Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61013 

TABLE 2—LOADING CONDITIONS FOR A

MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE UNIT UNDER

TEST—Continued 

Load Condition 

5.

10% of De-rated Nameplate 

Output Current ± 2% (optional). 

Load Condition 

6.

0%. 

(6) Input and output power measurements 

shall be conducted in sequence from Loading 

Condition 1 to Loading Condition 5, as 

indicated in Table 2 of this section. For 

Loading Condition 6, place the unit under 

test in no-load mode, disconnect any 

additional signal connections to the unit 

under test, and measure input power. 

(B) * * * 

(2) If D ≥1, then loading every bus to its 

nameplate output current does not exceed 

the overall nameplate output power for the 

power supply. In this case, each output bus 

will simply be loaded to the percentages of 

its nameplate output current listed in Table 

2 of this section. However, if D <1, it is an 

indication that loading each bus to its 

nameplate output current will exceed the 

overall nameplate output power for the 

power supply. In this case, and at each 

loading condition, each output bus will be 

loaded to the appropriate percentage of its 

nameplate output current listed in Table 2, 

multiplied by the derating factor D. 

(C) Minimum output current requirements. 

Depending on their application, some 

multiple-voltage power supplies may require 

a minimum output current for each output 

bus of the power supply for correct 

operation. In these cases, ensure that the load 

current for each output at Loading Condition 

4 in Table 2 of this section is greater than the 

minimum output current requirement. Thus, 

if the test method’s calculated load current 

for a given voltage bus is lower than the 

minimum output current requirement, the 

minimum output current must be used to 

load the bus. This load current shall be 

recorded in the test report. 

* * * * * 

(E) Efficiency calculation and data 

recordation. The efficiency of a unit under 

test shall be calculated by dividing the 

measured active output power of that unit at 

a given loading condition by the active AC 

input power measured at that loading 

condition. The average active-mode 

efficiency of the unit shall be calculated by 

averaging the efficiency of the unit under test 

as calculated at Loading Conditions 1 

through 4, unless output cannot be sustained 

at one of those loading conditions. In that 

case, average-active mode efficiency is 

calculated as described in paragraph (a)(i)(D) 

of this section. Additionally, an optional 

calculation and individual recording of the 

efficiency at Loading Condition 5 (specified 

in Table 2 in paragraph (b)(i)A)(5) of this 

section) may also be performed. Power factor 

for Loading Conditions 1 through 5 (as 

specified under the same Table 2) may also 

be recorded, but these measurements are not 

mandatory. The efficiency at each loading 

condition and the power factor at each 

loading condition shall be individually 

recorded. 

(F) Power consumption calculation. Power 

consumption of the unit under test at 

Loading Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 is the 

difference between the active output power 

at that Loading Condition and the active AC 

input power at that Loading Condition. The 

power consumption of Loading Condition 6 

(no-load) is equal to the AC active input 

power at that Loading Condition. 

(ii) Off Mode Measurement—If the 

multiple-voltage external power supply unit 

under test incorporates any on-off switches, 

the unit under test shall be placed in off 

mode and its power consumption in off mode 

measured and recorded. The measurement of 

the off mode energy consumption shall 

conform to the requirements specified in 

paragraph (b)(i) of this section. The only 

loading condition that will be measured for 

off mode is ‘‘Loading Condition 6’’ in 

paragraph (b)(i)(A), ‘‘Loading conditions and 

testing sequence’’, except that all manual onoff switches shall be placed in the off 

position for this measurement. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24180 Filed 10–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

14 CFR Parts 1260 and 1274 

RIN 2700–AE12 

Removal of Procedures for Delegation 

of Administration of Grants and 

Cooperative Agreements; Withdrawal 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: NASA hereby provides notice 

of the cancellation of a proposed rule 

without further action. 

DATES: The proposed rule published in 

the Federal Register of November 14, 

2013 (78 FR 68376) is withdrawn as of 

October 9, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leigh Pomponio, NASA, Office of 

Procurement, Contract Management 

Division (Suite 2P77), 300 E Street SW., 

Washington DC, 30546–0001; email: 

leigh.pomponio@nasa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

On November 14, 2013, NASA 

published a proposed rule (78 FR 

68376) to remove internal procedures 

for delegation of grant administration 

from the regulation at 14 CFR 1260.70 

and 1274.301. The action was published 

with an incorrect RIN number (2700– 

AE11). On December 26, 2013, a 

correction was published (78 FR 78305) 

to indicate that the correct RIN number 

is 2700–AE12. No public comments 

were received on the proposed rule. 

NASA will not proceed to finalize this 

action at this time. NASA is currently 

preparing guidance and regulations to 

implement OMB’s Uniform 

Administrative Requirements, Cost 

Principles, and Audit Requirements for 

Federal Awards (78 FR 78589, Dec 26, 

2013). Because implementation of 

OMB’s guidance will necessitate major 

changes to NASA’s Grant Handbook, 

NASA will make changes to internal 

delegation of administration procedures 

concurrent with or following the 

implementation of OMB’s uniform 

requirements. 

Cynthia Boots, 

Alternate Federal Register Liaison. 

[FR Doc. 2014–22693 Filed 10–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

20 CFR Part 620 

RIN 1205–AB63 

Federal-State Unemployment 

Compensation Program; Middle Class 

Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 

2012 Provision on Establishing 

Appropriate Occupations for Drug 

Testing of Unemployment 

Compensation Applicants 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA) of the 

U.S. Department of Labor (Department) 

proposes to establish in regulation, for 

State Unemployment Insurance (UI) 

program purposes, occupations that 

regularly conduct drug testing. These 

regulations would implement the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012 (the Act) 

amendments to the Social Security Act 

(SSA), permitting States to enact 

legislation that would allow State UI 

agencies to conduct drug testing on 

unemployment compensation (UC) 

applicants for whom suitable work (as 

defined under the State law) is only 

available in an occupation that regularly 

conducts drug testing (as determined 

under regulations issued by the 

Secretary of Labor (Secretary)). States 

may deny UC to an applicant who tests 

positive for drug use under these 

circumstances. The Secretary is required 

under the SSA to issue regulations 

determining those occupations that 

regularly conduct drug testing. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61014 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

DATES: To be ensured consideration, 

comments must be submitted in writing 

on or before December 8, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Regulatory Information 

Number (RIN) 1205–AB63, by one of the 

following methods: 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the Web 

site instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Mail and hand delivery/courier: 

Written comments, disk, and CD–ROM 

submissions may be mailed to Adele 

Gagliardi, Administrator, Office of 

Policy Development and Research, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Room N–5641, 

Washington, DC 20210. 

Instructions: Label all submissions 

with ‘‘RIN 1205–AB63.’’ 

Please submit your comments by only 

one method. Please be advised that the 

Department will post all comments 

received that that related to this NPRM 

on http://www.regulations.gov without 

making any change to the comments or 

redacting any information. The http://

www.regulations.gov Web site is the 

Federal e-rulemaking portal and all 

comments posted there are available 

and accessible to the public. Therefore, 

the Department recommends that 

commenters remove personal 

information such as Social Security 

Numbers, personal addresses, telephone 

numbers, and email addresses included 

in their comments as such information 

may become easily available to the 

public via the http://

www.regulations.gov Web site. It is the 

responsibility of the commenter to 

safeguard personal information. 

Also, please note that due to security 

concerns, postal mail delivery in 

Washington, DC may be delayed. 

Therefore, the Department encourages 

the public to submit comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Docket: All comments on this 

proposed rule will be available on the 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site 

and can be found using RIN 1205–AB63. 

The Department also will make all the 

comments it receives available for 

public inspection by appointment 

during normal business hours at the 

above address. If you need assistance to 

review the comments, the Department 

will provide appropriate aids such as 

readers or print magnifiers. The 

Department will make copies of this 

proposed rule available, upon request, 

in large print and electronic file on 

computer disk. To schedule an 

appointment to review the comments 

and/or obtain the proposed rule in an 

alternative format, contact the Office of 

Policy Development and Research at 

(202) 693–3700 (this is not a toll-free 

number). You may also contact this 

office at the address listed below. 

Comments under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act: In addition to filing 

comments with ETA, persons wishing to 

comment on the information collection 

aspects of this rule may send comments 

to: Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for 

DOL–ETA, Office of Management and 

Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20503, Fax: 202– 

395–6881 (this is not a toll-free 

number), email: OIRA_submission@

omb.eop.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adele Gagliardi, Administrator, Office 

of Policy Development and Research, 

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW., Room N– 

5641, Washington, DC 20210; telephone 

(202) 693–3700 (this is not a toll-free 

number). 

Individuals with hearing or speech 

impairments may access the telephone 

number above via TTY by calling the 

toll-free Federal Information Relay 

Service at 1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

preamble to this proposed rule is 

organized as follows: 

I. Background—provides a brief description 

of the development of the proposed rule 

II. Section-by-Section Review—summarizes 

and discusses the proposed regulations 

III. Administrative Information—sets forth 

the applicable regulatory requirements 

I. Background 

On February 22, 2012, President 

Obama signed the Act, Public Law 112– 

96. Title II of the Act amended section 

303, SSA, to add a new subsection (l) 

permitting States to drug test UC 

applicants as a condition of UC 

eligibility under two specific 

circumstances. The first circumstance is 

if the applicant was terminated from 

employment with the applicant’s most 

recent employer because of the unlawful 

use of a controlled substance. (Section 

303(l)(1)(A)(i), SSA.) The second 

circumstance is if the only available 

suitable work (as defined in the law of 

the State conducting the drug testing) 

for an individual is in an occupation 

that regularly conducts drug testing (as 

determined in regulations by the 

Secretary). A State may deny UC to an 

applicant who tests positive for drug use 

under these circumstances. (Section 

303(l)(1)(A)(ii), SSA.) This proposed 

rule defines those occupations that 

regularly conduct drug testing as 

required by section 303(l)(1)(A)(ii), SSA. 

The Department of Labor will, 

separately from this rulemaking, issue 

further guidance to States to address 

other issues related to the 

implementation of drug testing under 

303(l), SSA. 

Consultations With Other Federal 

Agencies 

The Department consulted with a 

number of Federal agencies with 

expertise in drug testing to inform this 

proposed regulation. Specifically, we 

consulted with the Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services 

Administration (SAMHSA) in the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS); the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT); the U.S. 

Department of Defense (DOD); the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS); DOL’s Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(BLS); and DOL’s Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA). 

These agencies were consulted because 

they have experience with required drug 

testing. DOD and DHS defer to 

SAMHSA for interpretation of the drug 

testing requirements. Therefore, the 

Department gave deference to the 

SAMHSA guidance when developing 

this rule. The Department also 

canvassed State laws to develop an 

understanding of what occupations 

require regular drug testing at the State 

level. 

SAMHSA: The Department consulted 

with SAMHSA because it is the Federal 

agency mandated to oversee Federal 

workplace drug testing by Pub. L. 100– 

71 and, further, by E.O. 12564, entitled 

Drug-Free Federal Workplace. E.O. 

12564 requires that the head of each 

Federal agency ‘‘shall establish a 

program to test for the use of illegal 

drugs by employees in sensitive 

positions.’’ Public Law 100–71 directed 

HHS to establish scientific and technical 

guidelines and ensure that 

comprehensive standards are published 

to govern the drug testing of Federal 

employees. SAMHSA provides 

oversight for: 

➢ The Federal Drug-Free Workplace 

Program, which aims to eliminate illicit 

drug use in the Federal workforce; and 

➢ The National Laboratory 

Certification Program, which certifies 

laboratories to conduct forensic drug 

testing for the Federal agencies and for 

some Federally-regulated industries. 

In order to oversee Federal workplace 

drug testing, SAMHSA reviews Federal 

agencies’ drug testing designated 

positions (TDPs), which SAMSHA 

requires Federal agencies to designate. 

OSHA: ETA consulted with DOL’s 

OSHA because of its knowledge of 

employer drug testing programs. OSHA 

also was instrumental in identifying 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61015 

expertise in other Federal agencies that 

proved valuable to the development of 

the NPRM. 

DOT: ETA consulted with DOT partly 

because DOT has a number of 

occupations designated as TDPs by 

SAMHSA, and more significantly 

because DOT regulations at 49 CFR part 

40 identify public and private 

employment in transportation industries 

as being subject to drug testing. These 

regulations require that the Secretary of 

Transportation ensure drug and alcohol 

testing policies are developed and 

carried out in a consistent, efficient, and 

effective manner within the 

transportation industries for the 

ultimate safety and protection of the 

traveling public. 

BLS: ETA consulted with BLS and 

determined that currently no statistical 

collections exist that relate to 

occupations where employers regularly 

drug test. 

Review of State Drug Testing Laws 

ETA’s consultation did not reveal any 

single reliable and current source of 

occupations that regularly drug test. 

Therefore, ETA relied on current 

Federal and State laws as the primary 

sources to determine what occupations 

regularly drug test for purposes of 

implementing Section 303(l), SSA. 

Some States have not enacted workplace 

drug and alcohol testing laws. Others 

have enacted laws that permit and 

encourage employers to conduct drug 

testing of applicants and/or employees, 

but they are not based on occupations 

and therefore do not fall within the 

scope of this rulemaking. For example, 

most States allow a private employer to 

decide whether and when to test job 

applicants and employees, often in 

accordance with a written policy 

created by the employer according to 

State law. In some instances, State law 

specifies that the employer may test job 

applicants and current employees for 

any job-related purpose consistent with 

business necessity and the terms of the 

employer’s written policy. If States do 

provide restrictions on workplace drug 

testing, then they commonly provide 

more protection to employees than to 

job applicants. For example, a State’s 

law may permit employers to require all 

job applicants with conditional offers of 

employment to take drug tests, but they 

permit an employer to require a drug 

test of an employee only if the employer 

has reasonable suspicion that use of 

drugs is impairing the employee’s job 

performance or has probable cause to 

believe that the employee, while on the 

job, is using or is under the influence of 

drugs. These provisions are not relevant 

to this rulemaking, which must, under 

section 303(l)(1)(A)(ii), SSA, determine 

what occupations are ‘‘regularly’’ drug 

tested. 

Many States also provide various 

discounts and credits to employers that 

adopt drug-free workplace programs. 

Some States’ programs require drug 

testing of applicants and/or employees 

as part of these programs, while others 

do not. Some States that require 

participating employers to test job 

applicants nevertheless allow the 

employers to limit such testing based on 

reasonable classifications of job 

positions. Employer sponsorship of a 

drug-free workplace program is usually 

voluntary but may be required of state 

contractors. 

State laws that clearly fall within the 

scope of this regulation include those 

that identify types of positions for 

which employers may conduct drug 

testing. For example, a State’s law may 

permit drug testing only of individuals 

‘‘employed in safety-sensitive 

positions’’ or if the ‘‘employee serves in 

an occupation which has been 

designated as a high-risk or safetysensitive occupation.’’ At least one State 

permits testing of individuals who 

‘‘participate in activities upon which 

pari-mutuel wagering is authorized.’’ 

State laws that identify specific 

classes of positions for which drug 

testing of applicants and/or employees 

is required also fall affirmatively within 

the scope of this regulation. State laws 

most commonly require drug testing of 

drivers of school transportation vehicles 

and commercial motor vehicles. States 

may also require certain types of private 

employers to conduct at least some drug 

testing of employees and/or job 

applicants (e.g., nursing homes and 

home health agencies, residential 

childcare facilities, public works 

projects contractors, corrections 

facilities, and nuclear and radioactive 

storage and transfer facilities). 

In conclusion, ETA’s research of some 

Federal and State laws related to drug 

testing found that they refer to classes 

of positions (e.g., any position requiring 

an employee to carry a firearm) that are 

required to be drug tested, rather than 

occupations as defined by BLS in the 

Standard Occupational Classification 

System. Therefore, this NPRM defines 

(as explained below) an ‘‘occupation’’ to 

mean a position or class of positions 

identified as subject to drug testing 

under specified Federal or State laws as 

described in these proposed regulations. 

Summary of the Proposed Rule 

We concluded from our research of 

what it means in Federal or State law to 

‘‘regularly’’ drug test that no consistent 

standard applies across classes of 

positions or occupations to determine 

that ‘‘regular’’ drug testing occurs. 

While some State laws might permit, 

but not require, drug testing of certain 

‘‘occupations,’’ whether drug testing is 

‘‘regularly’’ conducted when merely 

permitted can vary widely across 

occupations and industries and trades, 

and regularity also can change over 

time. Thus, we believe it would be 

overbroad to include occupations for 

which State law merely permits, but 

does not require, drug testing. However, 

it is a given that any occupation for 

which drug testing is required is one 

that is drug tested ‘‘regularly.’’ 

Therefore, occupations that ‘‘regularly’’ 

require drug testing are limited in these 

regulations to those for which drug 

testing is required, not merely 

permitted. Therefore, this proposed 

regulation identifies classes of positions, 

or ‘‘occupations,’’ that are required to be 

drug tested in Federal or State law as 

the standard for determining 

‘‘occupations’’ that ‘‘regularly’’ drug 

test. 

Accordingly, we propose that an 

applicant may be drug tested by the 

State in order to be eligible to receive 

State UC if the applicant’s only suitable 

work, as defined under the State UC 

law, is in a position or class of 

positions, i.e., an ‘‘occupation,’’ for 

which Federal law or that State’s law 

requires employee drug testing in that 

occupation. Additionally, we propose 

that only those State laws which 

identify occupations or positions (e.g., 

school bus drivers) may be the basis for 

such testing; this regulation excludes, as 

the basis for testing, State laws that go 

beyond the scope of identifying 

occupations or position classifications, 

and instead identify types of employers 

(e.g., public works projects contractors) 

or permit testing at the employer 

discretion (e.g., in connection with a 

drug free workplace policy that applies 

to all applicants). 

We also propose that classes of 

positions, or ‘‘occupations,’’ requiring 

drug testing under Federal and State 

laws be limited to those identified in 

Federal and State laws already in effect 

at the date of the publication of this 

NPRM. Because drug testing as a 

condition of UC eligibility is a new 

policy and has the potential to be 

implemented in ways that may have 

unintended consequences, the 

Department considers it prudent to 

apply Federal and State law drug testing 

requirements currently in place, to be 

able to assess and evaluate most 

effectively the impact of this new 

policy. The Department recognizes that 

Federal and State laws may evolve in 

identifying which positions or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61016 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1 DOT was granted authority to establish 

regulations at 49 CFR Part 40 by the Omnibus 

Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, 

Public Law 102–143. 

occupations are required to drug test. 

The Department will monitor such 

changes and may amend this regulation 

accordingly in the future. The 

Department encourages comments on 

methods to refresh the list of 

occupations that regularly drug test. 

For Federal laws requiring drug 

testing, SAMHSA has designated some 

classes of positions as ‘‘presumptive’’ 

TDPs, i.e., positions that may be 

designated as requiring a drug test 

without the agency being required to 

justify the designation to SAMHSA. A 

list of presumptive TDPs is included in 

the HHS publication ‘‘2010 Guidance 

for Selection of Testing Designated 

Positions,’’ April 5, 2010, available on 

the SAMHSA Web site at http://

workplace.samhsa.gov/federal.html. 

These classes of positions include those 

that require carrying a firearm, motor 

vehicle operators carrying passengers, 

aviation flight crew members and air 

traffic controllers, and railroad 

operating crews. This NPRM proposes 

that these classes of positions be 

deemed ‘‘occupations’’ that regularly 

drug test. 

In addition, DOT requires drug testing 

for classes of positions in various 

transportation industries in 49 CFR Part 

40,1 Procedures for Transportation 

Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing 

Programs. These regulations require the 

Secretary of Transportation to ensure 

drug and alcohol testing policies are 

developed and carried out in a 

consistent, efficient, and effective 

manner within the transportation 

industries for the ultimate safety and 

protection of the traveling public. DOT’s 

Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and 

Compliance provides guidance to the 

Federal agencies covered by DOT on the 

drug testing policy of covered 

employees (i.e., those subject to drug 

testing). The regulations apply to safetysensitive classes of positions in the 

transportation industries including 

aviation, trucking, mass transit, 

railroads, pipelines, and other vital 

transportation related industries. 

Mandatory drug testing requirements 

are identified in the sections of the CFR 

that apply to the specific Federal 

agencies that regulate these industry 

sectors. Federal agency regulations that 

implement the drug testing 

requirements of 49 CFR part 40 for the 

industries these agencies regulate are as 

follows: Federal Aviation 

Administration, 14 CFR part 120; 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, 49 CFR part 382; 

Federal Railroad Administration, 49 

CFR part 219; Federal Transit 

Administration, 49 CFR part 655; 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, 49 CFR part 199; and 

crewmembers and maritime credential 

holders by the Coast Guard, 46 CFR part 

16. The proposed regulation identifies 

the specific sections of these regulations 

that identify the classes of positions that 

are subject to drug testing. 

II. Section-by-Section Review 

What is the purpose of the proposed 

regulation? (§ 620.1) 

Proposed § 620.1 explains that the 

purpose of the NPRM is to implement 

section 303(l)(A)(ii), SSA, permitting 

drug testing UC applicants for the use of 

controlled substances where suitable 

work (as defined under the State’s UC 

law) is only available in an occupation 

for which drug testing is regularly 

conducted (as determined under this 

part 620). 

What definitions apply to this part? 

(§ 620.2) 

‘‘Applicant’’ means an individual 

who files an initial claim for UC under 

State law. ‘‘Applicant’’ excludes an 

individual already found initially 

eligible and filing a continued claim. 

This is consistent with common usage 

of the term ‘‘applicant’’ in UC 

nomenclature. 

‘‘Controlled substance,’’ as defined by 

Section 303(l)(2)(B), SSA, has the same 

meaning given such term in section 102 

of the Controlled Substances Act (Pub. 

L. 91–513, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). 

‘‘Controlled substance’’ means a drug or 

other substance, or immediate 

precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, 

IV, or V of part B of 21 U.S.C. 801 et 

seq. The term does not include distilled 

spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, 

as those terms are defined or used in 

subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code 

of 1986. 

‘‘Occupation’’ means a position or 

class of positions. As discussed above, 

Federal and State laws on drug testing 

do not specify or refer to ‘‘occupations’’ 

requiring drug testing, but rather 

identify positions or classes of 

positions, in descriptive terms such as, 

for example, positions requiring the 

carrying of a firearm. Because we 

propose to refer to specific provisions of 

law in defining ‘‘occupations’’ for 

purposes of UC drug testing, the 

proposed definition of occupation 

identifies the specific provisions of law 

in the later section. 

‘‘Suitable Work’’ means suitable work 

as defined under the UC law of the State 

against which the claim is filed. This is 

the same definition of ‘‘suitable work’’ 

under that State law as the State 

otherwise uses for determining UC 

eligibility based on seeking work or 

refusal of work. 

‘‘Unemployment Compensation’’ is 

defined in Section 303(l)(2)(A), SSA, to 

have the same meaning given to the 

term in Section 303(d)(2)(A), SSA, 

which states that the term 

unemployment compensation means 

‘‘any unemployment compensation 

payable under the State law (including 

amounts payable pursuant to an 

agreement under a Federal 

unemployment compensation law.)’’ 

Section 3306(h) of the Federal 

Unemployment Tax Act (26 U.S.C. 

3306(h)) defines compensation to mean 

‘‘cash benefits payable to individuals 

with respect to their unemployment.’’ 

What are the occupations for which 

drug testing is regularly conducted for 

purposes of this part 620? (§ 620.3) 

Proposed § 620.3 identifies 

occupations for which drug testing is 

regularly conducted. These occupations 

are those that require the employee to 

carry a firearm. They also include 

classes of positions/occupations 

identified by SAMHSA as presumptive 

drug testing positions; classes of 

positions/occupations for which 

employers are required to drug test 

employees as identified in DOT’s 

regulations at 49 CFR parts 199, 219, 

382, and 655; classes of positions/

occupations for which drug testing is 

required under United States Coast 

Guard regulations at 46 CFR part 16; 

and classes of positions/occupations in 

which an employee must be tested 

under Federal Aviation Administration 

regulations at 14 CFR part 120. As 

explained above, these occupations are 

limited to those identified in these 

regulations as of the date of the 

publication of the proposed rule. They 

also include occupations for which drug 

testing was required already under State 

law in effect at the date of publication 

of this NPRM. States are not required to 

drug test as a condition of UC eligibility 

for any of these occupations; however, 

they may not, except as permitted by 

section 303(l)(1)(A)(i), SSA, (governing 

drug testing of individuals terminated 

for the unlawful use of a controlled 

substance) drug test for any occupation 

that does not meet the definition in 

§ 620.3. As noted previously, it is the 

Department’s intent to monitor Federal 

and State legislation in relation to 

classes of positions or occupations that 

are required to drug test and consider 

changes to the regulation as appropriate. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61017 

2Executive Order No. 12866, section 6(a)(3)(B). 

DOL seeks comments on how to refresh 

the list of occupations. 

What are the parameters for the testing 

of applicants for the unlawful use of a 

controlled substance? (§ 620.4) 

Proposed § 620.4, consistent with 

section 303(l), SSA, provides that a 

State may require applicants to take and 

pass a drug test for the illegal use of 

controlled substances as a condition of 

initial eligibility for UC under specified 

conditions. Applicants may be denied 

UC based on the results of these tests. 

Proposed paragraph (a) provides that 

an applicant, as defined in proposed 

§ 620.2, may be tested for the unlawful 

use of controlled substances, as defined 

in proposed § 620.2, as an eligibility 

condition for UC if the individual is one 

for whom suitable work, as defined by 

that State’s UC law, is only available in 

an occupation that regularly conducts 

drug testing, as determined under 

proposed § 620.3. The reference to 

‘‘applicant,’’ ensures that only an 

applicant who is filing an initial UC 

claim, and not a claimant filing a 

continued claim, may be subject to drug 

testing. 

Proposed paragraph (b) provides that 

a State requiring drug testing as a 

condition of UC eligibility may apply 

drug testing to any one or more of the 

occupations listed under § 620.3, but is 

not required to apply drug testing to any 

of them. The Act does not require a 

State to conduct drug tests at all, and 

consistent with the partnership nature 

of the Federal-State UC system, the 

Department proposes to allow States 

flexibility to decide which permitted 

occupations may be subject to Stateconducted drug testing. 

Proposed paragraph (c) provides that 

the standards which a State establishes 

relating to drug testing of applicants for 

UC must be in accordance with 

guidance issued by the Department. 

While section 303(l), SSA, requires the 

Secretary to issue regulations on the 

occupations that regularly conduct drug 

testing, the Secretary will address all 

other issues relating to section 303(l), 

SSA, in later guidance such as program 

letters and other issuances. 

What are the consequences of failing to 

implement a drug testing program in 

accordance with these regulations? 

(§ 620.5) 

Section 620.5 explains that 

implementation of drug testing of UC 

applicants as authorized under State 

laws must be in conformity with these 

regulations in order for States to be 

certified under Section 302 of the SSA 

(42 U.S.C. 502), with respect to whether 

a State is eligible to receive Federal 

grants for the administration of its UC 

program. 

III. Administrative Information 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. For a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ E.O. 

12866 asks agencies to describe the need 

for the regulatory action and explain 

how the regulatory action will meet that 

need, as well as assess the costs and 

benefits of the regulation.2 This 

regulation is necessary because of the 

statutory requirement contained in new 

section 303(l)(1)(A)(ii), SSA, which 

requires the Secretary to determine the 

occupations that regularly conduct drug 

testing for the propose of determining 

which applicants may be drug tested 

when applying for State unemployment 

compensation. The Department 

considers this rule to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of E.O. 12866, because it raises 

novel legal or policy issues arising out 

of legal mandates. Before the 

amendment of Federal law to add new 

section 303(l)(1), SSA, drug testing of 

applicants for UC as a condition of 

eligibility was prohibited. 

The Department believes this is not an 

economically significant rulemaking 

within the definition of E.O. 12866 

because it is not an action that is likely 

to result in the following: An annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more; an adverse or material effect on 

a sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local or 

Tribal governments or communities; 

serious inconsistency or interference 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency; or a material change in 

the budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs, or 

the rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof. In addition, since the rule is 

entirely voluntary on the part of the 

States and since Section 303(l), SSA is 

written so narrowly that the number of 

UI applicants eligible to be tested will 

be small, the Department believes it is 

unlikely that many States will establish 

a testing program because they won’t 

deem it cost effective to do so. The 

Department seeks comment from 

interested stakeholders on this 

assumption. 

There are limited data on which to 

base estimates of the cost associated 

with establishing a testing program. 

Only one of the two States that have 

enacted a conforming drug testing law 

issued a fiscal note. That State is Texas, 

which estimated that the 5-year cost of 

administering the program would be 

$1,175,954. This includes both one-time 

technology personnel services for the 

first year to program the system and 

ongoing administrative costs for 

personnel. The Texas analysis estimated 

a potential savings to the 

Unemployment Trust Fund of 

$13,700,580 over the 5-year period, 

resulting in a net savings of 

approximately $12.5 million. The 

Department believes it would be 

inappropriate to extrapolate the Texas 

analysis to all States in part because of 

differences in the Texas law and the 

requirements in this proposed rule. The 

Department has included this 

information about Texas for illustrative 

purposes only and emphasizes that by 

doing so, it is not validating the 

methodology or assumptions in the 

Texas analysis. Under the proposed 

rule, States will be prohibited from 

testing applicants for unemployment 

compensation who do not meet the 

narrow criteria established in the law. 

The Department requests that interested 

stakeholders with data on the costs of 

establishing a state-wide testing 

program; the number of applicants for 

unemployment compensation that fit 

the narrow criteria established in the 

law; and estimates of the number of 

individuals that would subsequently be 

denied unemployment compensation 

due to a failed drug test submit it during 

the comment period. 

In the absence of data, the Department 

is unable to quantify the administrative 

costs States will incur if they choose to 

implement drug testing pursuant to this 

rule. States may need to find funding to 

implement a conforming drug testing 

program for unemployment 

compensation applicants. No additional 

funding has been appropriated for this 

purpose and current Federal funding for 

the administration of State 

unemployment compensation programs 

may be insufficient to support the 

additional costs of establishing and 

operating a drug testing program. 

Permissible alternative funding sources 

are not readily available. States will 

need to fund the cost of the drug tests, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61018 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

staff costs for administration of the drug 

testing function, and technology costs to 

track drug testing outcomes. States will 

incur ramp up costs that will include 

implementing business processes 

necessary to determine whether an 

applicant is one for whom drug testing 

is permissible pursuant to the law; 

developing a process to refer and track 

applicants referred for drug testing; and 

the costs of testing that meets the 

standards required by the Secretary of 

Labor. States will also have to factor in 

increased costs of adjudication and 

appeals of both the determination of 

applicability of the drug testing to the 

individual and of the resulting 

determinations of benefit eligibility 

based on the test results. 

To date, very few States have 

expressed interest in drug testing 

unemployment compensation 

applicants. Only two States have 

enacted conforming legislation. Only six 

other States introduced conforming drug 

testing bills so far and none of them 

were passed by the house of 

introduction. 

Benefits of the rule are equally hard 

to determine. As discussed above, the 

provisions will impact a very limited 

number of applicants for unemployment 

compensation benefits. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq., include minimizing the 

paperwork burden on affected entities. 

The PRA requires certain actions before 

an agency can adopt or revise a 

collection of information, including 

publishing a summary of the collection 

of information, a brief description of the 

need for and proposed use of the 

information, and a request for comments 

on the information collections. 

A Federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless it is approved by OMB under the 

PRA, and displays a currently valid 

OMB control number, and the public is 

not required to respond to a collection 

of information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

Also, notwithstanding any other 

provisions of law, no person shall be 

subject to penalty for failing to comply 

with a collection of information if the 

collection of information does not 

display a currently valid OMB control 

number (44 U.S.C. 3512). 

The Department has determined that 

this proposed rule does not contain a 

‘‘collection of information,’’ as the term 

is defined. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c). DOL 

expressly seeks comments on this 

determination. 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Section 6 of Executive Order 13132 

requires Federal agencies to consult 

with State entities when a regulation or 

policy may have a substantial direct 

effect on the States or the relationship 

between the National Government and 

the States, or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, within the 

meaning of the Executive Order. Section 

3(b) of the Executive Order further 

provides that Federal agencies must 

implement regulations that have a 

substantial direct effect only if statutory 

authority permits the regulation and it 

is of national significance. 

This proposed rule does not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States or 

the relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of Government, within the 

meaning of the Executive Order. This is 

because drug testing authorized by the 

regulation is voluntary on the part of the 

State, not required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This regulatory action has been 

reviewed in accordance with the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(the Reform Act). Under the Reform Act, 

a Federal agency must determine 

whether a regulation proposes a Federal 

mandate that would result in the 

increased expenditures by State, local, 

or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any single year. The 

Department has determined that since 

States have an option of drug testing UC 

applicants and can elect not to do so, 

this proposed rule does not include any 

Federal mandate that could result in 

increased expenditure by State, local, 

and Tribal governments. Drug testing 

under this rule is purely voluntary, so 

that any increased cost to the States is 

not the result of any mandate. 

Accordingly, it is unnecessary for the 

Department to prepare a budgetary 

impact statement. 

Plain Language 

The Department drafted this proposed 

rule in plain language. 

Effect on Family Life 

The Department certifies that this 

proposed rule has been assessed 

according to section 654 of the Treasury 

and General Government 

Appropriations Act, enacted as part of 

the Omnibus Consolidated and 

Emergency Supplemental 

Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 

105–277, 112 Stat. 2681) for its effect on 

family well-being. The Department 

certifies that this proposed rule does not 

adversely impact family well-being as 

discussed under section 654 of the 

Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act of 1999. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

at 5 U.S.C. 603(a) requires agencies to 

prepare and make available for public 

comment an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis which will describe the impact 

of the proposed rule on small entities. 

Section 605 of the RFA allows an 

agency to certify a rule, in lieu of 

preparing an analysis, if the proposed 

rulemaking is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule does not affect small entities 

as defined in the RFA. Therefore, the 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of these small entities. The 

Department has certified this to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small 

Business Administration, pursuant to 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 620 

Unemployment compensation. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Department proposes to 

amend 20 CFR chapter V by adding part 

620 to read as follows: 

PART 620—OCCUPATIONS THAT 

REGULARLY CONDUCT DRUG 

TESTING FOR STATE 

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 

ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION 

PURPOSES 

Sec. 

620.1 Purpose. 

620.2 Definitions. 

620.3 Occupations that regularly conduct 

drug testing for purposes of determining 

which applicants may be drug tested 

when applying for state unemployment 

compensation. 

620.4 Testing of unemployment 

compensation applicants for the 

unlawful use of a controlled substance. 

620.5 Conformity and substantial 

compliance. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302(a); 42 U.S.C. 

503(l)(1)(ii) 

§ 620.1 Purpose. 

The regulations in this part 

implement section 303(l) of the Social 

Security Act (SSA) (42 U.S.C. 503(l)). 

Section 303(l), SSA, permits States to 

enact legislation to provide for the Stateconducted testing of an unemployment 

compensation applicant for the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61019 

unlawful use of controlled substances, 

as a condition of unemployment 

compensation eligibility, if the 

applicant was discharged for unlawful 

use of controlled substances by his or 

her most recent employer, or if suitable 

work (as defined under the State 

unemployment compensation law) is 

only available in an occupation for 

which drug testing is regularly 

conducted (as determined under this 

part 620). Section 303(l)(1)(A)(ii), SSA, 

requires the Secretary of Labor to issue 

regulations determining the occupations 

that regularly conduct drug testing. 

These regulations are limited to that 

requirement. 

§ 620.2 Definitions. 

As used in this part— 

Applicant means an individual who 

files an initial claim for unemployment 

compensation under State law. 

Applicant excludes an individual 

already found initially eligible and 

filing a continued claim. 

Controlled substance means a drug or 

other substance, or immediate 

precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, 

IV, or V of part B of 21 U.S.C. 801 et 

seq., as defined in section 102 of the 

Controlled Substances Act (Pub. L. 91– 

513, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). The term 

does not include distilled spirits, wine, 

malt beverages, or tobacco, as those 

terms are defined or used in subtitle E 

of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

Occupation means a position or class 

of positions. Federal and State laws 

governing drug testing refer to the 

classes of positions that are required to 

be drug tested rather than occupations, 

such as those defined by the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics in the Standard 

Occupational Classification System. 

Therefore, for purposes of this 

regulation, a position or class of 

positions will be considered the same as 

an ‘‘occupation.’’ 

Suitable work means suitable work as 

defined by the unemployment 

compensation law of a State against 

which the claim is filed. It must be the 

same definition the State law otherwise 

uses for determining the type of work an 

individual must seek given the 

individual’s education, experience and 

previous level of remuneration. 

Unemployment compensation means 

any cash benefits payable to an 

individual with respect to their 

unemployment under the State law 

(including amounts payable under an 

agreement under a Federal 

unemployment compensation law.) 

§ 620.3 Occupations that regularly 

conduct drug testing for purposes of 

determining which applicants may be drug 

tested when applying for State 

unemployment compensation. 

Occupations that regularly conduct 

drug testing, for purposes of § 620.4, are: 

(a) An occupation that requires the 

employee to carry a firearm; 

(b) An occupation identified in 14 

CFR 120.105 (as in effect on October 9, 

2014) by the Federal Aviation 

Administration, in which the employee 

must be tested (Aviation flight crew 

members and air traffic controllers); 

(c) An occupation identified in 49 

CFR 382.103 (as in effect on October 9, 

2014) by the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration, in which the 

employee must be tested (Commercial 

drivers); 

(d) An occupation identified in 49 

CFR 219.3 (as in effect on October 9, 

2014) by the Federal Railroad 

Administration, in which the employee 

must be tested (Railroad operating crew 

members); 

(e) An occupation identified in 49 

CFR 655.3 (as in effect on October 9, 

2014) by the Federal Transit 

Administration, in which the employee 

must be tested (Public transportation 

operators); 

(f) An occupation identified in 49 CFR 

199.2 (as in effect on October 9, 2014) 

by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, in which the 

employee must be tested (Pipeline 

operation and maintenance crew 

members); 

(g) An occupation identified in 46 

CFR 16.201(as in effect on October 9, 

2014) by the United States Coast Guard, 

in which the employee must be tested 

(Crewmembers and maritime credential 

holders on a commercial vessel); 

(h) An occupation specifically 

identified as requiring an employee to 

be tested for controlled substances in a 

State law that took effect no later than 

October 9, 2014, and still remains in 

effect. DOL seeks comments specifically 

on how to refresh the list of 

occupations. 

§ 620.4 Testing of unemployment 

compensation applicants for the unlawful 

use of a controlled substance. 

(a) States may conduct a drug test on 

an unemployment compensation 

applicant, as defined in § 620.2 of this 

part, for the unlawful use of controlled 

substances, as defined in § 620.2, as a 

condition of eligibility for 

unemployment compensation if the 

individual is one for whom suitable 

work, as defined in State law, as defined 

in § 620.2, is only available in an 

occupation that regularly conducts drug 

testing under § 620.3 of this part. Drug 

testing is permitted only of an applicant, 

and not of an individual filing a 

continued claim for unemployment 

compensation after initially being 

determined eligible. No State is required 

to apply drug testing to UC applicants 

under this part 620. 

(b) A State conducting drug testing as 

a condition of unemployment 

compensation eligibility as provided in 

paragraph (a) of this section may apply 

drug testing only to the occupations 

listed under § 620.3, but is not required 

to apply drug testing to any of them. 

(c) State standards governing drug 

testing of UC applicants must be in 

accordance with guidance, in the form 

of program letters or other issuances, 

issued by the Department of Labor. 

§ 620.5 Conformity and substantial 

compliance. 

(a) In general. A State law 

implementing the drug testing of 

applicants for unemployment 

compensation must conform with, and 

the law’s administration must 

substantially comply with, the 

requirements of this part 620 for 

purposes of certification under section 

302 of the SSA (42 U.S.C. 502), of 

whether a State is eligible to receive 

Federal grants for the administration of 

its UC program. 

(b) Resolving issues of conformity and 

substantial compliance. For the 

purposes of resolving issues of 

conformity and substantial compliance 

with the requirements of this part 620, 

the following provisions of 20 CFR 

601.5 apply: 

(1) Paragraph (b) of 20 CFR 601.5, 

pertaining to informal discussions with 

the Department of Labor to resolve 

conformity and substantial compliance 

issues, and 

(2) Paragraph (d) of 20 CFR 601.5, 

pertaining to the Secretary of Labor’s 

hearing and decision on conformity and 

substantial compliance. 

(c) Result of failure to conform or 

substantially comply. Whenever the 

Secretary of Labor, after reasonable 

notice and opportunity for a hearing to 

the State UC agency, finds that the State 

UC law fails to conform, or that the 

State or State UC agency fails to comply 

substantially, with the requirements of 

title III, SSA (42 U.S.C. 501–504), as 

implemented in this part 620, then the 

Secretary of Labor must notify the 

Governor of the State and such State UC 

agency that further payments for the 

administration of the State UC law will 

not be made to the State until the 

Secretary of Labor is satisfied that there 

is no longer any such failure. Until the 

Secretary of Labor is so satisfied, the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61020 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Department of Labor will not make 

further payments to such State. 

Portia Wu, 

Assistant Secretary for Employment and 

Training, Labor. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24098 Filed 10–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

24 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket No. FR–5817–N–01] 

Federal Housing Administration (FHA): 

Solicitation of Comment on Streamline 

Refinance Provisions in the FHA 

Single Family Housing Policy 

Handbook 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing 

Commissioner, HUD. 

ACTION: Solicitation of comment. 

SUMMARY: On September 30, 2014, FHA 

issued the FHA Single Family Housing 

Policy Handbook section for Title II 

Insured Housing Programs Forward 

Mortgages: Origination through PostClosing/Endorsement, Handbook 

4000.1. The goal of the new FHA Single 

Family Housing Policy Handbook 

(Handbook) is to streamline and ease the 

implementation of FHA’s various 

programs by consolidating and 

organizing all of FHA’s Single Family 

policy into one document. FHA will be 

issuing other individual sections of the 

Handbook as they are completed. As 

part of the consolidation of policy 

pertaining to streamline refinance 

transactions, FHA has taken the 

opportunity to integrate the language 

pertaining to streamline refinance 

transactions in Mortgagee Letters 2013– 

29, 2011–11, 2009–32 and 2008–40 into 

a refined mortgage payment history and 

calculation of the maximum insurable 

mortgage for the streamline refinance 

program. Prior to adopting in the 

Handbook as final this refined 

maximum insured mortgage calculation 

for streamline refinance transactions, 

HUD seeks public comment on this 

language as presented in the Handbook. 

DATES: Comment Due Date: November 

10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

this document to the Regulations 

Division, Office of General Counsel, 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 

10276, Washington, DC 20410–0500. 

Communications must refer to the above 

docket number and title. There are two 

methods for submitting public 

comments. All submissions must refer 

to the above docket number and title. 

1. Submission of Comments by Mail. 

Comments may be submitted by mail to 

the Regulations Division, Office of 

General Counsel, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, 451 

7th Street SW., Room 10276, 

Washington, DC 20410–0500. 

2. Electronic Submission of 

Comments. Interested persons may 

submit comments electronically through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly 

encourages commenters to submit 

comments electronically. Electronic 

submission of comments allows the 

commenter maximum time to prepare 

and submit a comment, ensures timely 

receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to 

make them immediately available to the 

public. Comments submitted 

electronically through the 

www.regulations.gov Web site can be 

viewed by other commenters and 

interested members of the public. 

Commenters should follow the 

instructions provided on that site to 

submit comments electronically. 

Note: To receive consideration as public 

comments, comments must be submitted 

through one of the two methods specified 

above. Again, all submissions must refer to 

the docket number and title of the document. 

No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile 

(FAX) comments are not acceptable. 

Public Inspection of Public 

Comments. All properly submitted 

comments and communications 

submitted to HUD will be available for 

public inspection and copying between 

8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above 

address. Due to security measures at the 

HUD Headquarters building, an 

appointment to review the public 

comments must be scheduled in 

advance by calling the Regulations 

Division at 202–708–3055 (this is not a 

toll-free number). Individuals with 

speech or hearing impairments may 

access this number via TTY by calling 

the Federal Relay Service at 800–877– 

8339. Copies of all comments submitted 

are available for inspection and 

downloading at www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elissa Saunders, Deputy Director, Office 

of Single Family Program Development, 

Office of Housing, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, 451 

7th Street SW., Room 9278, Washington, 

DC 20410; telephone number 202–708– 

2121 (this is not a toll-free number). 

Persons with hearing or speech 

impairments may access this number 

through TTY by calling the toll-free 

Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Payment history standards related to 

streamline refinances are currently 

found in Handbook HUD 4155.1, 

entitled Mortgage Credit Analysis for 

Mortgage Insurance on One- to FourUnit Mortgage Loans, in sections 

3.A.1.h., but have subsequently been 

modified by Mortgagee Letters, 

including those referenced above. The 

Maximum Insurable Mortgage 

Calculation for streamline refinances is 

found in section 3.C.2.c. 

In an effort to ease program 

implementation and reduce burden on 

lenders, servicers, borrowers, and 

interested members of the public, FHA, 

as noted in the Summary of this 

document, is consolidating and 

reorganizing its guidance into a new, 

comprehensive FHA Single Family 

Housing Policy Handbook (Handbook), 

which, once effective, will supersede all 

mortgagee letters and prior handbook 

provisions whose content has been 

incorporated into the Handbook. This 

consolidation and reorganization 

alleviates unnecessary burdens on 

lenders, servicers, and borrowers who 

have had to keep track of individual 

policy changes published in individual 

mortgagee letters, and gives all 

interested parties one place to find 

important program requirements. 

The Handbook section for Title II 

Insured Housing Programs Forward 

Mortgages—Origination through PostClosing/Endorsement was issued on 

September 30, 2014, at http://

portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/

huddoc?id=40001HSGH.pdf and will be 

effective for case numbers assigned on 

or after June 15, 2015. Due to the timing 

of the pre-scheduled release of the 

Handbook and the complexity of 

incorporating and organizing the 

various guidance documents for 

streamline refinances noted above, and 

eliminating extraneous examples, HUD 

has opted, in an abundance of caution, 

to seek public comment on the refined 

maximum mortgage amount calculation 

provision and payment history for the 

streamline refinance program which can 

be found in Paragraphs (4)(b) and (j) of 

II.A.8.d.vi.(C) ‘‘Streamline Refinances’’ 

in the Title II Insured Housing Programs 

Forward Mortgages section of the 

Handbook. The public comments 

received on these provisions will be 

given consideration, and notification 

will be provided of changes, if any, 

made to this section of the Handbook. 

Given the significant transition period 

that FHA is providing between the 

posting of the Handbook and the 

effective date of the Handbook, FHA 

does not anticipate having to change the 

effective date as a result of any changes 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS