This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

1642 

Vol. 77, No. 7 

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food and Nutrition Service 

7 CFR Part 253 

[FNS–2011–0036] 

RIN 0584–AE05 

Food Distribution Program on Indian 

Reservations: Income Deductions and 

Resource Eligibility 

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend 

regulations for the Food Distribution 

Program on Indian Reservations 

(FDPIR). The changes are intended to 

simplify and improve the 

administration of and expand access to 

FDPIR, and promote conformity with 

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP). First, the Department 

proposes an amendment that would 

eliminate household resources from 

consideration when determining FDPIR 

eligibility. Second, to more closely align 

FDPIR and SNAP regulations, the 

Department proposes to expand the 

current FDPIR income deduction for 

Medicare Part B Medical Insurance and 

Part D Prescription Drug Coverage 

premiums to include other monthly 

medical expenses in excess of $35 for 

households with elderly and/or disabled 

members. This rule also proposes to 

establish an income deduction for 

shelter and utility expenses. Finally, the 

Department proposes verification 

requirements related to the proposed 

income deductions and revisions to the 

household reporting requirements that 

will more closely align FDPIR and 

SNAP regulations. 

DATES: To be assured of consideration, 

comments must be received on or before 

April 10, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The Food and Nutrition 

Service (FNS) invites interested persons 

to submit comments on this proposed 

rule. You may submit comments 

identified by Regulatory Identifier 

Number (RIN) 0584–AE05, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. In the Enter 

Keyword or ID field insert ‘‘FNS–2011– 

0036’’, and then click on Search. Click 

on Submit a Comment. 

• Information on using 

Regulations.gov, including detailed 

instructions for accessing documents, 

making comments, and viewing 

submitted comments is available 

through the site’s ‘‘FAQs’’ link. 

• Fax: Submit comments by facsimile 

transmission to (703) 305–2782. 

• Disk or CD–ROM: Submit comments 

on disk to Laura Castro, Director, Food 

Distribution Division, Food and 

Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, 

Room 504, Alexandria, Virginia 22302– 

1594. 

• Mail: Send comments to Laura 

Castro at the above address. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

comments to the above address. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this rule will be included in the record 

and will be made available to the 

public. Please be advised that the 

substance of the comments and the 

identity of the individuals or entities 

submitting the comments will be subject 

to public disclosure. The Department 

will make the comments publicly 

available on the Internet via http://www.

regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dana Rasmussen by telephone at (703) 

305–2662. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Comment Procedures 

II. Background and Discussion of the 

Proposed Rule 

III. Procedural Matters 

I. Public Comment Procedures 

Your written comments on the 

proposed rule should be specific, 

should be confined to issues pertinent 

to the proposed rule, and should 

explain the reason(s) for any change you 

recommend or proposal(s) you oppose. 

Where possible, you should reference 

the specific section or paragraph of the 

proposal you are addressing. Comments 

received after the close of the comment 

period (see DATES) will not be 

considered or included in the 

Administrative Record for the final rule. 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write regulations that are 

simple and easy to understand. We 

invite your comments on how to make 

these proposed regulations easier to 

understand, including answers to 

questions such as the following: 

(1) Are the requirements in the 

proposed regulations clearly stated? 

(2) Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that interferes with 

its clarity? 

(3) Does the format of the rule (e.g., 

grouping and order of sections, use of 

heading, and paragraphing) make it 

clearer or less clear? 

(4) Would the rule be easier to 

understand if it was divided into more 

(but shorter) sections? 

(5) Is the description of the rule in the 

preamble section entitled ‘‘Background 

and Discussion of the Proposed Rule’’ 

helpful in understanding the rule? How 

could this description be more helpful 

in making the rule easier to understand? 

II. Background and Discussion of the 

Proposed Rule 

The Department proposes to amend 

the regulations for FDPIR at 7 CFR part 

253. These changes are intended to 

improve the administration of FDPIR 

and service to program applicants and 

participants, and respond to a resolution 

passed by the membership of the 

National Association of Food 

Distribution Programs on Indian 

Reservations (NAFDPIR) in June 2009. 

These proposed provisions would 

simplify program administration and 

promote conformity with SNAP. The 

Department proposes amendments that 

would: (1) Eliminate household 

resources from consideration when 

determining FDPIR eligibility; (2) 

expand the current income deduction 

for Medicare Part B Medical Insurance 

and Part D Prescription Drug Coverage 

premiums to include other monthly 

medical expenses in excess of $35 for 

households with elderly and/or disabled 

members, as defined at 7 CFR 253.2; (3) 

establish an income deduction for 

shelter and utility expenses; and (4) 

establish verification requirements 

related to the proposed income 

deductions and revise household 

reporting requirements. The 

amendments are discussed in more 

detail below. 

In the following discussion and 

regulatory text, the term ‘‘State agency,’’ 

as defined at 7 CFR 253.2, is used to 

include Indian Tribal Organizations 

(ITOs) authorized to operate FDPIR and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1643 

Food Distribution Program for Indian 

Households in Oklahoma (FDPIHO) in 

accordance with 7 CFR parts 253 and 

254. The term ‘‘FDPIR’’ is used in this 

rulemaking to refer collectively to 

FDPIR and FDPIHO. 

1. Eliminate the Eligibility Criterion 

Based on Household Resources—7 CFR 

253.6(d) 

Currently, the FDPIR household 

resource limits are $3,250 for 

households with at least one elderly/ 

disabled member and $2,000 for all 

other households. In response to a 

separate rulemaking published in the 

Federal Register on April 27, 2010 (75 

FR 22027), which proposed to amend 

FDPIR regulations by aligning 

provisions with changes to SNAP as a 

result of the Food, Conservation, and 

Energy Act of 2008, FNS received 

numerous comment letters regarding the 

FDPIR household resource eligibility 

criterion. Many of the comment letters 

supported elimination of the FDPIR 

resource test or alignment of FDPIR and 

SNAP policies. Based on the comments 

received, the Department proposes to 

eliminate the household resource 

eligibility criterion in FDPIR. In the 

regulatory impact analysis of this 

proposed rule, we estimate that 

eliminating the resource test would 

increase FDPIR participation by less 

than one percent. Removal of the 

resource test would streamline the 

certification process for new and 

currently participating households and 

simplify program administration, 

reducing the burden on State agency 

certification staff and improving service 

to those in need of nutrition assistance. 

To eliminate the resource standard from 

current regulations, the Department 

proposes to remove the regulatory 

provisions at 7 CFR 253.6(d). This 

proposal does not affect the requirement 

that households meet maximum FDPIR 

income limits and other eligibility 

criteria provided under current program 

regulations. 

The Department also proposes 

conforming amendments to remove 

reference to the resource test throughout 

the current FDPIR regulations. The 

proposed amendments to 7 CFR 253.6(c) 

on categorical eligibility remove 

reference to resource eligibility. This 

rule would also remove 7 CFR 

253.7(f)(2)(i), which currently references 

resources of disqualified household 

members. The rule would redesignate 

the current paragraphs at 7 CFR 

253.7(f)(2)(ii) and (f)2)(iii) as paragraphs 

(f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii), respectively. 

The Department also proposes an 

amendment to 7 CFR 253.6(e)(3)(viii) (to 

be redesignated as 7 CFR 

253.6(d)(3)(viii)), which currently 

references non-recurring lump sum 

payments, such as security deposits on 

rental property or utilities, tax refunds, 

and retroactive Social Security 

payments. The amendment would 

remove the language that provides these 

payments are counted as resources in 

the month received. Therefore, nonrecurring lump sum payments would 

not be considered in determining the 

eligibility of households for FDPIR. 

The Department proposes similar 

treatment of periodic per capita 

payments that are derived from the 

profits of Tribal enterprises and 

distributed to Tribal members less 

frequently than monthly. As with nonrecurring lump sum payments, the 

amount and time of receipt of periodic 

per capita payments cannot always be 

anticipated by FDPIR participants in 

order to be considered during the 

household’s income eligibility 

determination. Consequently, nonmonthly per capita payments are 

reported upon receipt in accordance 

with the change reporting requirements 

at 7 CFR 253.7(c). In most instances, 

receipt of these payments does not 

impact household eligibility in the 

month of receipt because there is not 

sufficient time for the State agency to 

take action to terminate the household 

if the payment results in the 

household’s ineligibility. In accordance 

with 7 CFR 253.7(c), households must 

report a change within 10 calendar days, 

and the State agency must act on the 

reported change and issue a notice of 

adverse action no later than 10 days 

after the change is reported. The notice 

of adverse action must provide a 

minimum of 10 days from the date of 

the notice to the date upon which the 

termination becomes effective. Under 

current regulations, funds from the per 

capita payment that remain available to 

the household in the month after receipt 

are considered a resource. 

In accordance with the proposal to 

remove consideration of household 

resources in determining eligibility for 

FDPIR, the Department proposes to 

amend 7 CFR 253.6(e)(3)(viii) (to be 

redesignated as 7 CFR 253.6(d)(3)(viii)) 

to specify that non-recurring lump sum 

payments and non-monthly per capita 

payments would no longer be 

considered in determining the eligibility 

of households for FDPIR. Furthermore, 

the Department proposes to amend 7 

CFR 253.6(e)(2)(ii) (to be redesignated as 

7 CFR 253.6(d)(2)(ii)) to clarify that per 

capita payments received monthly are 

considered unearned income in the 

month received. This is consistent with 

current program policy. 

2. Medical Expense Deduction—7 CFR 

253.6(f) (To Be Redesignated as 7 CFR 

253.6(e)) 

The Department proposes a change 

that would revise the provisions at 7 

CFR 253.6(f)(4) (to be redesignated as 7 

CFR 253.6(e)(4)) to expand the current 

deduction for Medicare Part B Medical 

Insurance and Part D Prescription Drug 

Coverage premiums to include other 

monthly medical expenses in excess of 

$35 incurred by any household member 

who is elderly or disabled as defined in 

7 CFR 253.2. This change would align 

FDPIR and SNAP regulations. Also, this 

change would respond to Resolution 

2009–01 passed by the membership of 

NAFDPIR in June 2009. That resolution 

requested an income deduction for 

unreimbursed medical expenses for 

prescription drugs and other medical 

expenses, other than for plastic surgery. 

As provided above, in order to reflect 

the proposed elimination of 7 CFR 

253.6(d), we are proposing to 

redesignate current 7 CFR 253.6(f) as 

proposed paragraph (e). 

The Department proposes to adopt 

SNAP policy at 7 CFR 273.9(d)(3) in 

regard to allowable medical costs. The 

proposed allowable medical costs are: 

(a) Medical and dental care, including 

psychotherapy and rehabilitation 

services, provided by a licensed 

practitioner authorized by State law or 

other qualified health professional; 

(b) Hospitalization or outpatient 

treatment, nursing care, and nursing 

home care, including payments by the 

household for an individual who was a 

household member immediately prior to 

entering a hospital or nursing home, 

provided by a facility recognized by the 

State; 

(c) Prescription drugs when 

prescribed by a licensed practitioner 

authorized under State law and other 

over-the-counter medication (including 

insulin) when approved by a licensed 

practitioner or other qualified health 

professional; in addition, costs of 

medical supplies, sick-room equipment 

(including rental) or other prescribed 

equipment are deductible; 

(d) Health and hospitalization 

insurance policy premiums. Costs that 

are not deductible include health and 

accident policies such as those payable 

in lump sum settlements for death or 

dismemberment, or income 

maintenance policies such as those that 

continue mortgage or loan payments 

while the beneficiary is disabled; 

(e) Medicare premiums related to 

coverage under Title XVIII of the Social 

Security Act; any cost-sharing or spend 

down expenses incurred by Medicaid 

recipients; 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
1644 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(f) Dentures, hearing aids, and 

prosthetics; 

(g) Securing and maintaining a seeing 

eye or hearing dog including the cost of 

dog food and veterinarian bills; 

(h) Eye glasses prescribed by a 

physician skilled in eye disease or by an 

optometrist; 

(i) Reasonable cost of transportation 

and lodging to obtain medical treatment 

or services; and 

(j) Maintaining an attendant, 

homemaker, home health aide, child 

care services, or housekeeper, necessary 

due to age, infirmity, or illness. 

SNAP regulations at 7 CFR 273.9(d) 

include an income deduction for all 

Medicare premium expenses in excess 

of $35. Current FDPIR regulations at 7 

CFR 253.6(f)(4) and program policy 

permit only a deduction for the full 

amounts of Medicare Part B Medical 

Insurance and Part D Prescription Drug 

Coverage premiums, respectively. In 

order to simplify program 

administration and in recognition of the 

significantly expanded range of 

deductible medical costs considered 

allowable under SNAP, the Department 

proposes to align the Medicare 

provision with SNAP by permitting 

deductions for all Medicare premiums 

in excess of $35. 

The SNAP regulations at 7 CFR 

273.9(d)(3)(x) allow a deduction for an 

amount equal to the SNAP benefit for a 

one-person household if the household 

furnishes the majority of a home care 

attendant’s meals. The Department 

proposes to adopt this same provision 

for FDPIR. 

Regarding the proposed meal-related 

deduction, the Department purchases 

the USDA foods provided under FDPIR 

at a reduced cost due to high volume 

purchases under long-term contracts 

with vendors. Consequently, the 

estimated average monthly per person 

FDPIR food package cost, which is 

adjusted annually, does not represent 

the retail value of the food package if 

identical foods were purchased by a 

family at a grocery store. The 

Department believes that it would be 

appropriate to adopt the SNAP policy of 

basing the meal-related deduction for 

the attendant on the maximum SNAP 

allotment for a one-person household. 

The SNAP allotments are based on the 

Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), which reflects 

current dietary recommendations, food 

consumption patterns, food composition 

data, and food prices. 

The Department would provide the 

State agencies, on an annual basis, the 

updated amount of the maximum SNAP 

allotment for a one-person household. 

The State agency would not be required 

to update the meal-related deduction 

amount until the household’s next 

scheduled recertification, but may opt to 

do so earlier if that amount is available. 

If a household incurs attendant care 

costs that could qualify under both the 

medical deduction and dependent care 

deduction, the State agency would treat 

the cost as a medical expense. 

3. Shelter and Utility Expense 

Deduction—7 CFR 253.6(f) (To Be 

Redesignated as 7 CFR 253.6(e)) 

The Department proposes a change 

that would revise the provisions at 7 

CFR 253.6(f) (to be redesignated as 7 

CFR 253.6(e)) to establish regionspecific standard income deductions for 

monthly shelter and utility expenses. 

This change would respond to 

Resolution 2009–01 passed by the 

membership of NAFDPIR in June 2009. 

The resolution noted that shelter 

expenses such as home heating fuel and 

utilities may impact a household’s 

ability to obtain food, and such factors 

are not currently factored into FDPIR 

eligibility determinations. SNAP 

regulations under 7 CFR Part 273 allow 

standard income deductions for shelter 

expenses in determining eligibility for 

that program. 

Under this proposal, an FDPIR 

applicant household would receive a 

standard deduction if it incurs the cost 

of at least one allowable shelter/utility 

expense. The Department proposes to 

indicate that allowable shelter and 

utility expenses would conform to those 

expenses allowable for SNAP under 7 

CFR 273.9(d)(6)(ii). Such expenses 

include the following: 

(a) Continuing charges for the shelter 

occupied by the household, including 

rent, mortgage, condominium and 

association fees, or other continuing 

charges leading to the ownership of the 

shelter such as loan repayments for the 

purchase of a mobile home, including 

interest on such payments. 

(b) Property taxes, State and local 

assessments, and insurance on the 

structure itself, but not separate costs for 

insuring furniture or personal 

belongings. 

(c) The cost of fuel for heating or 

cooling (i.e., the operation of air 

conditioning systems or room air 

conditioners); electricity or fuel used for 

purposes other than heating or cooling; 

water; sewerage; well installation and 

maintenance; septic tank system 

installation and maintenance; garbage 

and trash collection; all service fees 

required to provide service for one 

telephone, including, but not limited to, 

basic service fees, wire maintenance 

fees, subscriber line charges, relay 

center surcharges, 911 fees, and taxes; 

and fees charged by the utility provider 

for initial installation of the utility. Onetime deposits are not deductible. 

(d) The shelter costs for the home if 

temporarily not occupied by the 

household because of employment or 

training away from home, illness, or 

abandonment caused by a natural 

disaster or casualty loss. For costs of a 

home vacated by the household to be 

included in the household’s shelter 

costs, the household must intend to 

return to the home; the current 

occupants of the home, if any, must not 

be claiming the shelter costs for program 

purposes; and the home must not be 

leased or rented during the absence of 

the household. 

(e) Charges for the repair of a home 

that was substantially damaged or 

destroyed due to a natural disaster such 

as a fire or flood. Shelter costs cannot 

include charges for repair of the home 

that have been or will be reimbursed by 

private or public relief agencies, 

insurance companies, or from any other 

source. 

The amount of the deduction would 

be regionally based. The Department 

proposes to implement shelter/utility 

expense standard deductions specific to 

four regions: (1) Northeast/Midwest, (2) 

Southeast/Southwest, (3) Mountain 

Plains, and (4) West. The Department 

would, on an annual basis, calculate the 

shelter/utility standard deductions for 

each region, starting from a regionspecific baseline deduction. The 

proposed baseline for each FDPIR 

regional shelter/utility standard 

deduction is provided below, which 

assumes implementation in Fiscal Year 

2013. 

PROJECTED FY 2013 FDPIR STANDARD SHELTER/UTILITY EXPENSE DEDUCTIONS BASELINE BY REGION

Region States currently with FDPIR programs Shelter/utility 

deduction 

Northeast/Midwest .................... Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Wisconsin ................................................................................ $350 

Southeast/Southwest ................ Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas ...................................................... 300 

Mountain Plains ........................ Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming ............ 400 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1645 

PROJECTED FY 2013 FDPIR STANDARD SHELTER/UTILITY EXPENSE DEDUCTIONS BASELINE BY REGION—Continued 

Region States currently with FDPIR programs Shelter/utility 

deduction 

West .......................................... Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington .............................................. 350 

In developing the regional groupings 

and baseline shelter/utility standard 

deductions, the Department considered 

data from a number of sources, 

including national surveys of shelter 

costs and data on SNAP participants’ 

shelter deductions. The Department also 

considered where FDPIR programs 

currently operate. If new programs are 

approved to administer FDPIR in States 

not listed above, the Department would 

identify the appropriate regional 

grouping for each new State. 

The Department would, on an annual 

basis, calculate the shelter/utility 

standard deductions for each region. As 

part of the annual calculation, the 

Department would adjust the previous 

year’s regional shelter/utility expense 

standard deduction amounts to account 

for changes to SNAP Quality Control 

data, rounding to the nearest $50. The 

Department would issue the revised 

shelter/utility standard deductions prior 

to October 1 each year. 

Under the proposed provision, an 

applicant household that would qualify 

for a shelter/utility standard deduction 

would have the option to receive the 

appropriate deduction amount for the 

State in which the household resides or 

the State in which the State agency’s 

central administrative office is located. 

These States could potentially be 

located in two different regions which 

have different shelter/utility expense 

standard deductions. 

The Department believes that the 

proposed shelter/utility provisions are 

easy to understand and promote 

simplicity and efficiency in program 

administration. Because the Department 

would issue the regional shelter/utility 

standard deductions annually, no undue 

burden would be placed on State 

agencies to determine such amounts. 

Furthermore, as proposed, FDPIR 

households would not be required to 

produce documentation for all shelter/ 

utility expenses; households would 

need only to provide documentation for 

one allowable shelter/utility expense. 

The State agency would apply the 

appropriate regional standard shelter 

deduction and would not be required to 

perform an additional calculation to 

determine the household’s shelter 

deduction amount. This simplifies the 

application and certification processes, 

preventing an undue burden on 

applicants and State agency staff. 

Because the shelter/utility standard 

deductions would be region-specific, 

such deductions would recognize the 

variability in shelter and utility costs 

across the nation. 

4. Verification Requirements and 

Household Reporting—7 CFR 

253.7(a)(6)(i) and 7 CFR 253.7(c)(1) 

The Department proposes new 

household verification requirements 

related to the two proposed income 

deductions discussed above. 

Amendments are proposed to 7 CFR 

253.7(a)(6)(i) to revise the current 

verification requirements for Medicare 

Part B and Part D premiums to reflect 

the proposed expanded medical 

expense deduction. Also, an 

amendment is proposed to add a 

verification requirement for shelter and 

utility expenses at 7 CFR 253.7(a)(6)(i). 

As indicated above, applicant 

households must show proof of at least 

one allowable shelter/utility expense to 

receive the FDPIR standard deduction 

for shelter/utility expenses. 

The Department also proposes 

amendments to the reporting 

requirements at 7 CFR 253.7(c)(1) to 

reorganize this section for better 

comprehension, and to improve the 

administration of FDPIR and service to 

program applicants and participants. 

First, the Department proposes a 

requirement for households to report a 

change in residence and when they no 

longer have shelter/utility expenses. 

Households that do not have shelter/ 

utility expenses would not qualify for 

the standard deduction for shelter/ 

utility expenses proposed in this 

rulemaking. Therefore, the Department 

believes it is reasonable to require 

households to report if they no longer 

have such expenses so the State agency 

can determine if the household 

continues to meet the FDPIR financial 

eligibility criteria. A change in 

residence often results in a change to 

shelter/utility expenses. In addition, a 

change in residence may also impact a 

household’s eligibility if the household 

no longer meets the residency 

requirement under FDPIR. Eligible 

households must reside on a 

participating reservation or in approved 

FDPIR service areas outside of a 

reservation or in the state of Oklahoma. 

Therefore, a change in residence might 

result in a household becoming 

ineligible for FDPIR benefits. 

The Department also proposes a new 

requirement under 7 CFR 253.7(c)(1) 

that households report changes in the 

legal obligation to pay child support. 

Households that do not have a legal 

obligation to pay child support do not 

qualify for the current child support 

deduction. Therefore, the Department 

believes it is reasonable to require the 

reporting of this change so that service 

providers can determine if households 

continue to meet the FDPIR financial 

eligibility criteria. 

Finally, the Department proposes a 

revision regarding the reporting of 

changes in income. The current 

provisions at 7 CFR 253.7(c)(1) require 

households to report changes in income 

that would necessitate a change in the 

eligibility determination. The State 

agencies are required to advise each 

household at the time of certification 

the maximum monthly income limit for 

its household size, so the household 

will know to report an increase in 

income above that limit. The 

Department does not believe that this 

methodology is practical. A household’s 

monthly net income amount, which is 

compared to the monthly income limit, 

is calculated by subtracting allowable 

deductions from the household’s gross 

income. Households cannot be expected 

to know how an increase in monthly 

gross income will impact its monthly 

net income amount, because such 

households are not knowledgeable 

about the net monthly income 

calculation. Therefore, the Department 

proposes an amendment to regulations 

at 7 CFR 253.7(c)(1) to require 

households to report an increase of 

more than $100 in gross monthly 

income. This change would provide a 

more effective guideline for households 

to determine when changes in income 

must be reported. 

III. Procedural Matters 

A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 

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, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
1646 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

This proposed rule has been 

designated a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ although not economically 

significant, under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

the rule has been reviewed by the Office 

of Management and Budget. 

B. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

1. Need for Action 

This action is needed to ensure that 

regulations pertaining to income 

deductions are more consistent between 

FDPIR and SNAP. FDPIR was 

established by the Congress in 1977 as 

an alternative to SNAP for low-income 

households living on or near Indian 

reservations; these households may not 

have easy access to SNAP offices and 

authorized grocery stores. Both 

programs offer a standard deduction, an 

earned income deduction, a child 

support deduction, and a dependent 

care deduction. SNAP also offers an 

excess medical expense deduction and 

an excess shelter expense deduction. 

Unlike SNAP, the medical deduction 

currently offered in FDPIR is limited to 

the amount households pay for 

Medicare Part B and Part D premiums. 

FDPIR does not offer an income 

deduction for shelter and utility 

expenses. 

This proposed rulemaking responds 

to a resolution passed by the 

membership of the NAFDPIR in June 

2009 that requested income deductions 

for home heating expenses and other 

utilities, prescription medications, and 

other out-of-pocket medical expenses. 

The NAFDPIR resolution stated that the 

FDPIR income eligibility criteria 

unfairly penalizes households whose 

net monthly income is determined to be 

over the income standard by as little as 

one dollar, while many of these 

households have monthly shelter, 

utility, and/or medical expenses. 

NAFDPIR believes that some lowincome households are forced to choose 

between paying for food and paying for 

heat and/or medicine. 

FNS received numerous comment 

letters in response to separate proposed 

rulemaking supporting elimination of 

the FDPIR resource test or alignment of 

FDPIR and SNAP policies. This 

proposed rule would eliminate the 

household resource eligibility criterion 

for FDPIR. Removal of the resource test 

would streamline the certification 

process for new and currently 

participating households and simplify 

program administration, reducing the 

burden on State agency certification 

staff and improving service to those in 

need of nutrition assistance. 

2. Benefits 

This rule proposes to amend FDPIR 

regulations to improve the 

administration of and expand access to 

FDPIR. This rule also promotes parity 

with the eligibility requirements in 

SNAP. These regulatory changes are 

designed to help ensure that FDPIR 

benefits are provided to low-income 

households living on or near Indian 

reservations that are in need of nutrition 

assistance. The proposed changes to the 

FDPIR regulations could potentially 

increase participation, thus expanding 

access to FDPIR and increasing nutrition 

assistance for the targeted population. 

FNS projects the impact of the 

proposed changes on FDPIR 

participation, as follows: 

(a) Elimination of the Household 

Resource Limit. This provision is 

projected to increase participation 

ranging from approximately 189 

individuals in the first year of 

implementation to 568 individuals 3 

years later; 

(b) Medical Expense Deduction. This 

provision would potentially make some 

elderly and/or disabled individuals with 

sizeable monthly medical expenses 

newly eligible for FDPIR. The projected 

increase in participation ranges from 

approximately 67 individuals in the first 

year of implementation to 201 

individuals three years later; and 

(c) Shelter/Utility Expense Deduction. 

This provision is projected to increase 

participation ranging from 

approximately 752 individuals in the 

first year of implementation to 2,257 

individuals three years later. 

There is some uncertainly associated 

with the estimates above given the 

limitations on relevant data pertaining 

to FDPIR participants. Also, the impact 

of each provision on participation was 

evaluated independently from the other 

provisions, so the combined effect or 

overlap of these provisions is unknown. 

It is expected that some individuals 

might benefit from more than one 

provision. For example, an elderly 

household may qualify for both the 

medical expense deduction and the 

shelter/utility expense deduction. 

3. Cost 

This action is not expected to 

significantly increase costs of State and 

local agencies, or their commercial 

contractors, though these costs cannot 

be determined with any accuracy. ITOs 

and State agencies that administer 

FDPIR are required to provide 25 

percent of the funds necessary to 

operate the program. This requirement 

may be waived with FNS approval if 

compelling justification exists. Any 

increased ITO/State agency costs 

resulting from this rulemaking would be 

related to an increase in the ITO/State 

agency share of administrative costs to 

serve additional households made 

eligible by this rule. 

FNS projects the impact of the 

proposed changes on federal costs (i.e., 

program benefits), which are 

attributable to potential increases in 

participation. 

(a) Elimination of the Household 

Resource Limit. FNS estimates that this 

provision would cost $1,857,000 over a 

5-year period. 

(b) Medical Expense Deduction. FNS 

estimates that this provision would cost 

$656,000 over a five-year period. 

(c) Shelter/Utility Expense Deduction. 

FNS estimates that this provision would 

cost $7,375,000 over a five-year period. 

As with the estimates on the impact 

on participation, there is some 

uncertainty associated with the cost 

estimates above. Also, as indicated 

above, the impact of each provision on 

participation was evaluated 

independently from the other 

provisions, so the combined effect or 

overlap of these provisions is unknown. 

If individuals benefit from more than 

one provision, the estimated cost to the 

federal government would be less. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

with regard to the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 

U.S.C. 601–612). It has been certified 

that this rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. While program participants and 

ITOs and State agencies that administer 

FDPIR and the Food Distribution 

Program for Indian Households in 

Oklahoma will be affected by this 

rulemaking, the economic effect will not 

be significant. 

D. Public Law 104–4 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

the Department generally must prepare 

a written statement, including a cost/ 

benefit analysis, for proposed and final 

rules with Federal mandates that may 

result in expenditures by State, local, or 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1647 

by the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any one year. When such a 

statement is needed for a rule, section 

205 of the UMRA generally requires the 

Department to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

more cost-effective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. 

This rule contains no Federal 

mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) that 

impose on State, local, and Tribal 

governments or the private sector 

expenditures of $100 million or more in 

any one year. This rule is, therefore, not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 12372 

The program addressed in this action 

is listed in the Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance under No. 10.567. 

For the reasons set forth in the final rule 

in 7 CFR part 3015, Subpart V, and 

related Notice published at 48 FR 

29114, June 24, 1983, the donation of 

foods in such programs is included in 

the scope of Executive Order 12372, 

which requires intergovernmental 

consultation with State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

Federal agencies to consider the impact 

of their regulatory actions on State and 

local governments. Where such actions 

have federalism implications, agencies 

are directed to provide a statement for 

inclusion in the preamble to the 

regulations describing the agency’s 

considerations in terms of the three 

categories called for under section 

(6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132. 

1. Prior Consultation With Tribal/State 

Officials 

The programs affected by the 

regulatory proposals in this rule are all 

Tribal or State-administered federally 

funded programs. FNS’ national and 

regional offices have formal and 

informal discussions with State agency 

officials and representatives on an 

ongoing basis regarding program issues 

relating to FDPIR. FNS meets annually 

with the NAFDPIR membership, a 

national group of Tribal and Stateappointed FDPIR Program Directors, to 

discuss issues relating to FDPIR. FNS 

also meets with the NAFDPIR Board on 

a more frequent basis. 

The changes proposed in this 

rulemaking related to the deduction for 

shelter and utility expenses are based on 

a resolution passed by the NAFDPIR 

membership in June 2009, and were 

discussed with the NAFDPIR Board and 

its membership. This rulemaking was 

also the subject of formal consultation 

with Tribal officials held in seven 

locations in October 2010 through 

January 2011, as discussed below. 

2. Nature of Concerns and the Need To 

Issue This Rule 

Eligible low-income households 

living in areas served by FDPIR may 

choose to participate in either FDPIR or 

SNAP. SNAP regulations offer an 

income deduction for excess shelter 

expenses and an income deduction for 

allowable monthly medical expenses in 

excess of $35 for households with 

elderly and/or disabled members. This 

proposed rulemaking would respond to 

a resolution passed by the membership 

of the NAFDPIR in June 2009 that 

requested income deductions for home 

heating expenses and utilities, 

prescription medications, and other outof-pocket medical expenses. The 

NAFDPIR resolution read that the 

FDPIR income eligibility criteria 

unfairly penalizes households whose 

net monthly income is determined to be 

over the income standard by as little as 

one dollar, while many of these 

households have monthly shelter, utility 

and/or medical expenses. NAFDPIR 

believes that some low-income 

households are forced to choose 

between paying for food and paying for 

heat and/or medicine. 

FNS also received numerous 

comment letters in response to separate 

proposed rulemaking supporting 

elimination of the FDPIR resource test 

or alignment of FDPIR and SNAP 

policies. This proposed rulemaking 

responds to the concerns raised by 

commenters. 

3. Extent to Which We Meet Those 

Concerns 

The Department has considered the 

impact of this rule on ITOs and State 

agencies that administer FDPIR. The 

Department does not expect the 

provisions of this rule to conflict with 

any State or local law, regulations, or 

policies. The overall effect of this rule 

is to ensure that low-income households 

living on or near Indian reservations 

receive nutrition assistance. 

G. Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil 

Justice Reform.’’ Although the 

provisions of this rule are not expected 

to conflict with any State or local law, 

regulations, or policies, the rule is 

intended to have preemptive effect with 

respect to any State or local laws, 

regulations, or policies that conflict 

with its provisions or that would 

otherwise impede its full 

implementation. This rule is not 

intended to have retroactive effect. Prior 

to any judicial challenge to the 

provisions of this rule or the 

applications of its provisions, all 

applicable administrative procedures 

must be exhausted. 

H. Civil Rights Impact Analysis 

The Department has reviewed this 

rule in accordance with the Department 

Regulation 4300–4, ‘‘Civil Rights Impact 

Analysis,’’ to identify and address any 

major civil rights impacts the rule might 

have on minorities, women, and persons 

with disabilities. Consistent with 

current SNAP regulations, the proposed 

provision to expand the current income 

deduction for Medicare Part B Medical 

Insurance and Part D Prescription Drug 

Coverage premiums to include other 

allowable monthly medical expenses in 

excess of $35 would apply only to 

households with elderly and/or disabled 

members, as defined at 7 CFR 253.2. 

However, after a careful review of the 

rule’s intent and provisions, the 

Department has determined that this 

rule will not in any way limit or reduce 

the ability of participants to receive the 

benefits of donated foods in food 

distribution programs on the basis of an 

individual’s or group’s race, color, 

national origin, sex, age, political 

beliefs, religious creed, or disability. 

The Department found no factors that 

would negatively affect any group of 

individuals. 

I. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. Chapter 35; see 5 CFR part 

1320) requires that OMB approve all 

collections of information by a Federal 

agency from the public before they can 

be implemented. Information 

collections related to the provisions in 

this proposed rule were previously 

approved under OMB No. 0584–0293. 

This rule would impact the reporting 

and recordkeeping burden for ITOs and 

State agencies under OMB No. 0584– 

0293 due to an expected change in 

number of households participating in 

FDPIR as a result of this rule and related 

changes to verification and household 

reporting requirements. Documentation 

supporting the eligibility of all 

participating households must be 

maintained by the ITOs and State 

agencies. 

The approved information collection 

estimates under OMB No. 0584–0293 

are as follows: 

Estimated total annual burden: 

1,079,172.92. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
1648 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Estimated annual recordkeeping 

burden: 746,400.42. 

Estimated annual reporting burden: 

332,772.49. 

Changes resulting from this proposed 

rule would result in the following 

changes to OMB No. 0584–0293: 

Estimated total annual burden: 

1,081,071.76. 

Estimated annual recordkeeping 

burden: 746,428.44. 

Estimated annual reporting burden: 

334,643.32. 

These information collection 

requirements will not become effective 

until approved by OMB. Once they have 

been approved, FNS will publish a 

separate action in the Federal Register 

announcing OMB’s approval. 

J. E-Government Act Compliance 

The Department is committed to 

complying with the E-Government Act 

2002 to promote the use of the Internet 

and other information technologies to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. 

K. Executive Order 13175 

Executive Order 13175 requires 

Federal agencies to consult and 

coordinate with Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis on 

policies that have Tribal implications, 

including regulations, legislative 

comments or proposed legislation, and 

other policy statements or actions that 

have substantial direct effects on one or 

more Indian Tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes. 

In late 2010 and early 2011, USDA 

engaged in a series of consultative 

sessions to obtain input by Tribal 

officials or their designees concerning 

the effect of this and other rules on 

Tribes or Indian Tribal governments, or 

whether this rule may preempt Tribal 

law. In regard to the provisions of this 

rule, a session attendee spoke in support 

of the provision that would eliminate 

the resource eligibility criteria. Another 

attendee spoke about Tribal per capita 

payments and how receipt of these 

payments negatively affects the 

eligibility of some households under 

current rules. 

Reports from the consultative sessions 

will be made part of the USDA annual 

reporting on Tribal Consultation and 

Collaboration. USDA will offer future 

opportunities, such as Webinars and 

teleconferences, for collaborative 

conversations with Tribal leaders and 

their representatives concerning ways to 

improve rules with regard to their affect 

on Indian country. 

We are unaware of any current Tribal 

laws that could be in conflict with the 

proposed rule. We request that 

commenters address any concerns in 

this regard in their responses. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 253 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Food assistance programs, 

Grant programs, Social programs, 

Indians, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Surplus agricultural 

commodities. 

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 253 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 253—ADMINISTRATION OF THE 

FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM FOR 

HOUSEHOLDS ON INDIAN 

RESERVATIONS 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 253 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 91 Stat. 958 (7 U.S.C. 2011– 

2036). 

2. In § 253.6: 

a. Amend the heading of paragraph (c) 

by removing the words ‘‘and resource’’; 

b. Amend paragraph (c)(1) by 

removing the words ‘‘and resources’’; 

c. Amend paragraph (c)(2) by 

removing the words ‘‘and resources’’; 

d. Remove paragraph (d) and 

redesignate paragraphs (e) and (f) as 

paragraphs (d) and (e), respectively; 

e. In redesignated paragraph (d), 

redesignate paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(F) as 

paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(G), and add new 

paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(F); 

f. Amend redesignated paragraph 

(d)(3)(viii) by removing the second 

sentence; 

g. Add a new paragraph (d)(3)(xii); 

h. In redesignated paragraph (e), 

revise paragraph (e)(4), and, add a new 

paragraph (e)(5). 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 253.6 Eligibility of households. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(F) Per capita payments that are 

derived from the profits of Tribal 

enterprises and distributed to Tribal 

members on a monthly basis. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(xii) Per capita payments that are 

derived from the profits of Tribal 

enterprises and distributed to Tribal 

members less frequently than monthly 

(e.g., quarterly, semiannually or 

annually) are excluded from 

consideration as income. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(4) Households must receive a 

medical deduction for that portion of 

medical expenses in excess of $35 per 

month, excluding special diets, incurred 

by any household member who is 

elderly or disabled as defined in § 253.2 

of this chapter. Spouses or other persons 

receiving benefits as a dependent of a 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or 

disability and blindness recipient are 

not eligible to receive this deduction; 

however, persons receiving emergency 

SSI benefits based on presumptive 

eligibility are eligible for this deduction. 

The allowable medical costs are those 

permitted at 7 CFR 273.9(d)(3) for the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP). 

(5) Households that incur monthly 

shelter and utility expenses will receive 

a shelter/utility standard deduction, 

subject to the provisions below. 

(i) The household must incur, on a 

monthly basis, at least one allowable 

shelter/utility expense. The allowable 

shelter/utility expenses are those 

permitted at 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(ii) for 

SNAP. 

(ii) The shelter/utility standard 

deduction amounts are set by FNS on a 

regional basis. The standard deductions 

are adjusted annually to reflect changes 

to SNAP Quality Control data. FNS will 

advise the State agencies of the updates 

prior to October 1 of each year. 

(iii) If eligible to receive a shelter/ 

utility standard deduction, the applicant 

household may opt to receive the 

appropriate deduction amount for the 

State in which the household resides or 

the State in which the State agency’s 

central administrative office is located. 

* * * * * 

3. In § 253.7: 

a. Revise paragraph (a)(6)(i)(C); 

b. Add new paragraph (a)(6)(i)(D); 

c. Revise paragraph (c)(1); 

d. Remove paragraph (f)(2)(i) and 

redesignate paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and 

(f)(2)(iii) as paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and 

(f)(2)(ii), respectively. 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 253.7 Certification of households. 

(a) * * * 

(6) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) Excess medical expense 

deduction. The State agency must 

obtain verification for those medical 

expenses that the household wishes to 

deduct in accordance with 7 CFR 

253.6(e)(4). The allowability of services 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1649 

provided (e.g., whether the billing 

health professional is a licensed 

practitioner authorized by State law or 

other qualified health professional) 

must be verified, if questionable. Only 

out-of-pocket expenses can be deducted. 

Expenses reimbursed to the household 

by an insurer are not deductible. The 

eligibility of the household to qualify for 

the deduction (i.e., the household 

includes a member who is elderly or 

disabled) must be verified, if 

questionable. 

(D) Standard shelter/utility deduction. 

A household must incur, on a monthly 

basis, at least one allowable shelter/ 

utility expense in accordance with 7 

CFR 253.6(e)(5)(i) to qualify for the 

standard shelter/utility deduction. The 

State agency must verify that the 

household incurs the expense. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) The State agency must develop 

procedures for how changes in 

household circumstances are reported. 

Changes reported over the telephone or 

in person must be acted on in the same 

manner as those reported in writing. 

Participating households are required to 

report the following changes within 10 

calendar days after the change becomes 

known to the household: 

(i) A change in household 

composition; 

(ii) An increase in gross monthly 

income of more than $100; 

(iii) A change in residence; 

(iv) When the household no longer 

incurs a shelter and utility expense; or 

(v) A change in the legal obligation to 

pay child support. 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 29, 2011. 

Janey Thornton, 

Acting Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and 

Consumer Services. 

[FR Doc. 2012–391 Filed 1–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–DET–0079] 

RIN 1904–AC69 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products and Certain 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment: 

Proposed Determination of Residential 

Central Air Conditioner Split-System 

Condensing Units and Residential Heat 

Pump Split-System Outdoor Units as a 

Covered Consumer Product 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Proposed determination. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) proposes to determine 

that Residential Central Air Conditioner 

Split-System Condensing Units 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘Condensing 

Units’’) and Residential Heat Pump 

Split-System Outdoor Units (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘Outdoor Units) qualify as 

a covered product under Part A of Title 

III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended. 

DOE has determined that Condensing 

Units and Outdoor Units meet the 

criteria for covered products because: 

(1) Classifying products of such type as 

covered products is necessary or 

appropriate to carry out the purposes of 

EPCA, and (2) the average U.S. 

household energy use for Condensing 

Units and Outdoor Units are likely to 

exceed 100 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per 

year. 

DATES: DOE will accept written 

comments, data, and information on this 

notice, but no later than February 10, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2011–BT–DET–0079, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

Include EERE–2011–BT–DET–0079 and/ 

or RIN 1904–AC69 in the subject line of 

the message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

EERE–2011–BT–DET–0079 and/or RIN 

1904–AC69, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Phone: (202) 586–2945. Please 

submit one signed paper original. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 

586–2945. Please submit one signed 

paper original. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or RIN for this notice. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, a copy of 

the transcript of the public meeting, or 

comments received, go to the U.S. 

Department of Energy, 6th Floor, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 

20024, (202) 586–2945, between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 for 

additional information regarding 

visiting the Resource Room. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–17335. Email: 

Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov. 

In the Office of General Counsel, 

contact Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 

(202) 586–7796. Email: 

Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

Table of Contents 

I. Statutory Authority 

II. Current Rulemaking Process 

III. Proposed Definition(s) 

IV. Evaluation of Condensing Units and 

Outdoor Units as a Covered Product 

Subject to Energy Conservation 

Standards 

A. Coverage Appropriate to Carry Out 

Purposes of EPCA 

B. Average Household Energy Use 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act of 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act of 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

VI. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1