This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

75114 

Vol. 79, No. 242 

Wednesday, December 17, 2014 

1 Joseph E. Aldy, Learning from Experience: An 

Assessment of Retrospective Reviews of Agency 

Rules & the Evidence for Improving the Design & 

Implementation of Regulatory Policy 4 (Nov. 17, 

2014), available at http://www.acus.gov/report/

retrospective-review-report. 

2 5 U.S.C. 610. 

ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF 

THE UNITED STATES 

Adoption of Recommendations 

AGENCY: Administrative Conference of 

the United States. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Administrative 

Conference of the United States adopted 

three recommendations at its Sixty-First 

Plenary Session. The appended 

recommendations address: 

Retrospective Review of Agency Rules; 

Petitions for Rulemaking; and Best 

Practices for Using Video 

Teleconferencing for Hearings. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

Recommendation 2014–5, Reeve Bull; 

for Recommendation 2014–6, Emily 

Bremer; and for Recommendation 2014– 

7, Amber Williams. For all three of these 

actions the address and telephone 

number are: Administrative Conference 

of the United States, Suite 706 South, 

1120 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 

20036; Telephone 202–480–2080. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Administrative Conference Act, 5 U.S.C. 

591–596, established the Administrative 

Conference of the United States. The 

Conference studies the efficiency, 

adequacy, and fairness of the 

administrative procedures used by 

Federal agencies and makes 

recommendations to agencies, the 

President, Congress, and the Judicial 

Conference of the United States for 

procedural improvements (5 U.S.C. 

594(1)). For further information about 

the Conference and its activities, see 

www.acus.gov. At its Sixty-First Plenary 

Session, held December 4–5, 2014, the 

Assembly of the Conference adopted 

three recommendations. 

Recommendation 2014–5, 

Retrospective Review of Agency Rules. 

This recommendation examines 

agencies’ procedures for reanalyzing 

and amending existing regulations and 

offers recommendations designed to 

promote a culture of retrospective 

review at agencies. Among other things, 

it urges agencies to plan for 

retrospective review when drafting new 

regulations; highlights considerations 

germane to selecting regulations for 

reevaluation; identifies factors relevant 

to ensuring robust review; and 

encourages agencies to coordinate with 

the Office of Management and Budget, 

other agencies, and outside entities 

(including stakeholders and foreign 

regulators) when designing and 

conducting retrospective reviews. 

Recommendation 2014–6, Petitions 

for Rulemaking. This recommendation 

identifies agency procedures and best 

practices for accepting, processing, and 

responding to petitions for rulemaking. 

It seeks to ensure that the public’s right 

to petition is a meaningful one, while 

still respecting the need for agencies to 

retain decisional autonomy. Building 

upon ACUS’s previous work on the 

subject, it provides additional guidance 

that may make the petitioning process 

more useful for agencies, petitioners, 

and the public. 

Recommendation 2014–7, Best 

Practices for Using Video 

Teleconferencing for Hearings. This 

recommendation offers practical 

guidance regarding how best to conduct 

video hearings, and addresses the 

following subjects: Equipment and 

environment, training, financial 

considerations, procedural practices, 

fairness and satisfaction, and 

collaboration among agencies. It also 

provides for the development of a video 

hearings handbook by ACUS’s Office of 

the Chairman. 

The Appendix below sets forth the 

full texts of these three 

recommendations. The Conference will 

transmit them to affected agencies, 

Congress, and the Judicial Conference of 

the United States. The 

recommendations are not binding, so 

the entities to which they are addressed 

will make decisions on their 

implementation. 

The Conference based these 

recommendations on research reports 

that are posted at: www.acus.gov/61st. A 

video of the Plenary Session is available 

at: new.livestream.com/ACUS/

61stPlenarySession, and a transcript of 

the Plenary Session will be posted when 

it is available. 

Dated: December 12, 2014. 

Shawne C. McGibbon, 

General Counsel. 

Appendix—Recommendations of the 

Administrative Conference of the 

United States 

Administrative Conference Recommendation 

2014–5 

Retrospective Review of Agency Rules 

Adopted December 4, 2014 

Executive Summary 

The following recommendation is intended 

to provide a framework for cultivating a 

‘‘culture of retrospective review’’ within 

regulatory agencies. It urges agencies to 

remain mindful of their existing body of 

regulations and the ever-present possibility 

that those regulations may need to be 

modified, strengthened, or eliminated in 

order to achieve statutory goals while 

minimizing regulatory burdens. It encourages 

agencies to make a plan for reassessing 

existing regulations and to design new 

regulations in a way that will make later 

retrospective review easier and more 

effective. It recognizes that input from 

stakeholders is a valuable resource that can 

facilitate and improve retrospective review. 

Finally, it urges agency officials to coordinate 

with other agencies and the Office of 

Management and Budget to promote 

coherence in shared regulatory space. 

Preamble 

Traditionally, federal regulatory 

policymaking has been a forward-looking 

enterprise: Congress delegates power to 

administrative agencies to respond to new 

challenges, and agencies devise rules 

designed to address those challenges. Over 

time, however, regulations may become 

outdated, and the cumulative burden of 

decades of regulations issued by numerous 

federal agencies can both complicate 

agencies’ enforcement efforts and impose a 

substantial burden on regulated entities. As 

a consequence, Presidents since Jimmy Carter 

have periodically undertaken a program of 

‘‘retrospective review,’’ urging agencies to 

reassess regulations currently on the books 

and eliminate, modify, or strengthen those 

regulations that have become outmoded in 

light of changed circumstances.1 Agencies 

have also long been subject to more limited 

regulatory lookback requirements, including 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which 

requires agencies to review regulations 

having ‘‘a significant economic impact upon 

a substantial number of small entities’’ 2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Notices 75115 

3Aldy, supra note 1, at 4. 

4See generally Martha Derthick & Paul J. Quirk, 

The Politics of Deregulation (1985). 

5See generally John Kamensky, National 

Partnership for Reinventing Government: A Brief 

History (Jan. 1999), available at http://

govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/whoweare/

history2.html (highlighting the successes of the 

Clinton Administration’s National Performance 

Review and emphasizing the importance of highlevel executive branch and agency leadership). 

6 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011). 

7 Id. § 6. 

8 76 FR 41587 (July 14, 2011). 

9 77 FR 28469 (May 14, 2012). 

10Administrative Conference of the United 

States, Recommendation 95–3, Review of Existing 

Agency Regulations, 60 FR 43108, 43109 (Aug. 18, 

1995). 

11Administrative Conference of the United 

States, Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations, Workshop Summary (Mar. 10, 2011), 

http://www.acus.gov/fact-sheet/retrospectivereview-workshop-summary. 

12Exec. Order No. 13,610, § 1, 77 FR 28469, 

28469 (May 14, 2012). 

13Cass R. Sunstein, Simpler: The Future of 

Government 180–84 (2013) (highlighting successful 

retrospective review efforts, including a Department 

of Health and Human Services reform to reporting 

requirements saving $5 billion over five years and 

a Department of Labor rule to harmonize hazard 

warnings with the prevailing international practice 

saving $2.5 billion over five years); see also 

Memorandum from President Ronald Reagan on the 

Review of Federal Regulatory Programs (Dec. 15, 

1986) (describing the results of the Presidential 

Task Force on Regulatory Relief, which included 

‘‘substantial changes to over 100 existing 

burdensome rules’’ that ‘‘sav[ed] businesses and 

consumers billions of dollars each year’’). 

14See, e.g., Reeve T. Bull, Building a Framework 

for Governance: Retrospective Review & 

Rulemaking Petitions, l Admin. L. Rev. l 

(forthcoming 2015); Cary Coglianese, Moving 

Forward with Regulatory Lookback, 30 Yale J. on 

Reg. 57A, 60A (2013); Michael Mandel & Diana G. 

Carew, Progressive Policy Institute Policy Memo, 

Regulatory Improvement Commission: A Politically 

Viable Approach to U.S. Regulatory Reform 13 

(May 2013). 

15See, e.g., Michael A. Livermore & Jason A. 

Schwarz, Unbalanced Retrospective Regulatory 

Review, Penn Program on Regulation RegBlog, July 

12, 2012, http://www.regblog.org/2012/07/12- 

livermore-schwartz-review.html; Rena Steinzor, The 

Real ‘‘Tsunami’’ in Federal Regulatory Policy, 

CPRBlog, May 22, 2014, http://

www.progressivereform.org/

CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=2480725C-9CC8-717DE8DE6C4C4A5FF6EB. 

16Aldy, supra note 1, at 47–48; Coglianese, supra 

note 14, at 66A. 

17Aldy, supra note 1, at 47–48. 

18 In 2011, the Conference recommended that 

agencies periodically review regulations that have 

incorporated by reference material published 

elsewhere in order to ensure that they are updated 

as appropriate and contain complete and accurate 

access information. Administrative Conference of 

the United States, Recommendation 2011–5, 

Incorporation by Reference, ¶¶ 6–10, 77 FR 2257, 

2259 (Jan. 17, 2012). 

19Some scholars propose the use of experimental 

methods and data-driven evaluation techniques in 

order to identify the actual impacts caused by 

regulations and determine whether they are 

achieving their intended outcomes. John DiNardo & 

David S. Lee, Program Evaluation & Research 

Designs, in 4A Handbook of Labor Economics 463– 

536 (2011); see also generally Joseph S. Wholey, 

Harry P. Hatry, & Kathryn E. Newcomer, Handbook 

of Practical Program Evaluation (3d ed. 2010). This 

might include, among other things, taking the 

opportunity of pilot projects and regulatory phaseins to test different regulatory approaches. Some 

scholars also propose the use of alternative 

regulatory mechanisms and other innovative 

approaches designed to lessen regulatory burdens 

while ensuring appropriate levels of regulatory 

protection. 

within ten years of issuance, and programspecific retrospective review requirements 

erected by statute.3

Though historical retrospective review 

efforts have resulted in some notable 

successes,4 especially in those instances in 

which high-level leadership in the executive 

branch and individual agencies has strongly 

supported these endeavors,5 retrospective 

review of regulations has not been held to the 

same standard as prospective review, and the 

various statutory lookback requirements 

apply only to subsets of regulations. 

President Barack Obama has sought to build 

on these initiatives in several executive 

orders. On January 18, 2011, he issued 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13,563,6 which 

directed executive branch agencies regularly 

to reassess existing rules to identify 

opportunities for eliminating or altering 

regulations that have become ‘‘outmoded, 

ineffective, insufficient, or excessively 

burdensome.’’ 7 Shortly thereafter, he issued 

another order encouraging independent 

regulatory agencies to pursue similar 

regulatory lookback efforts (E.O. 13,579 8) 

and yet another order providing a more 

detailed framework for retrospective review 

in executive branch agencies (E.O. 13,610 9). 

The Administrative Conference has long 

endorsed agencies’ efforts to reevaluate and 

update existing regulations. In 1995, the 

Conference issued a recommendation stating 

that ‘‘[a]ll agencies (executive branch or 

‘independent’) should develop processes for 

systematic review of existing regulations to 

determine whether such regulations should 

be retained, modified or revoked’’ and 

offering general guidance by which agencies 

might conduct that analysis.10 In addition, in 

early 2011, shortly after the promulgation of 

EO 13,563, the Conference hosted a 

workshop designed to highlight best 

practices for achieving the EO’s goals.11

Administrative law scholars and other 

experts have debated the effectiveness of 

existing retrospective review efforts. E.O. 

13,610 touts the elimination of ‘‘billions of 

dollars in regulatory costs and tens of 

millions of hours in annual paperwork 

burdens’’ achieved under the EO 13,563 

framework and promises additional 

savings.12 Cass Sunstein, the former 

Administrator of the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has suggested 

that these initiatives have yielded billions of 

dollars in savings.13 Nevertheless, many 

criticize the existing system of regulatory 

lookback as inadequate, especially insofar as 

it relies upon individual agencies to reassess 

their own regulations and provides few 

incentives for ensuring robust analysis of 

existing rules.14 From the opposite 

perspective, many criticize current 

retrospective review efforts as inherently 

deregulatory, possessing a strong bias in 

favor of eliminating or weakening regulations 

rather than strengthening regulations that 

may be insufficiently protective.15

Ultimately, a system of ‘‘self-review,’’ in 

which individual agencies are responsible for 

evaluating their own regulations and, to the 

extent permitted by law, modifying, 

strengthening, or eliminating those that are 

deemed to be outdated, can only succeed if 

agencies promote a ‘‘culture of retrospective 

review.’’ 16 Without a high-level 

commitment, any regulatory lookback 

initiative runs the risk of devolving into an 

exercise of pro forma compliance. This might 

not be an inevitable outcome, however. If the 

relevant agency officials, including both 

those conducting retrospective reviews and 

those drafting new rules, come to view 

regulation as an ongoing process whereby 

agency officials recognize the uncertainty 

inherent in the policymaking exercise and 

continually reexamine their regulations in 

light of new information and evolving 

circumstances, a durable commitment can 

emerge.17 Regulatory review should not only 

be a backward-looking exercise; rather, it 

should be present from the beginning as part 

of an on-going culture of evaluation and 

iterative improvement. Planning for 

reevaluation and regulatory improvement 

(including defining how success will be 

measured and how the data necessary for this 

measurement will be collected) should be 

considered an integral part of the 

development process for appropriate rules. 

This culture of evaluation and improvement 

is already part of many government 

programs, but not yet of most regulatory 

programs. 

This recommendation aims to help 

agencies create such a culture of 

retrospective review. To promote robust 

retrospective analysis, agency officials must 

see it as critical to advancing their missions. 

To obtain this ‘‘buy-in,’’ these officials must 

have a framework for performing the required 

analysis and possess adequate resources for 

conducting the necessary reviews (such that 

doing so is wholly integrated into agencies’ 

other responsibilities rather than serving to 

displace those existing responsibilities). 

Given the costs of performing robust 

retrospective analysis, it is critical that 

agencies have adequate resources such that 

conducting retrospective review does not 

detract from other aspects of their regulatory 

missions. Thus, the recommendation sets 

forth considerations relevant both to 

identifying regulations that are strong 

candidates for review and for conducting 

retrospective analysis.18 In addition, the 

recommendation encourages agencies to 

integrate retrospective analysis into their 

policymaking framework more generally, 

urging them not only to reevaluate existing 

regulations but also to design new 

regulations with an eye towards later 

reexamination and to consider the 

cumulative regulatory burden. In doing so, 

agencies should identify data collection 

needs and consider other regulatory drafting 

strategies that can help them later determine 

whether the regulation achieved its 

purpose.19 Finally, the recommendation 

identifies opportunities for conserving 

agency resources by taking advantage of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

75116 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Notices 

20Aldy, supra note 1, at 25–26, 70–71; see 

generally Bull, supra note 14 (proposing a system 

whereby private entities would use petitions for 

rulemaking to urge agencies to adopt less 

burdensome alternatives to existing regulations 

while preserving existing levels of regulatory 

protection). Agencies should nevertheless recognize 

that private and non-governmental entities’ 

interests may not align with public interests and 

that established firms may actually defend 

regulations that create barriers to entry for newer, 

smaller competitors. Susan E. Dudley & Jerry Brito, 

Regulation: A Primer 18–19 (2d ed. 2012) 

(describing the so-called ‘‘bootleggers and Baptists’’ 

phenomenon, whereby businesses that benefit from 

market interventions may make common cause with 

civil society groups that advocate such policies for 

other reasons). 

21Exec. Order No. 13,609, § 1, 77 FR 26413, 

26413 (May 4, 2012); Administrative Conference of 

the United States, Recommendation 2011–6, 

International Regulatory Cooperation, ¶ 4, 77 FR 

2259, 2260 (Jan. 17, 2012). 

22Peter H. Schuck, Why Government Fails So 

Often and How It Can Do Better 57 (2014). 

internal and external sources of information 

and expertise. In many instances, 

stakeholders may be able to furnish 

information to which agency officials 

otherwise lack access.20 In other cases, 

overseas regulators may have confronted 

similar regulatory problems, and 

incorporating these approaches would have 

the double benefit of avoiding duplication of 

effort and providing opportunities for 

eliminating unnecessary regulatory 

divergences.21 Further, the information 

generated from retrospective review has the 

potential to conserve resources during future 

regulatory development of similar rules by 

informing ex ante regulatory analysis, which 

in turn improves the quality of new 

regulations.22

Though the recommendation identifies 

certain common principles and opportunities 

for promoting robust retrospective analysis, it 

accepts the fact that each agency must tailor 

its regulatory lookback procedures to its 

statutory mandates, the nature of its 

regulatory mission, its competing priorities, 

and its current budgetary resources. In short, 

retrospective review is not a ‘‘one-size-fitsall’’ enterprise. In addition, as optimal 

regulatory approaches may evolve over time, 

so too may retrospective review procedures. 

Therefore, the recommendation avoids an 

overly rigid framework. Rather, it identifies 

considerations and best practices that, over 

time, should help foster a regulatory 

approach that integrates retrospective 

analysis as a critical element of agency 

decisionmaking and that accounts for the 

uncertainty inherent in regulatory 

policymaking at all stages of the process. The 

overall goal is to move away from a model 

of retrospective analysis as an episodic, topdown reporting and compliance obligation to 

one where agencies internalize a culture of 

retrospective review as part of their general 

regulatory mission. 

Recommendation 

Value of Retrospective Review 

1. The Conference endorses the objectives 

of Executive Orders 13,563, 13,579, and 

13,610 with respect to retrospective review of 

existing regulations. Agencies should work 

with the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), as appropriate, to develop 

retrospective review into a robust feature of 

the regulatory system. 

Integrating Retrospective Review Into New 

Regulations 

2. When formulating new regulations, 

agencies should, where appropriate, given 

available resources, priorities, authorizing 

statutes, nature of the regulation, and impact 

of the regulation, establish a framework for 

reassessing the regulation in the future and 

should consider including portions of the 

framework in the rule’s preamble. The rigor 

of analysis should be tailored to the rule 

being reviewed. The agencies should 

consider including the following in the 

framework: 

(a) The methodology by which they intend 

to evaluate the efficacy of and the impacts 

caused by the regulation, including datadriven experimental or quasi-experimental 

designs where appropriate, taking into 

account the burdens to the public in 

supplying relevant data to agencies. 

(b) A clear statement of the rule’s intended 

regulatory results with some measurable 

outcome(s) and a plan for gathering the data 

needed to measure the desired outcome(s). 

To the extent feasible, objectives should be 

outcome-based rather than output-based. 

Objectives may include measures of both 

benefits and costs (or cost-effectiveness), as 

appropriate. 

(c) Key assumptions underlying any 

regulatory impact analysis being performed 

on the regulation. This should include a 

description of the level of uncertainty 

associated with projected regulatory costs 

and benefits, consistent with OMB Circular 

A–4. 

(d) A target time frame or frequency with 

which they plan to reassess the proposed 

regulation. 

(e) A discussion of how the public and 

other governmental agencies (federal, state, 

tribal, and local) will be involved in the 

review. 

Agencies that have systematic review plans 

available on the internet that set forth the 

process and a schedule for their review of 

existing rules may address the 

recommendations in subparagraphs (a)–(e), 

as appropriate, by reference to their plans. 

3. When reviewing new regulations, the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) should facilitate planning for 

subsequent retrospective review to the extent 

appropriate. Agencies should consider 

including a section in the preamble of their 

proposed and final rules that accounts 

separately for paperwork burdens associated 

with the collection of data to facilitate 

retrospective review and should note that 

data gaps can impede subsequent 

retrospective review (though the paperwork 

burden would still be included in the total 

cost of the instant rule). 

4. Where it is legally permissible and 

appropriate, agencies should consider 

designing their regulations in ways that allow 

alternative approaches in the rule that could 

help the agency in a subsequent review of the 

rule to determine whether there are more 

effective approaches to implementing its 

regulatory objective. For example, agencies 

could allow for experimentation, innovation, 

competition, and experiential learning 

(calling upon the insights of internal 

statistical offices, as well as policy and 

program evaluation offices, in order to design 

plans for reassessing regulations, to the 

extent they have such resources). As 

recommended by OMB Circular A–4, 

agencies should consider allowing states and 

localities greater flexibility to tailor 

regulatory programs to their specific needs 

and circumstances and, in so doing, to serve 

as a natural experiment to be evaluated by 

subsequent retrospective review. Statutes 

that authorize shared responsibility among 

different levels of government may be 

amenable to such flexibility. 

Prioritizing Regulations for Retrospective 

Analysis 

5. In light of resource constraints and 

competing priorities, agencies should adopt 

and publicize a framework for prioritizing 

rules for retrospective analysis. Agency 

frameworks should be transparent and enable 

the public to understand why the agency 

prioritized certain rules for review in light of 

the articulated selection criteria. Though 

considerations will vary from agency to 

agency and program to program, the 

following factors can help identify strong 

candidates for retrospective review that 

could inform regulatory revision: 

(a) Likelihood of improving attainment of 

statutory objective; 

(b) Likelihood of increasing net benefits 

and magnitude of those potential benefits; 

(c) Uncertainty about the accuracy of initial 

estimates of regulatory costs and benefits; 

(d) Changes in the statutory framework 

under which the regulation was issued; 

(e) Cumulative regulatory burden created 

by the regulation at issue and related 

regulations (including those issued by other 

agencies); 

(f) Changes in underlying market or 

economic conditions, technological 

advances, evolving social norms, public risk 

tolerance, and/or standards that have been 

incorporated by reference; 

(g) Internal agency administrative burden 

associated with the regulation; 

(h) Comments, petitions, complaints, or 

suggestions received from stakeholder groups 

and members of the public; 

(i) Differences between U.S. regulatory 

approaches and those of key international 

trading partners; 

(j) Complexity of the rule (as demonstrated 

by poor compliance rates, amount of 

guidance issued, remands from the courts, or 

other factors); and 

(k) Different treatment of similarly situated 

persons or entities (including both regulated 

parties and regulatory beneficiaries). 

To the extent applicable, agencies should 

consider both the initial estimates of 

regulatory costs and benefits, and any 

additional evidence suggesting that those 

estimates are no longer accurate. 

6. Though agencies will likely focus their 

retrospective analysis resources primarily on 

important regulations as identified by the 

foregoing factors, they should also take 

advantage of simple opportunities to improve 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Notices 75117 

1 5 U.S.C. 553(e). This provision ensures that the 

people’s right to petition the government, which is 

protected by the First Amendment, see U.S. Const. 

amend. I, is also an important part of the 

rulemaking process. Although certain matters are 

exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553, see 

U.S.C. 553(a), the Administrative Conference has 

previously taken the position that public 

participation in agency rulemaking on these 

matters, including through petitions for rulemaking, 

may be beneficial. See Administrative Conference 

of the United States, Recommendation 86–6, 

Petitions for Rulemaking, 51 FR 46988 n.2 (Dec. 30, 

1986). 

2 5 U.S.C. 555(b). 

3 5 U.S.C. 555(e). The APA exempts agencies from 

the requirement of providing a ‘‘brief statement of 

the grounds for denial’’ when it is ‘‘affirming a prior 

denial or when the denial is self-explanatory.’’ Id. 

4See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 7671a(c)(3), 7671e(b), 

7671j(e). Statutory petition provisions such as these 

may impose additional procedural requirements 

beyond those contained in the APA or identify 

substantive requirements that must be met before 

the agency can act. 

5Administrative Conference of the United States, 

Recommendation 95–3, Review of Existing Agency 

Regulations, 60 FR 43,109 (Aug. 18, 1995). In 

general, courts do not require agencies to respond 

to every individual issue raised in a petition (let 

alone every issue raised in comments on petitions), 

so long as the administrative record demonstrates 

a reasoned response on the whole. Cf. Nader v. 

FAA, 440 F.2d 292, 294 (D.C. Cir. 1971); WildEarth 

Guardians v. Salazar, 741 F. Supp. 2d 89, 104 n.21 

(D.D.C. 2012). In Connecticut v. Daley, a district 

court raised the ‘‘question whether the [agency] 

must respond in detail to each and every comment 

received, or if [it] is only required to respond to 

what was raised in the actual petition for rule 

making.’’ 53 F. Supp. 2d 147, 170 (D. Conn. 1999). 

Although the court did not resolve that question, it 

noted that 5 U.S.C. 555(e) requires agencies to 

briefly explain only why a ‘‘petition’’ was denied, 

impliedly not extending the required response to 

comments on petitions (citing WWHT, Inc. v. FCC, 

656 F.2d 807, 813 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (emphasis added 

by D. Conn.)). 

6See Administrative Conference of the United 

States, Recommendation 86–6, Petitions for 

Rulemaking, 51 FR 46988 (Dec. 30, 1986); see also 

Administrative Conference of the United States, 

Recommendation 95–3, ¶ VI(B) (‘‘Agencies should 

establish deadlines for their responses to petitions; 

if necessary, the President by executive order or 

Congress should mandate that petitions be acted 

upon within a specified time.’’). 

7See Jason A. Schwartz & Richard L. Revesz, 

Petitions for Rulemaking, Final Report to the 

Administrative Conference of the United States 

(Nov. 5, 2014), available at http://www.acus.gov/

report/petitions-rulemaking-final-report. 

8See id. at 46; see also William V. Luneburg, 

Petitions for Rulemaking: Federal Agency Practice 

and Recommendations for Improvement, 1986 

ACUS 493, 510 (1986) (observing that, with respect 

to agency procedures governing petitions for 

rulemaking, ‘‘[s]ome have none; others largely 

mirror, without elaborating much on, statutory 

procedures; and still others have adopted rather 

detailed requirements . . . going considerably 

beyond the procedures expressly mandated by 

statute’’). 

regulations when the changes are relatively 

minor (e.g., allowing electronic filing of 

forms in lieu of traditional paper filing). 

Performing Retrospective Analysis 

7. When conducting retrospective analysis 

of existing regulations, agencies should 

consider whether the regulations are 

accomplishing their intended purpose or 

whether they might, to the extent permitted 

by law, be modified, strengthened, or 

eliminated in order to achieve statutory goals 

more faithfully, minimize compliance 

burdens on regulated entities, or more 

effectively confer regulatory benefits. The 

level of rigor of retrospective analysis will 

depend on a variety of factors and should be 

tailored to the circumstances. As appropriate 

and to the extent resources allow, agencies 

should employ statistical tools to identify the 

impacts caused by regulations, including 

their efficacy, benefits, and costs and should 

also consider the various factors articulated 

in recommendation 5 in determining how 

regulations might be modified to achieve 

their intended purpose more effectively. 

8. Agencies should consider assigning the 

primary responsibility for conducting 

retrospective review to a set of officials other 

than those responsible for producing or 

enforcing the regulation, if adequate 

resources are available. Reviewing officials 

should coordinate and collaborate with rule 

producers and enforcers. 

9. Agencies should periodically evaluate 

the results of their retrospective reviews and 

determine whether they are identifying 

common problems with the effectiveness of 

their rule development and drafting practices 

that should be addressed. 

Inter-Agency Coordination 

10. Agencies should coordinate their 

retrospective reviews with other agencies 

that have issued related regulations in order 

to promote a coherent regulatory scheme that 

maximizes net benefits. Agencies and OMB 

should also consider creating a high-level 

organization responsible for promoting 

coordination between agencies in their 

retrospective review efforts (or assigning this 

function to an existing entity, such as the 

Regulatory Working Group). 

11. In conducting retrospective review, 

agencies should consider regulations adopted 

by key trading partners and examine the 

possibility of either harmonizing regulatory 

approaches or recognizing foreign regulations 

as equivalent to their U.S. counterparts when 

doing so would advance the agency mission 

or remove an unnecessary regulatory 

difference without undermining that mission. 

12. OIRA should consider formulating a 

guidance document that highlights any 

considerations common to agency 

retrospective analyses generally. 

Promoting Outside Input 

13. Regulated parties, non-governmental 

organizations, academics, and other outside 

entities or individuals may possess valuable 

information concerning both the impact of 

individual regulations and the cumulative 

impact of a body of regulations issued by 

multiple agencies to which individual 

agencies might not otherwise have access. 

Agencies should leverage outside expertise 

both in reassessing existing regulations and 

devising retrospective review plans for new 

regulations. In so doing, agencies should be 

mindful of the potential applicability of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, and agencies and 

OMB should utilize flexibilities within the 

Act and OMB’s implementing regulations 

(e.g., a streamlined comment period for 

collections associated with proposed rules) 

where permissible and appropriate. Agencies 

should also consider using social media, as 

appropriate, to learn about actual experience 

under the relevant regulation(s). 

14. Agencies should disclose relevant data 

concerning their retrospective analyses of 

existing regulations on ‘‘regulations.gov,’’ 

their Open Government Web pages, and/or 

other publicly available Web sites. In so 

doing, to the extent appropriate, agencies 

should organize the data in ways that allow 

private parties to recreate the agency’s work 

and to run additional analyses concerning 

existing rules’ effectiveness. Agencies should 

encourage private parties to submit 

information and analyses and should 

integrate relevant information into their 

retrospective reviews. 

Ensuring Adequate Resources 

15. Agencies and OMB should consider 

agencies’ retrospective review needs and 

activities when developing and evaluating 

agency budget requests. To the extent that 

agencies require additional resources to 

conduct appropriately searching 

retrospective reviews, Congress should fund 

agencies as necessary. 

Administrative Conference Recommendation 

2014–6 

Petitions for Rulemaking 

Adopted December 5, 2014 

Under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA), federal agencies are required to ‘‘give 

. . . interested person[s] the right to petition 

for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a 

rule.’’ 1 The statute generally does not 

establish procedures agencies must observe 

in connection with petitions for rulemaking. 

It does, however, require agencies to respond 

to petitions for rulemaking ‘‘within a 

reasonable time,’’ 2 and to give petitioners 

‘‘prompt notice’’ when a petition is denied in 

whole or in part, along with ‘‘a brief 

statement of the grounds for denial.’’ 3

Beyond the APA’s general right to petition, 

Congress has occasionally granted more 

specific rights to petition under individual 

statutes, such as the Clean Air Act.4

Although agency denials of petitions for 

rulemaking are subject to judicial review, the 

‘‘courts have properly limited their scope of 

review in this context.’’ 5

The Administrative Conference has 

previously recommended basic procedures to 

help agencies meet the APA’s minimum 

requirements and respond promptly to 

petitions for rulemaking.6 An Administrative 

Conference study of agency procedures and 

practices with respect to petitions for 

rulemaking has revealed, however, that 

further improvement is warranted.7 Nearly 

thirty years after the Administrative 

Conference first examined this issue, few 

agencies have in place official procedures for 

accepting, processing, and responding to 

petitions for rulemaking.8 How petitions are 

received and treated varies across—and even 

within—agencies. In some cases, agency 

personnel do not even know what their 

agency’s procedures are for handling 

petitions. Although the petitioning process 

can be a tool for enhancing public 

engagement in rulemaking, in practice most 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

75118 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Notices 

9See Schwartz & Revesz, supra note 7, at 40–64. 

10See generally id. 

11This could be similar to the information some 

agencies provide on their Web sites to help the 

public understand the characteristics of an effective 

rulemaking comment. 

12See, e.g., Administrative Conference of the 

United States, Recommendation 2011–8, Agency 

Innovations in E-Rulemaking, 77 FR 2257, 2264–65 

(Jan. 17, 2012). 

petitions for rulemaking are filed by 

sophisticated stakeholders and not by other 

interested members of the public. Some 

petitioners report that it can be difficult to 

learn the status of a previously filed petition, 

agency communication throughout the 

process can be poor, response times can be 

slow, and agency explanations for denials 

can be minimal and predominantly nonsubstantive.9

Although the right to petition can be 

important and valuable, making the process 

work well requires a difficult balancing of 

competing interests. On the one hand, the 

APA grants to the public the right to petition 

for rulemaking and requires agencies to 

provide a decision on the merits within a 

reasonable period of time. To be sure, 

agencies often receive suggestions for new 

regulations and feedback regarding needed 

changes to existing regulations via informal 

channels, such as through meetings with 

regulated parties and stakeholders or 

interactions during inspections or other 

enforcement activities. Petitions provide 

another important avenue for such input— 

one that in theory is more broadly accessible 

to interested persons who do not regularly 

interact with agency personnel. Nonetheless, 

petitions for rulemaking may adversely affect 

an agency’s ability to control its agenda and 

make considered, holistic judgments about 

regulatory priorities, particularly in the face 

of limited resources. And thoughtfully 

evaluating petitions and defending denials 

on judicial review may consume already 

scarce agency resources. 

Greater transparency, improved 

communication between agencies and 

petitioners, and more prompt and 

explanatory petition responses may help to 

balance these competing interests.10

Agencies should educate the public about 

how petitions fit with the other (often more 

informal) mechanisms through which 

agencies receive feedback from regulated and 

other interested persons on regulatory 

priorities and related issues. Petitioners and 

agency personnel alike would also benefit 

from greater clarity as to how petitions can 

be filed, what information should be 

included to make a petition more useful and 

easier for the agency to evaluate,11 whether 

or when public comment will be invited, and 

how long it may take to resolve a petition. 

Better internal coordination may reduce the 

possibility that a petition will be forgotten or 

will not reach the appropriate agency office 

for decision. Encouraging communication 

between prospective or current petitioners 

and the agency can provide an efficient way 

to improve the quality of petitions and the 

overall experience for all participants in the 

process. Readily available information on the 

status of pending petitions and more prompt 

disposition of petitions may improve 

understanding between the agency and the 

public and reduce the likelihood of litigation. 

This recommendation seeks to ensure that 

the public’s right to petition is a meaningful 

one, while still respecting the need for 

agencies to retain decisional autonomy. 

Building upon the Administrative 

Conference’s previous work, it provides more 

guidance to agencies, identifying best 

practices that may make the petitioning 

process more useful for agencies, petitioners, 

and other members of the public. Moreover, 

electronic rulemaking dockets and agency 

Web sites provide new opportunities for 

agencies to achieve these goals in a costeffective manner.12 This recommendation 

should help agencies reevaluate and revise 

their existing policies and procedures to 

make the petitioning process work better for 

all. 

Recommendation 

Agency Policy on Petitions for Rulemaking 

1. Each agency that has rulemaking 

authority should have procedures, embodied 

in a written and publicly available policy 

statement or procedural rule, explaining how 

the agency receives, processes, and responds 

to petitions for rulemaking filed under the 

Administrative Procedure Act. 

(a) If an agency also has more specific 

regulations that govern petitions filed under 

other statutes or that apply to specific subagencies, the agency’s procedures should 

cross-reference those regulations. 

(b) If an agency rarely receives petitions for 

rulemaking, its procedures may simply 

designate an agency contact who can provide 

guidance to prospective petitioners. 

(c) The procedures should explain how 

petitions relate to the various other options 

available to members of the public for 

informally engaging with agency personnel 

on the need to issue, amend, or repeal rules. 

2. The procedures should indicate how the 

agency will coordinate the consideration of 

petitions with other processes and activities 

used to determine agency priorities, such as 

the Unified Agenda and retrospective review 

of existing rules. 

3. The procedures should explain what 

type of data, argumentation, and other 

information make a petition more useful and 

easier for the agency to evaluate. The 

procedures should also identify any 

information that is statutorily required for the 

agency to act on a petition. 

Receiving and Processing Petitions 

4. Agencies should accept the electronic 

submission of petitions, via email or through 

Regulations.gov (such as by maintaining an 

open docket for the submission of petitions 

for rulemaking) or their existing online 

docketing system. 

5. Agencies should designate a particular 

person or office to receive and distribute all 

petitions for rulemaking to ensure that each 

petition for rulemaking is expeditiously 

directed to the appropriate agency personnel 

for consideration and disposition. This 

designation may be especially important for 

agencies that have multiple regions or offices. 

Communicating With Petitioners 

6. Agencies should encourage and facilitate 

communication between agency personnel 

and petitioners, both prior to submission and 

while petitions are pending disposition. For 

example, agencies should consider asking 

petitioners to clarify requests or submit 

additional information that will make the 

petition easier to evaluate. Agencies should 

consider also alerting petitioners to recent 

developments that may warrant a petition’s 

modification or withdrawal. 

7. Agencies should provide a way for 

petitioners and other interested persons to 

learn the status of previously filed petitions. 

Agencies should: 

(a) Use online dockets to allow the public 

to monitor the status of petitions; and 

(b) Designate a single point of contact 

authorized to provide information about the 

status of petitions. 

Soliciting Public Comment on Petitions 

8. Agencies should consider inviting 

public comment on petitions for rulemaking 

by either: 

(a) Soliciting public comment on all 

petitions for rulemaking; or 

(b) Deciding, on a case-by-case basis, 

whether to solicit public comment on 

petitions for rulemaking. Inviting public 

comment may be particularly appropriate 

when: 

(i) A petition addresses a question of policy 

or of general interest; or 

(ii) Evaluating a petition’s merits may 

require the agency to consider information 

the agency does not have, or the agency 

believes that the information provided by the 

petitioner may be in dispute or is incomplete. 

9. If an agency anticipates that it will 

consider but not respond to all comments on 

a petition for rulemaking, it should say so in 

its request for comments. 

Responding to Petitions for Rulemaking 

10. Agencies should docket each decision 

with the petition to which it responds. 

11. If an agency denies a petition, where 

feasible and appropriate, it should provide a 

reasoned explanation beyond a brief 

statement of the grounds for denial. Agencies 

should not reflexively cite only resource 

constraints or competing priorities. 

12. Agencies must respond to petitions 

within a reasonable time. To that end, each 

agency should: 

(a) Adopt in its procedures an expectation 

that it will respond to all petitions for 

rulemaking within a stated period (e.g., 

within 6, 12, or 18 months of submission); 

and/or 

(b) Establish and make publicly available 

an individual target timeline for responding 

to that petition. 

13. If an agency is unable to respond to a 

petition by the target timeline it has 

established, it should provide the petitioner 

and the public with a brief explanation for 

the delay, along with a reasonable new target 

timeline. The explanation may include a 

request for new or additional information if 

the agency believes it would benefit from that 

or the facts or circumstances relevant to the 

petition may have changed while the petition 

was pending. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Notices 75119 

1 397 U.S. 254 (1970). 

2 424 U.S. 319 (1976); see also infra note 9. 

3 In fact, agencies have been directed to increase 

efficiency through their use of technology. See 

Exec. Order No. 13,589, 76 FR 70861 (Nov. 15, 

2011) (directing agencies to ‘‘devise strategic 

alternatives to Government travel, including . . . 

technological alternatives, such as . . . video 

conferencing’’ and to ‘‘assess current device 

inventories and usage, and establish controls, to 

ensure that they are not paying for unused or 

underutilized information technology (IT) 

equipment, installed software, or services’’). 

4While this recommendation refers primarily to 

adjudication, it may apply to other proceedings as 

well. 

5See 76 FR 48795 (Aug. 9, 2011), available at 

http://www.acus.gov/recommendation/agency-usevideo-hearings-best-practices-and-possibilitiesexpansion. 

6Such factors include whether (1) the agency’s 

statute permits use of VTC; (2) the agency’s 

proceedings are conducive to VTC; (3) VTC may be 

used without affecting case outcomes; (4) the 

agency’s budget allows adequate investment in 

VTC; (5) the use of VTC would result in cost 

savings; (6) the use of VTC would result in a 

reduction in wait time; (7) the participants (e.g., 

judges, parties, representatives, witnesses) would 

find VTC beneficial; (8) the agencies’ facilities and 

administration would be able to support VTC 

hearings; and (9) the use of VTC would not 

adversely affect either representation or 

communication. See id. 

7Best practices include (1) offering VTC on a 

voluntary basis; (2) ensuring that the use of VTC is 

outcome-neutral and meets the needs of users; (3) 

soliciting feedback from participants; (4) 

implementing VTC via a pilot program and 

evaluating that program before establishing it more 

broadly; and (5) providing structured training and 

ensuring available IT support staff. Id. 

8 Id. 

9See EF Int’l Language Schools, Inc., 2014 

N.L.R.B. 708 (2014) (admin. law judge 

recommended decision) (finding ‘‘that the 

safeguards utilized at hearing [to take witness 

testimony by VTC] amply ensured that due process 

was not denied to’’ the party). 

10For greater detail about how to implement VTC 

hearings, see Center for Legal and Court 

Technology, Best Practices for Using Video for 

Hearings and Related Proceedings (Nov. 6, 2014), 

available at http://www.acus.gov/report/bestpractices-using-video-teleconferencing-final-report. 

11This recommendation does not take a position 

on when parties should be entitled to, or may 

request, an in-person hearing. 

Providing Information on Petitions for 

Rulemaking 

14. Agencies should maintain a summary 

log or report listing all petitions, the date 

each was received, and the date of 

disposition or target timeline for disposition 

(where necessary, this should include the 

brief explanation for any delay in disposition 

and the reasonable new target timeline). The 

log or report should be described in the 

agency’s procedures (see paragraph 1) and 

made publicly available on the agency’s Web 

site. It should be updated at least semiannually. Agencies should create and 

maintain the summary log or report 

beginning on the date of this 

recommendation and should also include or 

otherwise publicly provide, to the extent 

feasible, historic information about petitions 

for rulemaking that have been resolved. 

15. The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs should request that 

agencies include in their annual regulatory 

plan information on petitions for rulemaking 

that have been resolved during that year or 

are still pending. 

Using Electronic Tools To Improve the 

Petitioning Process 

16. Agencies should use available online 

platforms, including their Web sites and 

Regulations.gov, to implement this 

recommendation as effectively and efficiently 

as possible, including by informing the 

public about the petitioning process, 

facilitating the submission of petitions, 

inviting public comment, providing status 

updates, improving the accessibility of 

agency decisions on petitions, and annually 

providing information on petitions for 

rulemaking that have been resolved or are 

still pending. 

Administrative Conference Recommendation 

2014–7 

Best Practices for Using Video 

Teleconferencing for Hearings 

Adopted December 5, 2014 

Agencies conduct thousands of 

adjudicative hearings every day, but the 

format of the hearing, whether face-to-face or 

by video, has not been analyzed in any 

systematic way. Some agencies have 

provided hearings by video teleconferencing 

technology (VTC) for decades and have 

robust VTC programs. These programs strive 

consistently to provide the best hearing 

experience, even as technology changes. 

Other agencies have been reluctant to depart 

from traditional formats. Some are skeptical 

that hearings may be conducted as effectively 

via VTC as they are in person. Others are 

uncertain about how to implement VTC 

hearings. But all could benefit from an 

impartial look at the available technologies 

for conducting adjudications. 

The varied agency experiences and 

concerns reflect the tension between longestablished values and technological 

innovations. Adjudicative hearings must be 

conducted in a manner consistent with due 

process and the core values of fairness, 

efficiency, and participant satisfaction 

reflected in cases like Goldberg v. Kelly 1 and 

Mathews v. Eldridge.2 At the same time, 

agencies that have explored the use of 

technological alternatives have achieved 

benefits in the effective use of 

decisionmaking resources and reduction in 

travel expenses.3 Upholding core values and 

making the best use of technology—both in 

hearings and related proceedings such as 

initial appearances, pre-hearing conferences, 

and meetings—is the challenge this 

recommendation seeks to meet.4

In 2011, the Administrative Conference 

adopted Recommendation 2011–4, Agency 

Use of Video Hearings: Best Practices and 

Possibilities for Expansion.5

Recommendation 2011–4 had two main 

purposes. First, it identified factors for 

agencies—especially agencies with high 

volume caseloads—to consider as they 

determined whether to conduct VTC 

hearings.6 Second, it offered several best 

practices agencies should employ when 

using VTC hearings.7 The recommendation 

concluded by encouraging agencies that have 

decided to conduct VTC hearings to 

‘‘[c]onsult the staff of the Administrative 

Conference of the United States . . . for best 

practices, guidance, advice, and the 

possibilities for shared resources and 

collaboration.’’ 8

This recommendation builds on 

Recommendation 2011–4 by providing 

practical guidance regarding how best to 

conduct VTC hearings. The Administrative 

Conference is committed to the principles of 

fairness, efficiency, and participant 

satisfaction in the conduct of hearings. When 

VTC is used, it should be used in a manner 

that promotes these principles, which form 

the cornerstones of adjudicative legitimacy.9

The Conference recognizes that VTC is not 

suitable for every kind of hearing, but 

believes greater familiarity with existing 

agency practices and awareness of the 

improvements in technology will encourage 

broader use of such technology.10 This 

recommendation aims to ensure that, when 

agencies choose to offer VTC hearings, they 

are able to provide a participant experience 

that meets or even exceeds the in-person 

hearing experience.11

Recommendation 

Foundational Factors 

1. Agencies should consider the various 

physical and logistical characteristics of their 

hearings, including the layout of the hearing 

room(s) and the number and location(s) of 

hearing participants (i.e., judge, parties, 

representatives, and witnesses) and other 

attendees, in order to determine the kind of 

video teleconferencing (VTC) system to use. 

These general principles should guide 

agencies’ consideration: 

(a) Video screens should be large enough 

to ensure adequate viewing of all 

participants; 

(b) Camera images should replicate the inperson hearing experience, including 

participants’ ability to make eye contact with 

other participants and see the entire hearing 

room(s). If interpreters are involved, they 

should be able to see and hear the 

participants clearly; 

(c) Microphones should be provided for 

each participant who will be speaking during 

the hearing; 

(d) The speaker system should be sufficient 

to allow all participants to hear the person 

speaking. If a participant has a hearing 

impairment, a system that complies with the 

Americans with Disabilities Act and other 

applicable laws should be used to connect to 

the VTC system; 

(e) The record should be adequately 

captured, either by ensuring that the audio 

system connects with a recording system, or 

by ensuring that the court reporter can 

clearly see and hear the proceeding; 

(f) Sufficient bandwidth should be 

provided so that the video image and sound 

are clear and uninterrupted; and 

(g) Each piece of equipment should be 

installed, mounted, and secured so that it is 

protected and does not create a hazardous 

environment for participants or staff. 

2. Agencies should ensure that the hearing 

room conditions allow participants to see, be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

75120 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Notices 

seen by, and hear other participants, and to 

see written documents and screens, as well 

as, or better than, if all of the participants 

were together in person. These general 

principles should guide agencies’ 

consideration in creating the best hearing 

room conditions: 

(a) Lighting should be placed in a way to 

create well-dispersed, horizontal, ambient 

light throughout all rooms used in the 

proceeding; 

(b) Noise transference should be kept to a 

minimum by: 

(i) Locating hearing rooms in the inner area 

of the office and away from any noise or 

vibration-producing elements (e.g., elevator 

shafts, mechanical rooms, plumbing, and 

high-traffic corridors); and 

(ii) Installing solid doors with door sweeps, 

walls that run from floor to ceiling, and 

sound absorption panels on the walls. 

(c) Room de ́cor, including colors and 

finishes of walls and furniture, should allow 

for the camera(s) to easily capture the 

image(s). 

3. Agencies should retain technical staff to 

support VTC operators and maintain 

equipment. 

Training 

4. Agencies should provide training for 

agency staff, especially judges, who will 

operate the VTC equipment during the 

hearing. Agencies should also provide a 

reference chart or ‘‘cheat sheet’’ to keep with 

each VTC system that provides basic system 

operation directions that operators can easily 

reference, as well as a phone number (or 

other rapid contact information) for reaching 

technical staff. 

5. Agencies should provide advanced 

training for technical support staff to ensure 

they are equipped to maintain the VTC 

equipment and provide support to operators, 

including during a proceeding if a problem 

arises. 

Financial Considerations 

6. The capabilities and costs of VTC 

systems vary widely. Before purchasing or 

updating their VTC systems, agencies should 

first consider their hearing needs (e.g., the 

needs of hearings conducted by judges at 

their desks with a single party will be 

different than the needs of hearings 

conducted in full-sized federal courtrooms 

with multiple participants and attendees 

present at several locations) both now and in 

the future (e.g., the bandwidth needed today 

may be different than the bandwidth needed 

tomorrow). 

7. Once agencies have identified their 

hearing needs, they should consider the costs 

and benefits of implementing, maintaining, 

and updating their VTC systems to suit those 

needs. 

(a) Costs to be considered include those 

associated with purchasing, installing, and 

maintaining the VTC system; creating and 

maintaining the conditions necessary to 

allow participants to see and hear each other 

clearly; and providing training to staff. 

(b) Benefits to be considered include better 

access to justice by increased accessibility to 

hearings, more efficient use of time for judges 

and staff, reduced travel costs and delays, 

and backlog reductions. 

Procedural Practices 

8. Judges should consider how to establish 

and maintain control of the hearing room, 

such as by wearing robes as a symbol of 

authority, appearing on the screen before the 

other participants enter the room(s), 

requiring parties and representatives to use 

hand signals to indicate that they would like 

to speak, and reminding representatives that 

they are officers of the court. 

9. Agencies should install VTC equipment 

so that judges can control the camera at the 

other location(s), if possible. 

10. Agency staff should ensure that the 

hearing will run as smoothly as possible by 

removing any obstacles blocking lines-ofsight between the camera and participants 

and testing the audio on a regular basis. 

Fairness and Satisfaction 

11. Agencies should periodically assess 

their VTC hearings program to ensure that 

the use of VTC produces outcomes that are 

comparable to those achieved during inperson hearings. 

12. Agencies should maintain open lines of 

communication with representatives in order 

to receive feedback about the use of VTC. 

Post-hearing surveys or other appropriate 

methods should be used to collect 

information about the experience and 

satisfaction of participants. 

Collaboration Among Agencies 

13. Agencies should consider sharing VTC 

facilities and expertise with each other in 

order to reduce costs and increase efficiency, 

while maintaining a fair and satisfying 

hearing experience. 

14. Agencies that conduct hearings should 

work with the General Services 

Administration (GSA) in procuring and 

planning facilities that will best 

accommodate the needs of VTC hearings. 

Development of a Video Teleconferencing 

Hearings Handbook 

15. The Office of the Chairman of the 

Administrative Conference of the United 

States should create a handbook on the use 

of VTC in hearings and related proceedings 

that will be updated from time to time as 

technology changes. The handbook should 

reflect consultation with GSA and other 

agencies with VTC hearings expertise. It 

should be made publicly accessible online to 

agencies, and include specific guidance 

regarding equipment, conditions, training 

that meets industry standards, and methods 

for collecting feedback from participants. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29546 Filed 12–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6110–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Rural Utilities Service 

Announcement of Grant Application 

Deadlines and Funding Levels 

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of solicitation of 

applications (NOSA). 

SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service, a 

Rural Development agency of the United 

States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), herein referred to as RUS or the 

Agency, announces its Community 

Connect Grant Program application 

window for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015. This 

notice is being issued prior to passage 

of a final appropriations act to allow 

potential applicants time to submit 

proposals and give the Agency time to 

process applications within the current 

fiscal year. RUS will publish on its Web 

site the amount of funding received in 

any continuing resolution or the final 

appropriations act, if any. Expenses 

incurred in developing applications will 

be at the applicant’s risk. 

In addition to announcing the 

application window, RUS announces 

the minimum and maximum amounts 

for Community Connect grants 

applicable for the fiscal year. The 

Community Connect Grant Program 

regulations can be found at 7 CFR 1739, 

subpart A. 

DATES: You may submit completed 

applications for grants on paper or 

electronically according to the following 

deadlines: 

• Paper copies must carry proof of 

shipping no later than February 17, 

2015 to be eligible for FY 2015 grant 

funding. Late applications are not 

eligible for FY 2015 grant funding. 

• Electronic copies must be received 

by February 17, 2015 to be eligible for 

FY 2015 grant funding. Late 

applications are not eligible for FY 2015 

grant funding. 

ADDRESSES: You may obtain application 

guides and materials for the Community 

Connect Grant Program via the Internet 

at the following Web site: http://

www.rurdev.usda.gov/utp_

commconnect.html. You may also 

request application guides and materials 

from RUS by contacting the appropriate 

individual listed in section VII of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this notice. 

Submit completed paper applications 

for grants to the Rural Utilities Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 

Independence Ave. SW., Room 2808, 

STOP 1597, Washington, DC 20250– 

1597. Applications should be marked 

‘‘Attention: Deputy Assistant 

Administrator, Loan Origination and 

Approval Division, Rural Utilities 

Service.’’ 

Submit electronic grant applications 

at http://www.grants.gov (Grants.gov), 

following the instructions you find on 

that Web site. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shawn Arner, Deputy Assistant 

Administrator, Loan Origination and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES