
reclaimed as part of the recycling process are regulated as hazardous 
wastes. This can discourage recycling of the wastes, due to 
requirements for permits (which trigger corrective action), manifests, 
and the other requirements imposed by the Subtitle C hazardous waste 
regulations. EPA is considering innovative approaches that will 
increase the safe recycling of hazardous waste, while still ensuring 
that these materials are properly handled.
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.
EPA is seeking to amend the Spill Prevention, Control, and 
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan requirements to reduce the burden imposed on 
the regulated community for complying with the SPCC requirements, while 
maintaining protection of human health and the environment.
The Office of Management and Budget's Reports to Congress on the Costs 
and Benefits of Regulations for 2001, 2002 and 2004 included reform 
nominations for the Agency to consider. All the rulemakings mentioned 
above support reform nominations. In addition, two additional 
rulemakings under development also pertain to the reform nominations: 
(1) a rule to streamline laboratory waste management in academic and 
research laboratories and (2) a rule to manage the cement kiln dust, a 
by-product of the cement manufacturing process. The Agency is 
developing final rules for both these efforts. For the former rule, the 
Agency proposed a set of alternative standards that are more tailored 
to the way laboratories operate. The goal is to further protect human 
health and the environment through application of RCRA standards that 
are harmonious with the way laboratories operate. For the latter rule, 
the Agency proposed a comprehensive set of standards for the management 
of cement kiln dust. The goal is to encourage the additional reuse and 
safer management of chemicals in laboratories, while continuing to 
protect human health and the environment.
Office of Water
EPA's Office of Water's (OW) 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. In order to meet these goals, EPA has established 
a number of regulatory priorities for the coming year. They include 
rules affecting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit 
requirements.
OW is planning to finalize three actions affecting National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements in FY 
2007. The first is a rule addressing the NPDES permitting requirements 
and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) for 
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in response to the order 
issued by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Waterkeeper Alliance 
et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005). This final rule will 
respond to the court order while furthering the statutory goal of 
restoring and maintaining the nation's water quality and effectively 
ensuring that CAFOs properly manage manure generated by their 
operations. A second action is the Water Transfers rulemaking. EPA will 
finalize the proposed rule which amends the Clean Water Act regulations 
to clarify that NPDES permits are not required for water transfers. 
Lastly, EPA also plans to issue a policy regarding NPDES permit 
requirements for peak wet weather diversions at publicly owned 
treatment works (POTW) treatment plants serving separate sanitary sewer 
collection systems.
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

98. ENDOCRINE DISRUPTER SCREENING PROGRAM (EDSP); IMPLEMENTING THE 
SCREENING AND TESTING PHASE

Priority:


Other Significant

[[Page 72875]]

Legal Authority:


15 USC 2603 ``TSCA''; 21 USC 346(a) ``FFDCA''; 42 USC 300(a)(17) 
``SDWA''; 7 USC 136 ``FIFRA''


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 408(p) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended 
by the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, directs EPA to establish and 
implement a program whereby industry will be required to screen and 
test all pesticide chemicals to determine whether certain substances 
may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a 
naturally occurring estrogen, or such other endocrine effect as the 
Administrator may designate. The requirements of Section 408(p) were 
implemented through the creation of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening 
Program (EDSP) in 1998. The EDSP has the following three components 
that are proceeding simultaneously: 1) developing and validating 
assays; 2) setting chemical testing priorities; and 3) establishing 
408(p) testing orders and related data procedures. A Federal Advisory 
Committee Act committee is providing advice to the EDSP on assay 
development and validation. For chemical testing priorities, the 
approach to selecting the first 50-100 chemicals was finalized in a 
September 2005 Federal Register Notice (70 FR 56449) and EPA is 
implementing that approach. For establishing the testing orders and 
related data procedures, EPA intends to focus on the initial 50-100 
chemicals. The agency intends to conduct a review of the data received 
from the screening of the initial group of chemicals to evaluate 
whether the program could be improved or optimized, and if so, how.


Statement of Need:


The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Implementation of the 
Screening and Testing Phase fulfills the statutory direction and 
authority to screen pesticide chemicals and drinking water contaminants 
for their potential to disrupt the endocrine system and adversely 
affect human health and wildlife.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The screening and testing phase of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening 
Program (EDSP) potentially will encompass a broad range of types of 
chemicals, including pesticide chemicals, TSCA chemicals, chemicals 
that may be found in sources of drinking water, chemicals that may have 
an effect that is cumulative to the effect of a pesticide chemical, 
chemicals that are both pesticide chemicals and TSCA chemicals, and 
other chemicals that are combinations of these types of chemicals. As 
discussed in the Proposed Statement of Policy, EPA has a number of 
authorities at its disposal to require testing of these types of 
chemicals. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA) section 
408(p) provides EPA authority to require testing of all pesticide 
chemicals and any other substance that may have an effect that is 
cumulative to an effect of a pesticide chemical if EPA determines that 
a substantial population may be exposed to the substance. 21 U.S.C. 
346a)(p). Likewise, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) provides EPA 
with authority to require testing of any substance that may be found in 
sources of drinking water if EPA determines that a substantial 
population may be exposed to the substance. 42 U.S.C. 300j-17. The 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) provides 
EPA with authority to require testing of pesticides if EPA determines 
that additional data are required to maintain in effect an existing 
registration. 7 USC sec 136a(c)(2)(B). The Toxic Substances Control Act 
(TSCA) provides authority for EPA to require testing of TSCA chemicals, 
provided that it makes certain hazard and/or exposure findings. 15 USC 
sec 2603. In addition, EPA has authority to issue consent orders to 
require testing when interested parties agree on an acceptable testing 
program. 51 Fed. Reg. 23706 (June 30, 1986).


Alternatives:


A Federal role is mandated under cited authority. There is no 
alternative to the role of the Federal Government on this issue to 
ensure that pesticides, commercial chemicals and contaminants are 
screened and tested for endocrine disruption potential. A limited 
amount of testing may be conducted voluntarily but this will fall far 
short of the systematic screening which is necessary to protect public 
health and the environment and ensure the public that all important 
substances have been adequately evaluated.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


It is too early to project the costs and benefits of this program 
accurately. However, a preliminary rough estimate by industry indicated 
a cost of $200,000 per chemical. It is also too early to quantify the 
benefits of this program quantitatively. The goal of the program is to 
reduce the risks identified below.


Risks:


Evidence is continuing to mount that wildlife and humans may be at risk 
from exposure to chemicals operating through an endocrine mediated 
pathway. Epidemiological studies on the associations between chemical 
exposures and adverse endocrine changes continue to evaluate this 
problem in humans. Wildlife effects have been more thoroughly 
documented. Abnormalities in birds, marine mammals, fish, amphibians, 
alligators, and shellfish have been documented in the U.S., Europe, 
Japan, Canada, and Australia which have been linked to specific 
chemical exposures. Evidence is sufficient for the U.S. to proceed on a 
two track strategy: research on the basic science regarding endocrine 
disruption and screening with validated assays to identify which 
chemicals are capable of interacting with the endocrine system. The 
combination of research and test data submitted in this program will 
enable EPA to take action to reduce risks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice                          12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4728; EPA publication information: Split from RIN 2070-AD26. In 
August 2000, the Agency submitted the required Status Report to 
Congress. In March 2002, the Agency submitted the requested status 
report to Congress on the Endocrine Disruptor Methods Validation 
subcommittee under the National Advisory Council on Environmental 
Policy and Technology.


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/index.htm

[[Page 72876]]

Agency Contact:
William Wooge
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7201M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-8476
Fax: 202 564-8482
Email: wooge.william@epa.gov

Joe Nash
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-8886
Fax: 202 564-4765
Email: nash.joseph@epa.gov
RIN: 2070-AD61
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
99. STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF COAL COMBUSTION WASTES GENERATED BY 
COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC POWER PRODUCERS

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


42 USC 6907(a)(3); 42 USC 6944(a)


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 257


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action is for the development of non-hazardous waste regulations 
under subtitle D of the RCRA statute. The regulations will apply to 
landfill and surface impoundment facilities that manage coal combustion 
wastes generated by steam electric power generators, i.e., electric 
utilities and independent power producers. This action results from 
EPA's regulatory determination for fossil fuel combustion wastes (see 
65 FR 32214, May 22, 2000), which concluded that waste management 
regulations under RCRA are appropriate for certain coal combustion 
wastes. The intended benefits of this action will be to prevent 
contamination or damage to ground waters and surface waters, thereby 
avoiding risk to human health and the environment, including ecological 
risks. The Agency is currently analyzing the human health and eco 
risks, costs, and economic impact of this action as it develops the 
proposed regulation. The Agency has considered alternatives to this 
action, including regulating these wastes as hazardous wastes under 
subtitle C of RCRA, but has rejected this approach as discussed in the 
regulatory determination (see 65 FR 32214, May 22, 2000). EPA has also 
considered issuing guidance instead of regulations to industry and 
State and local governments to focus on these remaining waste 
management issues, particularly since the industry has improved its 
waste management practices and most State regulatory programs are 
similarly improving. To this end, the Agency will be issuing a Notice 
of Data Availability (NODA) announcing the availability for public 
inspection and comment on new information and data on the management of 
coal combustion wastes that the Agency will consider in deciding next 
steps in this effort.


Statement of Need:


The Agency is in the process of developing non-hazardous waste 
regulations under RCRA Subtitle D for the management of coal combustion 
wastes in landfills and surface impoundments. The Agency found that in 
1995, liners were installed in only 57% of landfills and 26% of surface 
impoundments. Additionally, while 85% of landfills practiced 
groundwater monitoring, only 38% of surface impoundments did so. EPA is 
concerned that the lack of liners and groundwater monitoring could pose 
risks to human health and the environment.


Summary of Legal Basis:


RCRA Section 8002


Alternatives:


The Agency has considered alternatives to this action, including 
regulating these wastes as hazardous wastes under subtitle C of RCRA, 
but has rejected this approach as discussed in the regulatory 
determination (see 65 FR 32214, May 22, 2000). EPA has also considered 
issuing guidance instead of regulations to industry and State and local 
governments to focus on these remaining waste management issues.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


In the May 2000 regulatory determination the Agency stated that the 
decision to develop non-hazardous waste regulations for coal combustion 
wastes is a ``significant regulatory action.'' The benefits of the 
action will be reduced risks to human health and the environment.


Risks:


Risks posed by the mismanagement of coal combustion wastes include 
contamination of groundwater and surface water from metals, such as 
arsenic, boron, cadmium, and selenium.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NODA                            12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4470; This effort may also impact Federal, State, local or 
tribal governments that own coal-burning commercial electric power 
generating facilities.


Sectors Affected:


221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation


Agency Contact:
Alexander Livnat
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5306W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-7251
Fax: 703 308-8686
Email: livnat.alexander@epamail.epa.gov

Steve Souders
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5306W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8431
Fax: 703 308-8686
Email: souders.steve@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2050-AE81

[[Page 72877]]

_______________________________________________________________________
EPA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

100. REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CARBON 
MONOXIDE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7409


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 50


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, May 31, 2001, Clean Air Act requires reviews every 5 
years.


Abstract:


Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for carbon 
monoxide (CO) every 5 years is mandated by the Clean Air Act. This 
review assesses the available scientific data about the health and 
environmental effects of CO and translates the science into terms that 
can be used in making recommendations about whether or how the 
standards should be changed. The last review of the CO NAAQS was 
completed in 1994 with a final decision that revisions were not 
appropriate at that time.


Statement of Need:


As new health research becomes available on the effects of carbon 
monoxide, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to review the adequacy of the 
existing NAAQS at 5-year intervals.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Clean Air Act requires review and revision of the NAAQS every five 
years.


Alternatives:


Alternatives for revising or maintaining the NAAQS will be assessed at 
a later point in the review cycle, after the scientific assessment of 
risk is completed.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs and benefits will be evaluated later in the review cycle.


Risks:


Risk information will be available later in the review cycle.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/09
Final Action                    11/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4266


Agency Contact:
Dave McKee
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-06
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5288
Fax: 919 541-0237
Email: mckee.dave@epa.gov

Harvey Richmond
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-06
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 919 541-5271
Email: richmond.harvey@epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AI43
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
101. CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW LOCOMOTIVES AND NEW MARINE DIESEL 
ENGINES LESS THAN 30 LITERS PER CYLINDER

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7522-7621


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 92; 40 CFR 94


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Emissions from locomotive and marine diesel engines contribute 
significantly to unhealthful levels of ambient particulate matter and 
ozone in many parts of the United States. These engines are highly 
mobile and are not easily controlled at a State or local level. EPA 
currently regulates the manufacturers of these engines when they are 
produced or remanufactured at a level similar to early 1990s on-highway 
diesel trucks. This rulemaking will propose to set an additional tier 
of more stringent particulate matter and nitrogen oxides emission 
standards for new marine diesel engines below 30 liters per cylinder 
(Category 1 and Category 2 marine diesel engines) and new locomotive 
engines. The standards under consideration are expected to be based on 
the use of high-efficiency aftertreatment technologies like those that 
will be used to meet EPA's recent heavy-duty and nonroad diesel 
standards. These technologies, which could reduce emissions by 90 
percent, would be enabled by the availability and use of low sulfur 
diesel fuel.


Statement of Need:


Further reductions in nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate emissions 
are needed to help States attain national air-quality standards for 
particulates and for ozone, for which NOx is a precursor.


Summary of Legal Basis:


42 USC 7547


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be developed as the rulemaking proceeds. We recently 
issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to gather ideas and 
comments from the interested public.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Cost and benefit information will be developed as the rulemaking 
proceeds.


Risks:


The risks addressed by this rule are primarily those resulting from 
exposure to particulate matter and ozone. Risk information will be 
quantified as the rulemaking proceeds.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           06/29/04                    69 FR 39276
NPRM                            05/00/07
Final Action                    05/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4871

[[Page 72878]]

Agency Contact:
Jean-Marie Revelt
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
6401A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 734 214-4822
Email: revelt.jean-marie@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AM06
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
102. CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NONROAD SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES AND 
EQUIPMENT

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7521-7601(a)


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 90


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, December 1, 2004.


Final, Statutory, December 31, 2005.


Abstract:


In this action, we are proposing exhaust emission standards for spark-
ignition marine engines and small land-based engines (<19 kW). We are 
also proposing evaporative emission standards for vessels and equipment 
using these engines. Nationwide, these emission sources contribute to 
ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM) nonattainment. 
These pollutants cause a range of adverse health effects, especially in 
terms of respiratory impairment and related illnesses. The proposed 
standards would help States achieve and maintain air quality standards. 
In addition, these standards would help reduce acute exposure to CO, 
air toxics, and PM.


Statement of Need:


EPA has been directed by Congress to set new emission requirements for 
small spark-ignition (gasoline) engines. The Agency has previously 
acted to set standards for these nonroad engine source categories as 
there are significant health and welfare benefits associated with such 
controls. Even with existing standards, these sources continue to be 
contributors to air pollution inventories and further reductions will 
be helpful to State and local governments and tribes in their 
development of National Ambient Air Quality Standards plans.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 213 of the Clean Air Act gives EPA authority to set emissions 
requirements for nonroad engines. The engines covered under this 
proposed rulemaking are all considered nonroad engines. California may 
set its own emissions standards - unlike other mobile source 
categories, states are prohibited from adopting California emission 
standards for small spark ignition engines below 50 horsepower.


Alternatives:


A range of alternatives for the various exhaust and evaporative 
emissions standards is being discussed as part of the rulemaking 
development process. Alternatives include more stringent standards and 
different time frames for adopting the new requirements.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


There are potential significant health and welfare benefits associated 
with additional emissions control requirements for small spark-ignition 
engines. New standards can potentially achieve reductions in VOC 
emissions as well as other pollutants. Costs and benefits will be 
quantified and reported as part of the rulemaking process.


Risks:


Impacts of the proposed standards on health indicators will be 
discussed as part of the rulemaking development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/07
Final Action                    11/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4882;


Agency Contact:
Glenn Passavant
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
1200 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 734 214-4408
Email: passavant.glenn@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AM34
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
103. IMPLEMENTING PERIODIC MONITORING IN FEDERAL AND STATE OPERATING 
PERMIT PROGRAMS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7401 et seq


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 70.6(c)(1); 40 CFR 71.6(c)(1); 40 CFR 64


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule would revise the Compliance Assurance Monitoring rule (40 CFR 
part 64) to be implemented through the operating permits rule (40 CFR 
Parts 70 and 71) to define when periodic monitoring for monitoring 
stationary source compliance must be created, and to include specific 
criteria that periodic monitoring must meet. This rule satisfies our 4-
step strategy announced in the final Umbrella Monitoring Rule 
(published January 22, 2004) to address monitoring inadequacies. The 
four steps were: 1) to clarify the role of title V permits in 
monitoring [Umbrella Monitoring Rule]; 2) to provide guidance for 
improved monitoring in PM-Fine SIP's; 3) to take comment on correction 
of inadequate monitoring provisions in underlying rules; and 4) to 
provide guidance on periodic monitoring. We have completed the RIA data 
collection and most of the analyses,and are beginning review with OPEI 
and an economic sub-work group.


Statement of Need:


The ''periodic monitoring'' rules, 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 
71.6(a)(3)(i)(B), require that ``[w]here the applicable requirement 
does not require periodic testing or instrumental or noninstrumental 
monitoring (which may consist of recordkeeping designed to serve as 
monitoring), [each title V permit must contain] periodic monitoring 
sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant time period that 
are representative of the source's compliance with the permit, as 
reported pursuant to [Sec.  70.6(a)(3)(iii) or Sec.  71.6(a)(3)(iii)]. 
Such monitoring requirements shall assure use of terms, test methods, 
units, averaging periods, and other statistical conventions consistent 
with the applicable requirement. Recordkeeping provisions may be 
sufficient to meet the

[[Page 72879]]

requirements of [Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and Sec. 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B)].'' 
Sections 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1), called the umbrella monitoring 
rule, require that each title V permit contain, ``[c]onsistent with 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, compliance certification, testing, 
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements sufficient to 
assure compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit.'' On 
January 22, 2004 (69 Federal Register 3202), EPA announced that the 
Agency has determined that the correct interpretation of Sec. Sec.  
70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) is that these sections do not provide a basis 
for requiring or authorizing review and enhancement of existing 
monitoring in title V permits independent of any review and enhancement 
as may be required under the periodic monitoring rules, the CAM rule 
(40 CFR part 64)(62 FR 54900, October 22, 1997) where it applies, and 
other applicable requirements under the Act. This action is to publish 
a separate proposed rule to address what monitoring constitutes 
periodic monitoring under Sec. Sec.  70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 
71.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and what types of monitoring should be created under 
these provisions. The intended effect of the rule revisions in this 
proposal is to focus case-by-case reviews on those applicable 
requirements for which we can identify potential gaps in the existing 
monitoring provisions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 502(b)(2) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate regulations 
establishing minimum requirements for operating permit programs, 
including ``[m]onitoring and reporting requirements.'' 42 U.S.C. Sec.  
7661a(b)(2). Second, section 504(b) authorizes EPA to prescribe 
``procedures and methods'' for monitoring ``by rule.'' 42 U.S.C. [sec] 
7661c(b). Section 504(b) provides: ``The Administrator may by rule 
prescribe procedures and methods for determining compliance and for 
monitoring and analysis of pollutants regulated under this Act, but 
continuous emissions monitoring need not be required if alternative 
methods are available that provide sufficiently reliable and timely 
information for determining compliance. . . .'' Other provisions of 
title V refer to the monitoring required in individual operating 
permits. Section 504(c) of the Act, which contains the most detailed 
statutory language concerning monitoring, requires that ``[e]ach [title 
V permit] shall set forth inspection, entry, monitoring, compliance 
certification, and reporting requirements to assure compliance with the 
permit terms and conditions.'' 42 U.S.C. section 7661c(c). Section 
504(c) further specifies that ``[s]uch monitoring and reporting 
requirements shall conform to any applicable regulation under [section 
504(b)]. . . .'' Section 504(a) more generally requires that ``[e]ach 
[title V permit] shall include enforceable emission limitations and 
standards, . . . and such other conditions as are necessary to assure 
compliance with applicable requirements of this Act, including the 
requirements of the applicable implementation plan.'' 42 U.S.C. section 
7661c(a).


Alternatives:


Some existing monitoring required under applicable requirements could 
be improved and will be addressed in connection with both the upcoming 
PM2.5 implementation rulemaking and by improving monitoring in certain 
Federal rules or monitoring in SIP rules not addressed in connection 
with the PM2.5 implementation guidance or rulemaking over a longer time 
frame.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We are assessing the benefits associated with improved monitoring 
including the reduction in source owner response time to potential 
excess emissions problems. Such reduced response time to take 
corrective action that will be required by the rule will result in 
measurable emissions reductions that will be balanced against the cost 
of increased equipment, data collection, and recordkeeping costs. We 
estimate the total costs of the rule to be more than $100 million.


Risks:


There are no environmental and health risks associated with 
implementing this monitoring rule; the underlying rules with emissions 
limits address those risks for each subject source category. The effect 
of the monitoring resulting from this rule will be to reduce the 
occurrence of excess emissions episodes that raise such risks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4699.2; Split from RIN 2060-AK29.


Agency Contact:
Peter Westlin
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
D243-05
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-1058
Fax: 919 541-1039
Email: westlin.peter@epa.gov

Robin Langdon
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington DC, DC 20460
Phone: 919 541-4048
Email: langdon.robin@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AN00
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
104. REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR OZONE

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7408; 42 USC7409


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 50


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, July 18, 2002, CAA Amendments of 1977.


NPRM, Judicial, March 28, 2007, Consent Decree.


Final, Judicial, December 19, 2007, Consent Decree.


Abstract:


The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 require EPA to review and, if 
necessary, revise national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 
periodically. On July 18, 1997, the EPA published a final rule revising 
the NAAQS for ozone. The primary and secondary NAAQS were strengthened 
to provide increased protection against both health and environmental 
effects of ozone. The EPA's work plan/schedule for the next review of 
the ozone Criteria Document was published on November 2002. The first 
external review draft Criteria Document, a rigorous assessment of 
relevant scientific information, was released on January 31, 2005. The 
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning

[[Page 72880]]

and Standards will prepare a Staff Paper for the Administrator, which 
will evaluate the policy implications of the key studies and scientific 
information contained in the Criteria Document and additional technical 
analyses, and identify critical elements that EPA staff believe should 
be considered in reviewing the standards. The Criteria Document and 
Staff Paper will be reviewed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 
Committee and the public, and both final documents will reflect the 
input received through these reviews. As the ozone NAAQS review is 
completed, the Administrator's proposal to reaffirm or revise the ozone 
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 ozone 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 ozone are whether to 
reaffirm or revise the existing standards.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs and benefits of revising or reaffirming the national ambient air 
quality standards for ozone cannot be determined at present; a 
regulatory impact analysis will be conducted along with the review of 
the standards.


Risks:


The current national ambient air quality standards for ozone are 
intended to protect against public health risks associated with 
morbidity and/or premature mortality and public welfare risks 
associated with adverse vegetation and ecosystem effects. During the 
course of this review, risk assessments will be conducted to evaluate 
health and welfare risks associated with retention or revision of the 
ozone standards.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice                          12/29/05                    70 FR 77155
NPRM                            03/00/07
Final Action                    12/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5008


Agency Contact:
Dave McKee
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-06
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5288
Fax: 919 541-0237
Email: mckee.dave@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-AN24
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
105. PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION, NONATTAINMENT NEW SOURCE 
REVIEW, AND NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: EMISSIONS TEST 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 create a revised emissions test for existing 
electric generating units (EGUs) that are subject to the regulations 
governing the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 
nonattainment major New Source Review (NSR) programs mandated by parts 
C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This revised emissions 
test would be available for EGUs that are also subject to the EPA-
administered Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) NOx Annual Trading 
Program or the CAIR SO2 Trading Program. This emissions test could be 
extended to other CAIR and non-CAIR EGUs. For existing major stationary 
sources, the NSR base program emissions test is applied when the source 
proposes to modify an emissions unit such that the change is a physical 
change or change in the method of operation, and the 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 will be either a maximum 
achieved and maximum achievable hourly emissions, measured on an input 
or an output basis. The supplemental notice will include proposed 
regulatory language for the maximum achieved and achievable options 
(input and output basis for each). The supplemental notice will also 
include data, information, and analyses concerning the impacts of the 
proposed options. The supplemental notice will also include an option 
in which the current regulations (annual emissions test) are retained, 
but the baseline period is extended from 5 to 10 years.


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. We request

[[Page 72881]]

comment on alternative bases for an alternative applicability test.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Cost and benefit information will be developed as appropriate, as the 
rulemaking proceeds.


Risks:


Risk information will be developed as appropriate, as the rulemaking 
proceeds.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/20/05                    70 FR 61081
Supplemental NPRM               12/00/06
Final Action                    04/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, 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.


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/nsr

Agency Contact:
Janet McDonald
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-1450
Email: mcdonald.janet@epamail.epa.gov

Lynn Hutchinson
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-03
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5795
Fax: 919 541-5509
Email: hutchinson.lynn@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AN28
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
106. REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR LEAD

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7408; 42 USC 7409


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 50


Legal Deadline:


Final, Judicial, September 1, 2008, Court-ordered schedule.


Abstract:


On October 5, 1978 the EPA promulgated primary and secondary NAAQS for 
lead under section 109 of the Act (43 FR 46258). Both primary and 
secondary standards were set at a level of 1.5 [micro]g/m3 as a 
quarterly average (maximum arithmetic mean averaged over a calendar 
quarter). Subsequent to this initial standard-setting, the Clean Air 
Act requires that the standard be reviewed periodically. The last such 
review occurred during the period 1986-1990. For that review, an Air 
Quality Criteria Document (AQCD) was completed in 1986 with a 
supplement in 1990. Based on information contained in the AQCD, an EPA 
Staff Paper and Exposure Assessment were prepared. Following the 
completion of these documents, the agency did not propose any revisions 
to the 1978 Pb NAAQS. The current review of the Pb air-quality criteria 
was initiated in November 2004 by EPA's National Center for 
Environmental Assessment (NCEA) with a general call for information 
published in the Federal Register. In January 2005, NCEA released a 
work plan for the review and revision of the Pb AQCD. Workshops were 
held to provide author feedback on a developing draft of the AQCD in 
August 2005. The draft AQCD was released December 1, 2005. The EPA 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards will prepare a Staff Paper 
for the Administrator, which will evaluate the policy implications of 
the key studies and scientific information contained in the AQCD and 
additional technical analyses, and identify critical elements that EPA 
staff believe should be considered in reviewing the standards. The AQCD 
and Staff Paper will be reviewed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 
Committee (CASAC) and the public, and both final documents will reflect 
the input received through these reviews. As the lead NAAQS review is 
completed, the Administrator's proposal to reaffirm or revise the lead 
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 lead 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 the 
``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 lead are whether to 
reaffirm or revise the existing standards.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs and benefits of revising or reaffirming the national ambient air 
quality standards for lead cannot be determined at present; a 
regulatory analysis will be conducted along with the review of the 
standards.


Risks:


The current national ambient air quality standards for lead are 
intended to protect against public health risks associated with 
neurological effects in children and cardiovascular effects in adult 
males. During the course of this review, a risk assessment will be 
conducted to evaluate health risks associated with the retention or 
revision of the lead standards. Welfare effects will also be reviewed 
in relation to retention or revision of the current standard.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/08
Final Action                    09/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined

[[Page 72882]]

Additional Information:


SAN No. 5059


Agency Contact:
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

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-AN83
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
107. TEST RULE; TESTING OF CERTAIN HIGH PRODUCTION VOLUME (HPV) 
CHEMICALS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 2603


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 790 - 799


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


EPA is issuing test rules under section 4(a) of the Toxic Substances 
Control Act (TSCA) to require testing and recordkeeping requirements 
for certain high production volume (HPV) chemicals (i.e., chemicals 
which are manufactured (including imported) in the aggregate at more 
than 1 million pounds on an annual basis) that have not been sponsored 
under the voluntary HPV Challenge Program. Although varied based on 
specific data needs for the particular chemical, the data generally 
collected under these rules may include: acute toxicity, repeat dose 
toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, mutagenicity, 
ecotoxicity, and environmental fate. The first rule proposed testing 
for 37 HPV chemicals with substantial worker exposure. When finalized 
on March 16, 2006, the number of chemicals included in the first final 
rule was reduced to 17 based on new information on annual production 
volumes, worker exposure, and commitments to the voluntary HPV 
Challenge Program. Subsequent test rules, including a proposed rule 
scheduled to be published in spring of 2007 will require similar 
screening level testing for other unsponsored HPV Challenge Program 
chemicals.


Statement of Need:


EPA has found that, of those non-polymeric organic substances produced 
or imported in amounts equal to or greater than 1 million pounds per 
year based on 1990 reporting for EPA's Inventory Update Rule (IUR), 
only 7% have a full set of publicly available internationally 
recognized basic health and environmental fate/effects screening test 
data. Of the over 2,800 HPV chemicals based on 1990 data, 43% have no 
publicly available basic hazard data. For the remaining chemicals, 
limited amounts of the data are available. This lack of available 
hazard data compromises EPA's and others' ability to determine whether 
these HPV chemicals pose potential risks to human health or the 
environment, as well as the public's right-to-know about the hazards of 
chemicals that are found in their environment, their homes, their 
workplaces, and the products that they buy. It is EPA's intent to close 
this knowledge gap. EPA believes that for most of the HPV chemicals, 
insufficient data are readily available to reasonably determine or 
predict the effects on health or the environment from the manufacture 
(including importation), distribution in commerce, processing, use, or 
disposal of the chemicals, or any combination of these activities. EPA 
has concluded that a program to collect and, where needed, develop 
basic screening level toxicity data is necessary and appropriate to 
provide information in order to assess the potential hazards/risks that 
may be posed by exposure to HPV chemicals. On April 21, 1998, a 
national initiative, known as the ``Chemical Right-To-Know'' 
Initiative, was announced in order to empower citizens with knowledge 
about the most widespread chemicals in commerce-- chemicals that people 
may be exposed to in the places where they live, work, study, and play. 
A primary component of EPA's Chemical Right-To-Know (ChemRTK) 
initiative is the voluntary HPV Challenge Program, which was created in 
cooperation with industry, environmental groups, and other interested 
parties, and is designed to assemble basic screening level test data on 
the potential hazards of HPV chemicals while avoiding unnecessary or 
duplicative testing. Data needs which remain unmet in the voluntary HPV 
Challenge Program, may be addressed through the international efforts 
or rulemaking.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These test rules will be issued under section 4(a)(1)(B) of TSCA. 
Section 2(b)(1) of TSCA states that it is the policy of the United 
States that ``adequate data should be developed with respect to the 
effect of chemical substances and mixtures on health and the 
environment and that the development of such data should be the 
responsibility of those who manufacture [which is defined by statute to 
include import] and those who process such chemical substances and 
mixtures[.]'' To implement this policy, TSCA section 4(a) mandates that 
EPA require by rule that manufacturers and processors of chemical 
substances and mixtures conduct testing if the Administrator finds 
that: (1)(A)(i) the manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing, 
use, or disposal of a chemical substance or mixture, or that any 
combination of such activities, may present an unreasonable risk of 
injury to health or the environment, (ii) there are insufficient data 
and experience upon which the effects of such manufacture, distribution 
in commerce, processing, use, or disposal of such substance or mixture 
or of any combination of such activities on health or the environment 
can reasonably be determined or predicted, and (iii) testing of such 
substance or mixture with respect to such effects is necessary to 
develop such data; or (B)(i) a chemical substance or mixture is or will 
be produced in substantial quantities, and (I) it enters or may 
reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial 
quantities or (II) there is or may be significant or substantial human 
exposure to such substance or mixture, (ii) there are insufficient data 
and experience upon which the effects of the manufacture, distribution 
in commerce, processing, use, or disposal of such substance or mixture 
or of any combination of such activities on health or the environment 
can reasonably be determined or predicted, and (iii) testing of such 
substance or mixture with respect to such effects is necessary to 
develop such data.


Alternatives:


The strategy and overall approach that EPA is using to address data 
collection needs for U.S. HPV chemicals includes

[[Page 72883]]

a voluntary component (the HPV Challenge Program), certain 
international efforts, and these rulemakings under TSCA. The issuance 
of a rulemaking is often the Agency's final mechanism for obtaining 
this important information.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The potential benefits of these test rules are substantial, as no one -
- whether in industry, government, or the public -- can make reasoned 
risk management decisions in the absence of reliable health and 
environmental information. The cost of the baseline screening testing 
that would be imposed is estimated to be about $200,000 per chemical 
for a full set of tests. It is unlikely, however, for a chemical to 
need a full set of tests, which would only occur if none of the data in 
question already exists.


Risks:


Data collected and/or developed under these test rules, when combined 
with information about exposure and uses, will allow the Agency and 
others to evaluate and prioritize potential health and environmental 
effects and take appropriate follow up action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/26/00                    65 FR 81658
Final Action                    03/16/06                    71 FR 13709
Second NPRM                     09/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3990; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/ EPA-TOX/2000/ December/Day-26/t32497.htm; EPA Docket 
information: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033


Sectors Affected:


325 Chemical Manufacturing; 32411 Petroleum Refineries


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest

Agency Contact:
Paul Campanella
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-8091
Fax: 202 564-4765
Email: campanella.paul@epa.gov

Greg Schweer
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-8469
Fax: 202 564-4765
Email: schweer.greg@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2070-AD16
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
108. PESTICIDES; COMPETENCY STANDARDS FOR OCCUPATIONAL USERS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 136; 7 USC 136i; 7 USC 136w


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 171; 40 CFR 156; 40 CFR 152


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The EPA is proposing change to Federal regulations guiding the 
certified pesticide applicator program (40 CFR 171). Change is sought 
to strengthen the regulations so that they may better protect pesticide 
applicators and the public from harm due to pesticide exposure. Changes 
would include having occupational users of pesticides demonstrate 
competency by meeting minimum competency requirements, and requiring 
additional competency determinations of those who use the most toxic 
pesticides in a manner that could result in significant exposure to the 
public. The need for change arose from EPA discussions with key 
stakeholders. EPA has been in extensive discussions with stakeholders 
since 1997 when the Certification and Training Assessment Group (CTAG) 
was established. CTAG is a forum used by regulatory and academic 
stakeholders to discuss the current state of, and the need for 
improvements in, the national certified pesticide applicator program. 
Throughout these extensive interactions with stakeholders, EPA has 
learned of the need for changes to the regulation.


Statement of Need:


The regulations governing the Federal and State certification of 
pesticide applicators, 40 CFR part 171, were originally promulgated in 
1974. Since that time State certification programs have gone beyond the 
Federal regulations in a number of areas. In 1997 a group of 
stakeholders, the Certification and Training Assessment Group (CTAG) 
was established to evaluate the current situation and future direction 
of the program. CTAG, comprised of representatives of state pesticide 
regulatory agencies, cooperative extension services, and EPA Regions 
and Headquarters, and tribes, offered suggestions for change to the 
certification program to improve protections for public health and the 
environment.


Summary of Legal Basis:


7 U.S.C. 136w


Alternatives:


EPA is considering various alternatives to regulation change based upon 
stakeholder input. The Agency is in the formative stages of this 
regulatory effort, and alternatives have not yet been fully identified 
and evaluated.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


EPA will develop an economic analysis to support this rule.


Risks:


The proposed regulation would require that occupational users of 
pesticides meet minimum competency standards and require additional 
competency determinations of those who use the most toxic pesticides in 
a manner that could result in significant exposure to the public. These 
changes would strengthen the regulations that protect pesticide 
applicators and the public from potential harm due to pesticide 
exposure.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Tribal

[[Page 72884]]

Additional Information:


SAN No. 5007


Agency Contact:
Kathy Davis
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-7002
Fax: 703 308-2962
Email: davis.kathy@epa.gov

Donald Eckerman
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 305-5062
Fax: 703 308-2962
Email: eckerman.donald@epa.gov
RIN: 2070-AJ20
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
109. PESTICIDES; AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 136; 7 USC 136w


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 156; 40 CFR 170


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The EPA is developing a proposal to revise the Federal regulations 
guiding agricultural worker protection (40 CFR 170). The changes under 
consideration are intended to help agricultural workers protect 
themselves from potential exposure to pesticides and pesticide 
residues. In addition, EPA is proposing to make adjustments to improve 
and clarify current requirements and facilitate enforcement. Other 
changes sought are to establish a right-to-know Hazard Communication 
program and make improvements to pesticide safety training, with 
improved worker safety the intended outcome. The need for change arose 
from EPA discussions with key stakeholders beginning in 1996 and 
continuing through 2004. EPA held nine public meetings throughout the 
country during which the public submitted written and verbal comments 
on issues of their concern. In 2000 through 2004, EPA held meetings 
where invited stakeholders identified their issues and concerns with 
the regulations.


Statement of Need:


The regulations governing the protection of agricultural workers, 40 
CFR part 170, were promulgated in 1992. Since that time, stakeholders 
provided input on areas to improve the regulation, particularly to 
better protect agricultural field workers and handlers from pesticide 
risks.


Summary of Legal Basis:


7 U.S.C. 136w


Alternatives:


EPA is considering various alternatives to regulation change based upon 
stakeholder input. The Agency is in the formative stages of this 
regulatory effort, and alternatives have not been fully identified and 
evaluated.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


EPA will develop an economic analysis to support this rule.


Risks:


This proposal would reduce the risks to agricultural workers from 
potential exposure to pesticides and pesticide exposure.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5006


Agency Contact:
Don Eckerman
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 305-5062
Fax: 703 308-2962
Email: eckerman.donald@epa.gov

Kathy Davis
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-7002
Fax: 703 308-2962
Email: davis.kathy@epa.gov
RIN: 2070-AJ22
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
110. PESTICIDE AGRICULTURAL CONTAINER RECYCLING PROGRAM

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 136 to 136y


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 165


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


EPA will propose to require that manufacturers of agricultural and 
professional specialty pesticides support (either by managing and 
operating, or contracting with another organization) a container 
recycling program that meets the standards of the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI). The proposed regulation will ensure the 
continued operation of an existing but endangered nationwide 
infrastructure for voluntary recycling of plastic pesticide containers.


Statement of Need:


State regulatory agencies and large pesticide manufacturers have 
requested that EPA issue a regulation. The current voluntary pesticide 
container recycling program is not self-sustainable and the program is 
in danger of collapsing in spite of a nationwide infrastructure that 
has developed to support the collection and recycling of pesticide 
containers. Over the past 12 years, the Agricultural Container 
Recycling Council (ACRC) has operated a voluntary recycling

[[Page 72885]]

program and has recycled over 80 million pounds of plastic pesticide 
containers with an annual budget of less than $4 million. The voluntary 
program is at risk of collapse because not all registrants participate 
financially and some companies have resigned, or plan to resign. If the 
existing system fails, the infrastructure would be lost and would have 
to be replaced. In addition, without a recycling program, less 
desirable or improper disposal of at least 8 to 10 million additional 
pounds of plastic containers would be inevitable. The containers would 
be burned, added to landfills or buried, in many cases jeopardizing 
ground water.


Summary of Legal Basis:


FIFRA sections 19(e) and (f) mandate container design requirements and 
procedures and standards for the safe removal of pesticides from 
containers before disposal. This rule would facilitate safe recycling 
as a part of safe disposal or reuse. FIFRA sections 3, 6, 19(a) and 25 
provide authority for EPA to promulgate a rule making participation in 
a recycling program a condition of registration.


Alternatives:


The following non-regulatory approaches have been considered: 1) 
Continue to pursue a voluntary program. This is not likely to be 
successful because it would rely heavily on a few registrants to cover 
program costs for all other registrants. The lack of support by non-
participating registrants would not change. 2) Support the development 
of state laws. States want a national program to eliminate the 
inefficiencies that would be inherent in 50 separate infrastructures. 
3) Encourage non-monetary incentives such as awards. This would not 
resolve the inequities inherent in the current voluntary system. 4) 
Encourage a phase-out of disposable containers. This would not be 
effective since most member companies are using refillable containers. 
The following regulatory approach was considered: Propose a detailed 
rule prescribing how recycling would be accomplished and by whom. This 
would significantly increase the cost of the rule and would reduce 
flexibility without much added benefit.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The existing voluntary program has an annual budget of less than $4 
million. Current estimates are that ACRC member companies account for 
80 to 85% of the pesticides sold annually in the agricultural pesticide 
market. We would need to estimate the sales and container usage of 
registrants in the professional specialty pesticides market and 
identify the remaining sales in the agricultural market. The proposed 
rule is in line with EPA's mission to protect human health and 
safeguard the environment. By providing an opportunity for end users 
nationwide to recycle plastic pesticide containers, we will reduce the 
use of less desirable disposal methods, leading to less litter, reduced 
soil and ground water contamination from burial and/or land filling, 
and less air pollution from the open burning of containers. Also, 
containers would have to be properly rinsed before being recycled, 
leading to less possibilities for illness and injury from pesticides 
and their residues.


Risks:


This proposal would reduce risks to human health and the environment by 
lessening the amount of litter, reducing soil and ground water 
contamination caused by burial and/or land filling, and less air 
pollution from the open burning of containers. Also, proper rinsing 
prior to recycling would reduce risks of illness and injury from 
pesticides and their residues.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5050


Agency Contact:
Jeanne Kasai
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-3240
Fax: 703 308-2962
Email: kasai.jeanne@epa.gov

Nancy Fitz
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 305-7385
Fax: 703 308-2962
Email: fitz.nancy@epa.gov
RIN: 2070-AJ29
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
111. REVISIONS TO THE SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURE 
(SPCC) RULE, 40 CFR PART 112

Priority:


Other Significant


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1321


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 112


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


EPA will propose to amend 40 CFR part 112, which includes the Spill 
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule promulgated under 
the authority of the Clean Water Act. The proposed rule may include a 
variety of issues associated with the July 2002 SPCC final rule. 
Specific decisions on the scope of the rulemaking will be determined 
after the final rule associated with the Notices of Data Availability 
has been completed and in relation to EPA guidance.


Statement of Need:


The proposed rule is necessary to clarify the regulatory obligations of 
SPCC facility owners and operators and to reduce the regulatory burden 
where appropriate.

[[Page 72886]]

Summary of Legal Basis:


The legal basis is 33 USC 1321 et seq.


Alternatives:


Undetermined.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Undetermined.


Risks:


Undetermined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice Clarifying Certain 
    Issues                      05/25/04                    69 FR 29728
NPRM 1 Year Compliance 
    Extension                   06/17/04                    69 FR 34014
Final 18 Months 
    Compliance Extension        08/11/04                    69 FR 48794
NODA re: Certain 
    Facilities                  09/20/04                    69 FR 56184
NODA re: Oil-filled and 
    Process Equipment           09/20/04                    69 FR 56182
NPRM                            02/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2634.2; Split from RIN 2050-AC62.


Agency Contact:
Hugo Fleischman
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5104A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-1968
Fax: 202 564-2625
Email: fleischman.hugo@epa.gov
RIN: 2050-AG16
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
112. EXPANDING THE COMPARABLE FUELS EXCLUSION UNDER RCRA

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


RCRA 4004


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 261.38


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


EPA currently excludes specific industrial wastes, also known as 
comparable fuels, from most Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA) hazardous waste management requirements when the wastes are used 
for energy production and do not contain hazardous constituent levels 
that exceed those found in a typical benchmark fuel that facilities 
would otherwise use. Using such wastes as fuel saves energy by reducing 
the amount of hazardous waste that would otherwise be treated and 
disposed, promotes energy production from a domestic, renewable source, 
and reduces use of fossil fuels. With an interest in supplementing the 
nation's energy supplies and to ensure that energy sources are managed 
only to the degree necessary to protect human health and the 
environment, EPA, as part of the Resource Conservation Challenge, is 
examining the effectiveness of the current comparable fuel program and 
considering whether other industrial wastes could be safely used as 
fuel as well.


Statement of Need:


EPA is considering expanding the comparable fuels program. This program 
allows specific industrial wastes to be excluded from the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when they are used for energy 
production and do not contain hazardous constituent levels exceeding 
those in a typical benchmark fuel that facilities would otherwise use. 
If EPA is successful in finding other industrial wastes that could be 
used for energy, this would not only save energy by reducing the amount 
of hazardous waste that would be otherwise treated and disposed, but 
also promote energy production from a domestic, renewable source and 
reduce our use of fossil fuels. EPA is also examining the effectiveness 
of the current comparable fuel program to determine whether changes 
could be made to the existing program to make it more effective.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This action is descretionary on the Agency's part.


Alternatives:


To make significant changes to the existing comparable fuels standard, 
EPA must modify the existing regulations. EPA intends to first propose 
and seek comment on potential regulatory modifications.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


When the existing comparable fuel exemption was established, EPA 
estimated that the rule would result in annual savings of 11 to 36 
million dollars for generators and would result in annual costs of 3 to 
13 million dollars for hazardous waste combustors. The savings to 
generators were made up of avoided hazardous waste combustion costs and 
revenues from sale of comparable fuels, less the analytical costs. 
Costs to hazardous waste combustion facilities stem from lost revenue 
from wastes are diverted to the comparable fuels market. EPA has not 
conducted a preliminary estimate of costs and benefits from 
modifications to the existing comparable fuels rule, as options to be 
proposed have not been selected. Prior to proposing options, EPA 
intends to reach out to a broad group of stakeholders to receive input 
on potential regulatory approaches that could be proposed. When EPA 
selects the approaches to be proposed, we will be in a position to 
estimate costs and benefits of any regulatory actions.


Risks:


The rationale for the Agency's approach to establishing the existing 
comparable fuels standards is that if a hazardous waste-derived fuel is 
comparable to a fossil fuel in terms of hazardous and other key 
constituents and has a heating value indicative of a fuel, EPA has 
discretion to classify such material as a fuel product, not as a waste. 
Given that a comparable fuel would have legitimate energy value and the 
same hazardous constituents in comparable concentrations to those in 
fossil fuel (and satisfies other parameters related to comparability as 
well), classifying such material as a fuel product and not as a waste 
promotes RCRA's resource recovery goals without creating any risk 
greater than those posed by the commonly used commercial fuels. If EPA 
maintains this ``benchmark'' approach in its revisions, the risks 
associated with any changes will remain unchanged. Until EPA 
establishes what approaches to propose for modifications to the 
comparable fuel standards, it is not possible to provide a description 
of the risks associated with such a proposal.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/07

[[Page 72887]]

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4977


Agency Contact:
Mary Jackson
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5302W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8453
Fax: 703 308-8433
Email: jackson.mary@epa.gov

Hugh Davis
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5302W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 306-0206
Fax: 703 308-8433
Email: davis.hugh@epa.gov
RIN: 2050-AG24
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
113. [bull] DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTES REVISIONS

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


42 USC 6903 ``RCRA Section 1004''


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 261.2


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On October 28, 2003 (68 FR 61558), EPA proposed revisions to the 
definition of solid waste for hazardous secondary materials being 
reclaimed in a continuous process in the generating industry in an 
effort to increase the recycling of such materials. The Agency also 
took comment on a broader proposal to exclude hazardous secondary 
materials from being a solid waste under RCRA Subtitle C. This proposal 
was in part prompted by various court decisions about the extent of 
RCRA jurisdiction over hazardous secondary materials being recycled. In 
the same notice, the Agency also proposed criteria for determining 
whether or not hazardous secondary materials are recycled legitimately; 
the legitimacy criteria would apply to both those hazardous secondary 
materials that were excluded, as well as those that would remain 
subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. EPA received numerous 
comments on the proposal. In addition, EPA has conducted studies of 
recycling practices and the circumstances under which recycling of 
hazardous secondary materials are reclaimed in an environmentally sound 
manner, as well as when such reclamation has caused environmental 
problems. Based on the comments received and the new information being 
made available for public comment, the Agency will be issuing a 
supplemental proposal that would exclude from being a solid waste 
certain hazardous secondary materials that are reclaimed. We are also 
taking comment on revisions being considered to the legitimacy 
criteria, as well as taking comment on a variance process regarding 
hazardous secondary materials that are recycled.


Statement of Need:


EPA is revising the definition of solid waste to increase recycling.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 203 F. 2d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 
2000); American Mining Congress v. EPA, 824 F. 2d 1177 (D.C. Cir. 1987) 
and other cases


Alternatives:


We have solicited comment in the proposal on several alternative 
regulatory options, including a broad exclusion for legitimately 
recycled materials, and are evaluating public comments on all available 
options.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We expect that this rule will increase the recycling of wastes covered 
by the rule. We have prepared an economic analysis for the proposed 
rule, and we are presently developing preliminary costs and benefits 
for all our regulatory options. When an option is chosen and a final 
rule is drafted, we will prepare a detailed economic analysis 
quantifying the costs and benefits.


Risks:


We are developing conditions for the rule so that there will be no 
negative impacts on human health and the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/28/03                    68 FR 61558
Supplemental NPRM               12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4670.1; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/ EPA-WASTE/2003/October/ Day-28/f26754.htm; Split from RIN 
2050-AE98.


Agency Contact:
Marilyn Goode
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8800
Fax: 703 308-0514
Email: goode.marilyn@epamail.epa.gov

Tracy Atagi
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8672
Fax: 703 308-0514
Email: atagi.tracy@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2050-AG31
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

114. NESHAP: HAZARDOUS ORGANIC NESHAP (HON) RESIDUAL RISK STANDARDS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7412


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 63


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, April 22, 2003.


Final, Judicial, December 15, 2006, Court ordered deadline for final 
rule.

[[Page 72888]]

Abstract:


EPA developed technology-based standards for this source category under 
section 112(d) of the CAA. The current action, required by section 
112(f) of the CAA, is to assess residual risks and develop additional 
emission standards, as necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety. 
This rule will cover the major sources of air emissions within the 
synthetic organic chemical industry.


Statement of Need:


Section 112(f) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to assess residual 
risks that remain after implementation of technology-based standards 
for each category of major sources of air-toxic emissions. Section 
112(f) also mandates EPA to develop additional emission standards for 
these sources, as necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety. This 
rule will cover the major sources of air emissions within the synthetic 
organic chemical industry.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Clean Air Act Section 112


Alternatives:


Option 1 is no revision to NESHAP. Option 2 requires additional 
controls on equipment leaks and controls on some storage tanks and 
process vents that are controlled under the current rule.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Under Option 2 exposures for 450,000 people would be reduced from above 
1 in a million to below 1 in a million at an annualized cost of $13 
million.


Risks:


Baseline cancer incidence is 0.1 cases per year and risk to most 
exposed individual is 100 in a million.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/14/06                    71 FR 34421
Final Action                    01/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4659; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/ EPA-AIR/2006/June/Day-14/a5219.htm


Sectors Affected:


325 Chemical Manufacturing


Agency Contact:
Randy McDonald
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-04
RTP, NC 27709
Phone: 919 541-5402
Fax: 919 541-3470
Email: mcdonald.randy@epamail.epa.gov

KC Hustvedt
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C439-03
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5395
Fax: 919 541-0246
Email: hustvedt.ken@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AK14
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
115. NESHAP: HALOGENATED SOLVENT CLEANING--RESIDUAL RISK STANDARDS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7412


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 63


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 2, 2002.


Final, Judicial, December 15, 2006, Consent Decree.


Abstract:


The Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP limits emissions of HAP from 
solvent cleaning machines that use any of the following halogenated 
solvents: methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, 
1,1,1, - trichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, or any 
combination of these solvents in a total concentration greater than 5 
percent by weight. Each individual solvent cleaning machine is an 
affected source. The Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP was projected 
to reduce nationwide emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines by 85,300 tons per year, or 63 
percent of the 1991 baseline emissions of 140,525 tons/year. On 
December 3, 1999, the rule was amended by adding compliance options for 
continuous web cleaning machines. Continuous web cleaning machines are 
considered a subset of in-line cleaning machines and are defined as: 
``a solvent cleaning machine in which parts such as film, coils, wire, 
and metal strips are cleaned at speeds typically in excess of 11 feet 
per minute. Parts are generally uncoiled, cleaned such that the same 
part is simultaneously entering and exiting the solvent application 
area of the solvent cleaning machine, and then recoiled or cut.'' This 
action is required by the CAA to assess residual risk and develop 
standards as necessary to provide an ample margin of safety.


Statement of Need:


Section 112(f) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to assess residual 
risks that remain after implementation of technology-based standards 
for each category of major sources of air-toxic emissions. Section 
112(f) also mandates EPA to develop additional emission standards for 
these sources, as necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety. This 
rule will cover the major sources of air emissions within the 
halogenated solvent cleaning industry.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 112(f) of the Clean Air Act.


Alternatives:


Based on its findings, EPA is co-proposed and sought comment on two 
options to amend to the existing standards. Both options would impose 
an annual cap on emissions of the solvents methylene chloride, 
perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene and provide cost savings to the 
industry. The proposed emission caps provide affected facilities with 
the flexibility to reduce their emissions using any traditional methods 
available to reduce emissions from their degreasing operations.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs and benefits were summarized in the NPRM. The differences between 
the two options is that the annual costs for Option 1 are completely 
offset by the solvent savings of up to $1 million when compared to the 
annual costs of Option 2. Option 2 establishes a more stringent 
emission cap, reduces more individual risks compared to Option 1 and 
moves more people into the range that EPA considers acceptable with a 
margin of safety. Option 2 will require an increased number of 
facilities with risks already less than 1-in-a-million to comply with 
the standard. No significant small business impacts are expected under 
either Options 1 or 2.

[[Page 72889]]

Risks:


Risk information was summarized in the NPRM. EPA completed a risk 
assessment to evaluate the risks remaining now that hazardous air 
emissions have been controlled at these facilities through MACT. 
Residual risks were found to exist from a number of facilities. Also in 
preparation for the proposed action, EPA completed a technology review 
to determine if it was necessary to revise the existing standards to 
account for developments in work practices, processes, and control 
technologies.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/17/06                    71 FR 47669
NPRM Comment Period End         10/02/06
Final Action                    01/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4668; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/ 2006/August/Day-17/a6927.htm


Sectors Affected:


335999 All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component 
Manufacturing; 332999 All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product 
Manufacturing; 336999 All Other Transportation Equipment Manufacturing; 
337124 Metal Household Furniture Manufacturing; 332116 Metal Stamping; 
339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing; 336 Transportation Equipment 
Manufacturing


Agency Contact:
Lynn Dail
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C539-03
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-2363
Email: dail.lynn@epamail.epa.gov

Robin Dunkins
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-04
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5335
Fax: 919 541-3470
Email: dunkins.robin@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AK22
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
116. CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FROM MOBILE SOURCES

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7521


CFR Citation:


40 CFR Part 80; 40 CFR Part 86


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Judicial, February 28, 2006, Consent Decree.


Final, Judicial, February 9, 2007, Consent Decree.


Abstract:


Motor vehicles are significant contributors to national emissions of 
several hazardous air pollutants. These pollutants are known or 
suspected to have serious health or environmental impacts. Reducing 
emissions of these pollutants will reduce risk to public health and 
welfare. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to periodically revise 
requirements to control emissions of these pollutants from mobile 
sources. EPA committed to this rulemaking in the preamble of the last 
rulemaking on this topic, promulgated on March 29, 2001. This rule will 
address the need for additional requirements, beyond those associated 
with existing programs and other forthcoming rules, to control 
hazardous air pollutants (``air toxics'') from motor vehicles, nonroad 
engines and vehicles, and their fuels. Previous mobile source programs 
for highway and nonroad sources and fuels have already reduced air 
toxics significantly and will provide substantial further reductions in 
coming years as new standards and programs are phased in. This mobile-
source air toxics rule will provide an overview of these mobile source 
programs and associated toxics emissions reductions. The rule will then 
address potential changes to gasoline fuel parameters to reduce toxics 
such as benzene and the potential for additional vehicle controls. We 
are also considering portable fuel container controls due to their 
significant contribution to VOC emissions overall and the potential for 
exposure to evaporative benzene emissions.


Statement of Need:


Motor vehicles are significant contributors to national emissions of 
several hazardous air pollutants. These pollutants are known or 
suspected to have serious health or environmental impacts. Reducing 
emissions of these pollutants will reduce risk to public health and 
welfare. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to periodically revise 
requirements to control emissions of these pollutants from mobile 
sources. EPA committed to this rulemaking in the preamble of the last 
rulemaking on this topic, promulgated on March 29, 2001.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Clean Air Act Section 202


Alternatives:


The current proposal considers potential changes to gasoline fuel 
parameters to reduce toxics such as benzene and the potential for 
additional vehicle controls. We are also considering portable fuel 
container controls due to their significant contribution to VOC 
emissions overall and the potential for exposure to evaporative benzene 
emissions.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


These controls would significantly reduce emissions of benzene and 
other mobile source air toxics such as 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, 
acetaldehyde, acrolein, and naphthalene. This proposal would result in 
additional substantial benefits to public health and welfare by 
significantly reducing emissions of particulate matter from passenger 
vehicles. We project annual nationwide benzene reductions of 35,000 
tons in 2015, increasing to 65,000 tons by 2030. Total reductions in 
mobile source air toxics would be

[[Page 72890]]

147,000 tons in 2015 and over 350,000 tons in 2030. Passenger vehicles 
in 2030 would emit 45% less benzene. Gas cans meeting the new standards 
would emit almost 80% less benzene. Gasoline would have 37% less 
benzene overall. We estimate that these reductions would have an 
average cost of less than 1 cent per gallon of gasoline and less than 
$1 per vehicle. The average cost for gas cans would be less than $2 per 
can. The reduced evaporation from gas cans would result in significant 
fuel savings, which would more than offset the increased cost for the 
gas can.


Risks:


Benzene is a known human carcinogen, and mobile sources are responsible 
for the majority of benzene emissions. The other mobile source air 
toxics are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health 
effects.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/29/06                    71 FR 15804
Final Action                    02/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4748; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/ EPA-AIR/2006/March/Day-29/a2315a.htm


Sectors Affected:


3361 Motor Vehicle Manufacturing; 3363 Motor Vehicle Parts 
Manufacturing; 32411 Petroleum Refineries; 4227 Petroleum and Petroleum 
Products Wholesalers


Agency Contact:
Christopher Lieske
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
ASD
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 214-4584
Email: lieske.christopher@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AK70
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
117. CLEAN AIR FINE PARTICLE IMPLEMENTATION RULE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7410; 42 USC 7501 et seq


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 51


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In 1997, EPA promulgated National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 
for fine particulate matter (PM-2.5). EPA designations of 39 
nonattainment areas for the PM2.5 standards became effective on April 
5, 2005. The Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, which was 
proposed in the Federal Register on November 1, 2005, includes 
requirements and guidance for State and local air pollution agencies to 
follow in developing State implementation plans (SIPs) designed to 
bring areas into attainment with the 1997 standards. These SIP 
development activities include technical analyses to identify effective 
strategies for reducing emissions contributing to PM-2.5 levels, and 
the adoption of regulations as needed in order to attain the standards. 
Estimates show that compliance with the standards will prevent 
thousands of premature deaths from heart and lung disease, tens of 
thousands of hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and 
millions of absences from school and work every year.


Statement of Need:


This rule is needed in order to provide guidance to State and local 
agencies in preparing State implementation plans (SIPs) designed to 
bring areas into attainment with the 1997 PM-2.5 standards. The 
implementation requirements for nonattainment areas are generally 
described in subpart 1 of section 172 of the Clean Air Act. This rule 
provides further interpretation of those requirements for the PM-2.5 
standards.


Summary of Legal Basis:


42 USC 7410 and 42 USC 7501 et seq.


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be explored as the proposal is developed.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This information will be provided as the proposal is developed.


Risks:


The risks addressed by this rule are those addressed by the 1997 NAAQS 
rule -- i.e., the health and environmental risks associated with 
nonattainment of the NAAQS. These risks were summarized in detail in 
the analyses accompanying the 1997 NAAQS rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/01/05                    70 FR 65984
Final Action                    01/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4752; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/ EPA-AIR/2005/November/Day-01/a20455.htm


Agency Contact:
Rich Damberg
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-02
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5592
Fax: 919 541-3207
Email: damberg.rich@epa.gov

Joe Paisie
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 919 541-5556
Fax: 919 541-5489
Email: paisie.joe@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AK74
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
118. PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) AND NONATTAINMENT 
NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR): DEBOTTLENECKING, AGGREGATION AND PROJECT 
NETTING

Priority:


Other Significant

[[Page 72891]]

Legal Authority:


42 USC 7401 et seq


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 51.165; 40 CFR 51.166; 40 CFR 52.21


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This project will revise rules governing the major new source review 
(NSR) programs mandated by parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA). The new regulations will clarify and codify our policy of 
when multiple activities at a single major stationary source must be 
considered together for the purposes of determining major NSR 
applicability (``aggregation''). Also, we are changing the way 
emissions from permitted emissions units upstream or downstream from 
those undergoing a physical change or change in the method of operation 
are considered when determining if a proposed project will result in a 
significant emissions increase (``debottlenecking''). Finally, we are 
clarifying how emissions decreases from a project may be included in 
the calculation to determine if a significant emissions increase will 
result from a project (``project netting''). When final, these rules 
will improve implementation of the program by articulating and 
codifying principles for determining major NSR applicability that we 
currently address through guidance only. These rule changes reflect the 
EPA's consideration of the EPA's 2002 Report to the President and its 
associated recommendations as well as discussions with various 
stakeholders including representatives of environmental groups, State 
and local governments, and industry.


Statement of Need:


The current New Source Review program provides for emissions from 
multiple projects to be aggregated (aggregation) as one single project 
under certain circumstances. Similarly, when making a PSD applicability 
calculation, emissions from units whose effective capacity and 
potential to emit have been increased as a result of a modification to 
another unit (debottlenecked units), must be included in the initial 
PSD applicability calculations. Specific questions regarding the 
application of these two terms have been addressed on a case-by-case 
basis. By completing this rulemaking, regulated entities and regulatory 
agencies will be provided an additional level of certainty in 
addressing applicability issues.


Summary of Legal Basis:


42 USC 7411(a)(4)


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be developed as the rulemaking proceeds.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Cost and benefit information will be developed as appropriate as the 
rulemaking proceeds.


Risks:


Risk information will be developed as appropriate as the rulemaking 
proceeds.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/14/06                    71 FR 54235
Final Action                    05/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4793


Agency Contact:
Dave Svendsgaard
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-03
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-2380
Fax: 919 541-5509
Email: svendsgaard.dave@epamail.epa.gov

Lisa Sutton
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-03
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-3450
Fax: 919 541-5509
Email: sutton.lisa@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AL75
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
119. FUEL ECONOMY LABELING OF MOTOR VEHICLES: REVISIONS TO IMPROVE 
CALCULATION OF FUEL ECONOMY ESTIMATES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 2001 to 2003; 15 USC 2005 to 2006; 15 USC 2013


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 600


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1974 requires EPA to 
establish regulations that require auto manufacturers to display fuel 
economy estimates on a label for each new vehicle. EPA also has 
authority to prescribe the test procedures used to calculate these fuel 
economy estimates. These estimates allow consumers to compare the fuel 
economy of different vehicles. Current window stickers have two fuel 
economy estimates, ``City'' and ``Highway.'' While actual driving 
conditions will cause variations from the EPA estimates, consumers 
should expect to achieve fuel economy that is reasonably close to those 
estimates. Since EPA last revised the methods for measuring fuel 
economy (1985), many conditions have changed - speed limits are higher, 
congestion has increased, and more vehicles are equipped with power-
hungry accessories, like air conditioning. All of these factors will 
impact a vehicle's actual fuel economy. Some of these factors - 
aggressive and high-speed driving and air conditioner use in particular 
- have been addressed in EPA emission test procedures. In the past few 
years, there has been a growing awareness by consumers indicating that 
they are experiencing lower actual fuel economy than the EPA estimates. 
EPA has examined many factors that are not currently accounted for in 
our fuel economy estimates. EPA's initial analyses indicate that the 
fuel economy label estimates are overestimated, perhaps significantly 
for some vehicles. This action will provide consumers with more 
accurate and credible information regarding the comparative fuel 
economy of vehicles. This action will amend the way in which fuel 
economy estimates are calculated, primarily by incorporating the fuel 
economy results from additional vehicle tests performed today for 
emissions compliance purposes. It will also propose changes to how the 
fuel economy estimates and other related information are presented to 
consumers on the vehicle window sticker label. The changes in this 
action will not impact the Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements.

[[Page 72892]]

Statement of Need:


Section 774 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires EPA to update the 
fuel economy label calculation methodology to reflect a variety of 
factors not currently accounted for in the existing test procedures. 
Possible factors EPA will consider include how well the methodology 
reflects real-world driving conditions and advances in automotive 
technology.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 774 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.


Alternatives:


EPA is considering several options, including adding new fuel economy 
tests and revising adjustment factors.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs and benefits were summarized in the NPRM.


Risks:


Risk information was summarized in the NPRM.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/01/06                     71 FR 5425
Final Action                    12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4962; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/ EPA-AIR/2006/February/Day-01/a451.htm; EPA Docket 
information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169


Agency Contact:
Roberts French
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 214-4380
Email: french.roberts@epamail.epa.gov

Robin Moran
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
ASD
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 214-4781
Email: moran.robin@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AN14
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
120. AMENDMENT OF THE STANDARDS FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL IN YUCCA 
MOUNTAIN, NEVADA

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 102-486


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 197


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action will amend the standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada (40 CFR 
Part 197). These standards were issued in 2001 and were partially 
remanded by a Federal court in 2004. These amendments will address the 
remanded portion of the standards, viz., the compliance period. Yucca 
Mountain is the site of a potential geologic repository for spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. It is about 100 miles 
northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, and straddles the boundaries of the 
Nevada Test Site, Bureau of Land Management land, and an Air Force 
bombing range. The site is being developed by the Department of Energy 
(DOE). The DOE will submit a license application to the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC). We (EPA) were given the authority to set 
Yucca Mountain-specific standards in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 
(EnPA). The EnPA also requires NRC to adopt our standards in its 
licensing regulations and use them as a basis to judge compliance of 
the repository's performance. The Agency issued final Yucca Mountain 
standards in 2001. In July 2004, the DC Circuit Court returned the 
standards to EPA for reconsideration of the regulatory time frame. The 
Court found that the 10,000-year compliance period violates our 
authorizing statute for Yucca Mountain regulation because it is not 
``based upon and consistent with'' scientific recommendations required 
from the National Academy of Sciences under the legislation. To address 
the Court's opinion, we must reassess the time frame in light of the 
National Academy's recommendation that compliance must be addressed at 
the time of peak dose, which may be as long as several hundred thousand 
years into the future.


Statement of Need:


Congress selected Yucca Mountain as the Nation's only candidate site 
for a repository for nuclear spent fuel and high-level radioactive 
waste. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires EPA to set Yucca-
Mountain-specific standards. Standards were promulgated in 2001. In 
July 2004, the DC Circuit Court returned the standards to EPA for 
reconsideration of the regulatory time frame.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires EPA to set Yucca-Mountain-
specific standards. Standards were promulgated in 2001. In July 2004, 
the DC Circuit Court returned the standards to EPA for reconsideration 
of the regulatory time frame.


Alternatives:


To address the Court's opinion, we must reassess the time frame in 
light of the National Academy's recommendation that compliance must be 
addressed at the time of peak dose, which may be as long as several 
hundred thousand years into the future. Alternatives addressing that 
recommendation will be developed as the rulemaking proceeds.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Cost and benefit information will be developed as the rulemaking 
proceeds.


Risks:


Risk information will be developed as the rulemaking proceeds.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/22/05                    70 FR 49014
Final Action                    12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4964; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/ EPA-AIR/2005/August/Day-22/a16193.htm

[[Page 72893]]

Agency Contact:
Ray Clark
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
6608J
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 343-9198
Fax: 202 343-2065
Email: clark.ray@epamail.epa.gov

Raymond Lee
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
6608J
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 343-9463
Fax: 202 343-2503
Email: lee.raymond@epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AN15
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
121. RENEWABLE FUELS STANDARD RULE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


Pub. L. 109-58


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 80.1101


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, August 6, 2006, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 
requires that EPA promulgate RFS regulations by 08/06/2006.


Abstract:


The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (the ``Act''), signed into law on August 
8, 2005, requires EPA to promulgate regulations implementing the 
Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) within one year of enactment. The RFS 
requires specific volumes of renewable fuel to be in gasoline sold in 
the U.S. starting with 4.0 billion gal/yr in 2006 up to 7.5 billion 
gal/yr in 2012. The Act provides that if EPA fails to promulgate 
regulations within one year, then a default value of 2.78% renewable 
fuel in gasoline will be in effect for 2006. We recently promulgated a 
rule (``Renewable Fuel Standards Requirements for 2006,'' 70 FR 77325, 
12/30/05) to implement the default standard. The Agency must complete 
its obligation under the Act by promulgating a rule that implements the 
RFS for years 2007 and beyond. Such rule must establish how the 
renewable fuel standard is defined and calculated, what parties are 
liable, and how compliance with the standard is to be determined. In 
addition, the rule must establish a system by which renewable fuel 
credits can be generated, and traded/sold between parties. This 
statutory provision is subject to multiple interpretations of key 
terms. The ``Renewable Fuel Standard Requirements for 2006'' that we 
promulgated on 12/30/05 interprets the default provision so that it can 
be implemented with certainty in the event EPA fails to promulgate the 
RFS within one year of enactment. It provides for refiners, importers 
and blenders to meet the 2.78% requirement collectively, rather than on 
an individual basis. Since our projections show that this value is 
highly likely to be met in 2006 under planned practices of the refining 
industry, we do not anticipate any impacts on the industry in general, 
nor any on small businesses. It will have no effect on State, local or 
tribal governments.


Statement of Need:


In The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (PL 109-58), Congress directed EPA to 
undertake this rulemaking to support the goal of increasing the 
production and use of renewable fuels.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (PL 109-58) requires EPA to promulgate 
regulations that implement the renewable fuels standard (RFS), which 
applies to refineries, importers and blenders as appropriate. The Act 
specifies required amounts of renewable fuel that must be in gasoline 
sold in the United States. EPA's regulations must define how the 
standard is to be computed, who is liable, and it must also include a 
credit trading system which is stipulated in the Act.


Alternatives:


The Energy Policy Act of 2005 set forth requirements for the use of 
Renewable Fuels. EPAct set forth specific requirements for the minium 
volume of renewable fuels, a schedule to increase use, and requirements 
for establishing a credit and trading program. This rule intends to 
comply directly with EPAct requirements.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


On average, EPA estimates the cost of this increase in renewable fuels 
to range from 0.3 to 1 cent per gallon of gasoline. As part of the 
final rulemaking, EPA plans to include an updated analysis. However, 
currently, renewable fuel demand is projected to exceed the levels 
required by the Energy Policy Act. The RFS does, however, establish a 
baseline that provides market certainty that at least a minimum amount 
of renewable fuel will be used should market conditions change. 
Depending on the volume of renewable fuel anticipated to be used in 
2012, EPA estimates that this transition to renewable fuels will reduce 
petroleum consumption by 2.3 to 3.9 billion gallons or roughly 1.0 to 
1.6 percent of the petroleum that would otherwise be used by the 
transportation sector. The preliminary analysis of the emissions and 
air quality impacts of the expanded use of renewable fuels indicates 
that carbon monoxide emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and 
equipment will be reduced by 1.3 to 3.6 percent, benzene (a mobile 
source air toxic) emissions will be reduced by 1.7 to 6.2 percent and 
carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced by 9 
to 14 million tons or about 0.4 to 0.6 percent of the anticipated 
greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector in the United 
States in 2012. At the same time, other vehicle emissions may increase 
as a result of greater renewable fuel use. Nationwide, EPA estimates 
between a 28,000 and 97,000 ton increase in volatile organic compounds 
plus nitrogen oxides (VOC + NOx) emissions. However, the effects will 
vary significantly by region. EPA estimates that areas such as New York 
City, Chicago, and Los Angeles will experience no increase, while other 
areas may see an increase VOC emissions from 3 to 5 percent and an 
increase in NOx emissions from 4 to 6 percent from gasoline powered 
vehicles and equipment.


Risks:


Failure to comply with EPAct statutory mandate would void intention of 
providing stability and certainty for renewable market growth and 
support for expanding domestic energy production and reduced reliance 
on foreign sources of petroleum.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/22/06                    71 FR 55552
NPRM Comment Period End         11/12/06
Final Action                    03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No

[[Page 72894]]

Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5048


Agency Contact:
Barry Garelick
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
6406J
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202 343-9028
Fax: 202 343-2802
Email: garelick.barry@epa.gov

David Korotney
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
6407
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 214-4507
Email: korotneydavid@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AN76
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
122. [bull] FINAL RULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW 
(NSR) PROGRAM FOR PM2.5

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7410; 42 USC 7501 et seq


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 51


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In 1997, EPA promulgated National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 
for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). EPA designations of 39 
nonattainment areas for the PM2.5 standards became effective on April 
5, 2005. The Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, which was 
proposed in the Federal Register on November 1, 2005, includes 
requirements and guidance for State and local air pollution agencies to 
follow in developing State implementation plans (SIPs) designed to 
bring areas into attainment with the 1997 standards. The proposed rule 
also included the New Source Review (NSR) provisions for implementing 
the PM2.5 program. In this final action, we have split the NSR 
provisions of the proposed rule as a separate package. This rule will 
address the applicability of NSR to precursors, Major Source Threshold 
and Significant Emissions Rate for PM2.5, preconstruction monitoring 
requirements, offset provisions and interpollutant trading of offsets 
and finally the transition provisions.


Statement of Need:


This rule is needed in order to provide guidance to State and local 
agencies in preparing State implementation plans (SIPs) designed to 
bring areas into attainment with the 1997 PM-2.5 standards. The 
implementation requirements for nonattainment areas are generally 
described in subpart 1 of section 172 of the Clean Air Act. This rule 
provides further interpretation of those requirements for the PM-2.5 
standards.


Summary of Legal Basis:


42 USC 7410 and 42 USC 7501 et seq.


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be explored as the final rule is developed.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This information will be provided as the final rule is developed.


Risks:


The risks addressed by this rule are those addressed by the 1997 NAAQS 
rule -- i.e., the health and environmental risks associated with 
nonattainment of the NAAQS. These risks were summarized in detail in 
the analyses accompanying the 1997 NAAQS rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Final Action                    02/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4752.2; Split from RIN 2060-AK74.


Agency Contact:
Raj Rao
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-03
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5344
Fax: 919 541-5509
Email: rao.raj@epamail.epa.gov

Jabeen Akhtar
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C339-03
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-0503
Fax: 919 541-5509
Email: akhtar.jabeen@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AN86
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
123. PESTICIDES; DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENTIONAL CHEMICALS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 136 to 136y


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 158


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


EPA is revising its data requirements for the registration of 
conventional pesticide products. In this action, the Agency is revising 
data requirements that pertain to product chemistry, toxicology, 
residue chemistry, applicator exposure, post-application exposure, 
nontarget terrestrial and aquatic organisms, nontarget plant 
protection, and environmental fate. When promulgated, the data 
requirements will reflect current scientific knowledge and 
understanding. These revisions will improve the Agency's ability to 
make regulatory decisions about the human health and environmental 
effects of pesticide products to better protect wildlife, the 
environment, and people, including sensitive subpopulations. Coupled 
with revision of data requirements, EPA is reformatting the 
requirements and revising its general procedures and policies 
associated with data submission. By codifying existing data 
requirements which are currently applied on a case-by-case basis, the 
pesticide industry, along with other

[[Page 72895]]

partners in the regulated community, would attain a better 
understanding and could better prepare for the pesticide registration 
process.


Statement of Need:


Since the data requirements were first published in 1984, the 
information needed to support the registration of a pesticide has 
evolved along with the expanding knowledge base of pesticide chemical 
technology. Over the years, updated data requirements have been applied 
on a case-by-case basis. The codified data requirements have not been 
revised to keep pace with the updated data requirements. The proposed 
changes update and revise the data requirements, reformat the structure 
of part 158 and update procedures and policies for data submission. The 
changes are intended to provide stakeholders with a more transparent 
and improved clarity of the potential data requirements, more focused 
use patterns that reflect current practice, and a more efficient 
registration process.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The final rule will describe data and information needed to support 
multiple pesticide mandates under two statutes: the registration, 
reregistration, registration review, and experimental use permit 
programs under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 
(FIFRA), and the tolerance-setting and reassessment program under the 
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). These programs are 
authorized under FIFRA sections 3, 4, and 5 and FFDCA sec 408.


Alternatives:


The Agency is required by its various statutory mandates to establish 
data requirements that support its regulatory decisions. It is 
incumbent on the Agency to reevaluate those data requirements in light 
of scientific advances, analytical improvements, and new technology, in 
order to provide a sound scientific basis for those decisions. The 
Agency also considers whether alternative regulatory methods, such as 
restrictions on use, would obviate the need for data, and explores 
means of introducing flexibility and clarity to reduce burdens on the 
regulated community.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Using the currently codified requirements as the baseline for the 
impact analysis, the total annual impact of the proposed revisions to 
the pesticide industry is estimated to be about $51 million. Of this 
estimated total annual impact, about $28.9 million per year represents 
new data requirements that have been imposed over the years but are not 
codified in the CFR. In addition, about $21.6 million represents the 
cost of the proposed modified or expanded existing data requirements 
for certain tests and use patterns, and about $1.9 million represents 
the cost of proposed new data requirements for data that have not yet 
been routinely required. The qualified benefits include improved 
usability and transparency for registrants, improved scientific basis 
for pesticide regulatory decisions, enhanced international 
harmonization with less duplication of data.


Risks:


The proposed revisions to the data requirements, like the existing 
requirements in part 158, would require an applicant for pesticide 
registration to supply the Agency with information on the pesticide: 
composition, toxicity, potential human exposure, environmental 
properties, and ecological effects. This information is used to assess 
the human health and environmental risks associated with the product. 
The data that will be required by this regulation form the foundation 
of EPA's risk assessment for pesticides, and provide a sound scientific 
basis for any licensing decisions that impose requirements that 
mitigate or reduce risks, and that ensure that pesticide resides in 
food meet the ``reasonable certainty of no harm'' risk standard of the 
Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/11/05                    70 FR 12277
Notice of Public Meeting        04/01/05                    70 FR 16785
NPRM: Extension of 
    Comment Period              06/08/05                    70 FR 33414
Final Action                    04/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2687; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/ EPA-PEST/2005/March/Day-11/p4466.htm; Individual Document id 
in the EPA docket: http://www.regulations.gov


Sectors Affected:


32532 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/data.htm

Agency Contact:
Vera Au
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-9069
Fax: 703 305-5884
Email: au.vera@epa.gov

Jean Frane
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 305-5944
Fax: 703 305-5884
Email: frane.jean@epa.gov
RIN: 2070-AC12
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
124. LEAD-BASED PAINT ACTIVITIES; AMENDMENTS FOR RENOVATION, REPAIR, 
AND PAINTING

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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


Legal Authority:


15 USC 2682 and 2684 (TSCA sections 402 and 404)


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 745


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, October 28, 1996.


Abstract:


The Environmental Protection Agency is developing a comprehensive 
program for the management of renovation, repair and painting 
activities involving lead based paint hazards. The program will be 
comprised of a combination of approaches including an extensive 
education and outreach campaign for lead-safe work practices and 
training for industry, an outreach campaign

[[Page 72896]]

designed to expand consumer awareness and create demand for the use of 
lead-safe work practices and the proposal of regulatory requirements. 
On January 10, 2006, the EPA proposed regulatory requirements for 
renovation, repair and painting contractors involved in activities 
where, as a result of their work, lead hazards are created. 
[Modifications to the abatement requirements will also be considered to 
ensure compatibility between the existing requirements and any future 
renovation requirements.]


Statement of Need:


Childhood lead poisoning is a pervasive problem in the United States, 
with almost a million young children having more than 10 ug/dl of lead 
in their blood (Center for Disease Control's level of concern). 
Although there have been dramatic declines in blood-lead levels due to 
reductions of lead in paint, gasoline, and food sources, remaining 
paint in older houses continues to be a significant source of childhood 
lead poisoning. These rules will help insure that individuals and firms 
conducting lead-based paint activities will do so in a way that 
safeguards the environment and protects the health of building 
occupants, especially children under 6 years old.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This regulation is mandated by TSCA section 402(c). TSCA Section 402(c) 
directs EPA to address renovation and remodeling activities by first 
conducting a study of the extent to which persons engaged in various 
types of renovation and remodeling activities are exposed to lead in 
the conduct of such activities or disturb lead and create a lead-based 
paint hazard on a regular basis. Section 402(c) further directs the 
Agency to revise the lead-based paint activities regulations (40 CFR 
Part 745 Subpart L) to include renovation or remodeling activities that 
create lead-based paint hazards. In order to determine which 
contractors are engaged in such activities the Agency is directed to 
utilize the results of the study and consult with the representatives 
of labor organizations, lead-based paint activities contractors, 
persons engaged in remodeling and renovation, experts in health 
effects, and others.


Alternatives:


TSCA Section 402(c) states that should the Administrator determine that 
any category of contractors engaged in renovation or remodeling does 
not require certification, the Administrator may publish an explanation 
of the basis for that determination.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


EPA's quantitative cost estimates fall into four categories: Training 
Costs, Work Practice Costs, Clearance Testing Costs, and Administrative 
Costs. The estimates vary depending upon the option selected. In most 
cases we expect that requirements related to Clearance Testing and Work 
Practices will contribute the most to overall rule cost. The benefits 
analysis will not provide direct quantitative measures of each (or any) 
option. EPA does not have a complete risk assessment (with dose-
response functions) that would permit direct quantitative estimates. We 
do have other data, such as estimated loadings of Pb generated by 
renovation work, number and type of renovation events, demographics of 
the exposed population, and the costs of various health effects 
previously linked to Pb exposure. With the available information we are 
able utilize several qualitative approaches to frame the benefits 
associated with an effective renovation rule.


Risks:


These rules are aimed at reducing the prevalence and severity of lead 
poisoning, particularly in children. The Agency has concluded that many 
R&R work activities can produce or release large quantities of lead and 
may be associated with elevated blood lead levels. These activities 
include, but are not limited to: sanding, cutting, window replacement, 
and demolition. Lead exposure to R&R workers appears to be less of a 
problem than to building occupants (especially young children). Some 
workers (and homeowners) are occasionally exposed to high levels of 
lead. Any work activity that produces dust and debris may create a lead 
exposure problem.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/10/06                     71 FR 1588
Notice of Availability; 
    Supplemental Economic 
    Analysis                    03/02/06                    71 FR 10628
Notice of Availability; 
    Draft Pamphlet              03/08/06                    71 FR 11570
Request for Comment; Lead 
    Paint Test Kit 
    Development                 03/16/06                    71 FR 13561
NPRM: Extension of 
    Comment Period              04/06/06                    71 FR 17409
Final Action                    06/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3557; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/ EPA-TOX/2006/January/Day-10/t071.htm; EPA Docket information: 
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049; Individual Document id in the EPA docket: 
www.regulations.gov


Sectors Affected:


23599 All Other Special Trade Contractors; 23551 Carpentry Contractors; 
53111 Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings; 23322 Multifamily 
Housing Construction; 23521 Painting and Wall Covering Contractors; 
531311 Residential Property Managers; 23321 Single Family Housing 
Construction; 54138 Testing Laboratories


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/oppt/lead/pubs/renovation.htm

Agency Contact:
Mike Wilson
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-0521
Fax: 202 566-0471
Email: wilson.mike@epa.gov

Julie Simpson
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-1980
Fax: 202 566-0471
Email: simpson.julie@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2070-AC83
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
125. PESTICIDES; DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR BIOCHEMICAL AND MICROBIAL 
PRODUCTS

Priority:


Other Significant

[[Page 72897]]

Legal Authority:


7 USC 136 to 136y


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 158


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


EPA will update the data requirements necessary to register a 
biochemical or microbial pesticide product. The revisions will codify 
data requirements to reflect current regulatory and scientific 
standards. The data requirements will cover all scientific disciplines 
for biochemical and microbial pesticides, including product chemistry 
and residue chemistry, toxicology, and environmental fate and effects. 
The revision will not include plant incorporated protectants.


Statement of Need:


The Agency is in the process of updating its data requirements for 
pesticides. Current data requirements for biochemical and microbial 
pesticides were originally promulgated in 1984. Since the data 
requirements were first published in 1984, the information needed to 
support the registration of a biochemical or microbial pesticide has 
evolved along with the expanding knowledge base of pesticide chemical 
technology. Over the years, updated data requirements have been applied 
on a case-by-case basis. The codified data requirements have not been 
revised to keep pace with the updated data requirements. EPA has 
proposed to update and revise the data requirements. These revisions 
build upon those previously proposed for conventional chemicals, 
tailored to the lesser data needs for biochemical and microbial 
pesticides. The changes are intended to provide stakeholders with a 
more transparent and improved clarity of the potential data 
requirements, more focused use patterns that reflect current practice, 
and a more efficient registration process.


Summary of Legal Basis:


7 U.S.C. 136 to 136y


Alternatives:


The Agency is required by its various statutory mandates to establish 
data requirements that support its regulatory decisions. It is 
incumbent on the Agency to reevaluate those data requirements in light 
of scientific advances, analytical improvements, and new technology, in 
order to provide a sound scientific basis for those decisions. On a 
case by case basis, the Agency also considers whether alternative 
regulatory methods, such as restrictions on use, would obviate the need 
for data, and explores means of introducing flexibility and clarity to 
reduce burdens on the regulated community.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


EPA has analyzed several economic alternatives for the proposed 
revisions to the biochemical and microbial pesticide data requirements, 
based upon consultations with stakeholders in industry, academia and 
individual registrants. EPA has considered both a low-cost and a high-
cost alternative to the proposal.The rule is expected to reduce burdens 
and costs to registrants of biochemical and microbial pesticides. 
Current estimated savings are in the range of $3 million annually, or 
$63,000 per company. The qualified benefits include improved usability 
and transparency for registrants, improved scientific basis for 
pesticide regulatiory decisions, and enhanced international 
harmonization with less duplication of data.


Risks:


The proposed revisions to the data requirements, like the existing 
requirements in part 158, would require an applicant for pesticide 
registration to supply the Agency with information on the pesticide: 
composition, toxicity, potential human exposure, environmental 
properties and ecological effects. This information is used to assess 
the human health and environmental risks associated with the product. 
The data that will be required by this regulation form the foundation 
of EPA's risk assessment for pesticides, and provide a sound scientific 
basis for any licensing decisions that impose requirements that 
mitigate or reduce risks, and that ensure that pesticide resides in 
food meet the ``reasonable certainty of no harm'' risk standard of the 
Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/08/06                    71 FR 12071
Final Action                    06/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4596; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/ EPA-PEST/2006/March/Day-08/p2185.htm


Sectors Affected:


32532 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/data.htm

Agency Contact:
Candace Brassard
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 305-6598
Fax: 703 305-5884
Email: brassard.candace@epa.gov

Jean Frane
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 305-5944
Fax: 703 305-5884
Email: frane.jean@epa.gov
RIN: 2070-AD51
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
126. NOTIFICATION OF CHEMICAL EXPORTS UNDER TSCA SECTION 12(B)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 2611


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 707


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 12(b)of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) states, in 
part, that any person who exports or intends to export to a foreign 
country a chemical substance or mixture for which submission of data is 
required under section 4 or 5(b), or for which a rule, action or order 
has been proposed or promulgated under section 5, 6, or 7,

[[Page 72898]]

shall notify the EPA Administrator of such export or intent to export. 
The Administrator in turn will notify the government of the importing 
country of EPA's regulatory action with respect to the substance. As 
part of OMB's Regulatory Reform of the U.S. Manufacturing Sector Report 
(2005), industry commented that the existing TSCA section 12(b) 
regulations do not provide a low-level cut-off for the export 
notification requirements. To address that concern, EPA committed to 
OMB that it would consider potential changes to the TSCA section 12(b) 
regulation within the scope of existing statutory authority and issue a 
proposed amendment to address the concern expressed by January 2006. 
EPA issued proposed amendments to the 12(b) export notification 
regulations on February 9, 2006 that included a de minimis 
concentration level below which notification would not be required 
along with several other changes. The public comment period on the 
proposed rule has ended and EPA is proceeding with development of a 
rule to finalize the proposed changes. Legislation is currently pending 
to address the implementation in the US of the Rotterdam Convention on 
Prior Informed Consent (PIC), which itself includes export notification 
requirements.


Statement of Need:


Industry nominated the implementing regulations for reform 
consideration twice. First in the annual report on the costs and 
benefits of regulations, entitled ``Stimulating Smarter Regulation: 
2002 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Regulations and 
Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities,'' that is 
prepared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and submitted to 
Congress each year. (See OMB's compilation of comments, summary no. 
190, pg 10, commenter no. 12 available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/ inforeg/key--comments.html.) And then again in 2004, see no. 39 in 
OMB's Regulatory Reform of the U.S. Manufacturing Sector Report (2005). 
The industry nominations stated that: many notifications are for minor 
substance/product ingredients or impurities that are not an imminent 
concern; compliance with export notification requirements is a 
significant cost to industry and a paper work burden to EPA; and that 
the scope and number of notifications has created confusion among 
importing countries. After careful consideration of these nominations, 
EPA published proposed amendments to the 12(b) export notification 
regulations that, if finalized, will reduce the reporting burden on 
industry and EPA and also focus importing governments' attention on 
those chemicals for which EPA has proposed to make or has made a 
definitive finding that a chemical ``presents or will present'' an 
unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 12(b)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).


Alternatives:


In the proposed rule, EPA requested public comments on alternative 
approaches that could be considered, including whether there are more 
appropriate de minimis thresholds that should be used.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Economic Analysis for the proposed rule estimated that the proposed 
amendments would save the regulated community $440,000 in costs over 20 
years and would save the Federal government $450,000 over 20 years.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/09/06                     71 FR 6733
Final Action                    12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4858; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/ EPA-TOX/2006/February/Day-09/t1797.htm; EPA Docket 
information: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0058


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/12b.htm

Agency Contact:
Greg Schweer
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-8469
Fax: 202 564-4765
Email: schweer.greg@epamail.epa.gov

Ken Moss
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-8179
Fax: 202 564-4765
Email: moss.kenneth@epa.gov
RIN: 2070-AJ01
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
127. TESTING AGREEMENT FOR PERFLUOROOCTANOIC ACID (PFOA)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 2603 ``TSCA 4''


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 790 to 799


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


PFOA is a synthetic (man-made) chemical that does not occur naturally 
in the environment. EPA identified data gaps regarding the sources and 
exposure pathways of PFOA and is seeking additional data concerning the 
potential relationship between fluoropolymer and fluorotelomer based 
polymer chemicals and PFOA. EPA has invited interested parties to 
monitor and participate in negotiations for developing several industry 
sponsored testing programs concerning fluoropolymers and fluorotelomer 
based polymers which may metabolize or degrade to PFOA. These testing 
programs would be set in place preferably as publicly negotiated 
enforceable consent agreements (ECAs) under section 4 of the Toxic 
Substances Control Act (TSCA) among EPA, industry, and interested 
parties under section 4 of TSCA, but may also be established as 
negotiated memoranda of understanding (MOUs) where circumstances 
preclude moving forward under ECAs. The goal of the PFOA ECA

[[Page 72899]]

process is to better understand the sources and exposure pathways 
leading to the presence of PFOA in humans and the environment.


Statement of Need:


In the late 1990's, EPA received information indicating that 
perfluorooctyl sulfonates (PFOS) were widespread in the blood of the 
general population, and presented concerns for persistence, 
bioaccumulation, and toxicity. Following discussions between EPA and 
3M, the manufacturer of PFOS, the company terminated production of 
these chemicals. Findings on PFOS led EPA to review similar chemicals, 
including PFOA, starting in 2000, to determine whether they might 
present concerns similar to those associated with PFOS. PFOA is very 
persistent in the environment and was being found at very low levels 
both in the environment and in the blood of the general U.S. 
population. Studies indicated that PFOA can cause developmental and 
other adverse effects in laboratory animals. PFOA also appears to 
remain in the human body for a long time. All of these factors, taken 
together, prompted the Agency to investigate whether PFOA might pose a 
risk to human health and the environment at the levels currently being 
found, or at levels that might be reached in the future as more PFOA 
continues to be released into the environment. EPA does not have a full 
understanding of how people are exposed to PFOA, which is used an 
essential processing aid in the manufacture of fluoropolymers, and may 
also be a breakdown product of other related chemicals, called 
fluorinated telomers. In April 2003, EPA released a preliminary risk 
assessment for PFOA and started a public process to identify and 
generate additional information to better understand the sources of 
PFOA and the pathways of human exposure. EPA is negotiating with 
multiple parties to produce missing information on PFOA through 
Enforceable Consent Agreements (ECAs), memoranda of understanding, and 
voluntary commitments. The ECA activities related to PFOA are addressed 
by the Regulatory Agenda entry.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These Consent Orders which incorporate Enforceable Consent Agreements 
(ECAs) will be issued under section 4(a) of TSCA. Section 2(b)(1) of 
TSCA states that it is the policy of the United States that ``adequate 
data should be developed with respect to the effect of chemical 
substances and mixtures on health and the environment and that the 
development of such data should be the responsibility of those who 
manufacture [which is defined by statute to include import] and those 
who process such chemical substances and mixtures[.]'' To implement 
this policy, TSCA section 4(a) of TSCA authorizes EPA to require 
manufacturers and processors of chemical substances and mixtures to 
test these chemicals to determine whether they have adverse health or 
environmental effects. Section 4(a) empowers the Agency to promulgate 
rules which require such testing. In addition, EPA has authority to 
enter into ECAs requiring testing where they provide procedural 
safeguards equivalent to those that apply where testing is conducted by 
rule (see 40 CFR 790).


Alternatives:


EPA identified the need to improve its understanding of the sources and 
pathways of exposure to PFOA in 2003 and initiated a process to develop 
needed new date on the issue. This new information will assist the 
Agency in determining if there are potential risks and what risk 
management steps may be appropriate. Specifically, EPA is working with 
industry and other stakeholders to obtain additional monitoring 
information on PFOA, exposures resulting from incineration or loss from 
products as they are used over time, and telomer biodegradation as a 
potential source of PFOA. The Agency is developing formal TSCA Section 
4 Enforceable Consent Agreements (ECAs) and Memoranda of Understanding 
(MOUs) with industry in a public process involving a large number of 
interested parties, and is cooperating on voluntary research 
activities. Data needs which remain unmet through the MOUs and 
voluntary commitments may be addressed through additional ECAs and/or 
rulemaking.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The potential benefits of these ECAs are substantial, as no one -- 
whether in industry, government, or the public -- can make reasoned 
risk management decisions in the absence of reliable health/
environmental effects and exposure information. These ECAs are expected 
to reduce scientific uncertainties and to enable EPA and the public to 
more fully understand the pathways of human exposure and potential 
risks from PFOA. The costs of the testing that would be imposed is 
estimated to be on the order of several hundred thousand dollars for 
each.


Risks:


PFOA is very persistent in the environment and was being found at very 
low levels both in the environment and in the blood of the general U.S. 
population. Studies indicated that PFOA can cause developmental and 
other adverse effects in laboratory animals. PFOA also appears to 
remain in the human body for a long time. Data collected and/or 
developed under these Consent Orders/ECAs, when combined with 
information about hazard, will allow the Agency and others to evaluate 
and prioritize potential health and environmental effects and take 
appropriate follow up action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Final: ECA and CO for 
    Fluoropolymer 
    Chemicals 
    Incineration                07/08/05                    70 FR 39630
Final: ECA and CO for 
    Fluorotelomer- based 
    Polymer Chemicals 
    Incineration                07/08/05                    70 FR 39624
Notice: Measurement of 
    PFOA Generated from 
    Thermal Degradation 
    of Fluoropolymer 
    Chemicals                   12/00/06
Stewardship Program             12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3493.1; EPA publication information: Final: ECA and CO for 
Fluorotelomer-based Polymer Chemicals Incineration - http://
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ EPA-TOX/2005/July/Day-08/t13492.htm; EPA Docket 
information: OPPT-2003-0012


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/oppt/pfoa/index.htm

[[Page 72900]]

Agency Contact:
Greg Schweer
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-8469
Fax: 202 564-4765
Email: schweer.greg@epamail.epa.gov

Rich Leukroth
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-8167
Fax: 202 564-4765
Email: leukroth.rich@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2070-AJ06
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
128. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST REVISIONS-STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR 
ELECTRONIC MANIFESTS

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


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 continuing the development of regulatory 
standards and procedures that will govern the initiation, signing, 
transmittal, and retention of hazardous waste manifests using 
electronic documents and systems. 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. The Manifest 
Form Revisions was 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 systems. Subsequently in May 2004, a stakeholder meeting 
collected additional stakeholder views on the future direction of the 
electronic manifest. Based on the record developed for the proposed 
standards and the additional views from stakeholders at the May 2004 
meeting, EPA is considering final action on the proposed standards. 
However, since the publication of the proposed rule in 2001, EPA has 
found that there is a fairly broad consensus in favor of the 
development of a national e-manifest system by EPA. EPA is now 
considering the option of developing a national system, but EPA's 
ability to pursue this option will depend on new funding being 
authorized or on new authority for EPA to collect user fees.


Statement of Need:


The 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 forms. The 
current regulations only allow the use of prescribed paper forms 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. This regulation will remove impediments in the current 
regulations to using electronic manifests, and it 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 forms.


Summary of Legal Basis:


There is currently not in place a statute or court order which requires 
EPA to adopt the electronic manifest regulation. However, members of 
Congress are currently considering a Bill that would mandate the 
development of an electronic manifest system by EPA, and such a Bill, 
if enacted during the 109th Congress, could include a regulatory 
deadline for promulgating a regulation authorizing the use of 
electronic manifests. Whether or not there is such a statutory mandate, 
EPA could develop a regulation addressing the e-Manifest 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 comments submitted on the proposed rule, and additional 
stakeholder input received at public meetings, EPA's preferred 
alternative is now the development of a consistent, national e-Manifest 
system that would be developed and operated under a Federal contract 
funded by user fees, and hosted on EPA's Central Data Exchange 
reporting system. Other alternatives include a national system that 
would be developed entirely privately; a decentralized option like the 
one suggested in the proposed rule, under which various private 
entities would develop numerous e-Manifest systems adhering to 
standards announced by EPA; and a no action alternative, under which 
all manifesting would continue only with paper manifests.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The estimated 1st year or start-up costs for a national e-Manifest 
system are projected to be in the range of $3.98 million to $5.32 
million. Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for such a system 
are projected in the range $2.03 million to $2.48 million. Economic 
benefits from such a system include net savings to manifest users and 
to State RCRA agencies of about $100 million per year, assuming that 75 
percent of manifests can be completed electronically. These projected 
savings can also be expressed as a net unit savings of $23 to $40 per 
manifest. Non-economic benefits expected from the e-Manifest include: 
Better quality and more timely waste shipment data; nearly real time 
shipment tracking capabilities for users; enhanced inspection and 
compliance monitoring capabilities for regulators; more rapid 
notification and response to problems or discrepancies with waste 
shipments; more efficient or ``one-stop'' submission of manifest data 
to EPA and States; and new possibilities to manage manifest data and to 
simplify or consolidate existing systems for reporting and tracking 
manifest and biennial report 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 the risks posed by 
the management of hazardous wastes. There is not a formal

[[Page 72901]]

risk assessment developed for this action. Since the e-manifest 
regulation could authorize the use of an information technology (IT) 
system that would be developed to create and transmit electronic 
manifests, there would be information system management risks and 
information security risks associated with developing and operating 
such an IT system. EPA will assess and manage these information 
technology and security risks as part of the Capital Planning and 
Investment Control (CPIC) process that governs the management of EPA's 
IT investments.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            05/22/01                    66 FR 28240
Notice of Public Meeting        04/01/04                    69 FR 17145
NODA                            04/18/06                    71 FR 19842
Final Action                    04/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 31471; EPA publication information: NPRM - 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
5304W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8796
Fax: 703 308-0514
Email: lashier.rich@epamail.epa.gov

Bryan Groce
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8750
Fax: 703 308-0514
Email: groce.bryan@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2050-AG20
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
129. OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION; SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND 
COUNTERMEASURE (SPCC) REQUIREMENTS--AMENDMENTS

Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1321


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 112


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On September 20, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the 
Agency) issued two Notices of Data Availability (NODAs) concerning 
certain facilities and oil-filled and process equipment. Based on its 
review of the information received from the NODAs, EPA proposed to 
amend the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan 
requirements to reduce the regulatory burden for certain facilities by: 
providing an option that would allow owners/operators of facilities 
that store less than 10,000 gallons of oil and meet other qualifying 
criteria to self-certify their SPCC Plans, in lieu of review and 
certification by a Professional Engineer; providing an alternative to 
the secondary containment requirement, without requiring a 
determination of impracticability, for facilities that have certain 
types of oil-filled equipment; defining and providing an exemption for 
motive power containers; and exempting airport mobile refuelers from 
the specifically sized secondary containment requirements for bulk 
storage containers. In addition, the Agency also proposed to remove and 
reserve certain SPCC requirements for animal fats and vegetable oils 
and proposed a separate extension of the compliance dates for farms 
(see 70 FR 73524, December 12, 2005). In proposing these changes, EPA 
is significantly reducing the burden imposed on the regulated community 
in complying with the SPCC requirements, while maintaining protection 
of human health and the environment. EPA has also requested comments on 
the potential scope of future rulemaking.


Statement of Need:


The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) targeted certain rulemakings 
across the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including the 
SPCC rule, for regulatory reform on an expedited schedule. (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 (``Thompson Report'')). This rulemaking will provide 
streamlined, alternative approaches for compliance with oil spill 
prevention requirements for certain entities, and to improve net 
welfare by reducing the costs of regulation and improving compliance, 
resulting in greater environmental protection.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act), 33 U.S.C. 
1321(j)(1)(C), requires the President to issue regulations establishing 
procedures, methods, equipment, and other requirements to prevent 
discharges of oil from vessels and facilities and to contain such 
discharges. The President delegated the authority to regulate non-
transportation-related onshore facilities to EPA in Executive Order 
11548 (35 FR 11677, July 22, 1970), which has been replaced by 
Executive Order 12777 (56 FR 54757, October 22, 1991). No aspects of 
this action are required by statute or court orders.


Alternatives:


EPA considered alternative options for various aspects of this 
rulemaking in the December 2005 proposed rule, following receipt of 
public comments, and through logical outgrowth of the proposed rule. To 
address streamlined requirements for a defined set of ``qualified 
facilities,'' alternative options included: (1) providing an

[[Page 72902]]

indefinite extension of deadlines or a suspension of all SPCC 
requirements; and (2) a multi-tiered structure of requirements based on 
a facility's total regulated storage based on the SBA proposal 
described in the Certain Facilities NODA published last year. To 
address streamlined requirements for small oil-filled operational 
equipment, alternative approaches considered included: (1) an option 
similar to the qualified facilities proposal, in which eligibility of a 
facility with oil-filled operational equipment would be determined by 
considering capacity thresholds and reportable discharge history from 
any oil-filled operational equipment; (2) a tiered set of requirements 
for electrical and other oil-filled operational equipment; (3) 
providing an indefinite extension of the Plan revision and 
implementation dates for certain types of oil-filled operational 
equipment; and (4) suspending all SPCC requirements for certain types 
of oil-filled operational equipment. For motive power containers 
greater than 55 gallons in size, alternative options included: (1) 
exemption of all motive power containers, except motive power 
containers on aircraft and mining equipment; (2) exemption of all 
motive power containers below a certain gallon threshold; and (3) 
exclusion of motive power containers only from the facility storage 
capacity calculation and bulk storage container requirements.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Considered separately and applying a 7 percent discount rate, today's 
proposed regulatory changes could yield annualized compliance cost 
savings, in 2005 dollars, of about $38 million for the ``Qualified 
Facility'' option, $39 to $67 million for ``Oil-Filled Equipment'' 
option (assuming 25 to 75 percent of facilities with oil-filled 
equipment affected); $1 million to $5 million for the ``Motive Power'' 
exemption (assuming 10 to 50 percent of facilities with motive power 
containers affected); and $17 million to $51 million for the ``Mobile 
Refuelers'' exemption (assuming 25 to 75 percent of facilities with 
mobile refuelers affected). The main benefit of the rule is the 
reductions in compliance costs due to streamlined requirements. EPA 
does not believe that these cost reductions would be offset by any 
significant losses in environmental protection.


Risks:


EPA has designed the final rule to minimize increases in environmental 
risk. Although the final rule may increase the risk of discharge by an 
unknown magnitude by streamlining the rule for certain owners and 
operators of facilities, EPA believes that any environmental impact 
will be minimal, and will be offset by the benefits of increased 
compliance with the SPCC rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NODA re: Certain 
    Facilities                  09/20/04                    69 FR 56184
NODA re: Oil-filled and 
    Process Equipment           09/20/04                    69 FR 56182
NPRM                            12/12/05                    70 FR 73524
Final Action                    12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2634.3; EPA publication information: NODA re certain facilities 
- http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ EPA-WATER/2004/September/Day-20/
w21065.htm; Split from RIN 2050-AG16.


Agency Contact:
Vanessa Rodriguez
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5104A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-7913
Fax: 202 564-2625
Email: rodriguez.vanessa@epa.gov
RIN: 2050-AG23
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
130. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT 
REQUIREMENTS FOR PEAK WET WEATHER DISCHARGES FROM PUBLICLY OWNED 
TREATMENT WORK TREATMENT PLANTS SERVING SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION 
SYSTEMS POLICY

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1311, 1318, 1342, 1361


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 122.41(m)


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


During periods of wet weather, wastewater flows received by municipal 
sewage treatment plants can significantly increase, which can create 
operational challenges for sewage treatment facilities. Where peak 
flows approach or exceed the design capacity of a treatment plant they 
can seriously reduce treatment efficiency or damage treatment units. In 
addition to hydraulic concerns, wastewater associated with peak flows 
may have low organic strength, which can also decrease treatment 
efficiencies. One engineering practice that some facilities use to 
protect biological treatment units from damage and to prevent overflows 
and backups elsewhere in the system is referred to as wet weather 
blending. Wet weather blending occurs during peak wet weather flow 
events when flows that exceed the capacity of the biological units are 
routed around the biological units and blended with effluent from the 
biological units prior to discharge. Regulatory agencies, sewage 
treatment plant operators, and representatives of environmental 
advocacy groups have expressed uncertainty about National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements addressing such 
situations. EPA requested public comment on a proposed policy published 
on November 7, 2003. Based on a review of all the information received, 
EPA has decided not to finalize the policy as proposed in November 
2003. On December 22, 2005, EPA requested public comment on an 
alternative Peak Flows Policy that is significantly different than the 
2003 draft policy.


Statement of Need:


Regulatory agencies, municipal operators of wastewater facilities, and 
representatives of environmental advocacy groups have expressed 
uncertainty about the appropriate regulatory interpretation for peak 
wet weather diversions at publicly owned treatment works (POTW) 
treatment plants serving separate sanitary sewer collection systems. 
This policy is needed to clarify NPDES permit requirements for such wet 
weather diversions and to ensure a comprehensive regulatory approach 
reduces peak wet diversions.


Summary of Legal Basis:


33 USC 1251 et seq.

[[Page 72903]]

Alternatives:


On November 7, 2003, EPA requested public comment on a proposed policy 
which would have provided an alternative regulatory interpretation. 
Under the proposed interpretation in the November 7, 2003 proposed 
policy, a wet weather diversion around biological treatment units that 
was blended with the wastewaters from the biological units prior to 
discharge would not have been considered to constitute a prohibited 
bypass if the six criteria specified in the November 7, 2003 proposed 
policy were met. EPA received significant public comment on the 
proposed policy, including over 98,000 comments opposing the policy due 
to concerns about human health risks. On May 19, 2005, EPA indicated 
that after consideration of the comments, the Agency had no intention 
of finalizing the 2003 proposal. On July 26, 2005, Congress enacted the 
FY 2006 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-54). Section 203 of the Appropriations Act 
provides that none of the funds made available in the Act could be used 
to finalize, issue, implement or enforce the November 7, 2003 proposed 
blending policy. On December 22, 2005, EPA requested public comment on 
an alternative Peak Flows Policy that is significantly different than 
the 2003 draft policy.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The costs and benefits associated with this policy have not been 
evaluated.


Risks:


The collection and treatment of municipal sewage and wastewater is 
vital to public health. During significant rain events, high volumes of 
water entering a sewage collection system can overwhelm the collection 
system or treatment plant. Operators of wastewater treatment plants 
must manage these high flows to both ensure the continued operation of 
the treatment process and to prevent backups and overflows of raw 
wastewater in basements or city streets. The proposed policy seeks to 
reduce public health risks by encouraging municipalities to make 
investments in ongoing maintenance and capital improvements to improve 
their system's long-term performance.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
1st Draft Policy                11/07/03                    68 FR 63042
2nd Draft Policy                12/22/05                    70 FR 76013
Final Policy                    12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State, Tribal


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4690; EPA publication information: 2nd Draft Policy - http://
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ EPA-WATER/2005/December/Day-22/w7696.htm; EPA 
Docket information: EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0523


Sectors Affected:


22132 Sewage Treatment Facilities


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/npdes

Agency Contact:
Kevin Weiss
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-0742
Fax: 202 564-6392
Email: weiss.kevin@epa.gov

Mohammed Billah
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-0729
Fax: 202 564-0717
Email: billah.mohammed@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2040-AD87
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
131. CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION RULE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


CWA 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, 501


CFR Citation:


40 CFR Part 122; 40 CFR Part 412


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking is in response to the Second Circuit's February 28, 
2005, decision in Waterkeeper Alliance vs. EPA, which vacated 
provisions in the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) rule 
found at 40 CFR 412. Two vacatures from the case affect the 1) duty 
that all CAFOs need to apply for an NPDES permit, and 2) provisions 
that nutrient management plans (NMPs) need only be kept on-site. This 
proposed rule would remove the duty to apply for all CAFOs and replace 
it with a requirement for CAFOs to apply for a permit if they discharge 
or propose to discharge. The proposed rule also would establish a 
process to address the court's concerns that the information within 
NMPs be available for public comment, reviewed by the permit authority, 
and incorporated into the permit. It is EPA's intention to make only 
those changes necessary to address the issues raised by the court.


Statement of Need:


EPA is revising the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permitting requirements and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 
Standards (ELGs) for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in 
response to the decision issued by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals 
in Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005), which 
vacated certain aspects of the 2003 CAFO rule and remanded other 
aspects for clarification. This rule responds to the court's decision 
while furthering the statutory goal of restoring and maintaining the 
nation's water quality and effectively ensuring that CAFOs properly 
manage manure generated by their operations.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972), also 
known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), to ``restore and maintain the 
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters'' 
(33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). Among the core provisions, the CWA establishes the 
NPDES permit program to authorize and regulate the discharge of 
pollutants from point sources to waters of the U.S. 33 U.S.C. 1342. 
Section 502(14) of the CWA specifically includes CAFOs in the 
definition of the term ``point source.'' Section 502(12) defines the 
term ``discharge of a pollutant'' to mean ``any addition of any 
pollutant to navigable waters from any point source'' (emphasis added). 
EPA has issued comprehensive regulations that implement the NPDES 
program at 40 CFR part 122. The Act also provides for the development 
of technology-based and water quality-

[[Page 72904]]

based effluent limitations that are imposed through NPDES permits to 
control the discharge of pollutants from point sources. CWA sections 
301(a) and (b).


Alternatives:


Because this rulemaking is in response to the decision issued by the 
Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA vacating 
or remanding certain aspects of the 2003 CAFO rule, there are no non-
regulatory options that would satisfy the requirements of the court.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Since there is no change in technical requirements, changes in impacts 
on respondents are estimated to result exclusively from changes in the 
information collection burden. EPA estimates that CAFOs will experience 
a net reduction in administrative burden of approximately $15.4 million 
due to the court decision. At the same time, however, permitting 
authorities would have to bear a net $0.5 million annual increase in 
administrative burden. In total, the administrative burden under the 
proposed rule is projected to decline to a total of approximately $64 
million annually for both regulated facilities and permit authorities, 
which constitutes a reduction of more than $14.9 million compared to 
the 2003 CAFO rule.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/30/06                    71 FR 37744
Final Action                    06/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4996; NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ EPA-WATER/2006/June/
Day-30/w5773.htm


Agency Contact:
Kawana Cohen
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
MC 4203M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-2435
Email: cohen.kawana@epa.gov

Gregory Beatty
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-0724
Email: beatty.gregory@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2040-AE80
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
132. WATER TRANSFERS RULE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1251 et seq


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 122.3


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking addresses the question of whether the National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program under 
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is applicable to water control 
facilities that merely convey or connect navigable waters. For purposes 
of this action, the term ``water transfer'' refers to any activity that 
conveys or connects navigable waters (as that term is defined in the 
CWA) without subjecting the water to intervening industrial, municipal, 
or commercial use. This rulemaking focuses exclusively on water 
transfers and is not relevant to whether any other activity is subject 
to the CWA permitting requirement.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is needed to clarify that NPDES permits are not 
required for water transfers. In 2004, this question was presented 
before the Supreme Court in South Florida Water Management District v. 
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians. The Court declined to rule directly on the 
issue and remanded it back to the District Court for further 
deliberation, generating uncertainty among the potentially regulated 
community and other stakeholders.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The legal basis is 33 USC 1251 et seq.


Alternatives:


On August 5, 2005, EPA issued a legal memorandum entitled ``Agency 
Interpretation on Applicability of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act 
to Water Transfers.'' Based on the statute as a whole, this memo 
concluded that Congress intended for water transfers to be subject to 
oversight by water resource management agencies and State non-NPDES 
authorities, rather than the NPDES permitting program. The interpretive 
memo stated that the Agency would initiate a rulemaking to this effect. 
The issuance of a rulemaking will provide the greatest certainty for 
stakeholders.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


There are no costs and benefits associated with this rulemaking.


Risks:


There are no risks associated with this rulemaking.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/07/06                    71 FR 32887
Final Action                    03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5040; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/ EPA-WATER/2006/June/Day-07/w8814.htm

[[Page 72905]]

Agency Contact:
Jeremy Arling
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-2218
Fax: 202 564-6384
Email: arling.jeremy@epa.gov

Ryan Albert
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-0763
Fax: 202 564-6392
Email: albert.ryan@epa.gov
RIN: 2040-AE86
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
133. [bull] IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE FOR MERCURY WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1251 et seq


CFR Citation:


None


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In the 2001 Federal Register notice of the availability of EPA's 
recommended water quality criterion for methylmercury, EPA stated that 
it would develop associated procedures and guidance for implementing 
the criterion. For States and authorized tribes exercising 
responsibility under CWA section 303(c), this document provides 
technical guidance on how they might want to use the recommended 2001 
fish tissue-based criterion to develop and implement their own water 
quality standards for methylmercury. The guidance addresses topics 
related to adoption and revision of standards, monitoring, waterbody 
assessment, TMDL development, and NPDES permitting. Also, EPA published 
a national advisory for fish consumption due to mercury in March 2003; 
the implementation guidance will clarify the relationship between this 
advisory and the recommended criterion. Since atmospheric deposition is 
considered to be a major source of mercury for many waterbodies, 
implementing this criterion involves coordination across many media and 
program areas.


Statement of Need:


The methylmercury criterion is expressed as a fish and shellfish tissue 
value, and this raises both technical and programmatic implementation 
questions. EPA expects that, as a result of the revised methylmercury 
water quality criterion, together with a more sensitive method for 
detecting mercury in effluent and the water column, and increased 
monitoring of previously unmonitored waterbodies, the number of 
waterbodies that states report on CWA section 303(d) lists as impaired 
due to methylmercury contamination might continue to increase. 
Development of water quality standards, NPDES permits, and TMDLs 
present challenges because these activities typically have been based 
on a water concentration (e.g., as a measure of mercury levels in 
effluent). This guidance addresses issues associated with states and 
authorized tribes adopting the new water quality criterion into their 
water quality standards programs and implementation of the revised 
water quality criterion in TMDLs and NPDES permits. Further, because 
atmospheric deposition serves as a large source of mercury for many 
waterbodies, implementation of the criterion involves coordination 
across various media and program areas.


Summary of Legal Basis:


N/A


Alternatives:


N/A


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The costs and benefits associated with this guidance have not been 
evaluated.


Risks:


N/A


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Final Document                  01/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 5098; FDMS Docket number: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0656


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/methylmercury

Agency Contact:
Jim Pendergast
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4305T
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202 566-0398
Email: pendergast.jim@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2040-AE87
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
134. TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY REPORTING BURDEN REDUCTION RULE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 11023 et seq


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 372


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The primary goal of this effort by EPA is to reduce burdens associated 
with Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting while at the same time 
continuing to provide valuable information to the public consistent 
with the goals and statutory requirements of the TRI program.


Statement of Need:


EPA is looking to explore various options with the intention of 
identifying a specific burden reduction initiative that effectively 
lessens the burden on facilities but at the same time ensures that TRI 
continues to provide communities with the same high level of 
significant chemical release and other waste management information.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 
(EPCRA) of 1986 and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) 
of 1990.


Alternatives:


Still under analysis.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Still under analysis.

[[Page 72906]]

Risks:


Not Applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/04/05                    70 FR 57822
Final Action                    12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4896; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/ EPA-WASTE/2005/October/Day-04/f19710.htm


URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/tri

Agency Contact:
Marc Edmonds
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Information
2844T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-0758
Fax: 202 566-0741
Email: edmonds.marc@epamail.epa.gov

Larry Reisman
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Information
2844T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-0751
Fax: 202 566-0727
Email: reisman.larry@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2025-AA14
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S

[[Page 72907]]

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 employees who 
were not previously covered.
The item in this Regulatory Plan involves a new exemption from the 
prohibitions of the ADEA for the practice of altering, reducing, or 
eliminating employer-sponsored retiree health benefits when retirees 
become eligible for Medicare or comparable State retiree health 
benefits. This rule is intended to ensure that the application of the 
ADEA does not discourage employers from providing health benefits to 
their retirees. The Commission does not believe that the proposed 
exemption will have a significant impact on small business entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act because it imposes no economic or 
reporting burdens on such firms. On February 4, 2005, AARP sued the 
EEOC seeking to prevent issuance of the final rule.
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

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

134A. COORDINATION OF RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS WITH MEDICARE AND STATE 
HEALTH BENEFITS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


29 USC 628


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 1625


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Commission proposes to exempt from the prohibitions of the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq. (ADEA 
or Act), the practice of altering, reducing, or eliminating employer-
sponsored retiree health benefits when retirees become eligible for 
Medicare or comparable State retiree health benefits.


Statement of Need:


In August 2001, the Commission announced that it would consider the 
relationship between the ADEA and employer-sponsored retiree health 
benefit plans that alter, reduce, or eliminate benefits upon 
eligibility for Medicare or a comparable State-sponsored retiree health 
benefits program. There has been a decline in the number of employers 
providing retiree health benefits over the last 10 years. Various 
factors have contributed to this erosion, including the increased cost 
of health care coverage, an increased demand for such coverage as large 
numbers of workers near retirement age, and changes in the way 
accounting rules treat the long-term costs of providing retiree health 
benefits. Another factor has been employer concern about the potential 
application of the ADEA to employer-sponsored retiree health benefits. 
The Commission is proposing a narrowly drawn ADEA exemption that 
permits the practice of coordinating employer-provided retiree health 
coverage with eligibility for Medicare or a State-sponsored retiree 
health benefits program, so that the ADEA does not discourage employers 
from providing, or continuing to provide, health benefits to their 
retirees.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Pursuant to section 9 of the ADEA, the Commission is authorized to 
establish reasonable exemptions to and from any or all provisions of 
the Act as it may find necessary and proper in the public interest.


Alternatives:


The Commission considered various alternatives in developing this 
proposal. The Commission considered all alternatives offered by the 
public commenters.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Commission recognizes that while employers are under no legal 
obligation to offer retiree health benefits, some employers choose to 
do so in order to maintain a competitive advantage in the marketplace, 
using these and other benefits to attract and retain the best talent 
available to work for their organizations. The proposed rule will 
ensure that the application of the ADEA does not discourage employers 
from providing, or continuing to provide, health benefits to their 
retirees who otherwise would have to obtain such coverage in the 
private individual marketplace at significant personal expense. The 
Commission believes that it is in the best interest of both employers 
and employees for the Commission to pursue a policy that permits 
employers to offer these benefits to the greatest extent possible. It 
is not anticipated that the proposal will result in increased costs.


Risks:


The proposed regulatory action will reduce the risks of liability for 
noncompliance with the statute by exempting certain employer practices 
from regulation. This proposal does not address risks to public safety 
or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/14/03                    68 FR 41542
NPRM Comment Period End         09/12/03
Next Action Undetermined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State

[[Page 72908]]

Additional Information:


On February 4, 2005, AARP sued the EEOC seeking to prevent issuance of 
the final rule.


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-AA72
BILLING CODE 6570-01-S

[[Page 72909]]

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 2007 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 72910]]

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was 
established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (the 
Act), 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 2451 et seq., which laid the 
foundation for NASA's Mission. The Act authorizes NASA, among other 
things, to conduct space activities devoted to peaceful purposes for 
the benefit of humankind; to preserve the leadership of the United 
States in aeronautics and space science and technology; and to expand 
knowledge of Earth and space. To carry out this Mission, NASA is 
authorized to: conduct research for the solution of problems of flight 
within and outside Earth's atmosphere; develop, construct, test, and 
operate aeronautical and space vehicles for research purposes; operate 
space transportation systems, including the Space Shuttle and the 
International Space Station; and perform such other activities as may 
be required for the exploration of space. NASA conducts activities 
required for the exploration of space with crewed, robotic, and 
expendable vehicles and arranges for the most effective use of the 
scientific and engineering resources of the United States with other 
nations engaged in aeronautical and space activities for peaceful 
purposes.
NASA's Mission, as documented in its 2006 Strategic Plan, is to pioneer 
the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics 
research. This Mission is driven by A Renewed Spirit of Discovery: The 
President's Vision for U.S. Space Exploration, President George W. 
Bush's 2004 directive for the Nation's space program. The fundamental 
goal of this directive is ``to advance U.S. scientific, security, and 
economic interests through a robust space exploration program.'' In 
issuing it, the President committed the Nation to a journey of 
exploring the solar system, returning to the Moon in the next decade, 
then venturing further into the solar system, ultimately sending humans 
to Mars and beyond.
NASA enthusiastically embraced the challenge of extending a human 
presence throughout the solar system as the Agency's Vision, and 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 activities centered 
around six Strategic Goals articulated in its 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 pursuit of these activities, we are 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.
Federal regulations can affect strongly the way NASA conducts 
activities related to its Goals, Mission, and Vision. The following are 
narrative descriptions of the most important regulations being planned 
for publication in the Federal Register during fiscal year (FY) 2006.
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 revisions are not expected 
in FY 2006, except to conform to the FAR implementation of Earned Value 
Management and expected FAR changes to Part 27, Patents, Data, and 
Copyrights, and Part 45, Government Property. 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 continuing consideration of revisions to the cross-waiver of 
liability regulation at 14 CFR Part 1266. Specifically, NASA is 
considering implementation of the cross-waiver of liability provision 
of the intergovernmental agreement of the International Space Station 
and refinement and clarification of contractual cross-waivers in NASA 
agreements involving launch services.
BILLING CODE 7510-13-S

[[Page 72911]]

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 three regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2007. The first, 
included in The Regulatory Plan, is to revise and update our records 
management regulations in 36 CFR ch. XII, subchapter B. This regulatory 
activity is part of a major NARA initiative to review and redesign our 
records management program that started in 2000. 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. In fiscal year 2005, we issued a regulation relating to transitory 
e-mail in advance of the overall subchapter B revision. We will issue 
the proposed rule to revise subchapter B in 2007.
The second priority is to revise our fee schedule regulations in 36 CFR 
part 1258 to reflect changes in costs for providing copies of records. 
Our regulations in part 1258 establish the fees NARA may charge for 
copies of archival records, donated historical materials, Presidential 
records, some Nixon Presidential historical materials, records of 
Federal agencies stored in NARA records centers, and records filed with 
the Office of the Federal Register. NARA serves the public by 
specifying the fees in regulations.
Our third priority regulatory action is updating our regulations 
relating to the use of NARA facilities in 36 CFR part 1280. 
Specifically, the provisions for use of meeting space in the National 
Archives Building have changed as a result of renovation of the 
building. We also intend to add information about use of meeting space 
at the National Archives at College Park. These regulations serve the 
public and Federal agencies.
NARA does not have any planned regulatory actions that relate to the 
events of September 11, 2001.
Regulations of Particular Concern to Small Businesses
None in fiscal year 2007.
_______________________________________________________________________
NARA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

135. 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. The proposed revision will be issued in fiscal year 2007 for 
Federal agency and public comment.


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 identified in our Strategic Plan as a key strategy to meet the 
primary goal that ``essential evidence will be created, identified, 
appropriately scheduled, and managed for as long as needed.'' Without 
effective records management, records needed to document citizens' 
rights, actions for which Federal officials are responsible, and the 
historical experience of our Nation will be at risk of loss, 
deterioration, or destruction.


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, of 
which this regulation review is a part, is intended to reduce the 
burden on agencies and NARA in the area of records 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                            02/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal

[[Page 72912]]

URL For More Information:
www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/initiatives/rm-redesign-project.html

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
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 72913]]

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 2007 regulatory 
priorities are designed to support these activities.
Pay Regulations for Employees Affected by a Pandemic Health Crisis
On August 17, 2006, OPM issued interim regulations concerning pay 
actions for employees affected by a pandemic health crisis. These 
regulations were issued as part of OPM's effort to provide agencies 
with guidance to ensure they are able to fulfill their critical 
missions while at the same time protect employees if a pandemic health 
crisis occurs. The interim regulations clarify the rules for 
determining an employee's official worksite when he or she teleworks 
from an alternative worksite during an emergency situation, such as a 
pandemic health crisis. In addition, the interim regulations permit an 
agency to provide evacuation payments to an employee who is ordered to 
evacuate from his or her regular worksite and directed to work from 
home (or an alternative location mutually agreeable to the agency and 
the employee) during a pandemic health crisis. OPM expects to finalize 
these regulations in FY 2007.
Pay and Leave Flexibilities and Entitlements
In FY 2007, OPM will continue to enhance pay and leave flexibilities 
and entitlements to help Federal agencies better meet their strategic 
human capital needs. OPM anticipates finalizing a number of interim 
regulations issued in FY 2005 as a result of changes made to Federal 
pay and leave programs by the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004 
(Public Law 108-411). This includes final regulations providing Federal 
agencies with the authority to pay recruitment and relocation 
incentives to help recruit and relocate employees to difficult-to-fill 
positions and the authority to pay retention incentives to help retain 
essential employees likely to leave their positions. This also includes 
final regulations governing pay setting for employees covered by the 
General Schedule. In particular, these final regulations will:
<bullet> correct a number of pay anomalies regarding the administration 
            of locality rates, special rates, and retained rates;
<bullet> enhance the superior qualifications and special need pay-
            setting authority, which provides agencies flexibility in 
            setting pay for new and reappointed employees under the 
            General Schedule; and
<bullet> improve the operation of the special rates program under which 
            OPM may establish higher rates of pay for categories of 
            General Schedule employees to address recruitment and 
            retention needs.
OPM also plans to issue final regulations as a result of new 
authorities established by the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 
2004. OPM will issue final regulations to provide agencies with the 
flexibility to grant new or reappointed employees credit for prior work 
experience in determining the employees' annual leave accrual rate. OPM 
will also issue final regulations governing the payment of compensatory 
time off for time spent by an employee in a travel status away from the 
employee's official duty station when such time is not otherwise 
compensable. Finally, OPM anticipates finalizing interim regulations 
issued in FY 2006 to increase the maximum uniform allowance rate for 
civilian Federal employees required to wear a uniform.
Human Capital Management
The provisions of Public Law 107-296 include the Chief Human Capital 
Officers Act of 2002 (Act), which, among other things, amended OPM's 
authorizing legislation in chapter 11 of title 5, United States Code, 
requiring OPM to design a set of systems, including appropriate 
metrics, for assessing the management of human capital by Federal 
agencies. On May 23, 2006, OPM published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register, Human Capital Management in Agencies, that would implement 
the provisions of the Act, as well as Executive Order 13197, 
Governmentwide Accountability for Merit System Principles; Workforce 
Information (January 18, 2001). The proposed rule establishes a basic 
framework for planning and assessing human capital management progress 
and results, including compliance with relevant laws, rules and 
regulations, as assessed through agency human capital accountability 
systems and reported in annual agency human capital accountability 
reports. OPM expects to issue the final rule in December 2006.
Awards
As part of the initiative to strengthen pay-for-performance concepts in 
the Federal Government, OPM issued proposed regulations on June 21, 
2006, that clarified the use of performance-based cash awards. Because 
compensation reform is a necessary element of improving the management 
of human capital--a central goal of the President's Management Agenda--
OPM is addressing lump-sum awards that are granted on the basis of a 
rating of record. The regulations require that agency programs for 
granting such awards, as designed and applied, make meaningful 
distinctions based on levels of performance so that better performers 
receive greater recognition. OPM expects to finalize these regulations 
by the time most agencies make their awards decisions in order to give 
practical effect to these regulations.
Human Resource Flexibilities
OPM continues to modernize the civil service and the hiring process. 
OPM issued the following proposed and interim regulations in support of 
this endeavor which we anticipate will be finalized in FY 2007. The 
salary offset (dual compensation) waivers regulation amends the 
criteria under which OPM may delegate dual compensation (salary offset) 
waiver authority to agencies. The Direct Hire for Acquisition Positions 
regulation allows non-DoD agencies to recruit and directly hire 
individuals into certain Federal acquisition positions.
No Fear Regulations
In July 2003, the President delegated to OPM responsibility for 
promulgating regulations pursuant to title II of the Notification and 
Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002. The 
provisions of title II relate to reimbursement of the Department of the 
Treasury's judgment fund, notice and training for applicants and 
employees, and reporting requirements by agencies. Final regulations 
concerning reimbursement of the judgment fund were promulgated on May 
10, 2006. Final regulations concerning notice and training for 
applicants and employees were promulgated on July 20, 2006. Regulations 
concerning the reporting and best practices provisions of the law were 
promulgated as proposed regulations on January 25, 2006. At the request 
of Congress and stakeholder groups, the comment period for these

[[Page 72914]]

regulations was extended from late March 2006 to May 1, 2006. After 
working with the EEOC, the Office of Special Counsel, the Department of 
Justice, and the Department of the Treasury, OPM expects to have 
completed promulgation of all regulations concerning title II of the 
Act before the end of this calendar year.
Combined Federal Campaign
An aspect of maintaining an effective workforce has been to provide an 
outlet for Federal employees' charitable impulses. That program, the 
Combined Federal Campaign, is the nation's largest and most successful 
workplace fund-raising drive. In June 2007, OPM proposed significant 
changes to regulations governing the CFC. The proposed regulations, 
which marked the first major revisions to CFC regulations in many 
years, are intended to streamline and modernize the Campaign, while 
continuing to ensure accountability of the participating charities and 
assure federal employee donors continue to have confidence in the 
charities that participate. OPM anticipates publishing these 
regulations in final form in time for use in the 2007 campaign.
BILLING CODE 6325-44-S

[[Page 72915]]

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 30,000 private 
defined benefit plans. The PBGC receives no funds from general tax 
revenues. Operations are financed by insurance premiums, investment 
income, assets from pension plans trusteed by the PBGC, and recoveries 
from the companies formerly responsible for the trusteed plans.
To carry out these functions, the PBGC must issue regulations 
interpreting such matters as the termination process, establishment of 
procedures for the payment of premiums, and assessment and collection 
of employer liability. The PBGC regulatory priorities are focused on 
improving transparency and increasing the use of electronic filing to 
simplify filing.
PBGC Insurance Programs
The 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.
Single-Employer Program. Under the single-employer program, the PBGC 
pays guaranteed and certain other pension benefits to participants and 
beneficiaries if their plan terminates with insufficient assets 
(distress and involuntary terminations). Early in 2005, the 
Administration proposed reforms to improve funding of plans and restore 
the financial health of the insurance program, which had a $23 billion 
deficit at the end of fiscal year 2005.
Multiemployer Program. The smaller multiemployer program covers 1,600 
collectively bargained plans involving more than one unrelated 
employer. The 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 $300 million deficit at 
the end of FY 2005.
2006 Legislation
Legislation signed into law in 2006 - the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 
and the Pension Protection Act of 2006 - contain various provisions 
that are intended to improve plan funding, enhance pension-related 
reporting and disclosure, and strengthen the insurance programs.
Among the provisions that apply to single-employer plans are:
<greek-D> Plan funding: Accelerated funding requirements for 
            underfunded plans, with a higher funding target for plans 
            considered to be ``at risk'' of termination based on the 
            financial status of the plan sponsor; and funding relief 
            for commercial airlines, with certain protections for the 
            insurance program.
<greek-D> Reporting and disclosure: Improved disclosure of plan funding 
            to participants in all single-employer plans; reporting of 
            additional information to the PBGC; and disclosure of 
            additional information to participants regarding 
            termination of their plans.
<greek-D> Benefits and guarantees restriction: Restrictions on accruals 
            and lump sums for plans below certain funding levels; 
            guarantee limitations on plant shutdown benefits; and a 
            guarantee freeze when a sponsor enters bankruptcy.
<greek-D> Premiums: An increased flat-rate premium (including indexing 
            for future wage inflation), a more accurate measure of plan 
            underfunding for the variable-rate premium (capped for 
            small employers), and a new termination premium.
<greek-D> Missing Participants: Expansion of the missing participants 
            program to certain plans that previously were not eligible 
            to participate.
Among the provisions that apply to multiemployer plans are:
<greek-D> Plan funding: Accelerated funding requirements for most 
            multiemployer plans, and additional funding rules for plans 
            that are in endangered or critical status.
<greek-D> Disclosure: Improved disclosure of plan funding to 
            participants in all multiemployer plans.
<greek-D> Premiums: An increased flat-rate premium (including indexing 
            for future wage inflation).
<greek-D> Missing Participants: As noted above, terminating 
            multiemployer plans will be covered for the first time 
            under the expanded missing participants program.
Regulatory Objectives and Priorities
The PBGC's regulatory objectives and priorities are developed in the 
context of its statutory purposes: (1) encouraging voluntary private 
pension plans, (2) providing for the timely and uninterrupted payment 
of pension benefits and (3) keeping premiums at the lowest possible 
levels. The PBGC also attempts to minimize administrative burdens on 
plans and participants.
Over the last several years, the PBGC's regulatory priorities have 
focused on changes to improve transparency and to simplify filing with 
the PBGC by increasing use of electronic filing. In making policy, the 
PBGC gives consideration to the special needs and concerns of small 
business. With the passage of the Deficit Reduction Act and the Pension 
Protection Act, the PBGC is now applying this focus to implementation 
of the new laws.
Improve Transparency of Information
The PBGC has been moving forward to improve transparency of information 
to plan participants, investors, and the PBGC, to better inform them 
and to encourage more responsible funding of pension plans. In March 
2005, the PBGC issued a final rule requiring the filing of certain 
additional items of supporting information for plan actuarial 
information and employer financial information that is required of 
certain employers with large amounts of pension underfunding. The PBGC 
is continuing to develop proposed amendments to the regulation that 
requires notice to the PBGC of certain events that threaten plan 
funding. The Pension Protection Act expands disclosure of plan funding 
information to plan participants and consolidates annual disclosure of 
plan funding under the Department of Labor, repealing Section 4011 of 
ERISA, under which some of that reporting has been within the 
jurisdiction of the PBGC. (Accordingly the PBGC is withdrawing from its 
Regulatory Agenda proposed amendments to improve the disclosure of plan 
funding information that certain underfunded plans are required to 
provide in an annual Participant Notice under Section 4011.) The new 
law also contains provisions for disclosure of certain information to 
participants regarding the termination of their underfunded plan.

[[Page 72916]]

Simplify Filing by Increasing Use of Electronic Filing
The PBGC introduced optional electronic filing of premiums in 2004 with 
an online filing system that employs PBGC software. In June 2006, the 
PBGC issued a final rule, effective July 1, 2006, that requires 
electronic filing of premium information for plans with 500 or more 
participants for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2006 and 
for all plans for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2007. The 
PBGC will grant case-by-case exemptions for filers that demonstrate 
good cause. Online filers will have a choice of using private-sector 
software that meets the PBGC's published standards or using the PBGC's 
software. Electronic premium filing will simplify filers' paperwork, 
improve accuracy of the PBGC's premium records and database, and enable 
more prompt payment of premium refunds. The PBGC is incorporating the 
new 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. The PBGC also is developing regulations to address 
implementation of the new termination premium.
Plan actuarial and employer financial information required to be 
reported to the PBGC by employers with large amounts of pension 
underfunding is required to be filed electronically under a final 
regulation issued in March 2005. Electronic filing reduces the filing 
burden, improves accuracy, and better enables the PBGC to monitor and 
manage risks posed by these plans. The PBGC is developing a regulation 
to incorporate changes to the reporting requirements under the Pension 
Protection Act.
Relief for Small Businesses
A large percentage of the plans insured by the PBGC are small or 
maintained by small employers. The PBGC takes the special needs and 
concerns of small entities into account in developing its regulatory 
policies. For example, mandatory electronic filing of premiums will 
apply six months later to plans with fewer than 500 participants than 
to larger plans. Also, the May 2004 proposed revisions to the penalty 
structure for failure to comply with the Participant Notice 
requirements scale down the penalty rate based on the number of plan 
participants. In addition, a regulation implementing the cap on the 
variable-rate premium for plans of small employers will be among the 
first regulations that the PBGC issues under the Pension Protection 
Act.
The PBGC will continue to review its regulations to look for further 
simplification opportunities.
BILLING CODE 7709-01-S

[[Page 72917]]

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 environment for small businesses; 
bridging the competitive opportunity gap facing small business 
entrepreneurs; and providing financial assistance for the restoration 
of homes and businesses 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 programs and services, including 
the Small Business Lending Company and Lender Oversight programs, 
Disaster programs and Size Standards programs.
_______________________________________________________________________
SBA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

136. SMALL BUSINESS LENDING COMPANY AND LENDER OVERSIGHT REGULATIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 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 enacted by the Reauthorization Act.


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 
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 Lender Oversight; (5) transfer existing SBA enforcement 
authority over CDCs from the Office of Financial Assistance to the 
Office of Lender Oversight; and (6) define SBA's 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 will draft regulations 
that strengthen the Agency's management of its business loan and lender 
oversight programs.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Small Business Act, section 23(b)(3).


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                            03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Bryan Hooper
 Associate Administrator, Office Of Lender Oversight
Small Business Administration
409 3rd Street SW
Washington, DC 20416
Phone: 202 205-7443
Fax: 202 205-6831
Email: bryan.hooper@sba.gov
RIN: 3245-AE14

[[Page 72918]]

_______________________________________________________________________
SBA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

137. SIZE FOR PURPOSES OF LONG TERM CONTRACTS; SMALL BUSINESS SIZE 
REGULATIONS; 8(A) BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT/SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS 
STATUS DETERMINATIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 632(a); 15 USC 634(b)(6)


CFR Citation:


13 CFR 121


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule would amend SBA's small business size regulations relating to 
the time at which size is determined for purposes of long term 
contracts. Currently, SBA determines the size of a concern as of the 
date the concern submits a written self-certification that it is small 
to the procuring agency as part of its initial offer. However, this 
practice is problematic because multiple award contracts may have terms 
of 5, 10, or 20 years. Thus, over the contract's duration, the firm may 
grow and no longer qualify as a small business, yet still receive the 
same benefits under the contract reserved exclusively for small 
businesses. SBA proposes to address this situation with this rule.


Statement of Need:


The SBA's small business size regulations (13 CFR 121) are used to 
determine eligibility for all SBA and Federal programs that require a 
concern to be a small business. Currently, SBA's regulations provide 
that SBA determines the size of a concern as of the date the concern 
submits a written self-certification that it is small to the procuring 
agency as part of its initial offer, including price. 13 CFR 121.404. 
Therefore, for a long-term (longer than 5 years) multiple award 
schedule (MAS), Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), multiple agency (MAC), 
or Government-wide Acquisition (GWAC) contract, size is determined as 
of the date of a concern's initial offer, including price. If a concern 
is small as of that date, agencies may place orders pursuant to the 
original contract and consider these orders as awards to a ``small 
business'' for the length of that contract.


For long-term contracts, this has led to skewed and misleading results. 
Such contracts may have terms of five, ten, or twenty years, some even 
longer and can be amended to incorporate goods and services with 
varying size standards, and unlimited quantities. Therefore, orders to 
concerns receiving such contracts would be considered to be awards to 
small business even though a firm had grown to be large (either through 
natural growth or by merger or acquisition) during the term of the 
contract, and even though the firm is not small with respect to the 
size standard corresponding to the work to be performed under a 
particular order.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Small Business Act provides that ``the Administrator may specify 
detailed definitions or standards by which a business concern may be 
determined to be a small business concern for the purposes of this Act 
or any other Act.'' 15 U.S.C. Sec.  632(a)2)(A).


The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has promulgated small 
business size regulations (13 CFR 121) which are used to determine 
eligibility for all SBA and Federal programs that require a concern to 
be a small business.


In addition, SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) decided a size 
appeal relating to an order issued pursuant to the FSS. In Size Appeals 
of SETA Corporation and Federal Emergency Management Agency, SBA No. 
SIZ-4477 (2002), OHA ruled that a request for quotations (RFQ) issued 
pursuant to a FSS contract was a new small business set-aside 
procurement. As such, OHA held that size should be determined as of the 
date of the firm's submission of its certification as an eligible small 
business with its price quotation in response to the RFQ, and not at 
the date of the firm's offer in response to the initial FSS 
solicitation.


Further, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) weighed in on the 
issue in a bid protest. In CMS Information Services, Inc., B-290541 
(Aug. 7, 2002), the procuring agency limited competition to small 
businesses and required businesses to certify their size at the time 
they submitted their quotations. The protester argued that this 
certification requirement was improper because the offerors had each 
certified their size at the time they submitted their initial offer to 
GSA for award of its FSS contract. GAO ruled that when an agency limits 
competition to small business vendors under a competitive RFQ issued 
pursuant to the FSS, the agency may properly require firms to certify 
as to their small business size status as of the time they submit their 
quotations.


In addition, GSA implemented a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 
deviation requiring contractors operating under the MAS Program or any 
other multiple award contract (such as the FAST program in GSA's 
Federal Technology Service), to recertify that the concern qualifies as 
a small business each time their contract is up for renewal. See GSA 
News Release <greek-i> 9991 (November 15, 2002) (available at http://
www.gsa.gov/news).


This evidence indicates that agencies may be counting orders issued 
pursuant to long-term contracts as awards to small businesses when, in 
reality, the order is actually made to an entity other than a small 
business. As a result, agencies, including GSA, are attempting to 
remedy the situation, as are administrative tribunals such as OHA and 
GAO. Consequently, SBA is proposing to revise its regulations at 13 CFR 
121 to specifically address size as it relates to awards issued 
pursuant to long-term contracts.


Alternatives:


SBA considered two alternatives to the proposed rule. The first 
alternative would require that for an agency to count an award issued 
pursuant to a multiple award or schedule contract as an award to a 
small business, the concern must be small as of the date of each order 
(in addition to being small at the time of its self-certification for 
the multiple award or schedule contract). The second alternative would 
require a firm to re-certify its status as a small business at the time 
an option for a long-term contract is exercised. SBA felt that the 
first alternative might require size certifications too often (and 
could delay the procurement process), and that the second alternative 
would require them too infrequently (letting a firm that has been 
purchased by a large business immediately after receiving its long-term 
contract, for example, be considered a small business for almost five 
years after becoming large).


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


As a result of re-certification, SBA estimates that initially, 2300 
concerns will no longer be considered small

[[Page 72919]]

business concerns. As a result, buying activities will have to change 
their contract reporting data systems to reflect this change. If 
contracting agencies utilize an existing data base, the Government's 
On-line Representation and Certification Application (ORCA), as the 
collection medium for small business size re-certifications, no 
additional cost to the Government is anticipated.


But even if contracting agencies need to expand an existing application 
database to accommodate a new data field entry for this material to be 
collected and posted on the agency's website, this should be a one-time 
set-up cost with an approximate 10-year life. SBA estimates that it 
will cost $250 annually. Alternatively, agencies can publish the list 
of re-certifications in the Federal Register. Depending on the number 
of long-term contracts issued by an agency, this could cost an agency 
approximately $250 per year, as well.


SBA estimates that each procuring activity will have a GS-12 employee 
spend approximately one hour each week reviewing and analyzing the re-
certifications. According to the Federal Procurement Data Center, there 
are approximately 59 procuring activities buying goods and services. 
However, only about half of those activities issue long-term contracts.


Thus, approximately 30 agencies will have a GS-12 employee reviewing, 
analyzing and posting re-certifications, if this is the method employed 
by the agency to implement this rule.


30 Agencies x 1 hour = 30 hours/week


30 hours/week x 52 weeks/year = 1,560 hours/year


1,560 hours/year x $30 (GS-12 hourly rate) = $46,800/year


$250 (set-up site) + $46,800 (cost to review for all agencies) = 
$47,050 total cost to the Government to implement per year.


Risks:


This final rule poses no risks to the public health and safety or to 
the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/25/03                    68 FR 20350
NPRM Comment Period End         06/24/03
Final Action                    12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Dean Koppel
Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Planning, and Liaison
Small Business Administration
409 Third Street SW
Washington, DC 20416
Phone: 202 205-7322
Fax: 202 481-1540
Email: dean.koppel@sba.gov
RIN: 3245-AF06
BILLING CODE 8025-01-S

[[Page 72920]]

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 the programs that we administer. Generally, SSA's regulations do 
not impose burdens on the private sector or on State or local 
governments.
Our 14 entries for the Regulatory Plan represent areas of major 
importance to the administration of the retirement, survivors, 
disability, SSI, and Medicare programs. Each individual initiative is 
described more fully after this Statement of Regulatory Priorities. 
Several of these regulatory priorities reflect the provisions of major 
laws that were recently enacted, e.g., Medicare Prescription Drug, 
Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-173), and the 
Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-203). Six of our 14 
entries were recently published in the Federal Register and appear in 
the Completed Actions section of the Unified Agenda.
Improve the Disability Process
As the continued improvement of the disability program is an area of 
vital interest to SSA, we have included in the Plan 7 initiatives that 
address disability.
We are including several initiatives that address issues involving 
attempts by disabled individuals to return to the workforce. A final 
rule would revise several areas of our regulations on the Ticket to 
Work program to improve the support of disabled individuals who want 
and need assistance to return to the workforce. Another final rule 
will, among other changes, require us to issue a receipt when an 
individual receiving disability benefits reports a change in work 
activity or earnings. This rule will also include home schooling as a 
form of regular school attendance for purposes of the Student Earned 
Income Exclusion and reflects provisions of the Social Security 
Protection Act of 2004. This final rule was published on November 17, 
2006. We are including two final rules concerning the continuing 
disability review (CDR) process. One will explain the standards we use 
to evaluate the work activity of an individual receiving disability 
benefits, and when we will conduct a CDR. This final rule was published 
on November 17, 2006. The other amends our regulations to suspend 
disability benefits when a beneficiary fails to cooperate with our 
request for information during a CDR. This final rule was published on 
October 17, 2006.
A final rule would revise the definitions of the age categories we use 
as a criterion in determining disability.
Four initiatives would update the medical listings used to determine 
disability: final rules on digestive system disorders, immune system 
disorders and evaluating visual disorders, and one proposed rule for 
evaluating mental disorders. The final rule on evaluating visual 
disorder published on November 20, 2006. The revisions will ensure that 
the listings reflect advances in medical knowledge, treatment, and 
methods of evaluating these impairments.
Improve Stewardship
SSA bears a responsibility to ensure we are effective stewards of the 
public trust placed in us. We are including in the Plan several 
regulatory initiatives designed to strengthen our stewardship and 
program integrity activities; one also reflects the goal to improve 
financial performance contained in the President's Management Agenda.
For beneficiaries who are not able to manage their own benefits due to 
legal incompetence or medical infirmity, we must assure that benefits 
paid to representatives on their behalf are used properly. We included 
a final rule that reflects provisions of the Social Security Protection 
Act of 2004 intended to strengthen our oversight of the representative 
payee program. This final rule was published on October 18, 2006.
Another final rule will exclude representatives and health care 
providers who are convicted of violating certain criminal statutes 
involving fraud and other matters in the title II or title XVI programs 
from participation in those programs.
A proposed rule would address annual onsite reviews of the facilities 
of consultative examination (CE) providers by State Disability 
Determination Services (DDS). This proposed rule will update the annual 
threshold amount of billing used to select CE providers for review. 
Raising the threshold amount will enable DDS staff to perform this 
review function more efficiently.
Another proposed rule would reflect a provision of the Social Security 
Protection Act of 2004 concerning a requirement that certain non-
citizen workers must meet to establish entitlement to benefits of title 
II of the Act.
Implement Medicare Legislation
SSA does not have overall responsibility for the Medicare program under 
title XVIII of the Social Security Act. However, the Medicare 
Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 directs 
SSA to assist in administering portions of the Medicare program. We 
included in the Plan one final rule that implements the legislation. 
This final rule addresses the reduction of premium subsidies for the 
Supplementary Medical Insurance Benefit program (Medicare part B), and 
was published on October 27, 2006.
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

138. REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING MENTAL DISORDERS (886P)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 405; 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 1383


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1500, app 1; 20 CFR 404.1520; 20 CFR 404.1520a; 20 CFR 
404.1528; 20 CFR 416.920a; 20 CFR 416.928


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 
(SSI) payments based on disability under title XVI of the Social 
Security Act (the 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 disorders as 
affective disorders, schizophrenic disorder, intellectual disabilities, 
and autistic disorders.

[[Page 72921]]

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. They 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:


The administrative cost of this regulation is to be determined.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           03/17/03                    68 FR 12639
ANPRM Comment Period End        06/16/03
NPRM                            01/00/07
Final Action                    11/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Marva Franklin
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Disability Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1293

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-AF69
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
139. ADDITIONAL INSURED STATUS REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN ALIEN WORKERS 
(2882P)

Priority:


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


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 insured status requirement under section 211 of 
Public Law 108-203--the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA)--
for alien workers who were originally assigned a Social Security number 
(SSN) on or after January 1, 2004. Under this law, an alien worker must 
meet either of the following additional requirements to be fully or 
currently insured and to establish entitlement to any title II benefit 
based on his/her earnings:


<bullet> The alien worker must have been issued an SSN for work 
purposes at any time on or after January 1, 2004; or


<bullet> The alien worker must have been admitted to the United States 
at any time as a nonimmigrant visitor for business (immigration 
category ``B-1'') or as an ``alien crewman'' (immigration category ``D-
1'' or ``D-2'').


If an alien worker whose SSN was originally assigned on or after 
January 1, 2004, does not meet either of these requirements, then he/
she is not fully or currently insured; thus entitlement is precluded. 
This is true even if the alien worker appears to have the required 
number of quarters of coverage (QCs) in accordance with the regular 
insured status provisions. While the additional insured status 
requirement applies directly to certain alien workers, it also affects 
the entitlement of any person seeking a benefit on the record of an 
alien who is subject to this law.


An alien worker who was properly assigned a SSN before January 1, 2004, 
is not subject to section 211 of the SSPA.


Statement of Need:


We are codifying the statutory changes in our rules even though we have 
already implemented section 211 of the SSPA by issuing instructions to 
claims adjudicators in our Program Operations Manual System (POMS). 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 are needed to implement 
section 211 of the SSPA.


Alternatives:


None


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Administrative start-up costs were nominal since we already implemented 
the law via POMS instructions and adjudicator training. No systems 
changes were 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.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/07
Final Action                    02/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None

[[Page 72922]]

Agency Contact:
Jessica Burns
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
140. [bull] CONSULTATIVE EXAMINATION - ANNUAL ONSITE REVIEW BY DDSS 
(3338P)

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


42 USC 421(a)(1)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1519s; 20 CFR 416.919s


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We are amending our regulations to reflect the impact of inflation 
since 1991 when they were implemented. We propose to change the 
threshold amount to require the State disability determination services 
(DDSs) to perform an onsite review of consultative examination (CE) 
providers from $100,000 to $150,000.


Statement of Need:


The change to these regulations is necessary to update the threshold 
amount of annual billing by CE providers that will trigger mandatory 
onsite review by DDS staff. The workload associated with the regulatory 
requirement to perform onsite reviews at the largest CE providers has 
increased substantially due to inflation since 1991. Therefore, mid-
tier and even smaller CE providers are now receiving mandatory onsite 
reviews. The change will restore the onsite review program to its 
intended purpose; to perform onsite review at the very large CE 
providers to ensure that those providers have facilities which meet SSA 
standards.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative--Not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


We considered not raising the amount, but determined that requiring 
onsite review for all CE providers with billings of $100,000 or more is 
an unnecessary burden for State DDSs and does not provide better 
service to the public.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


There are no additional costs. The change would lower the number of 
required onsite reviews. The expectation is the DDS personnel would 
have the flexibility to perform optional reviews and complete other 
higher priority work.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/00/07
Final Action                    01/00/08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Chuck Urban
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Disability Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-9029
RIN: 0960-AG41
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

141. REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING IMPAIRMENTS OF THE 
DIGESTIVE SYSTEM (800F)

Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 405; 42 USC 1302; 42 USC 1383


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1500, app 1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Sections 5.00 and 105.00, Digestive Disorders, of appendix 1 subpart P 
of part 404 of our regulations (404.1501 through 404.1599) describe 
those digestive impairments 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 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. The SSI program 
incorporates by reference and uses the same medical criteria as the 
old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are necessary to update the digestive listings to 
reflect advances in medical knowledge, treatment, and methods of 
evaluating digestive impairments. They 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 thus, 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. Portions of the current listings are now over 20 
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:


To be determined.


Risks:


None.

[[Page 72923]]

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/14/01                    66 FR 57009
NPRM Comment Period End         01/14/02
NPRM Comment Period 
    Reopened                    11/08/04                    69 FR 64702
Comment Period End              01/07/05
Final Action                    01/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Nancy Torkas
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Disability Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-1744

Suzanne DiMarino
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Phone: 410 965-1769
RIN: 0960-AF28
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
142. REVISED MEDICAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING IMMUNE SYSTEM DISORDERS 
(804F)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 405; 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 1383


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1500, app 1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We will update and revise the rules that we use to evaluate immune 
system disorders of adults and children who apply for, or receive, 
disability benefits under title II and Supplemental Security Income 
(SSI) payments based on disability under title XVI of the Social 
Security Act (the Act). The rules we will revise are sections 14.00 and 
114.00 in the Listing of Impairments in appendix 1 to subpart P of part 
404 of our regulations (the listings). These listings include such 
disorders as HIV/AIDS, systemic lupus erythematosus, and inflammatory 
arthritis.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are necessary to update the listings for evaluating 
immune system disorders to reflect advances in medical knowledge, 
treatment, and methods of evaluating these diseases. They ensure the 
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. The current listings 
are now over 13 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:


We anticipate that if finalized, these proposed rules will result in 
negligible program and administrative costs.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           05/09/03                    68 FR 24896
ANPRM Comment Period End        07/08/03
NPRM                            08/04/06                    71 FR 44431
NPRM Comment Period End         10/03/06
Final Action                    08/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Paul J. Scott
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Disability Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 966-1192

Suzanne DiMarino
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Phone: 410 965-1769
RIN: 0960-AF33
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
143. MANDATORY EXCLUSION OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND REPRESENTATIVES 
FROM PARTICIPATING IN PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY SSA, INCLUDING 
REPRESENTATIVE PAYMENT (954F)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 106-169, sec 208; 42 USC 1320b-6


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1503b; 20 CFR 416.903b


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This final rule will exclude representatives and health care providers 
who are convicted of violating certain criminal statutes involving 
fraud and other matters in the title II or title XVI programs 
administered by SSA, or who are assessed a civil monetary penalty for 
making false or misleading statements related to such programs, from 
participation in those programs. The minimum exclusion period is five 
years, but exclusions can be permanent.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are necessary to clarify how SSA will implement 
Section 1136 of the Social Security Act, which requires exclusion of 
representative and health care providers who have committed fraud in 
SSA programs.

[[Page 72924]]

Summary of Legal Basis:


These regulations implement Section 1136 of the Social Security Act 
which was added by Section 208 of Public Law 106-169.


Alternatives:


None--Required by legislation.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Any administrative costs are attributable to the legislation and not to 
the regulation itself.


Risks:


At this time we have not identified any risks associated with this 
proposal.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/02/04                    69 FR 40338
NPRM Comment Period End         08/31/04
Final Action                    03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Chuck Urban
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Disability Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-9029

Suzanne DiMarino
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Phone: 410 965-1769
RIN: 0960-AF85
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
144. AMENDMENTS TO THE TICKET TO WORK AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROGRAM 
(967F)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 1320b-19; PL 106-170, sec 101


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 411.110; 20 CFR 411.120 to 411.155; 20 CFR 411.165; 20 CFR 
411.166; 20 CFR 411.170; 20 CFR 411.171; 20 CFR 411.175; 20 CFR 
411.180; 20 CFR 411.190; 20 CFR 411.191; 20 CFR 411.210; 20 CFR 
411.325; 20 CFR 411.350 to 411.370; 20 CFR 411.385 to 411.390; 20 CFR 
411.500 to 411.515; 20 CFR 411.525 to 411.565; 20 CFR 411.566; 20 CFR 
411.575 to 411.590


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These final rules will revise our current rules that implement the 
Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program under section 1148 of the 
Social Security Act. The rules will expand beneficiary eligibility to 
receive tickets under this program; clarify the rules for assignment of 
a beneficiary's ticket to a State vocational rehabilitation (VR) 
agency; revise the rules for payment when a beneficiary receives 
services from both a State VR agency and an employment network (EN); 
and, consistent with the Commissioner's authority in section 1148(h) of 
the Act, revise the rules for milestone and outcome payments, in order 
to increase the incentives for providers of employment services, 
vocational rehabilitation services, and other support services to 
participate in this program.


Statement of Need:


These final rules are necessary to respond to our experience and the 
recommendations we have received since we began implementation of the 
Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program in February 2002. These 
changes are intended to increase the incentives for providers of 
employment, vocational rehabilitation services, and other support 
services to participate in this program, and to expand the options 
available to beneficiaries with disabilities to obtain services to 
assist them to go to work and attain self-sufficiency.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


We considered not revising the current regulations implementing the 
Ticket to Work program. However, we believe that these revisions to the 
eligibility to receive a ticket, the clarification of the rules for 
assignment of a ticket to a State VR agency, and the amendment of the 
rules for paying ENs are necessary to increase participation in the 
Ticket to Work program by both service providers and the beneficiaries 
with disabilities. This will increase the opportunities for the 
beneficiaries to seek the services necessary to obtain and retain 
employment and reduce their dependency on cash benefit programs.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We anticipate initial costs to increase due to up-front payments to 
ENs, and then increased program savings in later years as ENs assist 
more beneficiaries to achieve self-sufficiency and reduce dependency on 
cash benefit programs, including the Supplemental Security Income and 
Social Security Disability Insurance programs.


Risks:


At this time, we have not identified any risks associated with this 
proposal.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/30/05                    70 FR 57222
NPRM Comment Period End         12/29/05
Final Action                    12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State


Agency Contact:
Dan O'Brien
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Employment Support Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 597-1632

Suzanne DiMarino
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Regulations
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Phone: 410 965-1769
RIN: 0960-AF89
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
145. AGE AS A FACTOR IN EVALUATING DISABILITY (3183F)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 221(a); 42 USC 221(i); 42 USC 222(c); 42 USC 402; 42 USC 405(a); 
42

[[Page 72925]]

USC 405(b); 42 USC 405(d) to 405(h); 42 USC 416i; 42 USC 423; 42 USC 
902(a)(5); 42 USC 1382; 42 USC 1382(h); 42 USC 1382b(a); 42 USC 
1382b(c); 42 USC 1382c; 42 USC 1383(a); 42 USC 1383(c)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1562 to 404.1563; 20 CFR 404.1568; 20 CFR 404, subpart P, 
app 2; 20 CFR 416.962; 20 CFR 416.963; 20 CFR 416.968


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These final rules will revise the definitions of the age categories we 
use as one of the criteria in determining disability under titles II 
and XVI of the Social Security Act (the Act). The changes reflect our 
adjudicative experience, advances in medical treatment and healthcare, 
changes in the workforce since we originally published our rules for 
considering age in 1978, and current and future increases in the full 
retirement age under Social Security law. The changes will not affect 
the rules under part 404 of our regulations for individuals age 55 or 
older who have statutory blindness. They also will not affect our other 
rules that are dependent on age, such as the age at which you can 
qualify for early retirement benefits or for Medicare as a retired 
individual.


Statement of Need:


These changes are needed to ensure that our regulations are as up-to-
date as possible. We have not substantively revised the age categories 
we use for determining disability since we first published them more 
than 25 years ago.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Administrative. Not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


To be determined.


Risks:


At this time, we have not identified any risks to this proposal.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            11/04/05                    70 FR 67101
NPRM Comment Period End         01/03/06
Final Action                    12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Art Spencer
Office Director
Social Security Administration
Office of Disability Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 966-5766

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-AG29
BILLING CODE 4191-02-S

[[Page 72926]]

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> participates in the development or revision of voluntary 
            product safety standards;
<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; and
<bullet> develops information and education campaigns about the safety 
            of consumer products.
When deciding which of these approaches to take in any specific case, 
the Commission gathers the best available data about the nature and 
extent of the hazard presented by the product. The Commission then 
analyzes this information to determine the best way to reduce the 
hazard in each case. 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.
The Commission's statutory authority requires it to rely on voluntary 
standards rather than mandatory standards whenever a voluntary standard 
is likely to result in the elimination or adequate reduction of the 
risk of injury and it is likely that there will be substantial 
compliance with the voluntary standard. As a result, much of the 
Commission's work involves cooperative efforts with other participants 
in the voluntary standard-setting process rather than promulgating 
mandatory standards.
In fiscal year 2007, the Commission's significant rulemaking activity 
will involve addressing risks of fire associated with ignition of 
upholstered furniture. The emphasis on this rulemaking activity in the 
Commission's FY 2007 regulatory plan is consistent with the 
Commission's statutory mandate and its criteria for setting priorities.
_______________________________________________________________________
CPSC

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

146. 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 June 15, 1994, the Commission published an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to begin a proceeding for development of a 
flammability standard to address risks of death, injury, and property 
damage from fires associated with ignition of upholstered furniture by 
small open-flame sources such as matches, lighters, or candles. CPSC 
staff conducted research and developed a draft flammability performance 
standard. The draft standard was first presented to stakeholders at a 
1996 ASTM voluntary standards meeting. The staff also worked with 
industry and voluntary standards groups to develop possible 
alternatives to a Federal rule.


In 1998, the Commission held a public hearing to gather additional 
information beyond that available to the agency on the potential 
toxicity, health risks, and environmental effects associated with 
flame-retardant chemicals that might be used to meet a standard. In 
CPSC's 1999 appropriations legislation, Congress directed the 
Commission to contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for 
an independent study of potential health hazards associated with the 
use of flame retardant chemicals that might be used in upholstered 
furniture fabrics to meet a CPSC standard. The final NAS report was 
published in July 2000. The report concluded that of 16 flame-retardant 
chemicals reviewed, 8 could be used in upholstered furniture fabrics 
without presenting health hazards to consumers.


In 2002, the staff held a public meeting to receive any new technical 
information and recommendations from interested parties on the project. 
In 2003, the staff forwarded a package to the Commission analyzing the 
information received at the meeting and a package recommending that the 
Commission expand its proceeding to cover both small open flame and 
cigarette ignition risks.


On October 23, 2003, the Commission issued a new ANPRM expanding the 
scope of the proceeding to include both cigarette and small open flame-
ignited fire risks. The staff held a public meeting to discuss public 
comments on April 9, 2004. The staff developed revised drafts of the 
standard addressing both cigarette and small open flame ignition, and 
held public meetings on October 28, 2004 and May 18, 2005 to present 
and discuss the revised drafts. On January 31, 2006, the staff sent a 
status report to the Commission. The next step is for staff to prepare 
a briefing package for the Commission.


CPSC is also considering possible impacts of flame-retardant chemical 
use on worker safety and the environment. At the CPSC staff's request, 
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health studied 
potential worker exposure to and risks from certain flame-retardant 
chemicals that may be used by textile and furniture producers to comply 
with an upholstered furniture flammability standard. NIOSH 
preliminarily concluded that significant worker health effects were 
unlikely. CPSC staff is also working with the Environmental Protection 
Agency to (a) develop a significant new use rule (SNUR) for flame-
retardant compounds used in residential upholstered furniture fabrics 
under that agency's Toxic Substances Control Act Authority, and (b) 
identify and encourage the use of environmentally-preferable flame 
retardants under a Design for the Environment industry/government 
partnership. The Design for the

[[Page 72927]]

Environment report was published in September 2005.


Statement of Need:


For 1999-2002, an annual average of approximately 4,800 residential 
fires in which upholstered furniture was the first item to ignite 
resulted in an estimated 360 deaths, 740 civilian injuries, and about 
$133 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 $2.1 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 $2.1 billion 
for 1999-2002. 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 $2.1 billion for 1999-2002. 
Societal costs associated with upholstered furniture fires are among 
the highest associated with any product subject to the Commission's 
authority. A standard has the potential to reduce these societal costs.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           06/15/94                    59 FR 30735
ANPRM Comment Period End        08/15/94
Staff Briefing of 
    Commission on NPRM          12/18/97
Commission Voted To Defer 
    Action Pending 
    Results of Toxicity 
    Hearing                     03/02/98
Commission Hearing May 5 
    & 6, 1998 on Possible 
    Toxicity of Flame 
    Retardant Chemicals         03/17/98                    63 FR 13017
NAS Study Completed 
    (Required by 
    Congress)                   07/10/00
Staff Sent Briefing 
    Package to Commission       11/01/01
Meeting Notice                  03/20/02                    67 FR 12916
Staff Held Public Meeting       06/18/02
Second Day of Public 
    Meeting                     06/19/02
Staff Sent Analysis of 
    Information From 
    Public Meeting to the 
    Commission                  02/06/03
Staff Sent Regulatory 
    Options to Commission       07/12/03
Notice of September 24 
    Public Meeting              08/27/03                    68 FR 51564
Commission Decision             10/17/03
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 Briefing 
    Package to Commission       11/03/06
Technical Reports 
    Provided to 
    Commission                  12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


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 72928]]

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD (FHFB)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
 The Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) is an independent 
agency that is charged under the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) 
with supervising and regulating the Nation's Federal Home Loan Bank 
(Bank) System. The Bank System comprises 12 regional cooperative Banks 
that are owned by their respective member financial institutions. The 
Banks provide wholesale credit to members and certain nonmembers to be 
used for mortgage lending and related community lending activities. The 
Banks also acquire mortgage assets from members as a means of advancing 
their housing finance mission. The Bank System also includes the Office 
of Finance, which issues Bank System consolidated obligations. The 
Finance Board is required to prepare a regulatory plan pursuant to 
section 4 of Executive Order 12866. At this time, the Finance Board 
does not anticipate taking any significant regulatory or deregulatory 
actions during 2007 that would be required to be included in a 
regulatory plan.
The Finance Board's highest regulatory priorities during 2007 continue 
to be to ensure the safety and soundness of the Bank System and to 
ensure that the Banks fulfill their housing finance and community 
investment mission. In furtherance of these statutory mandates, the 
Finance Board expects to consider regulations that will:
<bullet> Streamline the Finance Board's review of new business 
            activities proposed by a Bank to more clearly focus the 
            regulatory review process on ensuring that a new product, 
            service, or activity will not endanger the continued safe 
            and sound operation of the Bank.
<bullet> Streamline the community support requirements to eliminate 
            unnecessary regulatory burden, while preserving the 
            statutory intent of ensuring that members' access to long-
            term advances reflects such factors as their record of 
            performance under the Community Reinvestment Act and their 
            record of lending to first-time homebuyers.
<bullet> Streamline the regulations governing the Banks' acquired 
            member asset programs, to make the provisions less 
            prescriptive while preserving the key provisions relating 
            to safety and soundness and advancement of the Banks' 
            housing finance mission.
<bullet> Update the regulations relating to the capital structure of 
            the Banks to enhance their safety and soundness by ensuring 
            that the amount and composition of their capital is 
            appropriate in light of the risks undertaken in the course 
            of their lines of business.
<bullet> Improve the regulations relating to the investments made by 
            the Banks to coordinate with the repeal of the provisions 
            of the Financial Management Policy that currently govern 
            Bank investment portfolios.
BILLING CODE 6725-01-S

[[Page 72929]]

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, fosters economic 
efficiencies, and promotes international harmony.
The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 continues to impact the Federal 
regulatory scheme regarding international ocean shipping. The 
legislation required new regulations, as well as the revision of many 
of the Commission's substantive regulations. The Commission continues 
to assess its regulations implementing this legislation.
The Commission is presently in the process of a comprehensive review of 
Commission regulations to ensure alignment with emerging industry 
trends and business practices, particularly as they relate to ocean 
transportation intermediaries and vessel-operating common carriers. It 
is likely that proposals for change to certain Commission regulations 
will come from that examination. In addition, the Commission 
anticipates an automated Form FMC-18 system to be implemented in phases 
throughout FY 2006 and 2007.
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 has received a number of comments in response 
to its rulemaking proposal to update the nonperformance coverage, and 
the Commission is continuing its review of these comments as well as 
the other matters submitted in this proceeding.
The principal objective or priority of the Agency's current regulatory 
plan will be to continue to assess major existing regulations for 
continuing need, burden on the regulated industry, and clarity. The 
Commission also receives requests from the public seeking new 
regulations or modifications of existing regulations. If circumstances 
so warrant, the Commission on its own initiative, or upon request, will 
institute an appropriate rulemaking proceeding.
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 6730-01-S

[[Page 72930]]

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 ractices'' 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 thirteen 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 in several areas. As detailed below, privacy, 
information security, and information sharing continue to be at the 
forefront of the Commission's consumer protection program:
(a) On November 6-9, 2006, the Federal Trade Commission hosted hearings 
on ``Protecting Consumers in the Next Tech-ade.'' The FTC plans to 
bring together experts from the business, government, and technology 
sectors, consumer advocates, academicians, and law enforcement 
officials to explore the ways in which convergence and the 
globalization of commerce impact consumer protection. These hearings 
will provide an opportunity to examine changes that have occurred in 
marketing and technology over the past decade, and to garner experts' 
views on coming challenges and opportunities for consumers, businesses, 
and governmental bodies.
(b) To encourage better cybersecurity practices, the Commission has 
partnered with other agencies and organizations to launch a website 
called OnGuardOnline.gov which provides practical tips from the Federal 
Government and the technology industry to help consumers be on guard 
against Internet fraud, secure their computer, and protect their 
personal information.
(c) The Commission has also undertaken efforts to educate consumers 
about the risks associated with downloading and using peer-to-peer 
file-sharing (P2P) software programs. A March 2005 ``Cyber Security 
Tip'' warns consumers that use of P2P technology presents a number of 
risks, including the installation of malicious code, exposure of 
sensitive or personal information, susceptibility of the consumer's 
computer to attack, and exposure to legal liability. In a June 2005 
report, the FTC staff encouraged implementation of industry proposals 
regarding risk disclosures and will continue to monitor this area. See 
Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing Technology: Consumer Protection and 
Competition Issues Staff Report Federal Trade Commission (June 2005), 
available at http://www.ftc.gov/reports/p2p05/ 050623p2prpt.pdf.
(d) During November 2004, the Commission convened an E-mail 
Authentication Summit, co-sponsored by the National Institute of 
Standards at the Commerce Department. Since then, the Commission has 
been encouraging the development of a compatible authentication 
standard that would provide accountability for e-mail communication.
(e) The Commission also explored the consumer protection and privacy 
implications of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) at a public forum 
and subsequently published a staff report recommending that industry 
initiatives that are transparent could play an important role in 
addressing privacy concerns raised by certain RFID applications. See 
RFID: Radio Frequency IDentification: Applications and Implications for 
Consumers: A Workshop Report From the Staff of the Federal Trade 
Commission (March 2005), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2005/ 03/
050308rfidrpt.pdf. The report also recommended that industry self-
regulatory programs should include meaningful accountability provisions 
to help ensure compliance.
(f) The Commission held a 2004 public workshop on spyware which when 
surreptitiously installed on a personal computer, can wreak havoc by 
highlighting the browser, launching a barrage of pop-up ads, extracting 
sensitive personal information, or rendering the computer unusable. 
Following the workshop, the Commission released a staff workshop report 
concluding in part that industry should develop standards for defining 
spyware and disclosing information about it to consumers, expand 
efforts to educate consumers about spyware risks and help law 
enforcement efforts. See Spyware Workshop: Monitoring Software On Your 
Personal Computer: Spyware, Adware, and Other Software Staff Report 
Federal Trade Commission (March 2005), available at http://www.ftc.gov/
os/2005/ 03/050307spywarerpt.pdf.
(g) With respect to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act 
(COPPA), the Commission has approved the safe harbor programs of four 
organizations

[[Page 72931]]

whose self-regulatory guidelines and programs protect children's 
privacy to the same or greater extent as COPPA. The organizations with 
these programs include the Children's Advertising Review Unit of the 
Council of Better Business Bureaus (CARU), an arm of the advertising 
industry's self-regulatory program; the Entertainment Software Rating 
Board (ESRB); TRUSTe, an Internet privacy seal program; and Privo, Inc.
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 set in 
place 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 five reports on these 
three industries, examining compliance with their own voluntary 
marketing guidelines. In 2004, the Commission issued the latest of a 
series of reports on industry practices. Although the Commission found 
that violent R-rated movies and M-rated games were still being 
advertised in media with large teen audiences, the Commission's review 
reveals that the movie and game industries continue to comply, for the 
most part, with their self-regulatory limits on ad placement. The 
recording industry, however, is an example of a less successful self-
regulatory attempt. The Commission recommended in its latest report 
that all three industries continue to improve compliance with existing 
ad placement guidelines and rating information practices and consider 
developing ``best practices'' to avoid advertising in venues popular 
with teen audiences. The reports also examined the extent to which 
underage consumers can buy rated or labeled products. Even though the 
movie theater industry has made real progress in this area, and to a 
lesser extent so have game retailers, the Commission also noted that 
there remains room for improvement in retailers' practices because the 
Commission found that teens could still purchase rated or labeled 
entertainment products at a significant number of stores and theaters. 
See Federal Trade Commission, Marketing Violent Entertainment to 
Children: A Fourth Follow-Up Review of Industry Practices in the Motion 
Picture, Music Recording & Electronic Game Industries A Report to 
Congress (July 2004), http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/ 07/
040708kidsviolencerpt.pdf. Most recently, the Commission has issued 
consumer education materials to assist parents in understanding video 
game ratings. The Commission plans to issue another report in this area 
by the end of 2006.
The Commission has encouraged the actions of 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 continues to 
encourage companies in the alcohol industry to engage in self-
regulation to ensure that advertising for products containing alcohol 
is not directed at underage youths. The Commission has worked and will 
continue to work with industry to facilitate compliance with the self-
regulatory standards announced in the FTC's 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. However, to ensure that self-regulation is working 
and whether changes need to be made with those guidelines to ensure 
their continued viability, the Commission announced in March 2006 that 
it will be conducting a new study of these alcohol industry self-
regulatory programs. The Commission has requested approval from The 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue compulsory process 
orders to leading alcohol companies and request information from 
advertisers. The OMB clearance process requires that the Commission 
publish two notices in the Federal Register requesting comments on the 
proposal. The agency anticipates issuing the orders in Fall 2006 and 
completing its report in Spring 2007.
The Commission will also launch an alcohol consumer education program, 
www.dontserveteens.gov, in late Summer 2006. The program communicates 
the message that responsible adults do not serve alcohol to teens 
because it is unsafe, irresponsible, and illegal, and it includes a 
website, television and radio public service announcements and print 
material to be posted in alcohol retail outlets. Throughout the 
remainder of 2006 and 2007, the Commission will engage in outreach to 
promote effective dissemination of this message.
In the weight loss product advertising area, the Commission has 
consistently proposed a strengthened self-regulatory response from the 
industry and more media oversight to address the problem of facially 
false efficacy claims. Specifically, the Commission authorized the 
release of a media reference guide to assist media in identifying 
facially false weight-loss advertising. Federal Trade Commission Staff, 
Red Flag: A Reference Guide for Media on Bogus Weight Loss Claim 
Detection (2003), available at: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/online/ pubs/
buspubs/redflag.pdf. The Commission asked the media to refuse to run 
advertisements that make ``Red Flag'' claims. The media appears to be 
responding to this challenge, as shown by a follow-up report that 
analyzed data gathered during 2004. See 2004 Weight Loss Advertising 
Survey Staff Report Federal Trade Commission (April 2005), available at 
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2005/04/ 050411weightlosssurvey04.pdf. The FTC's 
survey of weight loss advertisements found that the number of ads with 
red flag claims had fallen from almost 50% to 15%. In addition, the FTC 
has encouraged a joint effort by the Electronic Retailing Association 
and the Better Business Bureau's National Advertising Review Council to 
develop a self-regulatory program that could promptly address deceptive 
infomercial claims.
To address concerns about the nation's growing childhood obesity 
problem, the Commission and the Department of Health and Human Services 
(HHS) released a report during 2006 recommending concrete steps that 
industry can take to change their marketing and other practices to make 
progress against childhood obesity. See Perspectives On Marketing, 
Self-Regulation, & Childhood Obesity: A Report on a Joint Workshop of 
the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Health and Human 
Services (April 2006) (materials available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/
2006/ 05/PerspectivesOnMarketingSelf-Regulation%26ChildhoodObesity 
FTCandHHSReport onJointWorkshop.pdf). This report was the product of a 
joint FTC-HHS workshop in June 2005 that brought together a wide range 
of speakers to examine ways, including self-regulation, to promote 
competition among food manufacturers to produce and promote healthier 
food choices for children (materials are available at http://
www.ftc.gov/bcp /workshops/ foodmarketingtokids/). The 2006 Report

[[Page 72932]]

noted that the current Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU) Guides 
are a good foundation for industry self-regulation, but the agencies 
recommended that the Guides be expanded and their enforcement enhanced. 
The Report noted that both agencies plan to monitor closely progress on 
these recommendations.
Finally, the Commission continues to apply the Textile Corporate 
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, 89 companies have been granted ``leniency'' for self-
reported minor violations of FTC textile regulations.
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 part 453, so that they can 
meet the rule's disclosure requirements. Approximately 234 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 part 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 will offer franchisees the opportunity to 
mediate claims arising from the law violations. Since December 1998, 18 
companies have agreed to participate in the program.
Rulemakings and Studies Required by Statute
In 2003, the Congress 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); 
the 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); and the rulemaking pursuant to the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation Improvements Act of 1991, Pub. L. 102-242. These 
rulemakings are proceeding and are described more extensively in the 
Unified Agenda. The Final Actions section below describes any final 
actions taken on these rulemakings.
On August 8, 2005, the President signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
which required the Commission to complete two rulemakings while 
authorizing other discretionary rulemaking actions. Pursuant to this 
statute, the Commission was required to initiate a rulemaking within 90 
days of enactment examining the effectiveness of the energy efficiency 
related consumer product labeling program. Further, the Commission was 
required to complete this rulemaking within two years of enactment. The 
statute also required the Commission to issue labeling requirements for 
ceiling fans concerning the electricity used by the fans to circulate 
air in a room. The rulemakings for appliance labeling effectiveness and 
for ceiling fan labeling are proceeding according to schedule. The 
statute also amended the statutory definitions of some covered lighting 
products that may require the Commission to make conforming amendments 
to the current rule. The statute also authorizes the Commission or the 
Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE), as appropriate, to require 
labels for a number of products. The Commission and DOE are consulting 
about how to proceed in this area. Another section of the Act gives the 
Commission discretionary authority to issue retail electricity rules 
related to slamming (unauthorized account switches), cramming 
(unauthorized charges), and privacy.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also required the Commission to conduct 
an investigation to determine if the price of gasoline was being 
artificially raised by reducing refinery capacity or by any other form 
of market manipulation or price gouging practices. In addition, in 
Section 632 of the Commission's appropriations legislation for fiscal 
year 2006, Congress directed the Commission to investigate nationwide 
gasoline prices and possible price gouging in the aftermath of 
Hurricane Katrina. Because the issues raised by these two statutory 
commands were closely related, the Commission conducted a single 
investigation in response to these directives. On May 11, 2006, the 
Commission issued a report entitled ``Investigation of Gasoline Price 
Manipulation and Post-Katrina Gasoline Price Increases'', which can be 
found at http://www.ftc.gov/reports/ 060518PublicGasolinePrices 
InvestigationReportFinal.pdf. In its investigation, the FTC found no 
instances of illegal market manipulation that led to higher prices 
during the relevant time periods but found 15 examples of pricing at 
the refining, wholesale, or retail level that fit the relevant 
legislation's definition of evidence of ``price gouging.'' Other 
factors such as regional or local market trends, however, appeared to 
explain these firms' prices in nearly all cases. Further, the report 
reiterated the FTCs position that federal gasoline price gouging 
legislation, in addition to being difficult to enforce, could cause 
more problems for consumers than it solves, and that competitive market 
forces should be allowed to determine the price of gasoline drivers pay 
at the pump.
Other New Regulatory Activities
After issuing a staff advisory opinion indicating that the Commission's 
current Guides for Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter Industries, 16 
CFR part 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. Staff is reviewing the comments and 
expects to make recommendations to the Commission by the end of 2006.
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

[[Page 72933]]

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. 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 often 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 2005-06 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. During early 2006, the Commission announced its 
ten-year schedule of review and that it would initiate the review of 
two rules and one guide during 2006: (1) the Test Procedures and 
Labeling Standards for Recycled Oil Rule (the Recycled Oil Rule), 16 
CFR part 311, (2) the Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule (the 
Used Motor Vehicle Rule), 16 CFR part 455, and (3) Guides for the 
Nursery Industry (the Nursery Guides), 16 CFR part 18. 70 FR 77077 
(Dec. 29, 2005). For the Recycled Oil Rule, the Commission requested 
comments on July 6, 2006, on whether to retain or amend the Rule. 71 FR 
38322. The notice asked nine specific questions about the rule that the 
public may wish to address. The comment period ended on September 5, 
2006, and staff plans to forward its recommendation to the Commission 
in early 2007. For the Used Motor Vehicle Rule, staff anticipates that 
the Commission will issue a request for comments on whether to retain 
or amend the Rule by early 2007. Finally, the Commission plans to issue 
a similar request for comments relating to the Nursery Guides by the 
end of 2006.
Ongoing Reviews
The Commission staff is continuing its review of several rules and 
guides. First, for the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 FR part 310, 
the Commission published an NPRM on November 17, 2004, proposing to 
allow prerecorded messages in certain defined situations, seeking 
comments regarding a possible change in the method used to calculate 
the percentage of abandoned calls, and announcing the agency's 
forbearance from enforcing the Commission's current call abandonment 
provisions against callers who engage in prerecorded message 
telemarketing as long as they complied with the proposed change. 69 FR 
67287. The comment period ended on January 10, 2005. On October 4, 
2006, the Commission issued a revised NPRM concerning these issues. 71 
FR 58716. The revised and extended comment period ends on December 18, 
2006. 71 FR 65762. The Commission proposes making explicit that the TSR 
prevents 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 NPRM also proposes to change the method for measuring the maximum 
allowable call abandonment rate in the call abandonment safe harbor 
provision from ``3% per day per calling campaign'' to ``3% per 30-day 
period per calling campaign.'' The Commission also announced that the 
Commission will no longer forbear after January 2, 2007, from 
initiating enforcement actions for violations of the TSR's call 
abandonment provision against companies that use prerecorded messages.
Second, in the review of the Franchise Rule, 16 CFR part 436, the 
Commission announced on August 25, 2004, the issuance of a staff 
report, Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning 
Franchising, which summarizes the rulemaking record to date, analyzes 
the various alternatives, and sets forth the staff's recommendations to 
the Commission on the various proposed amendments to the Franchise 
Rule, 69 FR 53661 (Sept. 2, 2004). The Commission did not review or 
approve the staff report. Among other things, staff proposes that the 
Commission retain the Franchise Rule while updating it to account for 
new technologies and to provide prospective franchisees with more 
disclosure about the nature of the franchise relationship, while 
minimizing the discrepancies between Federal and State law. Public 
comments were accepted until November 12, 2004. Staff is reviewing the 
comments and anticipates sending its recommendation to the Commission 
by Fall 2006.
Third, the proposed Business Opportunities Rule stems from the ongoing 
review of the Franchise Rule, where staff recommended that the 
Franchise Rule be split into two parts; one part addressing franchise 
issues and one part addressing business opportunity issues. Thereafter, 
the Commission published an NPRM seeking comments on the proposed 
Business Opportunities 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. Staff anticipates publishing a report 
by the end of 2007.
Fourth, for the rulemakings on the Fair and Accurate Credit 
Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA), the Commission has three active 
proposals, including:
(A) Furnisher Rules--The Commission, in coordination with the banking 
agencies and the National Credit Union Administration, issued an ANPRM 
for proposed 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. 71 FR 14419 (Mar. 22, 2006). The 
comment period closed on

[[Page 72934]]

May 22, 2006, and the agencies are now assessing the comments.
(B) Identity Theft Red Flags Rules--The Commission and the banking 
agencies jointly published proposed rules that would, among other 
things, require card issuers to investigate requests for card changes 
and would require credit report users to investigate when the address 
on a credit report differs from the address on a credit application. 71 
FR 40786 (Jul. 18, 2006). The comment period closed on September 18, 
2006, and the agencies are reviewing the comments.
(C) Risk Based Pricing Rule--The Commission jointly with the Federal 
Reserve expects to publish a risk-based pricing proposal for comment by 
the end of 2006. This statutorily-required rulemaking would address the 
form, content, time, manner, definitions, exceptions, and model of a 
risk-based pricing notice.
Fifth, for the Hart-Scott-Rodino Premerger Notification Rules (HSR 
Rules), Bureau of Competition staff is continuing to review various HSR 
Rule provisions. Staff anticipates sending its recommendation to the 
Commission by Fall 2007.
Sixth, for the Rules on the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited 
Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (the CAN-SPAM Act Rules), the 
Commission issued an NPRM on May 12, 2005, that proposed rule 
provisions on five discretionary topics: (1) defining 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 Post Office boxes and private 
mailboxes established pursuant to United States Postal Service 
regulations constitute ``valid physical postal addresses'' within the 
meaning of the Act; (4) shortening from ten days to three the time a 
sender may take before honoring a recipient's opt-out request; and (5) 
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. 
70 FR 25426. The comment period closed on June 27, 2005, and staff 
anticipates sending a final recommendation to the Commission by late 
2006.
Seventh, for the rulemaking on Privacy of Consumer Financial 
Information, 16 CFR part 313, the Commission and banking agencies 
published an ANPRM and requested public comments on a variety of 
subjects including the goals, language, and mandatory or permissible 
aspects of privacy notices. 68 FR 75164 (Dec. 30, 2003). Since the 
issuance of rules in 2000 in accordance with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley 
Act, 15 USC 6801 et seq., which requires that financial institutions 
provide notice of their privacy policies to their customers, the 
agencies have been trying to develop more useful privacy notices to 
consumers. The comment period for the ANPRM ended on March 26, 2004. 
Staff for the seven agencies are jointly funding consumer research and 
testing to inform the development of alternative privacy notices that 
are easier for consumers to understand and use.
Eighth, the Commission's review of the Regulations Under the 
Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986 (Smokeless 
Regulations), 16 CFR part 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 2007.
Ninth, the Commission began its regulatory review of certain aspects of 
the Funeral Industry Practices Rule (Funeral Rule), 16 CFR part 453, in 
1999. 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 will examine 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. See 64 FR 24250 (May 5, 
1999). A public workshop conference was subsequently held to explore 
issues raised in the comments submitted. Staff expects to forward its 
recommendation to the Commission by April 2007.
Finally, the Commission's review of the Pay-Per-Call Rule, 16 CFR part 
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 April 2007.
In addition, during 2007, the Commission anticipates issuing separate 
notices requesting comments both on the Statement of General Policy or 
Interpretations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (also known as FCRA 
Commentary) and for the Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and 
Testimonials in Advertising.
Final Actions
Since publication of the 2005 Regulatory Plan, the Commission has taken 
final actions on several rulemakings. First, on March 8, 2005, the 
Commission concluded its regulatory review of the Children's Online 
Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA Rule), 16 CFR part 312, by retaining 
COPPA without any changes. 71 FR 13247 (Mar. 15, 2006). Congress 
required this review be completed within five years of the effective 
date of the implementation of the rule, and that it include assessment 
of: (1) the effect on practices relating to the collection

[[Page 72935]]

and disclosure of information relating to children; (2) children's 
ability to obtain access to information of their choice online; and (3) 
the availability of web sites directed to children. The public comments 
received during the review uniformly stated that COPPA has provided 
greater protection to children's personal information online, that 
there is a continuing need for the Rule, and that the Rule should be 
retained. Specifically, many commenters emphasized that the Rule 
provides web site operators with a clear set of standards to follow and 
that operators have received few, if any, complaints from parents about 
the standards and how they are implemented. The FTC plans to submit to 
the Congress in late 2006 an assessment of COPPA's implementation, 
including a discussion of the three issues noted above.
Second, for the HSR Rules, the Commission most recently issued a Final 
Rule to allow filing parties the option for the electronic submission 
via the Internet of Premerger Notification and Report Forms. 71 FR 
35995 (Jun. 23, 2006). This rule was effective upon publication. The 
Commission also issued three other HSR-related Final Rules: (1) 
allowing filing parties to provide Internet links to certain documents 
instead of paper copies, effective on January 11, 2006, 70 FR 73369; 
(2) clarifying that ``stale filings'' expire eighteen months after they 
are received by the Agencies, 70 FR 73369; & (3) requiring all filers 
to use 2002 NAICS data and codes (replacing 1997 codes and revenue 
information) beginning January 30, 2006. 70 FR 77312.
Finally, with respect to the TSR Rules, the Commission also published 
an NPRM concerning a revised fee structure for the National Do-Not-Call 
Registry on May 1, 2006. 71 FR 25512. The comment period ended on June 
1, 2006. The Commission published final fee changes for the National 
Do-Not-Call Registry on July 31, 2006, with an effective date of 
September 1, 2006. 71 FR 43048. Under the new structure, the annual fee 
for each area code of data accessed will be $62, and the maximum amount 
charged to entities accessing 280 area codes or more will be $17,050. 
The rulemaking still allows telemarketers to obtain the first five area 
codes of data for free and allows those entities exempt from the 
Registry's requirements to obtain access at no charge. The revised fees 
were effective on September 1, 2006.
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 Executive Order 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.
As set forth in Executive Order 12866, 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.'' Executive 
Order 12866, section 1.
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.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 does not plan to propose any rules that would be a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the definition in Executive 
Order 12866.
BILLING CODE 6750-01-S

[[Page 72936]]

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.
The regulatory priorities for the next fiscal year reflect the NIGC's 
commitment to upholding the principles of IGRA. The gaming industry 
changes rapidly with advancements in machine technology. It is crucial 
for the vitality of Indian gaming that regulators have the ability to 
respond quickly to these changes. To that end, the NIGC has decided 
that the development of technical standards and game classifications 
for gaming machines and related gaming systems is an important 
initiative for the promotion and protection of tribal gaming.
Additionally, the NIGC will be continuing to make technical amendments 
to the minimal internal control standards (MICS). These amendments will 
correct isolated problems that have been brought to the NIGC's 
attention by tribal gaming operators and regulators.
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

                              -----------

147. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE MINIMUM INTERNAL CONTROL STANDARDS

Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


25 USC 2702; 25 USC 2706(b)(10)


CFR Citation:


25 CFR 542


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The National Indian Gaming Commission is making technical changes to 
the Minimum Internal Control Standards (MICS) in response to changes in 
technology and the gaming industry. The Commission will routinely 
revise the MICS in response to these changes.


Statement of Need:


Periodic technical adjustments and revisions to the Minimum Internal 
Control Standards (MICS) are necessary in order to keep the MICS 
effective in protecting tribal gaming assets and the interests of 
tribal stakeholders and the gaming public.


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 MICS to ensure uniformity and integrity in tribal 
gaming.


Alternatives:


If the Commission does not periodically update the MICS, the 
regulations that govern tribal gaming will not address changing 
technology and gaming methods.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Updated MICS will aid tribal governments in the regulation of their 
gaming activities.


Risks:


There are no known risks to this regulatory action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
First NPRM                      12/01/04                    69 FR 69847
Second NPRM                     03/10/05                    70 FR 11893
Final Action on First 
    Rule                        05/04/05                    70 FR 23011
Final Action on Second 
    Rule                        08/12/05                    70 FR 47097
Third NPRM                      11/15/05                    70 FR 69293
Final Action on Third 
    Rule (1)                    05/11/06                    71 FR 27385
Final Action on Third 
    Rule (Surveillance)         12/00/06
Fourth NPRM                        To Be                     Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Tribal


Agency Contact:
Penny J. Coleman
Acting General Counsel
National Indian Gaming Commission
Suite 9100
1441 L Street NW.
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202 632-7003
Fax: 202 632-7066
RIN: 3141-AA27
_______________________________________________________________________
NIGC
148. TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR GAMING MACHINES AND GAMING SYSTEMS

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


25 USC 2706


CFR Citation:


25 CFR 547


Legal Deadline:


None

[[Page 72937]]

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 regulations of their gaming 
activities as well as prevent loss associated with defective or 
substandard gaming devices. The only anticipated cost will be to gaming 
machine manufacturers.


Risks:


There are no known risks to this regulatory action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/11/06                    71 FR 46336
Final Action                    12/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Tribal


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Michael Gross
Senior Attorney
National Indian Gaming Commission
1441 L St NW., Suite 9100
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202 632-7003
Fax: 202 632-7066
RIN: 3141-AA29
_______________________________________________________________________
NIGC
149. GAME CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS

Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


25 USC 2706


CFR Citation:


25 CFR 546


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


It is necessary for the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) to 
promulgate regulations establishing game classification standards 
because of the distinction between class II and class III gaming set 
forth in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Technical changes 
make it difficult for regulators to keep up with the gaming industry. 
By establishing classification standards, tribal gaming commissions, 
the primary regulators of tribal gaming, will more easily be able to 
distinguish between class II and class III machines.


Statement of Need:


Gaming Classification standards are needed to assure that regulators 
can determine whether gaming machines are class II or class III devices 
under IGRA.


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)). IGRA 
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 game classifications and for gaming machines to ensure 
uniformity and integrity in tribal gaming.


Alternatives:


The Commission can either: (1) Issue a rule establishing game 
classifications and gaming machines, or (2) continue evaluating 
classifications on a case-by-case basis.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The development of classification standards will reduce the cost of 
regulation to the Federal Government. Additionally, classification 
standards will aid tribal governments in the regulations of their 
gaming activities. There are anticipated costs to gaming machine 
manufacturers and tribal governments. The NIGC is conducting a cost/
benefit analysis.


Risks:


There are no known risks to this regulatory action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM (definition for 
    electronic or 
    electromechanical 
    facsimile)                  05/25/06                    71 FR 30232
NPRM (main)                     05/25/06                    71 FR 30238
Final Action                    04/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Tribal

[[Page 72938]]

Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
John Hay
Staff Attorney
National Indian Gaming Commission
Suite 9100
1441 L Street NW.
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202 632-7003
Fax: 202 632-7066
Email: john--hay@nigc.gov
RIN: 3141-AA31
BILLING CODE 7565-01-S
