5002 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

REGULATORY INFORMATION 

SERVICE CENTER 

Introduction to the Unified Agenda of 

Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory 

Actions—Fall 2021 

AGENCY: Regulatory Information Service 

Center. 

ACTION: Introduction to the Regulatory 

Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. 

SUMMARY: Publication of the Fall 2021 

Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory 

and Deregulatory Actions represents a 

key component of the regulatory 

planning mechanism prescribed in 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ (58 

FR 51735) and reaffirmed in E.O. 13563, 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review,’’ (76 FR 3821). The Regulatory 

Flexibility Act requires that agencies 

publish semiannual regulatory agendas 

in the Federal Register describing 

regulatory actions they are developing 

that may have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities (5 U.S.C. 602). 

The Unified Agenda of Regulatory 

and Deregulatory Actions (Unified 

Agenda), published in the fall and 

spring, helps agencies fulfill all of these 

requirements. All federal regulatory 

agencies have chosen to publish their 

regulatory agendas as part of this 

publication. The complete Unified 

Agenda and Regulatory Plan can be 

found online at www.reginfo.gov and a 

reduced print version can be found in 

the Federal Register. Information 

regarding obtaining printed copies can 

also be found on the Reginfo.gov 

website (or below, VI. How Can Users 

Get Copies of the Plan and the 

Agenda?). 

The Fall 2021 Unified Agenda 

publication appearing in the Federal 

Register includes the Regulatory Plan 

and agency regulatory flexibility 

agendas, in accordance with the 

publication requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Agency 

regulatory flexibility agendas contain 

only those Agenda entries for rules that 

are likely to have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities and entries that have been 

selected for periodic review under 

section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. 

The complete Fall 2021 Unified 

Agenda contains the Regulatory Plans of 

27 Federal agencies and 67 Federal 

agency regulatory agendas. 

ADDRESSES: Regulatory Information 

Service Center (MR), General Services 

Administration, 1800 F Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20405. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information about specific 

regulatory actions, please refer to the 

agency contact listed for each entry. To 

provide comment on or to obtain further 

information about this publication, 

contact: Boris Arratia, Director, 

Regulatory Information Service Center 

(MR), General Services Administration, 

1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 

20405, 703–795–0816. You may also 

send comments to us by email at: RISC@

gsa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

Introduction to the Regulatory Plan and the 

Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Actions 

I. What are the Regulatory Plan and the 

Unified Agenda? 

II. Why are the Regulatory Plan and the 

Unified Agenda published? 

III. How are the Regulatory Plan and the 

Unified Agenda organized? 

IV. What information appears for each entry? 

V. Abbreviations 

VI. How can users get copies of the Plan and 

the Agenda? 

Introduction to the Fall 2021 Regulatory Plan 

Agency Regulatory Plans 

Cabinet Departments 

Department of Agriculture 

Department of Commerce 

Department of Defense 

Department of Education 

Department of Energy 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Department of Homeland Security 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 

Department of the Interior 

Department of Justice 

Department of Labor 

Department of Transportation 

Department of the Treasury 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Other Executive Agencies 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers 

Compliance Board 

Environmental Protection Agency 

General Services Administration 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 

National Archives and Records 

Administration 

National Science Foundation 

Office of Management and Budget 

Office of Personnel Management 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

Small Business Administration 

Social Security Administration 

Independent Regulatory Agencies 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Federal Trade Commission 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Agency Agendas 

Cabinet Departments 

Department of Agriculture 

Department of Commerce 

Department of Defense 

Department of Education 

Department of Energy 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Department of Homeland Security 

Department of the Interior 

Department of Labor 

Department of Transportation 

Department of the Treasury 

Other Executive Agencies 

Committee for Purchase From People Who 

Are Blind or Severely Disabled 

Environmental Protection Agency 

General Services Administration 

Office of Management and Budget 

Office of Personnel Management 

Small Business Administration 

Joint Authority 

Department of Defense/General Services 

Administration/National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (Federal Acquisition 

Regulation) 

Independent Regulatory Agencies 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Federal Communications Commission 

Federal Reserve System 

National Labor Relations Board 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

Surface Transportation Board 

Introduction to the Regulatory Plan and 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

I. What are the Regulatory Plan and the 

Unified Agenda? 

The Regulatory Plan serves as a 

defining statement of the 

Administration’s regulatory and 

deregulatory policies and priorities. The 

Plan is part of the fall edition of the 

Unified Agenda. Each participating 

agency’s regulatory plan contains: (1) A 

narrative statement of the agency’s 

regulatory and deregulatory priorities, 

and, for the most part, (2) a description 

of the most important significant 

regulatory and deregulatory actions that 

the agency reasonably expects to issue 

in proposed or final form during the 

upcoming fiscal year. This edition 

includes the regulatory plans of 30 

agencies. 

The Unified Agenda provides 

information about regulations that the 

Government is considering or 

reviewing. The Unified Agenda has 

appeared in the Federal Register twice 

each year since 1983 and has been 

available online since 1995. The 

complete Unified Agenda is available to 

the public at www.reginfo.gov. The 

online Unified Agenda offers flexible 

search tools and access to the historic 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5003 

Unified Agenda database to 1995. The 

complete online edition of the Unified 

Agenda includes regulatory agendas 

from 65 Federal agencies. Agencies of 

the United States Congress are not 

included. 

The Fall 2021 Unified Agenda 

publication appearing in the Federal 

Register consists of The Regulatory Plan 

and agency regulatory flexibility 

agendas, in accordance with the 

publication requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Agency 

regulatory flexibility agendas contain 

only those Agenda entries for rules that 

are likely to have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities and entries that have been 

selected for periodic review under 

section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. Printed entries display only the 

fields required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. Complete agenda 

information for those entries appears, in 

a uniform format, in the online Unified 

Agenda at www.reginfo.gov. 

The following agencies have no 

entries for inclusion in the printed 

regulatory flexibility agenda. An asterisk 

(*) indicates agencies that appear in The 

Regulatory Plan. The regulatory agendas 

of these agencies are available to the 

public at www.reginfo.gov. 

Cabinet Departments 

Department of Justice* 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development* 

Department of State* 

Department of Veterans Affairs* 

Other Executive Agencies 

Agency for International Development 

Architectural and Transportation 

Barriers Compliance Board 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Corporation for National and 

Community Service 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Court Services and Offender 

Supervision Agency for the District of 

Columbia 

Federal Mediation Conciliation Service 

Institute of Museum and Library 

Services 

Inter-American Foundation 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration* 

National Archives and Records 

Administration* 

National Endowment for the Arts 

National Endowment for the Humanities 

National Mediation Board 

National Science Foundation 

Office of Government Ethics 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 

Office of Personnel Management* 

Peace Corps 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation* 

Railroad Retirement Board* 

Social Security Administration* 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

U.S. Agency for Global Media 

Independent Agencies 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission 

Council of the Inspectors General on 

Integrity and Efficiency 

Farm Credit Administration 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Federal Housing Finance Agency 

Federal Maritime Commission 

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review 

Commission 

Federal Permitting Improvement 

Steering Council 

Federal Trade Commission* 

National Credit Union Administration 

National Indian Gaming Commission* 

National Labor Relations Board 

National Transportation Safety Board 

Postal Regulatory Commission 

Council of the Inspectors General on 

Integrity and Efficiency 

Farm Credit Administration 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Federal Housing Finance Agency 

Federal Maritime Commission 

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review 

Commission 

Federal Trade Commission* 

National Credit Union Administration 

National Indian Gaming Commission* 

National Labor Relations Board 

National Transportation Safety Board 

Postal Regulatory Commission 

The Regulatory Information Service 

Center compiles the Unified Agenda for 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA), part of the Office of 

Management and Budget. OIRA is 

responsible for overseeing the Federal 

Government’s regulatory, paperwork, 

and information resource management 

activities, including implementation of 

Executive Order 12866 (incorporated in 

Executive Order 13563). The Center also 

provides information about Federal 

regulatory activity to the President and 

his Executive Office, the Congress, 

agency officials, and the public. 

The activities included in the Agenda 

are, in general, those that will have a 

regulatory action within the next 12 

months. Agencies may choose to 

include activities that will have a longer 

timeframe than 12 months. Agency 

agendas also show actions or reviews 

completed or withdrawn since the last 

Unified Agenda. Executive Order 12866 

does not require agencies to include 

regulations concerning military or 

foreign affairs functions or regulations 

related to agency organization, 

management, or personnel matters. 

Agencies prepared entries for this 

publication to give the public notice of 

their plans to review, propose, and issue 

regulations. They have tried to predict 

their activities over the next 12 months 

as accurately as possible, but dates and 

schedules are subject to change. 

Agencies may withdraw some of the 

regulations now under development, 

and they may issue or propose other 

regulations not included in their 

agendas. Agency actions in the 

rulemaking process may occur before or 

after the dates they have listed. The 

Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda do 

not create a legal obligation on agencies 

to adhere to schedules in this 

publication or to confine their 

regulatory activities to those regulations 

that appear within it. 

II. Why are the Regulatory Plan and the 

Unified Agenda published? 

The Regulatory Plan and the Unified 

Agenda helps agencies comply with 

their obligations under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and various Executive 

orders and other statutes. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

requires agencies to identify those rules 

that may have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities (5 U.S.C. 602). Agencies meet 

that requirement by including the 

information in their submissions for the 

Unified Agenda. Agencies may also 

indicate those regulations that they are 

reviewing as part of their periodic 

review of existing rules under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

610). Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ signed August 13, 

2002 (67 FR 53461), provides additional 

guidance on compliance with the Act. 

Executive Order 12866 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review,’’ September 30, 

1993 (58 FR 51735), requires covered 

agencies to prepare an agenda of all 

regulations under development or 

review. The Order also requires that 

certain agencies prepare annually a 

regulatory plan of their ‘‘most important 

significant regulatory actions,’’ which 

appears as part of the fall Unified 

Agenda. Executive Order 13497, signed 

January 30, 2009 (74 FR 6113), revoked 

the amendments to Executive Order 

12866 that were contained in Executive 

Order 13258 and Executive Order 

13422. 

Executive Order 13563 

Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
5004 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3821) 

supplements and reaffirms the 

principles, structures, and definitions 

governing contemporary regulatory 

review that were established in 

Executive Order 12866, which includes 

the general principles of regulation and 

public participation, and orders 

integration and innovation in 

coordination across agencies; flexible 

approaches where relevant, feasible, and 

consistent with regulatory approaches; 

scientific integrity in any scientific or 

technological information and processes 

used to support the agencies’ regulatory 

actions; and retrospective analysis of 

existing regulations. 

Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

August 4, 1999 (64 FR 43255), directs 

agencies to have an accountable process 

to ensure meaningful and timely input 

by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have ‘‘federalism implications’’ as 

defined in the Order. Under the Order, 

an agency that is proposing a regulation 

with federalism implications, which 

either preempt State law or impose nonstatutory unfunded substantial direct 

compliance costs on State and local 

governments, must consult with State 

and local officials early in the process 

of developing the regulation. In 

addition, the agency must provide to the 

Director of the Office of Management 

and Budget a federalism summary 

impact statement for such a regulation, 

which consists of a description of the 

extent of the agency’s prior consultation 

with State and local officials, a 

summary of their concerns and the 

agency’s position supporting the need to 

issue the regulation, and a statement of 

the extent to which those concerns have 

been met. As part of this effort, agencies 

include in their submissions for the 

Unified Agenda information on whether 

their regulatory actions may have an 

effect on the various levels of 

government and whether those actions 

have federalism implications. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4, title II) requires 

agencies to prepare written assessments 

of the costs and benefits of significant 

regulatory actions ‘‘that may result in 

the expenditure by State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or 

more in any 1 year.’’ The requirement 

does not apply to independent 

regulatory agencies, nor does it apply to 

certain subject areas excluded by 

section 4 of the Act. Affected agencies 

identify in the Unified Agenda those 

regulatory actions they believe are 

subject to title II of the Act. 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ May 18, 2001 (66 

FR 28355), directs agencies to provide, 

to the extent possible, information 

regarding the adverse effects that agency 

actions may have on the supply, 

distribution, and use of energy. Under 

the Order, the agency must prepare and 

submit a Statement of Energy Effects to 

the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, for 

‘‘those matters identified as significant 

energy actions.’’ As part of this effort, 

agencies may optionally include in their 

submissions for the Unified Agenda 

information on whether they have 

prepared or plan to prepare a Statement 

of Energy Effects for their regulatory 

actions. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104– 

121, title II) established a procedure for 

congressional review of rules (5 U.S.C. 

801 et seq.), which defers, unless 

exempted, the effective date of a 

‘‘major’’ rule for at least 60 days from 

the publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. The Act specifies that 

a rule is ‘‘major’’ if it has resulted, or is 

likely to result, in an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more or 

meets other criteria specified in that 

Act. The Act provides that the 

Administrator of OIRA will make the 

final determination as to whether a rule 

is major. 

III. How are the Regulatory Plan and 

the Unified Agenda organized? 

The Regulatory Plan appears in part II 

in a daily edition of the Federal 

Register. The Plan is a single document 

beginning with an introduction, 

followed by a table of contents, followed 

by each agency’s section of the Plan. 

Following the Plan in the Federal 

Register, as separate parts, are the 

regulatory flexibility agendas for each 

agency whose agenda includes entries 

for rules which are likely to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities or 

rules that have been selected for 

periodic review under section 610 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Each printed 

agenda appears as a separate part. The 

sections of the Plan and the parts of the 

Unified Agenda are organized 

alphabetically in four groups: Cabinet 

departments; other executive agencies; 

the Federal Acquisition Regulation, a 

joint authority (Agenda only); and 

independent regulatory agencies. 

Agencies may in turn be divided into 

subagencies. Each printed agency 

agenda has a table of contents listing the 

agency’s printed entries that follow. 

Each agency’s part of the Agenda 

contains a preamble providing 

information specific to that agency. 

Each printed agency agenda has a table 

of contents listing the agency’s printed 

entries that follow. 

Each agency’s section of the Plan 

contains a narrative statement of 

regulatory priorities and, for most 

agencies, a description of the agency’s 

most important significant regulatory 

and deregulatory actions. Each agency’s 

part of the Agenda contains a preamble 

providing information specific to that 

agency plus descriptions of the agency’s 

regulatory and deregulatory actions. 

The online, complete Unified Agenda 

contains the preambles of all 

participating agencies. Unlike the 

printed edition, the online Agenda has 

no fixed ordering. In the online Agenda, 

users can select the particular agencies’ 

agendas they want to see. Users have 

broad flexibility to specify the 

characteristics of the entries of interest 

to them by choosing the desired 

responses to individual data fields. To 

see a listing of all of an agency’s entries, 

a user can select the agency without 

specifying any particular characteristics 

of entries. 

Each entry in the Agenda is associated 

with one of five rulemaking stages. The 

rulemaking stages are: 

1. Prerule Stage—actions agencies 

will undertake to determine whether or 

how to initiate rulemaking. Such actions 

occur prior to a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) and may include 

Advance Notices of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRMs) and reviews of 

existing regulations. 

2. Proposed Rule Stage—actions for 

which agencies plan to publish a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking as the next step 

in their rulemaking process or for which 

the closing date of the NPRM Comment 

Period is the next step. 

3. Final Rule Stage—actions for which 

agencies plan to publish a final rule or 

an interim final rule or to take other 

final action as the next step. 

4. Long-Term Actions—items under 

development but for which the agency 

does not expect to have a regulatory 

action within the 12 months after 

publication of this edition of the Unified 

Agenda. Some of the entries in this 

section may contain abbreviated 

information. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5005 

5. Completed Actions—actions or 

reviews the agency has completed or 

withdrawn since publishing its last 

agenda. This section also includes items 

the agency began and completed 

between issues of the Agenda. 

6. Long-Term Actions—are 

rulemakings reported during the 

publication cycle that are outside of the 

required 12-month reporting period for 

which the Agenda was intended. 

Completed Actions in the publication 

cycle are rulemakings that are ending 

their lifecycle either by Withdrawal or 

completion of the rulemaking process. 

Therefore, the Long-Term and 

Completed RINs do not represent the 

ongoing, forward-looking nature 

intended for reporting developing 

rulemakings in the Agenda pursuant to 

Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 

4(c). To further differentiate these two 

stages of rulemaking in the Unified 

Agenda from active rulemakings, LongTerm and Completed Actions are 

reported separately from active 

rulemakings, which can be any of the 

first three stages of rulemaking listed 

above. A separate search function is 

provided on www.reginfo.gov to search 

for Completed and Long-Term Actions 

apart from each other and active RINs. 

A bullet (•) preceding the title of an 

entry indicates that the entry is 

appearing in the Unified Agenda for the 

first time. 

In the printed edition, all entries are 

numbered sequentially from the 

beginning to the end of the publication. 

The sequence number preceding the 

title of each entry identifies the location 

of the entry in this edition. The 

sequence number is used as the 

reference in the printed table of 

contents. Sequence numbers are not 

used in the online Unified Agenda 

because the unique Regulation Identifier 

Number (RIN) is able to provide this 

cross-reference capability. 

Editions of the Unified Agenda prior 

to fall 2007 contained several indexes, 

which identified entries with various 

characteristics. These included 

regulatory actions for which agencies 

believe that the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act may require a Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis, actions selected for periodic 

review under section 610(c) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, and actions 

that may have federalism implications 

as defined in Executive Order 13132 or 

other effects on levels of government. 

These indexes are no longer compiled, 

because users of the online Unified 

Agenda have the flexibility to search for 

entries with any combination of desired 

characteristics. The online edition 

retains the Unified Agenda’s subject 

index based on the Federal Register 

Thesaurus of Indexing Terms. In 

addition, online users have the option of 

searching Agenda text fields for words 

or phrases. 

IV. What information appears for each 

entry? 

All entries in the online Unified 

Agenda contain uniform data elements 

including, at a minimum, the following 

information: 

Title of the Regulation—a brief 

description of the subject of the 

regulation. In the printed edition, the 

notation ‘‘Section 610 Review’’ 

following the title indicates that the 

agency has selected the rule for its 

periodic review of existing rules under 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

610(c)). Some agencies have indicated 

completions of section 610 reviews or 

rulemaking actions resulting from 

completed section 610 reviews. In the 

online edition, these notations appear in 

a separate field. 

Priority—an indication of the 

significance of the regulation. Agencies 

assign each entry to one of the following 

five categories of significance. 

(1) Economically Significant 

As defined in Executive Order 12866, 

a rulemaking action that will have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or will adversely affect 

in a material way the economy, a sector 

of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

or tribal governments or communities. 

The definition of an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule is similar but not 

identical to the definition of a ‘‘major’’ 

rule under 5 U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 104– 

121). (See below.) 

(2) Other Significant 

A rulemaking that is not 

Economically Significant but is 

considered Significant by the agency. 

This category includes rules that the 

agency anticipates will be reviewed 

under Executive Order 12866 or rules 

that are a priority of the agency head. 

These rules may or may not be included 

in the agency’s regulatory plan. 

(3) Substantive, Nonsignificant 

A rulemaking that has substantive 

impacts, but is neither Significant, nor 

Routine and Frequent, nor 

Informational/Administrative/Other. 

(4) Routine and Frequent 

A rulemaking that is a specific case of 

a multiple recurring application of a 

regulatory program in the Code of 

Federal Regulations and that does not 

alter the body of the regulation. 

(5) Informational/Administrative/Other 

A rulemaking that is primarily 

informational or pertains to agency 

matters not central to accomplishing the 

agency’s regulatory mandate but that the 

agency places in the Unified Agenda to 

inform the public of the activity. 

Major—whether the rule is ‘‘major’’ 

under 5 U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 104–121) 

because it has resulted or is likely to 

result in an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

meets other criteria specified in that 

Act. The Act provides that the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs will 

make the final determination as to 

whether a rule is major. 

Unfunded Mandates—whether the 

rule is covered by section 202 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). The Act requires that, 

before issuing an NPRM likely to result 

in a mandate that may result in 

expenditures by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of more than $100 million 

in 1 year, agencies, other than 

independent regulatory agencies, shall 

prepare a written statement containing 

an assessment of the anticipated costs 

and benefits of the Federal mandate. 

Legal Authority—the section(s) of the 

United States Code (U.S.C.) or Public 

Law (Pub. L.) or the Executive order 

(E.O.) that authorize(s) the regulatory 

action. Agencies may provide popular 

name references to laws in addition to 

these citations. 

CFR Citation—the section(s) of the 

Code of Federal Regulations that will be 

affected by the action. 

Legal Deadline—whether the action is 

subject to a statutory or judicial 

deadline, the date of that deadline, and 

whether the deadline pertains to an 

NPRM, a Final Action, or some other 

action. 

Abstract—a brief description of the 

problem the regulation will address; the 

need for a Federal solution; to the extent 

available, alternatives that the agency is 

considering to address the problem; and 

potential costs and benefits of the 

action. 

Timetable—the dates and citations (if 

available) for all past steps and a 

projected date for at least the next step 

for the regulatory action. A date 

displayed in the form 12/00/19 means 

the agency is predicting the month and 

year the action will take place but not 

the day it will occur. In some instances, 

agencies may indicate what the next 

action will be, but the date of that action 

is ‘‘To Be Determined.’’ ‘‘Next Action 

Undetermined’’ indicates the agency 

does not know what action it will take 

next. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
5006 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required—whether an analysis is 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) because the 

rulemaking action is likely to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

defined by the Act. 

Small Entities Affected—the types of 

small entities (businesses, governmental 

jurisdictions, or organizations) on which 

the rulemaking action is likely to have 

an impact as defined by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. Some agencies have 

chosen to indicate likely effects on 

small entities even though they believe 

that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

will not be required. 

Government Levels Affected—whether 

the action is expected to affect levels of 

government and, if so, whether the 

governments are State, local, tribal, or 

Federal. 

International Impacts—whether the 

regulation is expected to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise may be of interest 

to the Nation’s international trading 

partners. 

Federalism—whether the action has 

‘‘federalism implications’’ as defined in 

Executive Order 13132. This term refers 

to actions ‘‘that have substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

Independent regulatory agencies are not 

required to supply this information. 

Included in the Regulatory Plan— 

whether the rulemaking was included in 

the agency’s current regulatory plan 

published in fall 2021. 

Agency Contact—the name and phone 

number of at least one person in the 

agency who is knowledgeable about the 

rulemaking action. The agency may also 

provide the title, address, fax number, 

email address, and TDD for each agency 

contact. 

Some agencies have provided the 

following optional information: 

RIN Information URL—the internet 

address of a site that provides more 

information about the entry. 

Public Comment URL—the internet 

address of a site that will accept public 

comments on the entry. 

Alternatively, timely public 

comments may be submitted at the 

Governmentwide e-rulemaking site, 

www.regulations.gov. 

Additional Information—any 

information an agency wishes to include 

that does not have a specific 

corresponding data element. 

Compliance Cost to the Public—the 

estimated gross compliance cost of the 

action. 

Affected Sectors—the industrial 

sectors that the action may most affect, 

either directly or indirectly. Affected 

sectors are identified by North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) codes. 

Energy Effects—an indication of 

whether the agency has prepared or 

plans to prepare a Statement of Energy 

Effects for the action, as required by 

Executive Order 13211 ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ signed May 18, 

2001 (66 FR 28355). 

Related RINs—one or more past or 

current RIN(s) associated with activity 

related to this action, such as merged 

RINs, split RINs, new activity for 

previously completed RINs, or duplicate 

RINs. 

Statement of Need—a description of 

the need for the regulatory action. 

Summary of the Legal Basis—a 

description of the legal basis for the 

action, including whether any aspect of 

the action is required by statute or court 

order. 

Alternatives—a description of the 

alternatives the agency has considered 

or will consider as required by section 

4(c)(1)(B) of Executive Order 12866. 

Anticipated Costs and Benefits—a 

description of preliminary estimates of 

the anticipated costs and benefits of the 

action. 

Risks—a description of the magnitude 

of the risk the action addresses, the 

amount by which the agency expects the 

action to reduce this risk, and the 

relation of the risk and this risk 

reduction effort to other risks and risk 

reduction efforts within the agency’s 

jurisdiction. 

V. Abbreviations 

The following abbreviations appear 

throughout this publication: 

ANPRM—An Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is a preliminary 

notice, published in the Federal 

Register, announcing that an agency is 

considering a regulatory action. An 

agency may issue an ANPRM before it 

develops a detailed proposed rule. An 

ANPRM describes the general area that 

may be subject to regulation and usually 

asks for public comment on the issues 

and options being discussed. An 

ANPRM is issued only when an agency 

believes it needs to gather more 

information before proceeding to a 

notice of proposed rulemaking. 

CFR—The Code of Federal 

Regulations is an annual codification of 

the general and permanent regulations 

published in the Federal Register by the 

agencies of the Federal Government. 

The Code is divided into 50 titles, each 

title covering a broad area subject to 

Federal regulation. The CFR is keyed to 

and kept up to date by the daily issues 

of the Federal Register. 

E.O.—An Executive order is a 

directive from the President to 

Executive agencies, issued under 

constitutional or statutory authority. 

Executive orders are published in the 

Federal Register and in title 3 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

FR—The Federal Register is a daily 

Federal Government publication that 

provides a uniform system for 

publishing Presidential documents, all 

proposed and final regulations, notices 

of meetings, and other official 

documents issued by Federal agencies. 

FY—The Federal fiscal year runs from 

October 1 to September 30. 

NPRM—A Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is the document an agency 

issues and publishes in the Federal 

Register that describes and solicits 

public comments on a proposed 

regulatory action. Under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

553), an NPRM must include, at a 

minimum: A statement of the time, 

place, and nature of the public 

rulemaking proceeding. 

Legal Authority—A reference to the 

legal authority under which the rule is 

proposed; and either the terms or 

substance of the proposed rule or a 

description of the subjects and issues 

involved. 

Pub. L.—A public law is a law passed 

by Congress and signed by the President 

or enacted over his veto. It has general 

applicability, unlike a private law that 

applies only to those persons or entities 

specifically designated. Public laws are 

numbered in sequence throughout the 2- 

year life of each Congress; for example, 

Public Law 112–4 is the fourth public 

law of the 112th Congress. 

RFA—A Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis is a description and analysis of 

the impact of a rule on small entities, 

including small businesses, small 

governmental jurisdictions, and certain 

small not-for-profit organizations. The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) requires each agency to prepare 

an initial RFA for public comment when 

it is required to publish an NPRM and 

to make available a final RFA when the 

final rule is published, unless the 

agency head certifies that the rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

RIN—The Regulation Identifier 

Number is assigned by the Regulatory 

Information Service Center to identify 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5007 

each regulatory action listed in the 

Regulatory Plan and the Unified 

Agenda, as directed by Executive Order 

12866 (section 4(b)). Additionally, OMB 

has asked agencies to include RINs in 

the headings of their Rule and Proposed 

Rule documents when publishing them 

in the Federal Register, to make it easier 

for the public and agency officials to 

track the publication history of 

regulatory actions throughout their 

development. 

Seq. No.—The sequence number 

identifies the location of an entry in the 

printed edition of the Regulatory Plan 

and the Unified Agenda. Note that a 

specific regulatory action will have the 

same RIN throughout its development 

but will generally have different 

sequence numbers if it appears in 

different printed editions of the Unified 

Agenda. Sequence numbers are not used 

in the online Unified Agenda. 

U.S.C.—The United States Code is a 

consolidation and codification of all 

general and permanent laws of the 

United States. The U.S.C. is divided into 

50 titles, each title covering a broad area 

of Federal law. 

VI. How can users get copies of the Plan 

and the Agenda? 

Copies of the Federal Register issue 

containing the printed edition of The 

Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda 

(agency regulatory flexibility agendas) 

are available from the Superintendent of 

Documents, U.S. Government 

Publishing Office, P.O. Box 371954, 

Pittsburgh, PA 15250–7954. 

Telephone: (202) 512–1800 or 1–866– 

512–1800 (toll-free). 

Copies of individual agency materials 

may be available directly from the 

agency or may be found on the agency’s 

website. Please contact the particular 

agency for further information. 

All editions of The Regulatory Plan 

and the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

since fall 1995 are available in 

electronic form at www.reginfo.gov, 

along with flexible search tools. 

The Government Publishing Office’s 

GPO GovInfo website contains copies of 

the Agendas and Regulatory Plans that 

have been printed in the Federal 

Register. These documents are available 

at www.govinfo.gov. 

Dated: December 7, 2021. 

Boris Arratia, 

Director. 

Introduction to the Fall 2021 

Regulatory Plan 

Executive Order 12866, issued in 

1993, requires the annual production of 

a Unified Regulatory Agenda and 

Regulatory Plan. It does so in order to 

promote transparency—or in the words 

of the Executive Order itself, ‘‘to have 

an effective regulatory program, to 

provide for coordination of regulations, 

to maximize consultation and the 

resolution of potential conflicts at an 

early stage, to involve the public and its 

State, local, and tribal officials in 

regulatory planning, and to ensure that 

new or revised regulations promote the 

President’s priorities and the principles 

set forth in this Executive order.’’ The 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

were reaffirmed in Executive Order 

13563, issued in 2011. 

We are now providing the first 

Regulatory Plan of the Biden-Harris 

Administration for public scrutiny and 

review. The regulatory plans and 

agendas submitted by agencies and 

included here offer blueprints for how 

the Administration plans to continue 

delivering on the President’s agenda as 

we build back better. This agenda is 

fully consistent with the priorities 

outlined by the President as reflected in 

his executive orders and our previous 

regulatory agenda. We are proud to 

shine a light on the regulatory agenda as 

a way to share with the public how the 

themes of equity, prosperity and public 

health cut across everything we do to 

improve the lives of the American 

people. 

These new plans build on significant 

progress the Administration has already 

made advancing our priorities and 

proving that our Government can 

deliver results—from confronting the 

pandemic, to creating a stronger and 

fairer economy, to addressing climate 

change and advancing equity. For 

example, since releasing the spring 

regulatory agenda, we have proposed or 

finalized regulatory protections to: 

• Protect the Public from COVID— 

The Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) issued orders 

requiring all people to wear face masks 

while on public transportation and in 

transportation hubs. In addition, CDC 

issued Global Testing Orders for all 

international air travelers, strengthening 

protocols to protect travelers and the 

health and safety of American 

communities. 

• Combat Housing Discrimination. 

Following President Biden’s 

Presidential Memorandum directing his 

Administration to address racial 

discrimination in the housing market, 

the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) published an 

interim final rule requiring HUD 

funding recipients to affirmatively 

further fair housing, including by 

completing an assessment of fair 

housing issues, identifying fair housing 

priorities and goals, and then 

committing to meaningful actions to 

meet those goals and remedy identified 

issues. 

• Tackle the Climate Crisis. The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

took an important step forward to 

advance President Biden’s commitment 

to action on climate change and protect 

people’s health by proposing 

comprehensive new protections to 

sharply reduce pollution from the oil 

and natural gas industry—including, for 

the first time, reductions from existing 

sources nationwide. The proposed new 

Clean Air Act rule would lead to 

significant, cost-effective reductions in 

methane emissions and other healthharming air pollutants that endanger 

nearby communities. 

• Improve Pipeline Safety and 

Environmental Standards. In a major 

step to enhance and modernize pipeline 

safety and environmental standards, the 

Department of Transportation issued a 

final rule that—for the first time— 

applies federal pipeline safety 

regulations to tens of thousands of miles 

of unregulated gas gathering pipelines. 

This rule will improve safety, reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions, and result in 

more jobs for pipeline workers that are 

needed to help upgrade the safety and 

operations of these lines. 

In addition to these significant 

actions, the Administration has also 

made key progress advancing another 

core objective: Effectively implementing 

the American Rescue Plan (ARP). Since 

the ARP went into effect in March, the 

Administration has promulgated 17 

proposed and 32 final rules to get much 

needed relief to the communities across 

the countries efficiently and equitably. 

For example: 

• The Department of Education 

established requirements to ensure that 

state and local educational agencies 

consult members of the public in 

determining how to use school 

emergency relief funds, and develop 

plans for a safe return to in-person 

instruction. 

• The Department of Housing and 

Urban Development finalized a rule so 

the agency could require that operators 

of project-based rental assistance 

housing (such as Section 8) notify 

tenants of the availability of emergency 

rent relief, and give tenants time to 

secure that relief. 

• The Small Business Administration 

finalized a rule to deliver much needed 

support to small business by 

streamlining forgiveness of small loans 

under the Paycheck Protection Program 

(a program extended by the ARP Act). 

In this agenda, we are adding 

important new measures under 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
5008 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

consideration to advance additional 

Administration priorities, including: 

• Uncovering Hidden Airline Service 

Fees. The Department of Transportation 

plans to better protect consumers and 

improve competition by ensuring that 

consumers have ancillary fee 

information, including ‘‘baggage fees,’’ 

‘‘change fees,’’ and ‘‘cancellation fees’’ 

at the time of ticket purchase. The 

Department also plans to examine 

whether fees for certain ancillary 

services should be disclosed at the first 

point in a search process where a fare 

is listed. 

• Stopping Super-Pollutants. The 

EPA is considering restricting—fully, 

partially, or on a graduated schedule— 

the use of Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in 

sectors or subsectors including the 

refrigeration, air conditioning, aerosol, 

and foam sectors. HFCs are potent 

greenhouse gases found in a range of 

appliances and substances, including 

refrigerators, air conditioners and foams, 

and have an impact on warming our 

climate that is hundreds to thousands of 

times greater than the same amount of 

carbon dioxide. 

• Transitioning Toward ZeroEmission Technologies. The EPA plans 

to strengthen greenhouse gas emission 

standards for light- and heavy-duty 

vehicles, with an eye towards 

encouraging automakers to transition to 

zero-emission technologies. If 

implemented, the new standards would 

save consumers money, cut pollution, 

boost public health, advance 

environmental justice, and tackle the 

climate crisis. 

• Lowering Mental Health and 

Substance Use Treatment Costs. The 

Department of Labor, Department of 

Health and Human Services, and 

Department of Treasury are considering 

changes to clarify health insurance 

plans’ and issuers’ obligations to cover 

mental health and substance use 

treatment in light of new legislative 

enactments and experience 

implementing the MHPAEA law since 

the last relevant rulemaking in 2014. 

• Increasing Access for People With 

Disabilities. As part of the 

Administration’s commitment to equity, 

the Department of Justice is exploring a 

new rule to ensure that individuals with 

disabilities can use sidewalks and other 

pedestrian facilities. 

Between this regulatory agenda and 

the next in spring 2022, agencies will 

also be developing plans for 

implementing the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), historic 

legislation to rebuild crumbling 

infrastructure, create good paying jobs, 

and grow our economy. These plans 

will provide greater detail on how 

agencies will administer new IIJA 

programs in a manner that delivers 

meaningful results to all Americans, 

strengthens American manufacturing, 

and advances climate resilience. These 

plans will provide an opportunity for 

the public to be partners in the 

implementation of the IIJA—and all 

government programs. Public 

engagement in IIJA implementation can 

only make it better and more responsive 

to what our families and communities 

most need. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

1 ........................ Poultry Grower Ranking Systems (AMS–FTPP–21–0044) ...................................... 0581–AE03 Proposed Rule Stage. 

2 ........................ Clarification of Scope of the Packers and Stockyards Act (AMS–FTPP–21–0046) 0581–AE04 Proposed Rule Stage. 

3 ........................ Unfair Practices in Violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act (AMS–FTPP–21– 

0045).

0581–AE05 Proposed Rule Stage. 

4 ........................ Organic Livestock and Poultry Standards ................................................................ 0581–AE06 Proposed Rule Stage. 

5 ........................ Establishing AWA Standards for Birds ..................................................................... 0579–AE61 Proposed Rule Stage. 

6 ........................ Voluntary Labeling of Meat Products With ‘‘Product of USA’’ and Similar Statements.0583–AD87 Proposed Rule Stage. 

7 ........................ Revision of the Nutrition Facts Panels for Meat and Poultry Products and Updating Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed.0583–AD56 Final Rule Stage. 

8 ........................ Prior Label Approval System: Expansion of Generic Label Approval ..................... 0583–AD78 Final Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

9 ........................ Request for Comments Concerning the Imposition of Export Controls on Certain 

Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) Emerging Technology.

0694–AI41 Prerule Stage. 

10 ...................... Foundational Technologies: Proposed Controls; Request for Comments ............... 0694–AH80 Proposed Rule Stage. 

11 ...................... Removal of Certain General Approved Exclusions (GAEs) Under the Section 232 

Steel and Aluminum Tariff Exclusions Process.

0694–AH55 Final Rule Stage. 

12 ...................... Information Security Controls: Cybersecurity Items ................................................. 0694–AH56 Final Rule Stage. 

13 ...................... Authorization of Certain ‘‘Items’’ to Entities on the Entity List in the Context of 

Specific Standards Activities.

0694–AI06 Final Rule Stage. 

14 ...................... Commerce Control List: Expansion of Controls on Certain Biological Equipment 

‘‘Software’’.

0694–AI08 Final Rule Stage. 

15 ...................... Changes To Implement Provisions of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 .. 0651–AD55 Final Rule Stage.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

16 ...................... Department of Defense (DoD)-Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cybersecurity (CS) 

Activities.

0790–AK86 Proposed Rule Stage. 

17 ...................... Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities Assisted or 

Conducted by the DoD.

0790–AJ04 Final Rule Stage. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5009 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—Continued 

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

18 ...................... Federal Voting Assistance Program ......................................................................... 0790–AK90 Final Rule Stage. 

19 ...................... Small Business Innovation Research Program Data Rights (DFARS Case 2019– 

D043).

0750–AK84 Proposed Rule Stage. 

20 ...................... Reauthorization and Improvement of Mentor-Protege Program (DFARS Case 

2020–D009).

0750–AK96 Proposed Rule Stage. 

21 ...................... Maximizing the Use of American-Made Goods (DFARS Case 2019–D045) .......... 0750–AK85 Final Rule Stage. 

22 ...................... Policy and Procedures for Processing Requests to Alter US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 408.0710–AB22 Proposed Rule Stage. 

23 ...................... Credit Assistance for Water Resources Infrastructure Projects .............................. 0710–AB31 Proposed Rule Stage. 

24 ...................... Flood Control Cost-Sharing Requirements Under the Ability to Pay Provision ....... 0710–AB34 Proposed Rule Stage. 

25 ...................... Revised Definition of ‘‘Waters of the United States’’—Rule 1 ................................. 0710–AB40 Proposed Rule Stage. 

26 ...................... Revised Definition of ‘‘Waters of the United States’’—Rule 2 (Reg Plan Seq No. 

XX).

0710–AB47 Proposed Rule Stage. 

27 ...................... TRICARE Coverage and Payment for Certain Services in Response to the 

COVID–19 Pandemic.

0720–AB81 Final Rule Stage. 

28 ...................... TRICARE Coverage of Certain Medical Benefits in Response to the COVID–19 

Pandemic.

0720–AB82 Final Rule Stage. 

29 ...................... TRICARE Coverage of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease 

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Clinical Trials.

0720–AB83 Final Rule Stage. 

30 ...................... Expanding TRICARE Access to Care in Response to the COVID–19 Pandemic .. 0720–AB85 Final Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

31 ...................... Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.1870–AA16 Proposed Rule Stage. 

32 ...................... Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ............................................................. 1875–AA15 Proposed Rule Stage. 

33 ...................... Determining the Amount of Federal Education Assistance Funds Received by Institutions of Higher Education (90/10).1840–AD55 Prerule Stage. 

34 ...................... Borrower Defense ..................................................................................................... 1840–AD53 Proposed Rule Stage. 

35 ...................... Pell Grants for Prison Education Programs ............................................................. 1840–AD54 Proposed Rule Stage. 

36 ...................... Gainful Employment ................................................................................................. 1840–AD57 Proposed Rule Stage. 

37 ...................... Improving Student Loan Cancellation Authorities .................................................... 1840–AD59 Proposed Rule Stage. 

38 ...................... Income Contingent Repayment ................................................................................ 1840–AD69 Proposed Rule Stage. 

39 ...................... Public Service Loan Forgiveness ............................................................................. 1840–AD70 Proposed Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

40 ...................... Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Water Heating-Equipment .......... 1904–AD34 Proposed Rule Stage. 

41 ...................... Backstop Requirement for General Service Lamps ................................................. 1904–AF09 Proposed Rule Stage. 

42 ...................... Energy Efficiency Standards for New Federal Commercial and Multi-Family HighRise Residential Buildings Baseline Standards Update.1904–AE44 Final Rule Stage. 

43 ...................... Energy Conservation Program for Appliance Standards: Procedures for Use in 

New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment.

1904–AF13 Final Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

44 ...................... Amendments to Civil Monetary Penalty Law Regarding Grants, Contracts, and Information Blocking.0936–AA09 Final Rule Stage. 

45 ...................... Rulemaking on Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and 

Human Services Programs or Activities.

0945–AA15 Proposed Rule Stage. 

46 ...................... Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records ................................... 0945–AA16 Proposed Rule Stage. 

47 ...................... Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities .............................................. 0945–AA17 Proposed Rule Stage. 

48 ...................... ONC Health IT Certification Program Updates, Health Information Network Attestation Process for the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement, 

and Enhancements to Support Information Sharing.

0955–AA03 Proposed Rule Stage. 

49 ...................... Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder With Buprenorphine Utilizing Telehealth .......... 0930–AA38 Proposed Rule Stage. 

50 ...................... Treatment of Opioid use Disorder With Extended Take Home Doses of Methadone.0930–AA39 Proposed Rule Stage. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
5010 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES—Continued 

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

51 ...................... Requirement for Proof of Vaccination or Other Proof of Immunity Against Quarantinable Communicable Diseases.0920–AA80 Final Rule Stage. 

52 ...................... Nonprescription Drug Product With an Additional Condition for Nonprescription 

Use.

0910–AH62 Proposed Rule Stage. 

53 ...................... Nutrient Content Claims, Definition of Term: Healthy .............................................. 0910–AI13 Proposed Rule Stage. 

54 ...................... Biologics Regulation Modernization ......................................................................... 0910–AI14 Proposed Rule Stage. 

55 ...................... Medical Devices; Ear, Nose and Throat Devices; Establishing Over-the-Counter 

Hearing Aids and Aligning Other Regulations.

0910–AI21 Proposed Rule Stage. 

56 ...................... Tobacco Product Standard for Characterizing Flavors in Cigars ............................ 0910–AI28 Proposed Rule Stage. 

57 ...................... Conduct of Analytical and Clinical Pharmacology, Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies.0910–AI57 Proposed Rule Stage. 

58 ...................... Tobacco Product Standard for Menthol in Cigarettes .............................................. 0910–AI60 Proposed Rule Stage. 

59 ...................... 340B Drug Pricing Program; Administrative Dispute Resolution ............................. 0906–AB28 Proposed Rule Stage. 

60 ...................... Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund (CHEF) ........................................................ 0917–AA10 Proposed Rule Stage. 

61 ...................... Acquisition Regulations; Buy Indian Act; Procedures for Contracting ..................... 0917–AA18 Final Rule Stage. 

62 ...................... Streamlining the Medicaid and Chip Application, Eligibility Determination, Enrollment, and Renewal Processes (CMS–2421).0938–AU00 Proposed Rule Stage. 

63 ...................... Provider Nondiscrimination Requirements for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers in the Group and Individual Markets (CMS–9910).0938–AU64 Proposed Rule Stage. 

64 ...................... Assuring Access to Medicaid Services (CMS–2442) ............................................... 0938–AU68 Proposed Rule Stage. 

65 ...................... Implementing Certain Provisions of the Consolidated Appropriations Act and 

Other Revisions to Medicare Enrollment and Eligibility Rules (CMS–4199).

0938–AU85 Proposed Rule Stage. 

66 ...................... Requirements for Rural Emergency Hospitals (CMS–3419) ................................... 0938–AU92 Proposed Rule Stage. 

67 ...................... Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CMS–9902).0938–AU93 Proposed Rule Stage. 

68 ...................... Coverage of Certain Preventive Services (CMS–9903) .......................................... 0938–AU94 Proposed Rule Stage. 

69 ...................... Omnibus COVID–19 Health Care Staff Vaccination (CMS–3415) .......................... 0938–AU75 Final Rule Stage. 

70 ...................... Native Hawaiian Revolving Loan Fund Eligibility Requirements ............................. 0970–AC84 Proposed Rule Stage. 

71 ...................... Paternity Establishment Percentage Performance Relief ........................................ 0970–AC86 Proposed Rule Stage. 

72 ...................... ANA Non-federal Share Emergency Waivers .......................................................... 0970–AC88 Proposed Rule Stage. 

73 ...................... Foster Care Legal Representation ........................................................................... 0970–AC89 Proposed Rule Stage. 

74 ...................... Separate Licensing Standards for Relative or Kinship Foster Family Homes ........ 0970–AC91 Proposed Rule Stage. 

75 ...................... National Institute for Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

0985–AA16 Proposed Rule Stage 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

76 ...................... Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal; Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear Review.1615–AC42 Proposed Rule Stage. 

77 ...................... Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ..................................................................... 1615–AC64 Proposed Rule Stage. 

78 ...................... Asylum and Withholding Definitions ......................................................................... 1615–AC65 Proposed Rule Stage. 

79 ...................... Rescission of ‘‘Asylum Application, Interview, & Employment Authorization’’ Rule 

and Change to ‘‘Removal of 30 Day Processing Provision for Asylum Applicant 

Related Form I–765 Employment Authorization’’.

1615–AC66 Proposed Rule Stage. 

80 ...................... U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule ...................................... 1615–AC68 Proposed Rule Stage. 

81 ...................... Bars to Asylum Eligibility and Procedures ............................................................... 1615–AC69 Proposed Rule Stage. 

82 ...................... Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds ............................................................... 1615–AC74 Proposed Rule Stage. 

83 ...................... Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal and Cat Protection Claims by Asylum Officers.1615–AC67 Final Rule Stage. 

84 ...................... Electronic Chart and Navigation Equipment Carriage Requirements ...................... 1625–AC74 Prerule Stage. 

85 ...................... Shipping Safety Fairways Along the Atlantic Coast ................................................. 1625–AC57 Proposed Rule Stage. 

86 ...................... MARPOL Annex VI; Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships .................................... 1625–AC78 Proposed Rule Stage. 

87 ...................... Advance Passenger Information System: Electronic Validation of Travel Documents.1651–AB43 Proposed Rule Stage. 

88 ...................... Automation of CBP Form I–418 for Vessels ............................................................ 1651–AB18 Final Rule Stage. 

89 ...................... Vetting of Certain Surface Transportation Employees ............................................. 1652–AA69 Proposed Rule Stage. 

90 ...................... Indirect Air Carrier Security ...................................................................................... 1652–AA72 Proposed Rule Stage. 

91 ...................... Flight Training Security ............................................................................................. 1652–AA35 Final Rule Stage. 

92 ...................... Surface Transportation Cybersecurity Measures ..................................................... 1652–AA74 Long-Term Actions. 

93 ...................... Fee Adjustment for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Form I–246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal.1653–AA82 Proposed Rule Stage. 

94 ...................... RFI National Flood Insurance Program’s Floodplain Management Standards for 

Land Management & Use, & an Assessment of the Program’s Impact on 

Threatened and Endangered Species & Their Habitats.

1660–AB11 Prerule Stage. 

95 ...................... National Flood Insurance Program: Standard Flood Insurance Policy, Homeowner Flood Form.1660–AB06 Proposed Rule Stage. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5011 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY—Continued 

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

96 ...................... Amendment to the Public Assistance Program’s Simplified Procedures Large 

Project Threshold.

1660–AB10 Final Rule Stage. 

97 ...................... Individual Assistance Program Equity ...................................................................... 1660–AB07 Long-Term Actions. 

98 ...................... Ammonium Nitrate Security Program ....................................................................... 1670–AA00 Proposed Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

99 ...................... Increased 40-year Term for Loan Modifications (FR–6263) .................................... 2502–AJ59 Proposed Rule Stage. 

100 .................... Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (FR–6250) .................................................... 2529–AB05 Proposed Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

101 .................... Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by State and Local Governments and 

Places of Public Accommodation; Equipment and Furniture.

1190–AA76 Prerule Stage. 

102 .................... Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008: Federally Conducted (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973).1190–AA73 Proposed Rule Stage. 

103 .................... Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by State and Local Governments; 

Public Right-of-Way.

1190–AA77 Proposed Rule Stage. 

104 .................... Definition of ‘‘Frame or Receiver’’ and Identification of Firearms ............................ 1140–AA54 Final Rule Stage. 

105 .................... Factoring Criteria for Firearms With an Attached Stabilizing Brace ........................ 1140–AA55 Final Rule Stage. 

106 .................... Bars to Asylum Eligibility and Procedures ............................................................... 1125–AB12 Proposed Rule Stage. 

107 .................... Asylum and Withholding Definitions ......................................................................... 1125–AB13 Proposed Rule Stage. 

108 .................... Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal .............................................. 1125–AB15 Proposed Rule Stage. 

109 .................... Appellate Procedures and Decisional Finality in Immigration Proceedings; Administrative Closure.1125–AB18 Proposed Rule Stage. 

110 .................... Professional Conduct for Practitioners—Rules and Procedures, and Representation and Appearances.1125–AA83 Final Rule Stage. 

111 .................... Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers.1125–AB20 Final Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

112 .................... Proposal to Rescind Implementing Legal Requirements Regarding the Equal Opportunity Clause’s Religious Exemption.1250–AA09 Proposed Rule Stage. 

113 .................... Modification of Procedures to Resolve Potential Employment Discrimination ........ 1250–AA14 Proposed Rule Stage. 

114 .................... Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees.1235–AA39 Proposed Rule Stage. 

115 .................... Modernizing the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Regulations ................................. 1235–AA40 Proposed Rule Stage. 

116 .................... Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ................................. 1235–AA21 Final Rule Stage. 

117 .................... E.O. 14026, Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors ..................... 1235–AA41 Final Rule Stage. 

118 .................... Wagner-Peyser Act Staffing ..................................................................................... 1205–AC02 Proposed Rule Stage. 

119 .................... Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration, Amendment of Regulations.1205–AC06 Proposed Rule Stage. 

120 .................... Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder 

Rights.

1210–AC03 Proposed Rule Stage. 

121 .................... Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.1210–AC11 Proposed Rule Stage. 

122 .................... Requirements Related to Surprise Billing, Part 1 .................................................... 1210–AB99 Final Rule Stage. 

123 .................... Requirements Related to Surprise Billing, Part 2 .................................................... 1210–AC00 Final Rule Stage. 

124 .................... Respirable Crystalline Silica ..................................................................................... 1219–AB36 Proposed Rule Stage. 

125 .................... Safety Program for Surface Mobile Equipment ....................................................... 1219–AB91 Proposed Rule Stage. 

126 .................... Prevention of Workplace Violence in Health Care and Social Assistance .............. 1218–AD08 Prerule Stage. 

127 .................... Heat Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings ................................ 1218–AD39 Prerule Stage. 

128 .................... Infectious Diseases .................................................................................................. 1218–AC46 Proposed Rule Stage. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5012 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

129 .................... Processing Buy America and Buy American Waivers Based on Nonavailability .... 2105–AE79 Proposed Rule Stage. 

130 .................... Accessible Lavatories on Single-Aisle Aircraft: Part II ............................................. 2105–AE89 Proposed Rule Stage. 

131 .................... Enhancing Transparency of Airline Ancillary Service Fees ..................................... 2105–AF10 Proposed Rule Stage. 

132 .................... Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft ................... 2120–AK82 Final Rule Stage. 

133 .................... Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure ..................................................................... 2125–AF99 Proposed Rule Stage. 

134 .................... Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways ................... 2125–AF85 Final Rule Stage. 

135 .................... Heavy Vehicle Automatic Emergency Braking ......................................................... 2127–AM36 Proposed Rule Stage. 

136 .................... Light Vehicle Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) with Pedestrian AEB .............. 2127–AM37 Proposed Rule Stage. 

137 .................... Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Preemption .......................................... 2127–AM33 Final Rule Stage. 

138 .................... Passenger Car and Light Truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards ..... 2127–AM34 Final Rule Stage. 

139 .................... Train Crew Staffing ................................................................................................... 2130–AC88 Proposed Rule Stage. 

140 .................... Pipeline Safety: Class Location Requirements ........................................................ 2137–AF29 Long-Term Actions. 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

141 .................... Modifying Copayments for Veterans at High Risk for Suicide ................................. 2900–AQ30 Proposed Rule Stage. 

142 .................... VA Pilot Program on Graduate Medical Education and Residency ........................ 2900–AR01 Proposed Rule Stage. 

143 .................... Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program .................. 2900–AR16 Final Rule Stage. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

144 .................... National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilization and Fumigation Operations.2060–AU37 Proposed Rule Stage. 

145 .................... Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards.2060–AU41 Proposed Rule Stage. 

146 .................... Amendments to the NSPS for GHG Emissions From New, Modified, Reconstructed Stationary Sources: EGUs.2060–AV09 Proposed Rule Stage. 

147 .................... Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fossil Fuel-Fired Existing Electric Generating Units.2060–AV10 Proposed Rule Stage. 

148 .................... Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: RFS Annual Rules .............................. 2060–AV11 Proposed Rule Stage. 

149 .................... NESHAP: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units-Revocation 

of the 2020 Reconsideration, and Affirmation of the Appropriate and Necessary 

Supplemental Finding.

2060–AV12 Proposed Rule Stage. 

150 .................... Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and 

Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate 

Review.

2060–AV16 Proposed Rule Stage. 

151 .................... Review of Final Rule Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under 

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.

2060–AV20 Proposed Rule Stage. 

152 .................... Restrictions on Certain Uses of Hydrofluorocarbons Under Subsection (i) of the 

American Innovation and Manufacturing Act.

2060–AV46 Proposed Rule Stage. 

153 .................... Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter ........ 2060–AV52 Proposed Rule Stage. 

154 .................... Pesticides; Modification to the Minimum Risk Pesticide Listing Program and 

Other Exemptions Under FIFRA Section 25(b).

2070–AK55 Proposed Rule Stage. 

155 .................... Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (HBCD); Rulemaking Under TSCA Section 6(a) 2070–AK71 Proposed Rule Stage. 

156 .................... Asbestos (Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos); Rulemaking under TSCA Section 6(a) .... 2070–AK86 Proposed Rule Stage. 

157 .................... Designating PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA Hazardous Substances ...................... 2050–AH09 Proposed Rule Stage. 

158 .................... Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion 

Residuals From Electric Utilities; Legacy Surface Impoundments.

2050–AH14 Proposed Rule Stage. 

159 .................... Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Program Under 

the Clean Air Act; Retrospection.

2050–AH22 Proposed Rule Stage. 

160 .................... Federal Baseline Water Quality Standards for Indian Reservations ....................... 2040–AF62 Proposed Rule Stage. 

161 .................... Clean Water Act Section 401: Water Quality Certification ...................................... 2040–AG12 Proposed Rule Stage. 

162 .................... Revised Definition of ‘‘Waters of the United States’’—Rule 1 ................................. 2040–AG13 Proposed Rule Stage. 

163 .................... Revised Definition of ‘‘Waters of the United States’’—Rule 2 ................................. 2040–AG19 Proposed Rule Stage. 

164 .................... Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards.2060–AV13 Final Rule Stage. 

165 .................... Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion 

Residuals From Electric Utilities; Federal CCR Permit Program.

2050–AH07 Final Rule Stage. 

166 .................... Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of CCR; A Holistic 

Approach to Closure Part B: Implementation of Closure.

2050–AH18 Final Rule Stage. 

167 .................... Cybersecurity in Public Water Systems ................................................................... 2040–AG20 Final Rule Stage. 

168 .................... National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Regulatory 

Revisions.

2040–AG16 Long-Term Actions. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5013 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY—Continued 

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

169 .................... Per- and polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and 

Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) National Primary Drinking Water Regulation Rulemaking.

2040–AG18 Long-Term Actions. 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

170 .................... Special Financial Assistance by PBGC ................................................................... 1212–AB53 Final Rule Stage. 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

171 .................... Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Certification .............................. 3245–AH69 Prerule Stage. 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

172 .................... Omitting Food From In-Kind Support and Maintenance Calculations ..................... 0960–AI60 Proposed Rule Stage 

173 .................... $20 Tolerance Rule to Establish That the Individual Meets the Pro-Rata Share of 

Household Expenses When Living in the Household of Another.

0960–AI68 Proposed Rule Stage. 

174 .................... Inquiry About SSI Eligibility at Application Filing Date Which Will Remove the Requirement for a Signed Written Statement and Will Expand Protective Filing.0960–AI69 Proposed Rule Stage. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

175 .................... Cyber Security at Fuel Cycle Facilities [NRC–2015–0179] ..................................... 3150–AJ64 Proposed Rule Stage. 

176 .................... Alternative Physical Security Requirements for Advanced Reactors [NRC–2017– 

0227].

3150–AK19 Proposed Rule Stage. 

177 .................... Revision of Fee Schedules: Fee Recovery for FY 2022 [NRC–2020–0031] .......... 3150–AK44 Proposed Rule Stage. 

178 .................... Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement [NRC– 

2020–0101].

3150–AK55 Proposed Rule Stage. 

179 .................... Emergency Preparedness Requirements for Small Modular Reactors and Other 

New Technologies [NRC–2015–0225].

3150–AJ68 Final Rule Stage. 

180 .................... NuScale Small Modular Reactor Design Certification [NRC–2017–0029] .............. 3150–AJ98 Final Rule Stage. 

181 .................... American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2019–2020 Code Editions [NRC– 

2018–0290].

3150–AK22 Final Rule Stage. 

BILLING CODE 6820–27–P 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA) fall 2021 Regulatory Agenda 

and Plan prioritizes initiatives fostering 

21st century innovation, job creation, 

economic and market opportunity in 

rural America, particularly among 

historically underserved people and 

communities, and a safe end to the 

pandemic. USDA will continue to 

leverage existing programs in response 

to unforeseen events and national 

emergencies affecting the American 

farm economy, schools, individual 

households, and our National Forests. 

All USDA programs, including the 

priorities contained in this Regulatory 

Plan, will be structured to advance the 

cause of equity by removing barriers and 

opening new opportunities. 

In 2021, the USDA: 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

implemented a Dairy Donation Program 

to reimburse dairy organization for 

donated dairy products to non-profit 

organizations for distribution to 

recipient individuals and families. The 

new program was brought about by the 

2020 COVID–19 pandemic which 

disrupted dairy supply chains and 

displaced significant volumes of milk 

normally used in food service channels. 

This led to milk being dumped or fed to 

animals across the United States. The 

new program is intended to encourage 

the donation of dairy products and to 

prevent and minimize food waste. Farm 

Service Agency (FSA) implemented a 

new Heirs’ Property Relending Program 

authorized by changes that the 

Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 

(2018 Farm Bill) made to the 

Consolidated Farm and Rural 

Development Act. The relending 

program provides revolving loan funds 

to eligible intermediary lenders to 

resolve ownership and succession on 

farmland with multiple owners. The 

lenders give loans to qualified 

individuals to resolve these ownership 

issues. The intermediary lenders 

consolidate and coordinate the 

ownerships of the land-ownership 

interests. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5014 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Outlined below are some of our most 

important upcoming regulatory actions. 

These include efforts to restore and 

expand economic opportunity amid a 

safe end to the pandemic; address the 

climate change emergency; and support 

agricultural markets that are free, open 

and promote competition. This 

Regulatory Plan also reflects USDA’s 

continued commitments to ensuring a 

safe and nutritious food supply and 

animal welfare protections. As always, 

our Semiannual Regulatory Agenda 

contains information on a broadspectrum of USDA’s initiatives and 

upcoming regulatory actions. 

Restore and Expand Economic 

Opportunity Amid a Safe End to the 

Pandemic 

Pandemic Assistance Programs 

USDA will provide additional direct 

financial assistance to producers of 

agricultural commodities who suffered 

eligible revenue losses in calendar year 

2020 during the COVID–19 pandemic; 

this will expand on the assistance 

USDA provided last year. Payments will 

be made using funds under the 

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 

Security Act (CARES Act; Pub. L. 116– 

136). The rule will also implement the 

expanded Pandemic Cover Crop 

Program (PCCP) to help agricultural 

producers impacted by the effects of the 

COVID–19 outbreak. Given cover crop 

cultivation requires sustained, long-term 

investments to improve soil health and 

gain other agronomic benefits, the 

economic challenges due to the 

pandemic made maintaining cover 

cropping systems financially 

challenging for many producers. In 

addition, the rule will also update the 

regulations for the Emergency 

Conservation Program (ECP); the 

Emergency Assistance for Livestock, 

Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish 

Program (ELAP); and the Livestock 

Forage Disaster Program (LFP); 

Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP); and 

payment eligibility provisions. For more 

information about this rule, see RIN 

0503–AA75. 

Address the Climate Change Emergency 

Special Areas; Roadless Area 

Conservation; National Forest System 

Lands in Alaska: USDA proposes to 

repeal a final rule promulgated in 2020 

that exempted the Tongass National 

Forest from the 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). 

The 2001 Roadless Rule prohibited 

timber harvest and road construction or 

reconstruction within designated 

Inventoried Roadless Areas, with 

limited exceptions. This proposal is 

consistent with President Biden’s 

Executive Order 13990, Protecting 

Public Health and the Environment and 

Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate 

Crisis, directing action to address 

Federal regulations issued during the 

previous four years that may conflict 

with protecting the environment and to 

immediately commence work to 

confront the climate crisis. For more 

information about this rule, see RIN 

0596–AD51. 

Support Agricultural Markets That Are 

Free, Open and Promote Competition 

On July 9, 2021, President Biden 

signed Executive Order 14036 to 

address the growing concerns over 

competition and concentration in the 

U.S. economy, including the agriculture 

sector. The order includes 72 initiatives 

by more than a dozen federal agencies 

including USDA to promptly tackle 

some of the most pressing competition 

problems across the economy. 

Specifically, the White House fact sheet 

looks to ‘‘empower family farmers and 

increase their incomes by strengthening 

the Department of Agriculture’s tools to 

stop the abusive practices of some meat 

processors.’’ One of USDA’s initiatives 

is this area will be to revitalize, through 

the following rulemakings, the Packers 

and Stockyards Act to fight unfair 

practices and rebuild a competitive 

marketplace: 

Poultry Grower Ranking Systems: The 

proposal would address the use of 

poultry grower ranking systems as a 

method of payment and settlement 

grouping for poultry growers under 

contract in poultry growing 

arrangements with live poultry dealers. 

The proposal would establish certain 

requirements with which a live poultry 

dealer must comply if a poultry grower 

ranking system is utilized to determine 

grower payment. A live poultry dealer’s 

failure to comply would be deemed an 

unfair, unjustly discriminatory, and 

deceptive practice according to factors 

outlined in the proposed rule. For more 

information about this rule, see RIN 

0581–AE03. 

Clarification of Scope of the Packers 

and Stockyards Act: The proposal 

would revise regulations under the 

Packers and Stockyards Act (Act), 

providing clarity regarding conduct that 

may violate the Act. The proposal 

would make clear that it is not 

necessary to demonstrate harm or likely 

harm to competition to establish a 

violation of either section 202(a) or (b) 

of the Act. For more information about 

this rule, see RIN 0581–AE04. 

Unfair Practices in Violation of the 

Packers and Stockyards Act: The 

proposal supplements recent updates to 

the regulations issued under the Act 

that provided criteria for the Secretary 

to consider when determining whether 

certain conduct or actions by packers, 

swine contractors, or live poultry 

dealers is unduly or unreasonably 

preferential or advantageous. The 

proposal clarifies the conduct USDA 

considers unfair, unjustly 

discriminatory, or deceptive and a 

violation of the Act, regardless of 

whether such action harms or is likely 

to harm competition. The proposal also 

clarifies the criteria and types of 

conduct considered unduly preferential, 

advantageous, prejudicial, or 

disadvantageous and violations of the 

Act. For more information about this 

rule, see RIN 0581–AE05. 

Ensuring That America’s Food Supply 

Is Safe and Nutritious 

USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection 

Service (FSIS) continues to ensure that 

meat, poultry, and egg products are 

properly marked, labeled, and packaged, 

and prohibits the distribution incommerce of meat, poultry, and egg 

products that are adulterated or 

misbranded. Consistent with the 

President’s priorities of advancing the 

country’s economic recovery and 

promoting economic resilience, FSIS is 

proposing several rules to improve 

regulatory certainty, which assure 

consumers that meat, poultry, and egg 

products are safe and truthfully labeled 

and fosters fair competition among the 

regulated industry. In a similar vein, 

AMS has prepared proposed standards 

for organic livestock and poultry 

production. 

Voluntary Labeling of Meat Products 

With ‘‘Product of USA’’ and Similar 

Statements: In accordance with 

Executive Order 14036, Promoting 

Competition in the American Economy, 

FSIS will propose to address concerns 

that the voluntary ‘‘Product of USA’’ 

label claim may confuse consumers 

about the origin of FSIS regulated 

products. FSIS intends to clarify the 

voluntary claim so that it is more 

meaningful to consumers and ensures a 

fair and competitive marketplace for 

American farmers and ranchers. For 

more information about this rule, see 

RIN 0583–AD87. 

Revision of the Nutrition Facts Panels 

for Meat and Poultry Products and 

Updating Certain Reference Amounts 

Customarily Consumed; Prior Label 

Approval System: Expansion of Generic 

Label Approval: FSIS plans to finalize 

two rules, one to update nutrition 

labeling for meat and poultry products 

and another to expand the categories of 

meat and poultry product labels deemed 

generically approved that may be used 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5015 

in commerce without prior FSIS review 

and approval. The rule expanding the 

categories of generically approved labels 

would reduce labeling costs for meat 

and poultry establishments, including 

small and very small establishments. 

Both rules will provide additional 

certainty about what is required for 

meat and poultry labeling while 

ensuring that consumers have access to 

the information they need about the 

food they buy. For more information 

about these rules, see RINs 0583–AD56 

and 0583–AD78. 

National Organic Program; Organic 

Livestock and Poultry Standards: The 

proposal would establish standards that 

support additional practice standards 

for organic livestock and poultry 

production. This proposed action would 

add provisions to the USDA organic 

regulations to address and clarify 

livestock and poultry living conditions 

(for example, outdoor access, housing 

environment and stocking densities), 

health care practices (for example 

physical alterations, administering 

medical treatment, euthanasia), and 

animal handling and transport to and 

during slaughter. For more information 

about this rule, see RIN 0581–AE06. 

Animal Welfare Protections 

Standards for the Humane Handling, 

Care, Treatment and Transportation of 

Birds Not Bred for Use in Research 

under the Animal Welfare Act: The 

proposal would establish standards for 

humane handling, care, treatment, and 

transportation of birds not bred for use 

in research when those birds are 

engaged in any activity covered under 

the Animal Welfare Act. For more 

information about this rule, see RIN 

0579–AE61. 

USDA—AGRICULTURAL MARKETING 

SERVICE (AMS) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

1. Poultry Grower Ranking Systems 

(AMS–FTPP–21–0044) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 181 to 229c 

CFR Citation: 9 CFR 201. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing 

Service proposes to amend the 

regulations issued under the Packers 

and Stockyards Act (P&S Act) to address 

the use of poultry grower ranking 

systems as a method of payment and 

settlement grouping for poultry growers 

under contract in poultry growing 

arrangements with live poultry dealers. 

The proposed regulation would 

establish certain requirements with 

which a live poultry dealer must 

comply if a poultry grower ranking 

system is utilized to determine grower 

payment. A live poultry dealer’s failure 

to comply would be deemed an unfair, 

unjustly discriminatory, and deceptive 

practice. 

Statement of Need: Although poultry 

grower ranking systems may promote 

healthy competition among growers and 

the use of improved technologies, 

differences in size and imbalances of 

power between parties in contractual 

poultry growing arrangements can have 

detrimental effects on one of the 

contracting parties and may result in 

marketplace inefficiencies. An oftencited concern is the live poultry dealer’s 

full control over inputs, e.g., chick, feed, 

medication, etc., to the poultry growing 

process. Industry members have asked 

the Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS) to address such imbalances by 

specifying the conduct that would be 

considered violative of the Packers and 

Stockyards Act (Act). 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is 

delegated authority by the Secretary of 

Agriculture to enforce the P&S Act. 

AMS has received numerous complaints 

regarding the imbalance of power in 

poultry growing agreements, wherein 

one side controls all of the inputs, then 

arbitrarily ranks grower performance 

against other growers to determine pay. 

Alternatives: AMS considered 

finalizing a 2016 proposed rule that 

would have identified criteria for 

determining whether a live poultry 

dealer’s use of a grower ranking system 

for payment purposes might be 

unlawful under the Packers and 

Stockyards Act. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: USDA 

estimates the first-year costs associated 

with this proposed rule to be $17.37 

million. Subsequent year costs are 

expected to be significantly less than 

first-year costs, resulting in a ten-year 

total cost of $34.64 million. USDA 

expects the primary benefit of the 

regulation will be the increased ability 

to protect poultry growers from unfair 

practices associated with the use of 

poultry grower ranking systems. At the 

same time, the rule is expected to 

improve efficiencies through the use of 

new technologies and to reduce market 

failures among poultry growers. 

Risks: Extended litigation over legal 

challenges from the industry could 

result in the rule being struck down by 

the courts, hindering the agency’s 

ability to enforce the Act for years. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Michael V. Durando, 

Deputy Administrator, Fair Trade 

Practices Program, Department of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing 

Service, 1400 Independence Avenue 

SW, Washington, DC 20250–0237, 

Phone: 202 720–0219. 

RIN: 0581–AE03 

USDA—AMS 

2. Clarification of Scope of the Packers 

and Stockyards Act (AMS–FTPP–21– 

0046) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 181 to 229c 

CFR Citation: 9 CFR 201. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: USDA proposes to revise the 

regulations issued under the Packers 

and Stockyards Act (Act) (7 U.S.C. 181 

229c) to provide clarity regarding 

conduct that may violate the Act. This 

action is intended to support market 

growth, assure fair trade practices and 

competition, and protect livestock and 

poultry growers and producers. The 

proposed rule addresses long-standing 

issues related to competitiveness and 

whether all allegations of violations of 

the Act must be accompanied by a 

showing of harm or likely harm to 

competition. 

Statement of Need: Revisions to 

regulations pertaining to the Packers 

and Stockyards Act (Act) that would 

clarify the scope of the Act are needed 

to establish what conduct or action, 

depending on their nature and the 

circumstances, violate the Act without a 

finding of harm or likely harm to 

competition. Such revisions reflect the 

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 

longstanding position in this regard and 

complement two concurrent rules 

related to poultry grower ranking 

systems and conduct that constitutes 

unfair trade practices under the Act. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Act 

provides USDA with the authority to 

assure fair competition and trade 

practices and to safeguard farmers 

against receiving less than the true 

market value of their livestock. Sections 

202(c), (d), and (e) of the Act limit the 

application of those sections to acts or 

practices that have an adverse effect on 

competition, such as acts restraining 

commerce, creating a monopoly, or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5016 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

producing another type of antitrust 

injury. However, provisions in sections 

202(a) and (b) restrict practices that are 

deceptive, unfair, unjust, undue, and 

unreasonable; terms that are understood 

to encompass more than anticompetitive 

conduct. USDA’s position is that 

Congress did not intend application of 

sections 202(a) and (b) to be limited to 

instances in which there is harm to 

competition. 

Alternatives: USDA considered doing 

nothing, not challenging standing court 

decisions. However, courts are not 

unanimous in their findings. Further, 

several courts disagree with USDA’s 

position. Lack of clarity hinders the 

agency’s ability to consistently 

administer and enforce the Act. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: USDA 

estimate annual costs related to this rule 

of $9 million for the first five years, 

decreasing in subsequent years, for total 

ten-year costs of $66 million. We believe 

the primary benefit of the proposed 

regulation is the increased ability to 

protect producers and growers through 

enforcement of the Act for violations of 

section 202(a) and/or (b) that do not 

result in harm, or a likelihood of harm, 

to competition. 

Risks: Courts have recognized that the 

proper analysis of alleged violations of 

these two sections depends on the facts 

of each case. However, four courts of 

appeals have disagreed with USDA’s 

interpretation of the Act and have 

concluded that plaintiffs could not 

prove their claims under those sections 

without proving harm to competition or 

likely harm to competition. There is a 

risk if future legal challenge of USDA 

interpretation of sections 202(c), (d), 

and (e) of the Act. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Michael V. Durando, 

Deputy Administrator, Fair Trade 

Practices Program, Department of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing 

Service, 1400 Independence Avenue 

SW, Washington, DC 20250–0237, 

Phone: 202 720–0219. 

RIN: 0581–AE04 

USDA—AMS 

3. Unfair Practices in Violation of the 

Packers and Stockyards Act (AMS– 

FTPP–21–0045) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 181 to 229c 

CFR Citation: 9 CFR 201. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: USDA proposes to 

supplement a recent revision to 

regulations issued under the Packers 

and Stockyards Act (Act) (7 U.S.C. 181 

229c) that provided criteria for the 

Secretary to consider when determining 

whether certain conduct or action by 

packers, swine contractors, or live 

poultry dealers is unduly or 

unreasonably preferential or 

advantageous. The proposed 

supplemental amendments would 

clarify the conduct the Department 

considers unfair, unjustly 

discriminatory, or deceptive and a 

violation of sections 202(a) and (b) of 

the Act. USDA would also clarify the 

criteria and types of conduct that would 

be considered unduly or unreasonably 

preferential, advantageous, prejudicial, 

or disadvantageous and violations of the 

Act. 

Statement of Need: Revisions to 

regulations pertaining to the Packers 

and Stockyards Act (Act) would clarify 

the types of conduct by packers, swine 

contractors, or live poultry dealers that 

the Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS) considers unfair, unjustly 

discriminatory, or deceptive and a 

violation of section 202(a) of the Act, 

regardless of whether such action harms 

or is likely to harm competition. The 

proposed rule would also clarify the 

criteria and/or types of conduct that 

would be considered unduly or 

unreasonably preferential, 

advantageous, prejudicial, or 

disadvantageous and a violation of 

section 202(b) of the Act. 

Sections 202(a) and 202(b) of the P&S 

Act are broadly written to prohibit 

unfair practices and undue preferences 

and prejudices. Industry members have 

complained that the regulations 

effectuating the Act are too vague and 

do not provide adequate clarity about 

the types of conduct or action that are 

likely to violate the Act. This rule is 

needed to provide essential clarity about 

what would be considered violations of 

the Act, regardless of whether such 

violations harm or are likely to harm 

competition. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Packers 

and Stockyards Act (Act) authorizes 

AMS to determine if conduct within the 

poultry and livestock industries are 

unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or 

deceptive and, therefore a violation of 

the Act. 

Alternatives: AMS considered taking 

no further action, allowing 100 years of 

case law to determine precedent in 

making determinations about whether 

certain behaviors violate the Act. AMS 

also considered revisiting the 

withdrawn 2016 rulemaking approach 

that would have identified criteria with 

which to determine whether certain 

behaviors violate the Act. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: USDA 

estimates first-year costs associated with 

this proposed rule to be $27.19 million, 

with significantly decreased costs each 

year thereafter, resulting in a ten-year 

total cost of $54.21 million. AMS 

expects this proposed rule to benefit all 

segments of the industry, providing 

greater clarity about what would be 

considered violations of the Act. AMS 

expects this proposed rule, coupled 

with a concurrent rule on the scope of 

the Act, to strengthen enforcement of 

the Act, resulting in fairer and more 

competitive markets for producers and 

poultry growers. 

Risks: Industry is divided about 

adding lists or examples of specific 

prohibited conduct to the regulations. 

Some argue such lists would inhibit 

freedom to forge contracts that fit 

individual situations, while others 

contend greater specificity is required so 

that affected parties can more readily 

identify violative behavior. Industry is 

also split on the question of whether 

identified prohibited behaviors must be 

found to harm or likely harm 

competition to be considered violations 

of the Act. AMS expects to resolve some 

of the controversy by being proactive 

and transparent with the industry to 

allow for critical discussions and 

decisions on the rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Michael V. Durando, 

Deputy Administrator, Fair Trade 

Practices Program, Department of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing 

Service, 1400 Independence Avenue 

SW, Washington, DC 20250–0237, 

Phone: 202 720–0219. 

RIN: 0581–AE05 

USDA—AMS 

4. • Organic Livestock and Poultry 

Standards 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501–7 

U.S.C. 6524 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205 

Legal Deadline: None. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5017 

Abstract: This action would establish 

additional practice standards l for 

organic livestock and poultry 

production. This action would add 

provisions to the USDA organic 

regulations to address and clarify that 

livestock and poultry living conditions 

(for example, outdoor access, housing 

environment, and stocking densities), 

health care practices (for example, 

physical alterations, administering 

medical treatment, and euthanasia), and 

animal handling and transport to and 

during slaughter are part of the organic 

certification. 

Statement of Need: The Organic 

Livestock and Poultry Standards (OLPS) 

proposed rule is needed to clarify the 

USDA organic standards for livestock 

and poultry living conditions and health 

practices. The current regulations for 

livestock production provide general 

requirements but some of these 

provisions are ambiguous and have led 

to inconsistent divergent practices, 

particularly in the organic poultry 

sector. This rule responds to nine 

recommendations from the National 

Organic Standards Board and findings 

from a USDA Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) report. (See USDA, Office 

of the Inspector General. March 2010. 

Audit Report 01601–03–Hy, Oversight 

of the National Organic Program. 

Available at: http://www.usda.gov/oig/ 

rptsauditsams.htm.) This proposed rule 

includes provisions to support the 

expression of natural behaviors and the 

welfare of organic livestock and poultry. 

Summary of Legal Basis: OLPS is 

authorized by the Organic Foods 

Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), 7 U.S.C. 

65016524. OFPA authorizes the USDA 

to establish national standards 

governing the marketing of certain 

agricultural products as organically 

produced products to assure consumers 

that organically produced products meet 

a consistent standard and to facilitate 

interstate commerce in fresh and 

processed food that is organically 

produced. 

Alternatives: AMS considered several 

alternatives and presents these in the 

proposed rule. AMS presents two 

compliance date alternatives in the 

proposed rule that would affect the 

costs and benefits of the rule. 

Additionally, AMS discusses 

alternatives to specific policies included 

in the proposed rule, including 

alternative indoor and outdoor space 

requirements, and non-regulatory 

alternatives, including consumer 

education or no rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: AMS 

estimates an annual cost of 

approximately $4 million annually for 

layer operations and an associated 

benefit of approximately $14 million 

annually. Additionally, AMS estimates 

an annual cost to broiler producers of 

approximately $12 million annually and 

an associated benefit of nearly $100 

million annually. The costs of the rule 

would primarily affect USDA-certified 

organic operations that produce 

livestock and poultry. Qualitatively, 

AMS also anticipates the rule will 

establish a clear standard protecting the 

value of the USDA organic seal to 

consumers, provide a consistent, level 

playing field for organic livestock 

producers, and facilitate enforcement of 

organic livestock and poultry standards. 

Risks: A final rule that is very similar 

to this proposed rule was published on 

January 19, 2017. That rule was 

subsequently withdrawn and never 

became effective. The USDA continues 

to face two legal challenges related to 

the withdrawal of the rule. Publishing a 

new proposed rule will indicate that the 

USDA is taking steps to advance the 

regulations. This could be viewed 

favorably by some, although others 

would prefer reinstating the January 

2017 rule without the associated steps 

required to finalize a new rule. 

The final rule published in January 

2017 elicited mixed responses and was 

opposed by a multitude of producer 

groups, representing both organic and 

non-organic producers. Publication of 

this proposed rule is likely to produce 

similar responses. Additionally, USDA 

argued in its withdrawal of the rule that 

USDA had no authority under the 

Organic Foods Production Act to 

promulgate the rule, so there is legal 

risk in reversing direction and 

publishing a similar rule. 

Finally, AMS plans to seek comment 

on providing an extended compliance 

date (15 years) for poultry operations 

that do not provide birds with access to 

soil or vegetation in outdoor spaces (i.e., 

porch systems). AMS’s presentation of 

this option is likely to invoke strong 

opinions among some stakeholders. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Erin Healy, Director, 

Standards Division, National Organic 

Program, Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Marketing Service, 

Washington, DC 20024, Phone: 202 617– 

4942, Email: erin.healy@usda.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 0581–AD44, 

Related to 0581–AD74, Related to 0581– 

AD75. 

RIN: 0581–AE06 

USDA—ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH 

INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

5. Establishing AWA Standards for 

Birds 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131 to 2159 

CFR Citation: 9 CFR 1 to 3. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, 

February 2022. 

Mandated by the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Columbia in a May 26, 

2020 Stay (Case # 1:18–cv–01138– 

TNM). 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

extend APHIS enforcement of the 

Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to birds, 

other than birds bred for use in research. 

This would help ensure the humane 

care and treatment of such birds. 

Statement of Need: Although the 

AWA authorizes the regulation of birds 

not bred for use in research, APHIS has 

not to this date promulgated regulations 

and standards for the humane care and 

treatment of such birds. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 7 U.S.C. 

2131 to 2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 

371.7. 

Alternatives: N/A. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Undetermined. 

Risks: Failure to issue the rule would 

not comport with the Court’s order in 

the Stay, and could place at risk the 

humane care and treatment of birds, 

other than birds bred for use in research. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Additional Information: Additional 

information about APHIS and its 

programs is available on the internet at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov. 

Agency Contact: Lance Bassage, DVM, 

Director, National Policy Staff, Animal 

Care, Department of Agriculture, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 84, 

Riverdale, MD 20737, Phone: 518 218– 

7551, Email: lance.h.bassage@usda.gov. 

RIN: 0579–AE61 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5018 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

USDA—FOOD SAFETY AND 

INSPECTION SERVICE (FSIS) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

6. Voluntary Labeling of Meat Products 

With ‘‘Product of USA’’ and Similar 

Statements 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601, et seq. 

CFR Citation: 9 CFR 317.8. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing 

to amend its regulations to define the 

conditions under which the labeling of 

meat product labels can bear voluntary 

statements indicating that the product is 

of United States (U.S.) origin, such as 

Product of USA, or Made in the USA. 

Statement of Need: In 2018 and 2019, 

FSIS received two petitions requesting 

that it change its policy regarding the 

labeling of meat products to indicate 

U.S. origin. After considering the 

petitions and the public comments 

submitted in response to them, FSIS 

concluded that adherence to the current 

labeling policy guidance may be causing 

confusion in the marketplace with 

respect to certain imported meat and 

that the current labeling policy may no 

longer meet consumer expectations of 

what the Product of USA claim 

signifies. The Agency wants to ensure 

that any changes to its current policy are 

accomplished by an open and 

transparent process. Therefore, FSIS 

decided that, instead of changing the 

Policy Book entry, it would initiate 

rulemaking to define the conditions 

under which the labeling of meat 

products would be permitted to bear 

voluntary statements indicating that the 

product is of U.S. origin. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Federal 

Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.). 

Alternatives: FSIS has considered the 

current labeling guidance and the 

alternatives proposed in the two 

petitions: (1) To amend the FSIS Policy 

Book to state that meat products may be 

labeled as Product of USA only if 

significant ingredients having a bearing 

on consumer preference such as meat, 

vegetables, fruits, dairy products, etc., 

are of domestic origin and; (2) to amend 

the FSIS Policy Book to provide that any 

beef product labeled as Made in the 

USA, Product of the USA, USA Beef or 

in any other manner that suggests that 

the origin is the United States, be 

derived from cattle that have been born, 

raised, and slaughtered in the United 

States. FSIS will now be conducting a 

comprehensive review of origin labeling 

claims for meat and conducting a 

consumer perception survey pursuant to 

developing the proposed regulations. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Establishments may incur costs 

associated with voluntarily changing 

their labels as a result of any revised 

Product of USA labeling claim 

definition. This proposed rule is 

expected to benefit consumers by 

providing them more specific 

information on what Product of USA 

means for single-ingredient beef and 

pork products. 

Risks: N/A. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Matthew Michael, 

Director, Regulations Development 

Staff, Department of Agriculture, Food 

Safety and Inspection Service, Office of 

Policy and Program Development, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20250–3700, Phone: 202 720–0345, 

Fax: 202 690–0486, Email: 

matthew.michael@usda.gov. 

RIN: 0583–AD87 

USDA—FSIS 

Final Rule Stage 

7. Revision of the Nutrition Facts 

Panels for Meat and Poultry Products 

and Updating Certain Reference 

Amounts Customarily Consumed 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 

Federal Meat Inspection Act; 21 U.S.C. 

451 et seq., Poultry Products Inspection 

Act 

CFR Citation: 9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 381; 

9 CFR 413. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Consistent with the changes 

that the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) finalized, the Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending 

the Federal meat and poultry products 

inspection regulations to update and 

revise the nutrition labeling 

requirements for meat and poultry 

products to reflect recent scientific 

research and dietary recommendations 

and to improve the presentation of 

nutrition information to assist 

consumers in maintaining healthy 

dietary practices. The final rule will: (1) 

Update the list of nutrients that are 

required or permitted to be declared; (2) 

provide updated Daily Reference Values 

(DRV) and Reference Daily Intake (RDI) 

values that are based on current dietary 

recommendations from consensus 

reports; and (3) amend the requirements 

for foods represented or purported to be 

specifically for children under the age of 

four years and pregnant and lactating 

women and establish nutrient reference 

values specifically for these population 

subgroups. FSIS is also revising the 

format and appearance of the Nutrition 

Facts Panel; amending the definition of 

a single-serving container; requiring 

dual-column labeling for certain 

containers; and updating and modifying 

several reference amounts customarily 

consumed (RACCs or reference 

amounts). FSIS is also consolidating the 

nutrition labeling regulations for meat 

and poultry products into a new Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) part. 

Statement of Need: On May 27, 2016, 

the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) published two final rules: (1) 

‘‘Food Labeling: Revision of the 

Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels’’ 

(81 FR 33742); and (2) ‘‘Food Labeling: 

Serving Sizes of Foods that Can 

Reasonably be Consumed at One Eating 

Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; 

Updating, Modifying, and Establishing 

Certain Reference Amounts Customarily 

Consumed; Serving Size for Breath 

Mints; and Technical Amendments’’ (81 

FR 34000). FDA finalized these rules to 

update the Nutrition Facts label to 

reflect new nutrition and public health 

research, to reflect recent dietary 

recommendations from expert groups, 

and to improve the presentation of 

nutrition information to help consumers 

make more informed choices and 

maintain healthy dietary practices. FSIS 

has reviewed FDA’s analysis and, to 

ensure that nutrition information is 

presented consistently across the food 

supply, FSIS will propose to amend the 

nutrition labeling regulations for meat 

and poultry products to parallel, to the 

extent possible, FDA’s regulations. This 

approach will help increase clarity of 

information to consumers and will 

improve efficiency in the marketplace. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Federal 

Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.) and the Poultry Products 

Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.). 

Alternatives: FSIS is considering 

different alternatives for the compliance 

period of the final rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These 

proposed regulations are expected to 

benefit consumers by increasing and 

improving dietary information available 

in the market. An estimate of the 

monetary benefits from these market 

improvements can be obtained by 

calculating the medical cost savings 

generated by linking information use to 

improved consumer diets. In addition, 

FSIS believes that the public would be 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5019 

better served by having the regulations 

governing nutrition labeling 

consolidated in one part of title 9. 

Rather than searching through two 

separate parts of title 9, CFR parts 317 

and 381, to find the nutrition labeling 

regulations, interested parties would 

only have to survey one, part 413, to be 

able to apply nutrition panels to their 

meat and poultry products. Firms would 

incur a one-time cost for relabeling, 

recordkeeping costs, and costs 

associated with voluntary 

reformulation. Many firms have 

voluntarily begun using the FDA format, 

which will reduce costs. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/19/17 82 FR 6732 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

04/19/17 

Final Action ......... 06/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Matthew Michael, 

Director, Regulations Development 

Staff, Department of Agriculture, Food 

Safety and Inspection Service, Office of 

Policy and Program Development, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20250–3700, Phone: 202 720–0345, 

Fax: 202 690–0486, Email: 

matthew.michael@usda.gov. 

RIN: 0583–AD56 

USDA—FSIS 

8. Prior Label Approval System: 

Expansion of Generic Label Approval 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.; 

21 U.S.C. 451 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 9 CFR 412.2 (a) (1); 9 

CFR 317.7; 9 CFR 381.128; 9 CFR 412.2 

(b). 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending 

its labeling regulations to expand the 

categories of meat and poultry product 

labels that it will deem generically 

approved and thus not required to be 

submitted to FSIS. These reforms will 

reduce the regulatory burden on 

producers seeking to bring products to 

market, as well as the Agency costs 

expended to evaluate the labels. 

Statement of Need: This action is 

needed to reduce the regulatory burden 

on producers seeking to bring products 

to market, as well as the Agency costs 

expended to evaluate the labels. Based 

on FSIS experience evaluating the labels 

in question and the ability of inspection 

personnel to verify labeling in the field, 

FSIS anticipates this action will have no 

impact on food safety or the accuracy of 

meat and poultry product labeling. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Acts 

direct the Secretary of Agriculture to 

maintain meat and poultry inspection 

programs designed to assure consumers 

that these products are safe, wholesome, 

not adulterated, and properly marked, 

labeled, and packaged. Section 7(d) of 

the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 

U.S.C. 607(d)) states: No article subject 

to this title shall be sold or offered for 

sale by any person, firm, or corporation, 

in commerce, under any name or other 

marking or labeling which is false or 

misleading, or in any container of a 

misleading form or size, but established 

trade names and other marking and 

labeling and containers which are not 

false or misleading and which are 

approved by the Secretary are 

permitted. The Poultry Products 

Inspection Act contains similar 

language in section 21 U.S.C. 457(c). 

Alternatives: FSIS considered three 

alternatives to the proposed rule: Taking 

no action, adopting the current proposal 

except with continued evaluation of 

labels that would otherwise be 

generically approved, and allowing all 

labels to be generically approved. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There 

are no additional costs to industry, or 

the Agency associated with this rule. 

FSIS will continue to verify that product 

labels, including those that are 

generically approved, are truthful and 

not misleading and otherwise comply 

with FSIS’s requirements. 

This rule is expected to reduce the 

number of labels industry is required to 

submit to FSIS for evaluation by 

approximately 35 percent. 

Establishments will realize a cost 

savings because they will no longer 

need to incur costs for submitting 

certain types of labels to FSIS for 

evaluation (e.g., preparing a printer’s 

proof). In addition, streamlining the 

evaluation process for specific types of 

labels would allow a faster introduction 

of products into the marketplace by 

reducing wait times for label approvals. 

FSIS will also benefit from a 

reduction in the number of labels 

submitted to it for review. FSIS will be 

able to reallocate staff hours from 

evaluating labels towards the 

development of labeling policy. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 09/14/20 85 FR 56538 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

11/13/20 

Final Rule ............ 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Matthew Michael, 

Director, Regulations Development 

Staff, Department of Agriculture, Food 

Safety and Inspection Service, Office of 

Policy and Program Development, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20250–3700, Phone: 202 720–0345, 

Fax: 202 690–0486, Email: 

matthew.michael@usda.gov. 

RIN: 0583–AD78 

BILLING CODE 3410–90–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Statement of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Priorities 

Established in 1903, the Department 

of Commerce (Commerce or 

Department) is one of the oldest 

Cabinet-level agencies in the Federal 

Government. Commerce’s mission is to 

create the conditions for economic 

growth and opportunity across all 

American communities by promoting 

innovation, entrepreneurship, 

competitiveness, and environmental 

stewardship. Commerce has 12 

operating units, which manage a diverse 

portfolio of programs and services 

ranging from trade promotion and 

economic development assistance to 

improved broadband access and the 

National Weather Service, and from 

standards development and statistical 

data production, including the 

decennial census, to patents and 

fisheries management. Across these 

varied activities, the Department seeks 

to provide a foundation for a more 

equitable, resilient, and globally 

competitive economy. 

To fulfill its mission, Commerce 

works in partnership with businesses, 

educational institutions, community 

organizations, government agencies, and 

individuals to: 

• Innovate by creating new ideas 

through cutting-edge science and 

technology, from advances in 

nanotechnology to ocean exploration to 

broadband deployment, and by 

protecting American innovations 

through the patent and trademark 

system; 

• Support entrepreneurship and 

commercialization by enabling 

community development and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5020 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

strengthening minority businesses and 

small manufacturers; 

• Maintain U.S. economic 

competitiveness in the global 

marketplace by promoting exports and 

foreign direct investment, ensuring a 

level playing field for U.S. businesses, 

and ensuring that technology transfer is 

consistent with our nation’s economic 

and security interests; 

• Provide effective management and 

stewardship of our nation’s resources 

and assets to ensure sustainable 

economic opportunities; and 

• Make informed policy decisions 

and enable better understanding of the 

economy and our communities by 

providing timely, accessible, and 

accurate economic and demographic 

data. 

Responding to the Administration’s 

Regulatory Philosophy and Principles 

Commerce’s Regulatory Plan tracks 

the most important regulations that the 

Department anticipates issuing to 

implement these policy and program 

priorities and foster sustainable and 

equitable growth. Of Commerce’s 12 

primary operating units, three bureaus— 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office 

(USPTO), and the Bureau of Industry 

and Security (BIS)—issue the vast 

majority of the Department’s 

regulations, and these three bureaus 

account for all the planned actions that 

are considered the Department’s most 

important significant pre-regulatory or 

regulatory actions for FY 2022. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

NOAA’s mission is built on three 

pillars: Science, service, and 

stewardship—to understand and predict 

changes in climate, weather, oceans, 

and coasts; to share that knowledge and 

information with others; and to 

conserve and manage coastal and 

marine ecosystems and resources. 

At its core, NOAA is a scientific 

agency. It observes, measures, monitors, 

and collects data from the depths of the 

ocean to the surface of the sun, and it 

does so following principles of scientific 

integrity. These data are turned into 

weather and climate models and 

forecasts that are then used for 

everything from local weather forecasts 

to predicting the movement of wildfire 

smoke to identifying the impacts of 

climate change on fisheries and living 

marine resources. 

With respect to service, NOAA not 

only collects data but is mandated to 

make it operational, and NOAA seeks to 

be the authoritative provider of climate 

products and services. By providing 

Federal, State, and local government 

partners, the private sector, and the 

public with actionable environmental 

information, NOAA can facilitate 

decisions in the face of climate change. 

Such decisions can range from 

businesses planning the location of 

offices; insurance companies trying to 

incorporate climate risk into their 

insurance policies; and municipalities 

looking to ensure that plans for 

construction of new housing 

developments will be resilient to 

increasing sea level risk, flooding, and 

heavy precipitation. 

The final pillar of NOAA’s mission is 

stewardship. NOAA seeks to conserve 

our lands, waters, and natural resources, 

protecting people and the environment 

now and for future generations. As part 

of Commerce, moreover, NOAA 

recognizes that economic growth must 

go hand-in-hand with environmental 

stewardship. For example, with respect 

to the nation’s fisheries, NOAA looks 

simultaneously to optimize productivity 

and ensure sustainability in order to 

boost long-term economic growth and 

competitiveness in this vital sector of 

the U.S. economy. Similarly, national 

marine sanctuaries both protect 

important natural resources and also are 

significant drivers of eco-tourism and 

local recreation. 

Within NOAA, the National Marine 

Fisheries Services (NMFS) and the 

National Ocean Service (NOS) are the 

components that most often exercise 

regulatory authority to implement 

NOAA’s mission. NMFS oversees the 

management and conservation of the 

nation’s marine fisheries; protects 

marine mammals and Endangered 

Species Act (ESA)-listed marine and 

anadromous species; and promotes 

economic development of the U.S. 

fishing industry. NOS assists the coastal 

states in their management of land and 

ocean resources in their coastal zones, 

including estuarine research reserves; 

manages national marine sanctuaries; 

monitors marine pollution; and directs 

the national program for deep-seabed 

minerals and ocean thermal energy. 

Much of NOAA’s rulemaking is 

conducted pursuant to the following key 

statutes: 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) rulemakings 

concern the conservation and 

management of fishery resources in the 

U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 

(generally 3–200 nautical miles from 

shore). As itemized in the Unified 

Agenda, NOAA plans to take several 

hundred actions in FY 2022 under 

Magnuson-Stevens Act authority, of 

which roughly 20 are expected to be 

significant rulemakings, as defined in 

Executive Order 12866. With certain 

exceptions, rulemakings under 

Magnuson-Stevens are usually initiated 

by the actions of eight regional Fishery 

Management Councils (FMCs or 

Councils). These Councils are 

comprised of representatives from the 

commercial and recreational fishing 

sectors, environmental groups, 

academia, and Federal and State 

government, and they are responsible 

for preparing fishery management plans 

(FMPs) and FMP amendments, and for 

recommending implementing 

regulations for each managed fishery. 

FMPs address a variety of issues, 

including maximizing fishing 

opportunities on healthy stocks, 

rebuilding overfished stocks, and 

addressing gear conflicts. After 

considering the FMCs’ 

recommendations in light of the 

standards and requirements set forth in 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act and in other 

applicable laws, NOAA may issue 

regulations to implement the proposed 

FMPs and FMP amendments. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act 

of 1972 (MMPA) provides the authority 

for the conservation and management of 

marine mammals under U.S. 

jurisdiction. It expressly prohibits, with 

certain exceptions, the intentional take 

of marine mammals. The MMPA allows, 

upon request and subsequent 

authorization, the incidental take of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (e.g., oil 

and gas development, pile driving) 

within a specified geographic region. 

NMFS authorizes incidental take under 

the MMPA if it finds that the taking 

would be of small numbers, have no 

more than a ‘‘negligible impact’’ on 

those marine mammal species or stock, 

and would not have an ‘‘unmitigable 

adverse impact’’ on the availability of 

the species or stock for ‘‘subsistence’’ 

uses. NMFS also initiates rulemakings 

under the MMPA to establish a 

management regime to reduce marine 

mammal mortalities and injuries as a 

result of interactions with fisheries. In 

addition, the MMPA allows NMFS to 

permit the take or import of wild 

animals for scientific research or public 

display or to enhance the survival of a 

species or stock. 

Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(ESA) provides for the conservation of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5021 

species that are determined to be 

‘‘endangered’’ or ‘‘threatened,’’ and the 

conservation of the ecosystems on 

which these species depend. NMFS and 

the Department of Interior’s Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) jointly 

administer the provisions of the ESA: 

NMFS manages marine and several 

anadromous species, and FWS manages 

land and freshwater species. Together, 

NMFS and FWS work to protect 

critically imperiled species from 

extinction. NMFS rulemaking actions 

under the ESA are focused on 

determining whether any species under 

its responsibility is an endangered or 

threatened species and whether those 

species must be added to the list of 

protected species. NMFS is also 

responsible for designating, reviewing 

and revising critical habitat for any 

listed species. In addition, as indicated 

in the list of highlighted actions below, 

NMFS and FWS may also issue rules 

clarifying how particular provisions of 

the ESA will be implemented. 

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(NMSA) authorizes the Secretary of 

Commerce to designate and protect as 

national marine sanctuaries areas of the 

marine environment with special 

national significance due to their 

conservation, recreational, ecological, 

historical, scientific, cultural, 

archeological, educational, or aesthetic 

qualities. The primary objective of the 

NMSA is to protect marine resources, 

such as coral reefs, sunken historical 

vessels, or unique habitats. 

NOAA’s Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS), within NOS, has 

the responsibility for management of 

national marine sanctuaries. ONMS 

regulations, issued pursuant to NMSA, 

prohibit specific kinds of activities, 

describe and define the boundaries of 

the designated national marine 

sanctuaries, and set up a system of 

permits to allow the conduct of certain 

types of activities that would otherwise 

not be allowed. 

These regulations can, among other 

things, regulate and restrict activities 

that may injure natural resources, 

including all extractive and destructive 

activities, consistent with communityspecific needs and NMSA’s purpose to 

‘‘facilitate to the extent compatible with 

the primary objective of resource 

protection, all public and private uses of 

the resources of these marine areas.’’ In 

FY 2022, NOAA is expected to have at 

least three regulatory actions under 

NMSA. 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

The Coastal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA) was passed in 1972 to preserve, 

protect, and develop and, where 

possible, to restore and enhance the 

resources of the nation’s coastal zone. 

The CZMA creates a voluntary statefederal partnership, where coastal states 

(States in, or bordering on, the Atlantic, 

Pacific or Arctic Ocean, the Gulf of 

Mexico, Long Island Sound, or one or 

more of the Great Lakes), may elect to 

develop comprehensive programs that 

meet federal approval standards. 

Currently, 34 of the 35 eligible entities 

are implementing a federally approved 

coastal management plan approved by 

the Secretary of Commerce. 

NOAA’s Regulatory Plan Actions 

Of the numerous regulatory actions 

that NOAA is planning for this year and 

that are included in the Unified Agenda, 

there are five, described below, that the 

Department considers to be of particular 

importance. 

1. Illegal, Unreported, and 

Unregulated Fishing; Fisheries 

Enforcement; High Seas Driftnet Fishing 

Moratorium Protection Act (0648– 

BG11): The United States is a signatory 

to the Port State Measures Agreement 

(PSMA). The agreement is aimed at 

combating illegal, unreported, and 

unregulated (IUU) fishing activities 

through increased port inspection of 

foreign fishing vessels and by 

preventing the products of illegal 

fishing from landing and entering into 

commerce. The High Seas Driftnet 

Fishing Moratorium Act (Fishing 

Moratorium Act) implemented 

provisions of the PSMA, and NOAA 

issued regulations under the Fishing 

Moratorium Act in 2011 and 2013. 

Since then, the provisions of the Fishing 

Moratorium Act have been amended by 

the Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated 

Fishing Enforcement Act of 2015 (Pub. 

L. 114–81) and the Ensuring Access to 

Pacific Fisheries Act (Pub. L. 114–327). 

This proposed rule would implement 

amendments made by these later two 

laws. NMFS will also propose changes 

to the definition of IUU fishing for the 

purposes of identifying and certifying 

nations. 

2. Amendments to the North Atlantic 

Right Whale Vessel Strike Reduction 

Rule (0648–BI88): Regulatory 

modifications are needed to further 

reduce the likelihood of mortalities and 

serious injuries to endangered North 

Atlantic right whales from vessel 

collisions, which are a primary cause of 

the species’ decline and greatly 

contributing to the ongoing Unusual 

Mortality Event (2017–present). 

Following two decades of growth, the 

species has been in decline over the past 

decade with a population estimate of 

only 368 individuals as of 2019. Vessel 

strikes are one of the two primary 

causes of North Atlantic right whale 

mortality and serious injury across their 

range, and human-caused mortality to 

adult females in particular is limiting 

recovery of the species. Entanglement in 

fishing gear is the other primary cause 

of mortality and serious injury, which is 

being addressed by separate regulatory 

actions. 

3. Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants; Revision of the 

Regulations for Listing Endangered and 

Threatened Species and Designation of 

Critical Habitat (0648–BJ44): This action 

responds to section 2 of the Executive 

Order on Protecting Public Health and 

the Environment and Restoring Science 

to Tackle the Climate Crisis (E.O. 13990) 

and the associated Fact Sheet (List of 

Agency Actions for Review). This is a 

joint rulemaking by NMFS and the FWS 

(the Services) to rescind the regulatory 

definition of the term ‘‘habitat.’’ This 

previously undefined term was defined 

by regulation for the first time in 2020 

for the purpose of designating critical 

habitat under the ESA. Pursuant to 

Executive Order 13990, the Services 

also considered the alternatives of 

retaining the existing habitat definition 

or revising the habitat definition and 

will be considering any alternatives 

provided during the public comment 

period on the proposed rule. 

4. Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for 

Listing Species and Designating Critical 

Habitat (0648–BK47): This action 

responds to section 2 of the Executive 

Order on Protecting Public Health and 

the Environment and Restoring Science 

to Tackle the Climate Crisis (E.O. 13990) 

and the associated Fact Sheet (List of 

Agency Actions for Review). This is a 

joint rulemaking by the Services to 

revise joint regulations issued in 2019 

implementing section 4 of the ESA. 

Specifically addressed in this action are 

joint regulations that address the 

classification of species as threatened or 

endangered and the criteria and process 

for designating critical habitat for listed 

species. Pursuant to Executive Order 

13990, the Services reviewed the 

specific regulatory provisions that had 

been revised in the 2019 final rule. 

Following a review of the 2019 rule, the 

Services are proposing to revise a 

portion of these regulations but are also 

soliciting public comments on all 

aspects of the 2019 rule before issuing 

a final rule. 

5. Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants; Revision of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5022 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Regulations for Interagency Cooperation 

(0648–BK48): This action responds to 

section 2 of the Executive Order on 

Protecting Public Health and the 

Environment and Restoring Science to 

Tackle the Climate Crisis (E.O. 13990) 

and the associated Fact Sheet (List of 

Agency Actions for Review). This is a 

joint rulemaking by the Services to 

revise joint regulations implementing 

section 7 of the ESA, which requires 

Federal agencies to consult with the 

Services whenever any action the 

agency undertakes, funds, or authorizes 

may affect endangered or threatened 

species or their critical habitat, to 

ensure that the action does not 

jeopardize listed species or adversely 

modify critical habitat. In 2019, the 

Services revised various aspects of the 

regulations governing the consultation 

process under ESA Section 7 including, 

significantly, how the Services define 

the ‘‘effects of the action,’’ which has 

importance for determining the scope of 

consultation. Pursuant to Executive 

Order 13990, the Services reviewed the 

specific regulatory provisions that had 

been revised in the 2019 final rule. 

Following this review of the 2019 rule, 

the Services are proposing to revise a 

portion of these regulations, including 

‘‘effects of the action,’’ but are also 

soliciting public comments on all 

aspects of the 2019 rule before issuing 

a final rule. In addition to revising 

provisions from the 2019 rule, the 

Services are proposing to clarify the 

responsibilities of a Federal agency and 

the Services regarding the requirement 

to reinitiate consultation. 

The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office 

The USPTO’s mission is to foster 

innovation, competitiveness, and 

economic growth, domestically and 

abroad, by delivering high quality and 

timely examination of patent and 

trademark applications, guiding 

domestic and international intellectual 

property policy, and delivering 

intellectual property information and 

education worldwide. 

Major Programs and Activities 

The USPTO is responsible for 

granting U.S. patents and registering 

trademarks. This system of secured 

property rights, which has its 

foundation in Article I, Section 8, 

Clause 8, of the Constitution (providing 

that Congress shall have the power to 

‘‘promote the Progress of Science and 

useful Arts, by securing for limited 

Times to Authors and Inventors the 

exclusive Right to their respective 

Writings and Discoveries’’) has enabled 

American industry to flourish. New 

products have been invented, new uses 

for old ones discovered, and 

employment opportunities created for 

millions of Americans. The continued 

demand for patents and trademarks 

underscores the importance to the U.S. 

economy of effective mechanisms to 

protect new ideas and investments in 

innovation, as well as the ingenuity of 

American inventors and entrepreneurs. 

In addition to granting patents and 

trademarks, the USPTO advises the 

President of the United States, the 

Secretary of Commerce, and U.S. 

government agencies on intellectual 

property (IP) policy, protection, and 

enforcement; and promotes strong and 

effective IP protection around the world. 

The USPTO furthers effective IP 

protection for U.S. innovators and 

entrepreneurs worldwide by working 

with other agencies to secure strong IP 

provisions in free trade and other 

international agreements. It also 

provides training, education, and 

capacity building programs designed to 

foster respect for IP and encourage the 

development of strong IP enforcement 

regimes by U.S. trading partners. 

As part of its work, the USPTO 

administers regulations located at title 

37 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

concerning its patent and trademark 

services and the other functions it 

performs. 

The USPTO’s Regulatory Plan Actions 

1. Final Rule: Changes to Implement 

Provisions of the Trademark 

Modernization Act of 2020 (0651– 

AD55): The USPTO amends the rules of 

practice in trademark cases to 

implement provisions of the Trademark 

Modernization Act of 2020. This rule 

establishes ex parte expungement and 

reexamination proceedings for 

cancellation of a registration when the 

required use in commerce of the 

registered mark has not been made; 

provides for a new nonuse ground for 

cancellation before the Trademark Trial 

and Appeal Board; establishes flexible 

USPTO action response periods; and 

amends the existing letter-of-protest rule 

to indicate that letter-of-protest 

determinations are final and nonreviewable. The rule also sets fees for 

petitions requesting institution of ex 

parte expungement and reexamination 

proceedings, and for requests to extend 

USPTO action response deadlines. 

The two new ex parte proceedings 

created by this rulemaking—one for 

expungement and one for 

reexamination—are intended to help 

ensure the accuracy of the trademark 

register by providing a new mechanism 

for removing a registered mark from the 

trademark register or cancelling the 

registration as to certain goods and/or 

services, when the registrant has not 

used the mark in commerce. The 

proposed changes will give U.S. 

businesses new tools to clear away 

unused registered trademarks from the 

federal trademark register and will give 

the USPTO the ability to move 

applications through the system more 

efficiently. 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

BIS advances U.S. national security, 

foreign policy, and economic objectives 

by maintaining and strengthening 

adaptable, efficient, and effective export 

control and treaty compliance systems 

as well as by administering programs to 

prioritize certain contracts to promote 

the national defense and to protect and 

enhance the defense industrial base. 

Major Programs and Activities 

BIS administers four sets of 

regulations. The Export Administration 

Regulations (EAR) regulate exports and 

reexports to protect national security, 

foreign policy, and short supply 

interests. The EAR includes the 

Commerce Control List (CCL), which 

describes commodities, software, and 

technology that are subject to licensing 

requirements for specific reasons for 

control. The EAR also regulates U.S. 

persons’ participation in certain 

boycotts administered by foreign 

governments. The National Security 

Industrial Base Regulations provide for 

prioritization of certain contracts and 

allocations of resources to promote the 

national defense, require reporting of 

foreign government-imposed offsets in 

defense sales, provide for surveys to 

assess the capabilities of the industrial 

base to support the national defense, 

and address the effect of imports on the 

defense industrial base. The Chemical 

Weapons Convention Regulations 

implement declaration, reporting, and 

on-site inspection requirements in the 

private sector necessary to meet United 

States treaty obligations under the 

Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. 

The Additional Protocol Regulations 

implement similar requirements for 

certain civil nuclear and nuclear-related 

items with respect to an agreement 

between the United States and the 

International Atomic Energy Agency. 

BIS also has an enforcement 

component with nine offices covering 

the United States, as well as BIS export 

control officers stationed at several U.S. 

embassies and consulates abroad. BIS 

works with other U.S. Government 

agencies to promote coordinated U.S. 

Government efforts in export controls 

and other programs. BIS participates in 

U.S. Government efforts to strengthen 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5023 

multilateral export control regimes and 

promote effective export controls 

through cooperation with other 

governments. 

In FY 2022, BIS plans to publish a 

number of proposed and final rules 

amending the EAR. These rules will 

cover a range of issues, including 

emerging and foundational technology, 

country specific policies, CCL revisions 

based on decisions by the four 

multilateral export control regimes 

(Australia Group, Missile Technology 

Control Regime, Nuclear Suppliers 

Group, and Wassenaar Arrangement), 

and implementation of any interagency 

agreed transfers from the United States 

Munitions List to the CCL. 

BIS’s Regulatory Plan Actions 

1. Authorization of Certain ‘‘Items’’ to 

Entities on the Entity List in the Context 

of Specific Standards Activities (0694– 

AI06): BIS is amending the EAR to 

clarify its applicability to releases of 

technology for standards setting or 

development to support U.S. 

participation in standards efforts. 

2. Commerce Control List: 

Implementation of Controls on 

‘‘Software’’ Designed for Certain 

Automated Nucleic Acid Assemblers 

and Synthesizers (0694–AI08): BIS is 

publishing this final rule to amend the 

CCL by adding a new Export Control 

Classification Number (ECCN) 2D352 to 

control software that is designed for 

automated nucleic acid assemblers and 

synthesizers controlled under ECCN 

2B352.j and capable of designing and 

building functional genetic elements 

from digital sequence data. These 

amendments to the CCL are based upon 

a finding, consistent with the emerging 

and foundational technologies 

interagency process set forth in section 

1758 of the Export Control Reform Act 

of 2018 (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4817), that 

such software is capable of being 

utilized in the production of pathogens 

and toxins and, consequently, the 

absence of export controls on such 

software could be exploited for 

biological weapons purposes. 

3. Information Security Controls: 

Cybersecurity Items (0694–AH56): In 

2013, the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA), 

a multilateral export control regime in 

which the United States participates, 

added cybersecurity items to the WA 

List, including a definition for 

‘‘intrusion software.’’ In 2015, public 

comments on a BIS proposed 

implementation rule revealed serious 

issues concerning scope and 

implementation regarding these 

controls. Based on these comments, as 

well as substantial commentary from 

Congress, the private sector, academia, 

civil society, and others on the potential 

unintended consequences of the 2013 

controls, the U.S. government returned 

to the WA to renegotiate the controls. 

This interim final rule outlines the 

progress the United States has made in 

this area, revises implementation, and 

requests from the public information 

about the impact of these revised 

controls on U.S. industry and the 

cybersecurity community. These items 

warrant controls because these tools 

could be used for surveillance, 

espionage, or other actions that disrupt, 

deny or degrade the network or devices 

on it. 

4. Imposition of Export Controls on 

Certain Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) 

Emerging Technology (0694–AI41): 

Section 1758 of ECRA, as codified under 

50 U.S.C. 4817, authorizes BIS to 

establish appropriate controls on the 

export, reexport or transfer (in-country) 

of emerging and foundational 

technologies. Pursuant to ECRA, BIS has 

identified Brain Computer Interface 

technology as part of a representative 

list of technology categories for which 

BIS will seek public comment to 

determine whether this is an emerging 

technology that is important to U.S. 

national security and for which effective 

controls can be implemented. In this 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, BIS is seeking comments 

specifically concerning whether this 

technology could provide the United 

States, or any of its adversaries, with a 

qualitative military or intelligence 

advantage. In addition, BIS is seeking 

public comments on how to ensure that 

the scope of any controls that may be 

imposed on this technology in the 

future would be effective and 

appropriate with respect to their 

potential impact on legitimate 

commercial or scientific applications. 

5. Foundational Technologies: 

Proposed Controls (0694–AH80): BIS is 

considering expanding controls on 

certain foundational technologies. 

Foundational technologies may be items 

that are currently subject to control for 

military end use or military end user 

reasons. Additionally, foundational 

technologies may be additional items, 

for which an export license is generally 

not required (except for certain 

countries), that also warrant review to 

determine if they are foundational 

technologies essential to the national 

security. For example, such controls 

may be reviewed if the items are being 

utilized or are required for innovation in 

developing conventional weapons or 

enabling foreign intelligence collection 

activities or weapons of mass 

destruction applications. In an effort to 

address this concern, this proposed rule 

would amend the CCL by adding 

controls on certain aircraft reciprocating 

or rotary engines and powdered metals 

and alloys. This rule requests public 

comments to ensure that the scope of 

these proposed controls will be effective 

and appropriate, including with respect 

to their potential impact on legitimate 

commercial or scientific applications. 

6. Removal of Certain General 

Approved Exclusions (GAEs) Under the 

Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Tariff 

Exclusions Process (0694–AH55): On 

December 14, 2020, BIS published an 

interim final rule (the December 14 rule) 

that revised aspects of the process for 

requesting exclusions from the duties 

and quantitative limitations on imports 

of aluminum and steel discussed in 

three previous Commerce interim final 

rules implementing the exclusion 

process authorized by the President 

under section 232 of the Trade 

Expansion Act of 1962, as amended 

(232), as well as a May 26, 2020, notice 

of inquiry. The December 14 rule added 

123 General Approved Exclusions 

(GAEs) to the regulations. The addition 

of GAEs was an important step in 

improving the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the 232 exclusions 

process for certain Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

codes for steel and aluminum that had 

not received objections. Commerce 

determined it could authorize imports 

under GAEs for these specified HTSUS 

codes for all importers instead of 

requiring each importer to submit an 

exclusion request. Subsequently, based 

on Commerce’s review of the public 

comments received in response to the 

December 14 rule and additional 

analysis conducted by Commerce of 232 

exclusion request submissions, 

Commerce determined that a subset of 

the GAEs added in the December 14 rule 

did not meet the criteria for inclusion as 

a GAE and should therefore be removed. 

Commerce is removing these GAEs in 

this interim final rule to ensure that 

only those GAEs that meet the stated 

criteria from the December 14 rule will 

continue to be included as eligible 

GAEs. Lastly, this interim final rule 

makes two conforming changes to the 

GAE list for a recent change to one 

HTSUS classification and adds a 

footnote to both GAE supplements to 

address future changes to the HTSUS. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5024 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

DOC—BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND 

SECURITY (BIS) 

Prerule Stage 

9. Request for Comments Concerning 

the Imposition of Export Controls on 

Certain Brain–Computer Interface (BCI) 

Emerging Technology 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 50 U.S.C. 

4817(a)(2)(C) 

CFR Citation: None. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Section 1758 of the Export 

Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), as 

codified under 50 U.S.C. 4817, 

authorizes BIS to establish appropriate 

controls on the export, reexport or 

transfer (in-country) of emerging and 

foundational technologies. Pursuant to 

ECRA, BIS has identified Brain 

Computer Interface (BCI) technology as 

part of a representative list of 

technology categories concerning which 

BIS, through an interagency process, 

seeks public comment to determine 

whether this technology represents an 

emerging technology that is important to 

U.S. national security and for which 

effective controls can be implemented. 

Specifically, BIS is seeking comments 

concerning whether this technology 

could provide the United States, or any 

of its adversaries, with a qualitative 

military or intelligence advantage. In 

addition, BIS is seeking public 

comments on how to ensure that the 

scope of any controls that may be 

imposed on this technology in the 

future would be effective and 

appropriate (with respect to their 

potential impact on legitimate 

commercial or scientific applications). 

Statement of Need: The Bureau of 

Industry and Security (BIS) is 

publishing this ANPRM to obtain public 

comments on the potential uses of 

Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) 

technology, which includes, inter alia, 

neural-controlled interfaces, mindmachine interfaces, direct neural 

interfaces, and brain-machine interfaces. 

On November 19, 2018, BIS published 

an ANPRM (83 FR 58201) that identified 

BCI technology as part of a 

representative list of technology 

categories concerning which BIS, 

through an interagency process, sought 

public comments to determine whether 

there are specific emerging technologies 

that are essential to U.S. national 

security and for which effective controls 

can be implemented. 

Additional input from the public is 

needed to assist in the interagency 

process of evaluating BCI technology as 

a potential emerging technology and to 

determine if there are specific BCI 

technologies for which export controls 

would be appropriate. The public’s 

responses to the questions posed in this 

ANPRM will be considered during the 

aforementioned interagency process to 

evaluate BCI technology as a potential 

emerging technology and to ensure that 

the scope of any controls that may be 

imposed on this technology would be 

effective (in terms of protecting U.S. 

national security interests) and 

appropriate (with respect to minimizing 

their potential impact on legitimate 

commercial or scientific applications). 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

1758(a) of the Export Control Reform 

Act (ECRA) of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4817(a)) 

outlines an interagency process for 

identifying emerging and foundational 

technologies. BCI technology has been 

identified as a technology for evaluation 

as a potential emerging technology, 

consistent with the interagency process 

described in section 1758 of ECRA. 

Consequently, BIS is publishing this 

ANPRM to obtain feedback from the 

public and U.S. industry concerning 

whether such technology could provide 

the United States, or any of its 

adversaries, with a qualitative military 

or intelligence advantage. 

Alternatives: The Secretary of 

Commerce must establish appropriate 

controls on the export, reexport or 

transfer (in-country) of technology 

identified pursuant to the section 1758 

process. In so doing, the Secretary must 

consider the potential end-uses and 

end-users of emerging and foundational 

technologies, and the countries to which 

exports from the United States are 

restricted (e.g., embargoed countries). 

While the Secretary has discretion to set 

the level of export controls, at a 

minimum a license must be required for 

the export of such technologies to 

countries subject to a U.S. embargo, 

including those countries subject to an 

arms embargo. 

If the interagency process results in a 

determination that certain BCI 

technology constitutes an emerging 

technology, for purposes of section 1758 

of ECRA, then BIS is required, pursuant 

to ECRA to institute export controls on 

such technology. However, BIS does 

have some flexibility to ensure that the 

scope of any controls that may be 

imposed on this technology would be 

effective (in terms of protecting U.S. 

national security interests) and 

appropriate (with respect to minimizing 

their potential impact on legitimate 

commercial or scientific applications). 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

ANPRM is being published by BIS to 

assist in evaluating, not only whether 

certain BCI technology is an emerging 

technology, but also to obtain 

information from the public to assist in 

evaluating how the implementation of 

export controls on such technology 

would impact U.S. industry, in terms of 

both its economic and technological 

competitiveness. In short, this ANPRM 

is intended to assist, as part of the 

aforementioned interagency process, in 

evaluating the anticipated costs and 

benefits of imposing export controls on 

certain BCI technology. 

Risks: The risks of imposing export 

controls on certain BCI technology 

would be to hurt the economic and 

technological competitiveness of U.S. 

industry, which is one of the primary 

reasons that BIS is soliciting comments 

from the public in accordance with this 

ANPRM. There are also risks to U.S. 

national security and to U.S. industry 

should such technology fall into the 

hands of our adversaries. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 10/26/21 86 FR 59070 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

12/10/21 

NPRM .................. 03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Willard Fisher, 

Export Administration Specialist, 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of 

Industry and Security, 14th Street and 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230, Phone: 202 482–2440, Fax: 

202 482–3355, Email: willard.fisher@

bis.doc.gov. 

RIN: 0694–AI41 

DOC—BIS 

Proposed Rule Stage 

10. Foundational Technologies: 

Proposed Controls; Request for 

Comments 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4801 to 

4852 

CFR Citation: 15 CFR 742; 15 CFR 

774. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Bureau of Industry and 

Security (BIS), the Department of 

Commerce, maintains controls on the 

export, reexport, and transfer (incountry) of dual-use and less sensitive 

military items through the Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR), 

including the Commerce Control List 

(CCL). Foundational technologies may 

be items that are currently subject to 

control for military end use or military 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5025 

end user reasons. Additionally, 

foundational technologies may be 

additional items, for which an export 

license is not required (except for 

certain countries) that also warrant 

review to determine if they are 

foundational technologies essential to 

the national security. For example, such 

controls may be reviewed if the items 

are being utilized or required for 

innovation in developing conventional 

weapons or enabling foreign intelligence 

collection activities or weapons of mass 

destruction applications. In an effort to 

address this concern, this rule proposes 

to amend the CCL with identified 

foundational technologies. This rule 

requests public comments to ensure that 

the scope of these proposed controls 

will be effective and appropriate, 

including with respect to their potential 

impact on legitimate commercial or 

scientific applications. 

Statement of Need: As part of the 

National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 (Pub. L. 

115–232), Congress enacted the Export 

Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (50 

U.S.C. 4817). Section 1758 of ECRA 

authorizes the Bureau of Industry and 

Security (BIS) to establish appropriate 

controls on the export, reexport, or 

transfer (in-country) of emerging and 

foundational technologies. With this 

proposed rule, BIS continues to identify 

technologies that may warrant more 

restrictive controls than they have at 

present and establishes a control 

framework applicable to certain 

unilaterally-controlled emerging and 

foundational technologies. 

Summary of Legal Basis: There are a 

variety of legal authorities under which 

BIS operates. However, ECRA (50 U.S.C. 

4817) provides the most substantive 

legal basis for BIS’s actions under this 

proposed rule. 

Alternatives: There are not 

alternatives to this rule. This rule serves 

as the first tranche of controls 

specifically outlining foundational 

technologies. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

anticipated costs and benefits of this 

proposed rule are not applicable. 

Risks: There are no applicable risks to 

this proposed rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 08/27/20 85 FR 52934 

ANPRM Correction and Comment Extension.10/09/20 85 FR 64078 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

10/26/20 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM Correction and Comment Extension 

Period End.

11/09/20 

NPRM .................. 08/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Agency Contact: Logan D. Norton, 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of 

Industry and Security, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 

20230, Phone: 202 812–1762, Email: 

logan.norton@bis.doc.gov. 

RIN: 0694–AH80 

DOC—BIS 

Final Rule Stage 

11. Removal of Certain General 

Approved Exclusions (GAEs) Under the 

Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Tariff 

Exclusions Process 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 19 U.S.C. 1862 

CFR Citation: 15 CFR 705. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On December 14, 2020, the 

Department of Commerce published an 

interim final rule (December 14 rule) 

that revised aspects of the process for 

requesting exclusions from the duties 

and quantitative limitations on imports 

of aluminum and steel. The December 

14 rule added 123 General Approved 

Exclusions (GAEs) to the regulations. 

The addition of GAEs was an important 

step in improving the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the 232 exclusions 

process for certain Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

codes for steel and aluminum that had 

not received objections. Subsequently, 

based on Commerce’s review of the 

public comments received in response 

to the December 14 rule and additional 

analysis conducted by Commerce of 232 

submissions, Commerce determined 

that a subset of the GAEs added in the 

December 14 rule did not meet the 

criteria for inclusion as a GAE and 

should therefore be removed. Commerce 

is removing these GAEs in today’s 

interim final rule to ensure that only 

those GAEs that meet the stated criteria 

from the December 14 rule will continue 

to be included as eligible GAEs. 

Statement of Need: On December 14, 

2020, the Department of Commerce 

published an interim final rule (the 

December 14 rule) that revised aspects 

of the process for requesting exclusions 

from the duties and quantitative 

limitations on imports of aluminum and 

steel discussed in three previous 

Department of Commerce (Commerce) 

interim final rules implementing the 

exclusion process authorized by the 

President under section 232 of the Trade 

Expansion Act of 1962, as amended 

(232), as well as a May 26, 2020 notice 

of inquiry. The December 14 rule 

included adding 123 General Approved 

Exclusions (GAEs) to the regulations. 

The addition of GAEs was an important 

step in improving the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the 232 exclusions 

process. Commerce selected certain 

steel and aluminum articles under select 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) codes as GAEs 

on the basis that exclusion requests 

submitted for the specified HTSUS 

codes had not received objections from 

domestic industry in the 232 exclusions 

process. 

Commerce is publishing this interim 

final rule to remove a subset of General 

Approved Exclusions (GAEs) added in 

the December 14 rule after public 

comments on the December 14 rule and 

subsequent Commerce analysis of data 

in the 232 Exclusions Portal identified 

these HTSUS codes as not meeting the 

criteria for inclusion as a GAE. These 

cases include HTSUS codes with 

exclusion requests that recently 

received objections and/or denials in 

the 232 Exclusions Portal. Commerce is 

removing these GAEs in this interim 

final rule to ensure that only those GAEs 

that meet the stated criteria from the 

December 14 rule will continue to be 

included as eligible GAEs. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal 

basis of this rule is section 232 of the 

Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1862) and Reorg. 

Plan No. 3 of 1979 (44 FR 69273, 

December 3, 1979). This rule is also 

implementing the directive included in 

Proclamations 9704 and 9705 of March 

8, 2018. As explained in the reports 

submitted by the Secretary to the 

President, steel and aluminum are being 

imported into the United States in such 

quantities or under such circumstances 

as to threaten to impair the national 

security of the United States, and 

therefore the President is implementing 

these remedial actions (as described 

Proclamations 9704 and 9705 of March 

8, 2018) to protect U.S. national security 

interests. That implementation includes 

the creation of an effective process by 

which affected domestic parties can 

obtain exclusion requests based upon 

specific national security 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5026 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

considerations. Commerce started this 

process with the publication of the 

March 19 rule and refined the process 

with the publication of the September 

11, June 10, and December 14 rules and 

is continuing the process with the 

publication of today’s interim final rule. 

The revisions to the exclusion request 

process are informed by the comments 

received in response to the December 14 

rule and Commerce’s experience with 

managing the 232 exclusions process. 

Alternatives: Alternatives to doing 

this rule would include not publishing 

the rule. The public has the ability to 

apply for exclusion requests, so instead 

of creating GAEs, the public could be 

told to rely on the existing exclusions 

process. However, numerous 

commenters on the 232 interim final 

rules that have been published have 

emphasized the need for making 

improvements in the efficiency, 

transparency, and fairness of the 232 

exclusion process and had suggested the 

creation of a GAE type of approval as 

part of the 232 exclusions process 

would benefit the program. Commenters 

on the December 14 rule identified 

certain GAE eligible items that they 

believed did not meet the stated criteria 

for what should be eligible for be 

authorized under a GAE. Commerce 

after reviewing those comments and 

conducting its own additional analysis 

agrees that certain items identified 

under the current GAEs no longer reflect 

the GAE criteria and therefore should be 

removed, so the alternative of not doing 

a rule or the option of removing the 

GAE approvals completely are not 

viable options for achieving the 

intended policy objectives that 

Commerce is trying to fulfill with 

having a more effective exclusion 

process. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: For the 

anticipated costs, this rule is expected 

to increase the burden hours for one of 

the collections associated with this rule, 

OMB control number 0694–0139. This 

increase is expected because of the 

removal of certain GAEs for steel and 

GAEs for aluminum, which is expected 

to result in an increase of 1,100 

exclusion request submissions per year. 

These removals are estimated to result 

in a twenty percent reduction in the 

burden and costs savings described in 

the December 14 rule. These GAE 

removals are expected to be an increase 

in 1,100 burden hours for a total cost 

increase of 162,800 dollars to the public. 

There is also expected to be an increase 

in 6,600 burden hours for a total cost 

increase of 257,000 dollars to the U.S. 

Government. As Commerce asserted in 

the December 14 rule that the steel and 

aluminum articles identified as being 

eligible for GAEs, including those being 

removed in today’s rule, had not 

received any objections, the addition of 

those new GAEs was not estimated to 

result in a decrease in the number of 

objections, rebuttals, or surrebuttals 

received by BIS. As described elsewhere 

in this rule, the GAEs removed in 

today’s interim final rule did receive 

objections and/or denials and therefore 

warrant removal at this time. Because 

the December 14 rule did not make any 

adjustments to the collections for 

objections, rebuttals, or surrebuttals, the 

removal of these GAEs is estimated to 

result in no change in the burden 

associated with the other three 

collections. 

For the anticipated benefits, these 

changes will ensure the effectiveness of 

the GAEs under the 232 exclusions 

process. By ensuring that only those 

GAEs that meet the stated criteria for 

what should be considered a GAE, will 

help improve the effectiveness, fairness 

and transparency of the 232 exclusions 

process. Importers and other users of 

steel and aluminum in the U.S. and U.S. 

producers and steel and aluminum have 

comments in response to the various 

section 232 interim final rules 

published that creating an effective 232 

exclusion process is key to reduce 

burdens on the public. The adoption of 

the GAEs was an important step in 

improving efficiency, but in order 

ensure U.S. national security interests 

are protected, only items that meet the 

GAE criteria should be eligible and any 

other item should be required to be 

included in the normal 232 exclusion 

process. 

Risks: If this interim final rule were to 

be delayed, companies in the United 

States would be unable to immediately 

benefit from the improvements made to 

the GAE process and could face 

significant economic hardship, which 

could potentially create a detrimental 

effect on the general U.S. economy and 

national security. Comments received 

on the December 14 rule that were 

critical of the GAEs were clear that the 

removal of GAEs that consisted of 

HTSUS codes that received objections 

and/or denials under the 232 process 

was needed. Commenters noted that 

failure to provide this additional 

improvement could allow the floodgates 

to open for imports of those articles, and 

that the influx of such articles could 

undermine the efficiency of the 232 

process. Commenters also noted that if 

this specific improvement is not made, 

significant economic consequences 

could occur. Given the imports of these 

articles have already been objected to 

and/or denied in exclusion requests 

under the 232 process for national 

security reasons, allowing these specific 

GAEs to exist could undermine other 

critical U.S. national security interests. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 03/19/18 83 FR 12106 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

03/19/18 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

05/18/18 

Interim Final Rule 09/11/18 83 FR 46026 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

09/11/18 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

11/13/18 

Interim Final Rule 06/10/19 84 FR 26751 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

06/13/19 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

08/09/19 

Interim Final Rule 12/14/20 85 FR 81060 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

12/14/20 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

12/29/20 

Interim Final Rule 11/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Timothy Mooney, 

Export Policy Analyst, Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of Industry and 

Security, 14th Street and Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, 

Phone: 202 482–3371, Fax: 202 482– 

3355, Email: timothy.mooney@

bis.doc.gov. 

RIN: 0694–AH55 

DOC—BIS 

12. Information Security Controls: 

Cybersecurity Items 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 

U.S.C. 7430(e); 15 U.S.C. 1824a; 22 

U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 22 

U.S.C. 6004; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 

U.S.C. 7210; 30 U.S.C. 185(s); 30 U.S.C. 

185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 

50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 4305; 

50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; E.O. 12058; E.O. 

12851; E.O. 12938; E.O. 13026; E.O. 

13222; Pub. L. 108–11 

CFR Citation: 15 CFR 740; 15 CFR 

742; 15 CFR 772; 15 CFR 774. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: In 2013, the Wassenaar 

Arrangement (WA) added cybersecurity 

items to the WA List, including a 

definition for ‘‘intrusion software.’’ On 

May 20, 2015, the Bureau of Industry 

and Security (BIS) published a proposed 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5027 

rule describing how these new controls 

would fit into the Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR) and 

requested information from the public 

about the impact on U.S. industry. The 

public comments on the proposed rule 

revealed serious issues concerning 

scope and implementation regarding 

these controls. Based on these 

comments, as well as substantial 

commentary from Congress, the private 

sector, academia, civil society, and 

others on the potential unintended 

consequences of the 2013 controls, the 

U.S. government returned to the WA to 

renegotiate the controls. This interim 

final rule outlines the progress the 

United States has made in this area, 

revised Commerce Control List (CCL) 

implementation, and requests from the 

public information about the impact of 

these revised controls on U.S. industry 

and the cybersecurity community. 

Statement of Need: In 2013, the 

Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) added 

cybersecurity items to the WA List, 

including a definition for intrusion 

software. On May 20, 2015, the Bureau 

of Industry and Security (BIS) published 

a proposed rule describing how these 

new controls would fit into the Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR) and 

requested information from the public 

about the impact on U.S. industry. The 

public comments on the proposed rule 

revealed serious issues concerning 

scope and implementation regarding 

these controls. Based on these 

comments, as well as substantial 

commentary from Congress, the private 

sector, academia, civil society, and 

others on the potential unintended 

consequences of the 2013 controls, the 

U.S. government returned to the WA to 

renegotiate the controls. This interim 

final rule outlines the progress the 

United States has made in this area, 

implements revised Commerce Control 

List (CCL) text, establishes a new 

License Exception Authorized 

Cybersecurity Exports (ACE) and 

requests from the public information 

about the impact of these revised 

controls on U.S. industry and the 

cybersecurity community. 

Summary of Legal Basis: On August 

13, 2018, the President signed into law 

the John S. McCain National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, 

which included the Export Control 

Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), 50 U.S.C. 

4801–4852. ECRA provides the legal 

basis for BIS’s principal authorities and 

serves as the authority under which BIS 

issues this rule. 

Alternatives: As noted above, BIS 

does not believe that the amendments in 

this rule, will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Nevertheless, 

consistent with 5 U.S.C. 603(c), BIS 

considered significant alternatives to 

these amendments to assess whether the 

alternatives would: (1) Accomplish the 

stated objectives of this rule (consistent 

with the requirements in ECRA); and (2) 

minimize any significant economic 

impact of this rule on small entities. BIS 

could have implemented a much 

broader control on software capable of 

cybersecurity controlled under ECCNs 

4A005, 4D004, 4E001, 4E001, and 

5A001 that would have captured a 

greater amount of such software and 

related technology. That in turn would 

have had a greater impact not only on 

small businesses, but also on research 

and development laboratories (both 

academic and corporate), which are 

involved in network security. BIS has 

determined that implementing focused 

controls on specific software and related 

technology (i.e., the software controlled 

under new ECCN 4A005, 4D004, 

4E001.a, 4E001.c, and 5A001.j and 

corresponding development technology 

in ECCN 5E001) is the least disruptive 

alternative for implementing export 

controls in a manner consistent with 

controlling technology that has been 

determined, through the interagency 

process authorized under ECRA, to be 

essential to U.S. national security. BIS is 

not implementing different compliance 

or reporting requirements for small 

entities. If a small business is subject to 

a compliance requirement for the 

export, reexport or transfer (in-country) 

of this software and related technology, 

then it would submit a license 

application using the same process as 

any other business (i.e., electronically 

via SNAPR). The license application 

process is free of charge to all entities, 

including small businesses. In addition, 

as noted above, the resources and other 

compliance tools made available by BIS 

typically serve to lessen the impact of 

any EAR license requirements on small 

businesses. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: For the 

existing ECCNs included in this rule 

(4D001, 4E001, 5A001, 5A004, 5D001, 

5E001), the 2020 data from U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection’s 

Automated Export System (AES) shows 

980 shipments valued at $39,146,164. 

Of those shipments, 120 shipments 

valued at $1,864,699 went to Country 

Group D:1 or D:5 countries, which 

would make them ineligible for License 

Exception ACE. There were no 

shipments to Country Group E:1 or E:2. 

Under the provisions of this rule, the 

120 shipments require a license 

application submission to BIS. 

As there is no specific ECCN data in 

AES for the new export controls in new 

ECCNs 4A005 and 4D004 or new 

paragraph 4E001.c, BIS uses other data 

to estimate the number of shipments of 

these new ECCNs that will require a 

license. Bureau of Economic Analysis 

(BEA) data from 2019 show a total 

dollar value of $55,657 million for 

Telecom, Computer, and Information 

Technology Services exports. 

Multiplying this value by 12.1% (the 

percentage of all exports that are subject 

to an EAR license requirement as 

determined by using AES data) suggests 

that $6,734,497,000 of Telecom/ 

Computer/IT exports are now subject to 

EAR license requirements. Based on 

AES data on the existing ECCNs affected 

by this rule, BIS estimates the average 

value of each shipment for the new 

ECCNs at about $40,000, and further 

estimates that 0.6% of all new ECCN 

shipments (1,010 shipments) are now 

eligible for License Exception ACE and 

0.03% of all new ECCN shipments (50 

shipments) require a license application 

submission. Therefore, the annual total 

estimated cost associated with the 

paperwork burden imposed by this rule 

(that is, the projected increase of license 

application submissions based on the 

additional shipments requiring a 

license) is estimated to be 170 new 

applications × 29.6 minutes = 5,032/60 

min = 84 hours × $30 = $2,520. 

There is no paperwork submission to 

BIS associated with using License 

Exception ACE, and therefore there is 

no increase to any paperwork burden or 

information collection cost associated 

with License Exception ACE 

requirements in this rule. 

Benefit: Cybersecurity items in the 

wrong hands raise both national 

security and foreign policy concerns. 

The benefit of publishing these 

revisions and controlling cybersecurity 

items in the way contemplated by this 

rule is that national security and foreign 

policy concerns are addressed, in that 

these regulations assist in keeping such 

items out of the hands of those that 

would use them for nefarious end uses, 

while at the same time not disrupt 

legitimate cybersecurity exports. 

Risks: The risks of publishing this rule 

is that it has unexpected consequences, 

which is why there is a 90 day delayed 

effective date and 45 day comment 

period that will allow the public to 

comment on the rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 10/21/21 86 FR 58205 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

12/06/21 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

01/19/22 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5028 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Action Date FR Cite 

Next Action Undetermined.02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Sharron Cook, Policy 

Analyst, Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Industry and Security, 14th 

Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20230, Phone: 202 482– 

2440, Fax: 202 482–3355, Email: 

sharron.cook@bis.doc.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 0694–AG49. 

RIN: 0694–AH56 

DOC—BIS 

13. Authorization of Certain ‘‘Items’’ to 

Entities on the Entity List in the Context 

of Specific Standards Activities 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4801 to 

4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 

1701 et seq.; E.O. 12938 

CFR Citation: 15 CFR 734. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Bureau of Industry and 

Security (BIS) is amending the Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR) to 

clarify the applicability of the Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR) to 

releases of technology for standards 

setting or development in standards 

organizations. 

Statement of Need: The Bureau of 

Industry and Security (BIS) is amending 

the Export Administration Regulations 

(EAR) to clarify the applicability of the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(EAR) to releases of technology for 

standards setting or development to 

support U.S. participation in standards 

efforts. 

Summary of Legal Basis: There are a 

variety of legal authorities under which 

BIS operates. However, ECRA (50 U.S.C. 

4817) provides the most substantive 

legal basis for BIS’s actions under this 

rule. 

Alternatives: There are not 

alternatives to this rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

anticipated costs and benefits of this 

proposed rule are not applicable. 

Risks: There are no applicable risks to 

this rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 06/16/20 85 FR 36719 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

06/18/20 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

08/17/20 

Final Action ......... 03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Hillary Hess, 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of 

Industry and Security, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 

20230, Phone: 202 482–4819, Email: 

hillary.hess@bis.doc.gov. 

RIN: 0694–AI06 

DOC—BIS 

14. Commerce Control List: Expansion 

of Controls on Certain Biological 

Equipment ‘‘Software’’ 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4801 to 

4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 

1701 et seq.; 10 U.S.C. 8720 

CFR Citation: 15 CFR 774. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: BIS is publishing this final 

rule to amend the Commerce Control 

List (CCL) by adding a new Export 

Control Classification Number (ECCN) 

2D352 to control ‘‘software’’ that is 

designed for automated nucleic acid 

assemblers and synthesizers controlled 

under ECCN 2B352 and is capable of 

designing and building functional 

genetic elements from digital sequence 

data. These proposed amendments to 

the CCL are based upon a finding, 

consistent with the emerging and 

foundational technologies interagency 

process set forth in section 1758 of 

ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4817), that such 

‘‘software’’ is capable of being utilized 

in the production of pathogens and 

toxins and, consequently, the absence of 

export controls on such software could 

be exploited for biological weapons 

purposes. In addition, this rule amends 

ECCN 2E001 to indicate that this ECCN 

controls ‘‘technology’’ for the 

‘‘development’’ of ‘‘software’’ described 

in the new ECCN 2D352. 

Statement of Need: The Bureau of 

Industry and Security (BIS) is 

publishing this final rule to amend the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(EAR) to implement the decision made 

at the Australia Group (AG) Virtual 

Implementation Meeting session held in 

May 2021, and later adopted pursuant to 

the AG’s silence procedure. This 

decision updated the AG Common 

Control List for dual-use biological 

equipment by adding controls on 

nucleic acid assembler and synthesizer 

software that is capable of designing and 

building functional genetic elements 

from digital sequence data. 

Prior to the addition of nucleic acid 

assembler/synthesizer software to the 

AG biological equipment list, BIS 

identified this software as a technology 

to be evaluated as an emerging 

technology, consistent with the 

interagency process described in section 

1758 of the Export Control Reform Act 

of 2018 (ECRA) (codified at 50 U.S.C. 

4817). This identification was based on 

a finding that this software is capable of 

being used to operate nucleic acid 

assemblers and synthesizers controlled 

under ECCN 2B352 for the purpose of 

generating pathogens and toxins 

without the need to acquire controlled 

genetic elements and organisms. 

Consequently, the absence of export 

controls on this software could be 

exploited for biological weapons 

purposes. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

1758(a) of the Export Control Reform 

Act (ECRA) of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4817(a)) 

outlines an interagency process for 

identifying emerging and foundational 

technologies. Nucleic acid synthesizer 

software has been identified as a 

technology for evaluation as a potential 

emerging technology, consistent with 

the interagency process described in 

section 1758 of ECRA. Consequently, 

BIS published a proposed rule on 

November 6, 2020 (85 FR 71012), to 

provide the public with notice and the 

opportunity to comment on adding a 

new ECCN 2D352 to control software for 

the operation of nucleic acid assemblers 

and synthesizers described in ECCN 

2B352.j that is capable of designing and 

building functional genetic elements 

from digital sequence data. Subsequent 

to the publication of this proposed rule, 

the Australia Group (AG) added this 

software to their biological equipment 

Common Control List. This final rule 

amends the EAR to reflect the action 

taken by the AG. 

Alternatives: The Secretary of 

Commerce must establish appropriate 

controls on the export, reexport or 

transfer (in-country) of technology 

identified pursuant to the Section 1758 

process. In so doing, the Secretary must 

consider the potential end-uses and 

end-users of emerging and foundational 

technologies, and the countries to which 

exports from the United States are 

restricted (e.g., embargoed countries). 

While the Secretary has discretion to set 

the level of export controls, at a 

minimum a license must be required for 

the export of such technologies to 

countries subject to a U.S. embargo, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5029 

including those countries subject to an 

arms embargo. 

If the interagency process results in a 

determination that a certain technology 

constitutes an emerging technology, for 

purposes of section 1758 of ECRA, then 

BIS is required, pursuant to ECRA, to 

institute export controls on such 

technology. However, BIS does have 

some flexibility to ensure that the scope 

of any controls that may be imposed on 

this technology would be effective (in 

terms of protecting U.S. national 

security interests) and appropriate (with 

respect to minimizing their potential 

impact on legitimate commercial or 

scientific applications). In this 

particular instance, the controls on this 

technology will be multilateral, because 

they have been adopted by the Australia 

Group (AG) for inclusion in their 

biological equipment Common Control 

List. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

changes that would be made by this rule 

would only marginally affect the scope 

of the EAR controls on chemical 

weapons precursors, human and animal 

pathogens/toxins, and equipment 

capable of use in handling biological 

materials. 

The number of additional license 

applications that would have to be 

submitted per year, as a result of the 

addition of ECCN 2D352 to the CCL, as 

described above, is not expected to 

exceed fifteen license applications. This 

total represents a relatively insignificant 

portion of the overall trade in such 

items and is well within the scope of the 

information collection approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under control number 06940088. 

Risks: This software is capable of 

being used to operate nucleic acid 

assemblers and synthesizers controlled 

under ECCN 2B352 for the purpose of 

generating pathogens and toxins 

without the need to acquire controlled 

genetic elements and organisms. 

Consequently, the absence of export 

controls on this software could be 

exploited for biological weapons 

purposes. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/06/20 85 FR 71012 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

12/21/20 

Final Action ......... 10/05/21 86 FR 54814 

Final Action Effective.10/05/21 

Next Action Undetermined.03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Willard Fisher, 

Export Administration Specialist, 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of 

Industry and Security, 14th Street and 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230, Phone: 202 482–2440, Fax: 

202 482–3355, Email: willard.fisher@

bis.doc.gov. 

RIN: 0694–AI08 

DOC—PATENT AND TRADEMARK 

OFFICE (PTO) 

Final Rule Stage 

15. Changes To Implement Provisions 

of the Trademark Modernization Act of 

2020 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1066; 15 

U.S.C. 1067; 15 U.S.C. 1113; 15 U.S.C. 

1123; 35 U.S.C. 2; Pub. L. 112–29; Pub. 

L. 116–260 

CFR Citation: 37 CFR 2; 37 CFR 7. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

December 27, 2021. 

Abstract: The United States Patent 

and Trademark Office (USPTO or 

Office) amends the rules of practice in 

trademark cases to implement 

provisions of the Trademark 

Modernization Act of 2020. The rule 

establishes ex parte expungement and 

reexamination proceedings for 

cancellation of a registration when the 

required use in commerce of the 

registered mark has not been made; 

provides for a new nonuse ground for 

cancellation before the Trademark Trial 

and Appeal Board; establishes flexible 

Office action response periods; and 

amends the existing letter-of-protest rule 

to indicate that letter-of-protest 

determinations are final and nonreviewable. The USPTO also sets fees 

for petitions requesting institution of ex 

parte expungement and reexamination 

proceedings, and for requests to extend 

Office action response deadlines. 

Amendments are also for the rules 

concerning the suspension of USPTO 

proceedings and the rules governing 

attorney recognition in trademark 

matters. Finally, a new rule is to address 

procedures regarding court orders 

cancelling or affecting registrations. 

Statement of Need: The purpose of 

this action is to amend the rules of 

practice in trademark cases to 

implement provisions of the Trademark 

Modernization Act of 2020. In addition, 

amendments are also proposed for the 

rules concerning suspension of USPTO 

proceedings and the rules governing 

attorney recognition in trademark 

matters, and a new rule is proposed to 

address procedures regarding court 

orders cancelling or affecting 

registrations. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 

(TMA) was enacted on December 27, 

2020. See Public Law 116260, Div. Q, 

Tit. II, Subtit. B, 221228 (Dec. 27, 2020). 

The TMA amends the Trademark Act of 

1946 (the Act) to establish new ex parte 

expungement and reexamination 

proceedings to cancel, either in whole 

or in part, registered marks for which 

the required use in commerce was not 

made. Furthermore, the TMA amends 

14 of the Act to allow a party to allege 

that a mark has never been used in 

commerce as a basis for cancellation 

before the Trademark Trial and Appeal 

Board (TTAB). The TMA also authorizes 

the USPTO to promulgate regulations to 

set flexible Office action response 

periods between 60 days and 6 months, 

with an option for applicants to extend 

the deadline up to a maximum of 6 

months from the Office action issue 

date. In addition, the TMA includes 

statutory authority for the USPTO’s 

letter-of-protest procedures, which 

allow third parties to submit evidence to 

the USPTO relevant to a trademark’s 

registrability during the initial 

examination of the trademark 

application, and provides that the 

decision whether to include such 

evidence in the application record is 

final and non-reviewable. The TMA 

requires the USPTO to promulgate 

regulations to implement the provisions 

relating to the new ex parte 

expungement and reexamination 

proceedings, and the letter-of-protest 

procedures, within one year of the 

TMA’s enactment. The USPTO also 

proposes under its authority under the 

Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1051 

et seq., to amend the rules regarding 

attorney recognition and 

correspondence, and to add a new rule 

formalizing the USPTO’s longstanding 

procedures concerning action on court 

orders cancelling or affecting a 

registration under section 37 of the Act, 

15 U.S.C. 1119. 

Alternatives: The TMA mandates the 

framework for many of the procedures 

in this rulemaking, particularly in 

regard to the changes to the letter-ofprotest procedures and most of the 

procedures for the new ex parte 

expungement and reexamination 

proceedings, except for those indicated 

below. Thus, the USPTO has little to no 

discretion in the rulemaking required to 

implement those procedures. For those 

provisions for which alternatives were 

possible because the TMA provided the 

Director discretion to implement 

regulations (i.e., fees; limit on petitions 

requesting expungement or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5030 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

reexamination; reasonable investigation 

and evidence; director-initiated 

proceedings; response time periods in 

new ex parte proceedings; flexible 

response periods; suspension of 

proceedings; and attorney recognition), 

a full discussion of alternatives is 

provided in the proposed rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed regulations have qualitative 

benefits of ensuring a well-functioning 

trademark system where the trademark 

register accurately reflects trademarks 

that are currently in use. 

Risks: The risk of taking no action is 

that USPTO would not comply with its 

statutory mandate under the TMA. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/18/21 86 FR 26862 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

07/19/21 

Final Action ......... 11/00/21 

Final Action Effective.12/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Catherine Cain, 

Trademark Manual of Examining 

Procedure Editor, Department of 

Commerce, Patent and Trademark 

Office, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 

22313, Phone: 571 272–8946, Fax: 751 

273–8946, Email: catherine.cain@

uspto.gov. 

RIN: 0651–AD55 

BILLING CODE 3410–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

Background 

The Department of Defense (DoD) is 

the largest Federal department, 

employing over 1.6 million military 

personnel and 750,000 civilians with 

operations all over the world. DoD’s 

enduring mission is to provide combatcredible military forces needed to deter 

war and protect the security of our 

nation. In support of this mission, DoD 

adheres to a strategy where a more 

lethal force, strong alliances and 

partnerships, American technological 

innovation, and a culture of 

performance will generate a decisive 

and sustained United States military 

advantage. Because of this expansive 

and diversified mission and reach, DoD 

regulations can address a broad range of 

matters and have an impact on varied 

members of the public, as well as other 

federal agencies. 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ 

(September 30, 1993) and Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review’’ (January 18, 

2011), the DoD Regulatory Plan and 

Agenda provide notice about the DoD’s 

regulatory and deregulatory actions 

within the Executive Branch. 

Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive 

Order 13563 ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review’’ (January 18, 2011), 

the Department continues to review 

existing regulations with a goal to 

eliminate outdated, unnecessary, or 

ineffective regulations; account for the 

currency and legitimacy of each of the 

Department’s regulations; and 

ultimately reduce regulatory burden and 

costs. 

DOD Priority Regulatory Actions 

The regulatory and deregulatory 

actions identified in this Regulatory 

Plan embody the core of DoD’s 

regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year (FY) 

2022 and help support President 

Biden’s regulatory priorities and the 

Secretary of Defense’s top priorities, 

along with those of the National Defense 

Strategy, to defend the Nation. The DoD 

prioritization is focused on initiatives 

that: 

• Promote the country’s economic 

resilience, including addressing COVIDrelated issues. 

• Support underserved communities 

and improve small business 

opportunities. 

• Promote diversity, equity, 

inclusion, and accessibility in the 

Federal workforce. 

• Support national security efforts, 

especially safeguarding Federal 

Government information and 

information technology systems. 

• Support the climate change 

emergency; and 

• Promote Access to Voting. 

Rules That Promote the Country’s 

Economic Resilience 

Pandemic 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13987, 

‘‘Organizing and Mobilizing the United 

States Government to Provide a Unified 

and Effective Response to Combat 

COVID–19 and to Provide United States 

Leadership on Global Health and 

Security,’’ January 20, 2021; Executive 

Order 13995, ‘‘Ensuring an Equitable 

Pandemic Response and Recovery,’’ 

January 21, 2021; Executive Order 

13997, ‘‘Improving and Expanding 

Access to Care and Treatments for 

COVID–19,’’ January 21, 2021; and 

Executive Order 13999, ‘‘Protecting 

Worker Health and Safety,’’ January 21, 

2021, the Department has temporarily 

modified its TRICARE regulation so 

TRICARE beneficiaries have access to 

the most up-to-date care required for the 

diagnosis and treatment of COVID–19. 

TRICARE continues to reimburse like 

Medicare, to the extent practicable, as 

required by statute. The Department is 

researching the impacts of making some 

of those modifications permanent and 

may pursue such future action. 

These modifications include: 

• TRICARE Coverages and Payment for 

Certain Services in Response to the 

COVID–19 Pandemic. RIN 0720–AB81 

DoD is finalizing an interim final rule 

that temporarily amended 32 CFR part 

199 to revise: (1) 32 CFR part 199.4 to 

remove the restriction on audio-only 

telemedicine services; (2) 32 CFR part 

199.6 to authorize reimbursement for 

interstate practice by TRICAREauthorized providers when such 

authority is consistent with State and 

Federal licensing requirements; and (3) 

32 CFR part 199.17 to eliminate 

copayments for telemedicine services. 

These changes reduce the spread of 

COVID–19 among TRICARE 

beneficiaries by incentivizing use of 

telemedicine services, and aid providers 

in caring for TRICARE beneficiaries by 

temporarily waiving some licensure 

requirements. The final rule adopts this 

interim final rule as final with changes. 

• TRICARE Coverage of Certain Medical 

Benefits in Response to the COVID–19 

Pandemic. RIN 0720–AB82 

DoD is finalizing an interim final rule 

that temporarily amended 32 CFR part 

199 to revise certain elements of the 

TRICARE program under 32 CFR part 

199 to: (1) Waive the three-day prior 

hospital qualifying stay requirement for 

coverage of skilled nursing facility care; 

(2) add coverage for treatment use of 

investigational drugs under expanded 

access authorized by the United States 

(U.S.) Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) when for the treatment of 

coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19); 

(3) waive certain provisions for acute 

care hospitals that permitted 

authorization of temporary hospital 

facilities and freestanding ambulatory 

surgical centers providing inpatient and 

outpatient hospital services; and, 

consistent with similar changes under 

the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare 

Services; (4) revise diagnosis related 

group (DRG) reimbursement by 

temporarily reimbursing DRGs at a 20 

percent higher rate for COVID–19 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5031 

patients; and (5) waive certain 

requirements for long term care 

hospitals. The final action permanently 

adopts Medicare’s New Technology 

Add-On Payments adjustment to DRGs 

for new medical services and 

technologies and adopted Medicare’s 

Hospital Value Based Purchasing 

Program. The final rule adopts the 

interim final rule with changes, except 

for the note to section 199.4(g)(15)(i)(A), 

published at 85 FR 54923, September 3, 

2020, which remains interim. 

• TRICARE Coverage of National 

Institute of Allergy and Infectious 

Disease—Coronavirus Disease 2019 

Clinical Trials. RIN 0720–AB83 

This interim final rule temporarily 

amended section 199.4(e)(26) of 32 CFR 

199 to revise certain elements of the 

TRICARE program to add coverage for 

National Institute of Allergy and 

Infectious Disease-sponsored clinical 

trials for the treatment or prevention of 

coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19). 

Title 10, U.S.C. 1079(a)(12) 

authorizes, pursuant to an agreement 

with the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) and under such 

regulations as the Secretary of Defense 

may prescribe, a waiver of the 

requirement that covered care be 

medically or psychologically necessary 

in connection with clinical trials 

sponsored by the NIH, provided the 

Secretary of Defense determines that 

such a waiver will promote access by 

covered beneficiaries to promising new 

treatments and contribute to the 

development of such treatments. On 

September 19, 2020, the DoD entered 

into an agreement with NIH to permit 

coverage of such trials. Based on an 

agreement with the National Cancer 

Institute (NCI) and 32 CFR 199.4(e)(26), 

TRICARE currently covers NCI 

sponsored clinical trials related to 

cancer prevention, screening, and early 

detection. The intent of these statutory 

and regulatory provisions is to expand 

TRICARE beneficiary access to new 

treatments and to contribute to the 

development of such treatments. 

This rule, pursuant to the agreement 

with the NIH, temporarily amends the 

TRICARE regulation to authorize 

coverage of cost-sharing for medical care 

and testing of TRICARE-eligible patients 

who participate in Phase I, II, III, or IV 

clinical trials examining the treatment 

or prevention of COVID–19 that are 

sponsored by NIAID, enforcing the 

provisions within the agreement 

between DoD and NIH. Additionally, 

this change establishes requirements for 

TRICARE cost-sharing care related to 

NIAID-sponsored COVID–19 clinical 

trials; these new requirements mirror 

the existing requirements set forth in 32 

CFR 199.4(e)(26)(ii)(B) for coverage of 

cancer clinical trials. This amendment 

supports statutory intent by encouraging 

participation of TRICARE beneficiaries 

in clinical trials studying the prevention 

or treatment of COVID–19 and 

contributing to the development of 

treatments, including vaccines, for 

COVID–19. 

• Expanding TRICARE Access to Care 

in Response to the COVID–19 

Pandemic. RIN 0720–AB85 

This interim final rule will 

temporarily amend the TRICARE 

regulation at 32 CFR part 199 by: (1) 

Adding freestanding End Stage Renal 

Disease facilities as a category of 

TRICARE-authorized institutional 

provider and modifying the 

reimbursement for such facilities; (2) 

adding coronavirus 2019 (COVID–19) 

Immunizers who are not otherwise an 

eligible TRICARE-authorized provider 

as providers eligible for reimbursement 

for COVID–19 vaccines and vaccine 

administration; (3) and adopting 

Medicare New COVID–19 Treatments 

Add-on Payments (NTCAPs). 

Maximizing the Use of American-Made 

Goods (DFARS Case 2019–D045). RIN: 

0750–AK85 

This rule supports Executive Order 

14005, ‘‘Ensuring the Future is Made in 

All of America by All of America’s 

Workers,’’ January 25, 2021, that builds 

upon a previous Executive Order 13881, 

Maximizing Use of American-Made 

Goods, Products, and Materials,’’ July 

15, 2019. The rule implements 

Executive Order 13881 which requires 

an amendment to the FAR to provide 

that materials shall be considered of 

foreign origin if: (a) For iron and steel 

end products, the cost of foreign iron 

and steel used in such iron and steel 

end products constitutes 5 percent or 

more of the cost of all the products used 

in such iron and steel end products; or 

(b) for all other end products, the cost 

of the foreign products used in such end 

products constitutes 45 percent or more 

of the cost of all the products used in 

such end products. The FAR changes 

were accomplished under FAR Case 

2019–016, published in the Federal 

Register at 86 FR 6180. 

In addition, the Executive Order 

13881 provides that in determining 

price reasonableness, the evaluation 

factors of 20 percent (for other than 

small businesses), or 30 percent (for 

small businesses) shall be applied to 

offers of materials of foreign origin. The 

DFARS currently applies a 50 percent 

factor and requires no additional 

revisions. This DFARS rule makes 

conforming changes as a result of 

implementation of the Executive Order 

in the FAR. 

Rules That Support Underserved 

Communities and Improve Small 

Business Opportunities 

Executive Order 13985, ‘‘Advancing 

Racial Equity and Support for 

Underserved Communities Through the 

Federal Government’’ January 20, 2021 

Rules of Particular Interest to Small 

Business 

Small Business Innovation Research 

Program Data Rights (DFARS Case 

2019–D043). RIN: 0750–AK84 

This rule implements changes made 

by the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) related to data rights in the Small 

Business Innovation Research (SBIR) 

Program and Small Business 

Technology Transfer (STTR) Program 

Policy Directive, published in the 

Federal Register on April 2, 2019 (84 FR 

12794). The SBIR and STTR programs 

fund a diverse portfolio of startups and 

small businesses across technology 

areas and markets to stimulate 

technological innovation, meet Federal 

research and development (R&D) needs, 

and increase commercialization to 

transition R&D into impact. The final 

SBA Policy Directive includes several 

revisions to clarify data rights, which 

require corresponding revisions to the 

DFARS. These changes include 

harmonizing definitions, lengthening 

the SBIR/STTR protection period from 5 

years to 20 years, and providing for the 

granting of Government-purpose rights 

license in place of an unlimited rights 

license upon expiration of the SBIR/ 

STTR protection period. 

Reauthorization and Improvement of 

Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ Program (DFARS Case 

2020–D009). RIN: 0750–AK96 

This rule implements section 872 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2020. Section 872 

reauthorizes and modifies the DoD 

Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ Program. The purpose of 

the Program is to provide incentives for 

DoD contractors to assist eligible small 

businesses (prote ́ge ́s) in enhancing their 

capabilities and to increase 

participation of such firms in 

Government and commercial contracts. 

Under this program, prote ́ge ́s expand 

their footprint in the defense industrial 

base by partnering with larger 

companies (mentors). As a result of this 

rule, the date by which new mentorprote ́ge ́ agreements may be submitted 

and approved is extended to September 

30, 2024. In addition, mentors incurring 

costs prior to September 30, 2026, may 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5032 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

be eligible for certain credits and 

reimbursements. Per the statute, this 

rule also establishes additional 

performance goals and outcome-based 

metrics to measure progress in meeting 

those goals. 

Rules That Promote Diversity, Equity, 

Inclusion, and Accessibility in the 

Federal Workforce 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability in Program or Activities 

Assisted or Conducted by the DoD and 

in Equal Access to Information and 

Communication Technology Used by 

DoD, and Procedures for Resolving 

Complaints. RIN: 0790–AJ04 

Revisions to this regulation: (1) 

Update and clarify the obligations that 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973 (section 504) imposes on 

recipients of Federal financial assistance 

and the Military Departments and 

Components (DoD Components); (2) 

reflect the most current Federal statutes 

and regulations, as well as 

developments in Supreme Court 

jurisprudence, regarding unlawful 

discrimination on the basis of disability 

and promotes consistency with 

comparable provisions implementing 

title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA); (3) implement 

section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973 (section 508), requiring DoD make 

its electronic and information 

technology accessible to individuals 

with disabilities; (4) establish and 

clarify obligations under the 

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 

(ABA), which requires that DoD make 

facilities accessible to individuals with 

disabilities; and (5) Provide complaint 

resolution and enforcement procedures 

pursuant to section 504 and the 

complaint resolution and enforcement 

procedures pursuant to section 508. 

These revisions are particularly relevant 

in light of Executive Order 14035, 

‘‘Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and 

Accessibility in the Federal Workforce. 

Rules That Support National Security 

Efforts 

Department of Defense (DoD)—Defense 

Industrial Base (DIB) Cybersecurity (CS) 

Activities. RIN: 0790–AK86 

This rule will amend the DoD— 

Defense Industrial Base (DIB) 

Cybersecurity (CS) activities regulation. 

It will allow a broader community of 

defense contractors access to relevant 

cyber threat information that is critical 

in defending unclassified networks and 

information systems and protecting DoD 

warfighting capabilities. These 

amendments seek to address the 

increasing cyber threat targeting all 

defense contractors including those in 

the vulnerable supply chain by 

expanding eligibility to defense 

contractors that process, store, develop, 

or transmit DoD Controlled Unclassified 

Information (CUI). These steps align 

with the Administration’s efforts to 

provide defense contractors with critical 

and real-time cybersecurity resources 

needed to safeguard DoD CUI. 

Rules That Support the Climate Change 

Emergency 

Policy and Procedures for Processing 

Requests To Alter U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Civil Works Projects Pursuant 

to 33 U.S.C. 408. RIN: 0710–AB22 

Where a party other than the USACE 

seeks to use or alter a Civil Works 

project that USACE constructed, the 

proposed use or alteration is subject to 

the prior approval of the USACE. Some 

examples of such alterations include an 

improvement to the project; relocation 

of part of the project; or installing 

utilities or other non-project features. 

This requirement was established in 

section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act 

of 1899 and is codified at 33 U.S.C. 408 

(section 408). Section 408 provides that 

the USACE may grant permission for 

another party to alter a Civil Works 

project, upon a determination that the 

alteration proposed will not be injurious 

to the public interest and will not 

impair the usefulness of the Civil Works 

project. The USACE is proposing to 

convert its policy that governs the 

section 408 program to a binding 

regulation. This policy, Engineer 

Circular 1165–2–220, Policy and 

Procedural Guidance for Processing 

Requests to Alter U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Civil Works Projects Pursuant 

to 33 U.S.C. 408, was issued in 

September 2018. 

Credit Assistance for Water Resources 

Infrastructure Projects. RIN: 0710–AB31 

The USACE proposes to implement a 

new credit program for dam safety work 

at non-Federal dams. The program is 

authorized under the Water 

Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 

Act of 2014 (WIFIA) and Division D, 

Title 1 of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2021. WIFIA 

authorizes the USACE to provide 

secured (direct) loans and loan 

guarantees (Federal Credit instruments) 

to eligible water resources infrastructure 

projects and to charge fees to recover all 

or a portion of the USACE’ cost of 

providing credit assistance and the costs 

of conducting engineering reviews and 

retaining expert firms, including 

financial and legal services, to assist in 

the underwriting and servicing of 

Federal credit instruments. Projects 

would be evaluated and selected by the 

Secretary of the Army (the Secretary), 

based on the requirements and the 

criteria described in this rule. 

Flood Control Cost-Sharing 

Requirements Under the Ability To Pay 

Provision. RIN: 0710–AB34 

Section 103(m) of the Water 

Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 

1986, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)), 

authorizes the USACE to reduce the 

non-Federal share of the cost of a study 

or project for certain communities that 

are not able financially to afford the 

standard cost-share. Part 241 of title 33 

in the Code of Federal Regulations 

provides the criteria that the USACE 

uses in making these determinations 

where the primary purpose of the study 

or project is flood damage reduction. 

The proposed rule would update this 

regulation, including by broadening the 

project purposes for which the USACE 

could reduce the non-Federal cost-share 

on this basis. 

Revised Definition of ‘‘Waters of the 

United States’’—Rule 1. RIN: 0710– 

AB40 

In April 2020, the EPA, and the 

Department of the Army (‘‘the 

agencies’’) published the Navigable 

Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) that 

revised the previously codified 

definition of ‘‘waters of the United 

States’’ (85 FR 22250, April 21, 2020). 

The agencies are now initiating this new 

rulemaking process that restores the 

regulations (51 FR 41206) in place prior 

to the 2015 ‘‘Clean Water Rule: 

Definition of ‘Waters of the United 

States’ ’’ (80 FR 37054, June 29, 2015), 

updated to be consistent with relevant 

Supreme Court decisions. The agencies 

intend to consider further revisions in a 

second rule in light of additional 

stakeholder engagement and 

implementation considerations, 

scientific developments, and 

environmental justice values. This effort 

will also be informed by the experience 

of implementing the pre-2015 rule, the 

2015 Clean Water Rule, and the 2020 

Navigable Waters Protection Rule. 

Revised Definition of ‘‘Waters of the 

United States’’—Rule 2. RIN: 0710– 

AB47 

The Department of the Army and the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

intend to pursue a second rule defining 

‘‘Waters of the United States’’ to 

consider further revisions to the 

agencies’ first rule (RIN 0710–AB40) 

which proposes to restore the 

regulations in place prior to the 2015 

‘‘Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5033 

of the United States’ ’’ (80 FR 37054, 

June 29, 2015), updated to be consistent 

with relevant Supreme Court Decisions. 

This second rule proposes to include 

revisions reflecting on additional 

stakeholder engagement and 

implementation considerations, 

scientific developments, and 

environmental justice values. This effort 

will also be informed by the experience 

of implementing the pre-2015 rule, the 

2015 Clean Water Rule, and the 2020 

Navigable Waters Protection Rule. 

Rules Promoting Access to Voting 

Federal Voting Assistant Program 

(FVAP). RIN: 0790–AK90 

DOD is finalizing an interim final rule 

for its Federal Voting Assistance 

Program (FVAP). The FVAP assists 

overseas service members and other 

overseas citizens with exercising their 

voting rights by serving as a critical 

resource to successfully register to vote. 

On March 7, 2021, the White House 

released Executive Order 14019 on 

Promoting Access to Voting. The 

purpose of the Executive Order is to 

protect and promote the exercise of the 

right to vote, eliminate discrimination 

and other barriers to voting, expand 

access to voter registration and accurate 

election information, and ensure 

registering to vote and the act of voting 

be made simple and easy for all those 

eligible to do so. To accomplish this 

purpose, with this final rule DoD is 

doing the following: 

• Maximizing voter awareness of 

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 

Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) 

eligibility and resources by providing 

better coordination with the Federal 

Government’s voting assistance services 

to improve voter accessibility and 

communication. 

• Requiring DoD components to 

establish component-wide programs to 

communicate and disseminate voting 

information, with the goal of improving 

communication and clarity for the 

impacted population. 

• Requiring federal agencies to enter 

into memorandums of understanding 

(MOU) with the DoD to provide 

accurate, nonpartisan voting 

information and assistance to ensure 

military and overseas voters understand 

their voting rights, how to register and 

apply for an absentee ballot, and how to 

return their absentee ballot successfully. 

• Promoting opportunities to register 

to vote and participate in elections to 

include civilians working for the 

Department who vote locally. 

• Distributing voter information and 

use of vote.gov in conjunction with 

fvap.gov website and current 

communications to support a 

comprehensive approach to voter 

awareness. 

• Creating innovative solutions to 

reduce barriers and increase voter 

awareness of their status in the 

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 

Absentee Voting Act absentee voting 

process, including increased visibility of 

overseas ballots. 

• Developing materials to support 

absentee voting by military and overseas 

U.S. citizens with limited English 

proficiency. 

Federal Register Requests for 

Information (RFIs) 

In support of Executive Orders 14017, 

‘‘America’s Supply Chains,’’ 13985, 

‘‘Advancing Racial Equity and Support 

for Underserved Communities Through 

the Federal Government, and 14036, 

Promoting Competition in the American 

Economy,’’ DoD published a RFI on 

September 8, 2021, titled ‘‘Notice of 

Request for Comments on Barriers 

Facing Small Businesses in Contracting 

with the Department of Defense.’’ The 

participation of dynamic, resilient, and 

innovative small businesses in the 

defense industrial base is critical to the 

United States’ efforts to maintain its 

technological superiority, military 

readiness, and warfighting advantage. In 

furtherance of its efforts to maximize 

opportunities for small businesses to 

contribute to national security, the DoD 

sought public input on the barriers that 

small businesses face in working with 

the DoD. 

Additionally, in support of Executive 

Order 14017, ‘‘America’s Supply 

Chains,’’ DoD published an RFI on 

September 28, 2021, titled ‘‘Federal 

Register Notice of Request for Written 

Comments in Support of the Department 

of Defense’s One-Year Response to 

Executive Order 14017, ‘‘America’s 

Supply Chains.’’ The Executive Order 

directs six Federal agencies to conduct 

a review of their respective industrial 

bases, with the objective to use this 

assessment to secure and strengthen 

America’s supply chains. One of these 

directives is for the Secretary of 

Defense, in consultation with the heads 

of appropriate agencies, to submit a 

report on supply chains for the defense 

industrial base, including key 

vulnerabilities and potential courses of 

action to strengthen the defense 

industrial base. The effort will build on 

the Executive Order. report, Assessing 

and Strengthening the Manufacturing 

and Defense Industrial Base and Supply 

Chain Resiliency of the United States 

(released October 2018) and the Annual 

Industrial Capabilities Report, which is 

mandated by the Congress. 

DOD—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

(OS) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

16. Department of Defense (DOD)— 

Defense Industrial Base (DIB) 

Cybersecurity (CS) Activities 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 391; 10 

U.S.C. 2224; 44 U.S.C. 3541; 10 U.S.C. 

393 

CFR Citation: 32 CFR 236. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The DIB CS Program is 

currently only permitted to provide 

cyber threat information to cleared 

defense contractors, per the Program 

eligibility requirements within 32 CFR 

part 236. However, this proposed 

revision to the Federal rule would allow 

all defense contractors who process, 

store, develop, or transit DoD CUI to be 

eligible to participate and begin 

receiving critical cyber threat 

information. Expanding participation in 

the DIB CS Program is part of DoD’s 

comprehensive approach to collaborate 

with the DIB to counter cyber threats 

through information sharing between 

the Government and DIB participants. 

The expanded eligibility criteria will 

allow a broader community of defense 

contractors to participate in the DIB CS 

Program, in alignment with the National 

Defense Strategy. 

Statement of Need: Unauthorized 

access and compromise of DoD 

unclassified information and operations 

poses an imminent threat to U.S. 

national security and economic security 

interests. Defense contractors with this 

information are being targeted on a daily 

basis. Many of these contractors are 

small and medium size contractors that 

can benefit from partnering with DoD to 

enhance and supplement their 

cybersecurity capabilities. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This revised 

regulation supports the 

Administration’s effort to promote 

public-private cyber collaboration by 

expanding eligibility for the DIB CS 

voluntary cyber threat information 

sharing program to all defense 

contractors. This regulation aligns with 

DoD’s statutory responsibilities for 

cybersecurity engagement with those 

contractors supporting the Department. 

Alternatives: (1) No action alternative: 

Maintain status quo with the ongoing 

voluntary cybersecurity program for 

cleared contractors. (2) Next best 

alternative: DoD posts generic cyber 

threat information and cybersecurity 

best practices on a public accessible 

website without directly engaging 

participating companies. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Participation in the voluntary DIB CS 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5034 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Program enables DoD contractors to 

access Government Furnished 

Information and collaborate with the 

DoD Cyber Crime Center (DC3) to better 

respond to and mitigate the cyber threat. 

To participate in the DIB CS Program, 

DoD contractors must have or obtain a 

DoD-approved, medium assurance 

certificate to enable access to a secure 

DoD unclassified web portal. Cost of the 

DoD-approved medium assurance 

certificate is approximately $175 for 

each individual identified by the DoD 

contractor. See https://public.cyber.mil/ 

eca/ for more information about DoDapproved certificates. 

Contractors are encouraged to 

voluntarily report information to 

promote sharing of cyber threat 

indicators that they believe are valuable 

in alerting the Government and others, 

as appropriate, in order to better counter 

cyber threat actor activity. This cyber 

information may be of interest to the 

DIB and DoD for situational awareness 

and does not include mandatory cyber 

incident reporting included under 

DFARS 252.204–7012. 

The costs are under review. 

Risks: Cyber threats to DIB 

unclassified information systems 

represent an unacceptable risk of 

compromise of DoD information and 

mission and pose an imminent threat to 

U.S. national security and economic 

security interests. This threat is 

particularly acute for those small and 

medium size companies with less 

mature cybersecurity capabilities. The 

combination of mandatory cyber 

activities under DFARS 252.204–7012, 

combined with the voluntary 

participation in the DIB CS Program, 

will enhance and supplement DoD 

contractors capabilities to safeguard 

DoD information that resides on, or 

transits, DoD contractors unclassified 

network or information systems. 

Through collaboration with DoD and the 

sharing with other contractors in the 

DIB CS Program, defense contractors 

will be better prepared to mitigate the 

cyber risk they face today and in the 

future. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Kevin Dulany, 

Director, Cybersecurity Policy and 

Partnerships CIO, Department of 

Defense, Office of the Secretary, 4800 

Mark Center, Alexandria, VA 22311, 

Phone: 571 372–4699, Email: 

kevin.m.dulany.civ@mail.mil. 

RIN: 0790–AK86 

DOD—OS 

Final Rule Stage 

17. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability in Programs or Activities 

Assisted or Conducted by the DOD 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 100–259; Pub. 

L. 102–569; 29 U.S.C. 791 to 794d; 42 

U.S.C. ch. 51 and 126; E.O. 12250 

CFR Citation: 32 CFR 56. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Defense 

(DoD) is amending its regulation 

prohibiting unlawful discrimination on 

the basis of disability in programs or 

activities receiving Federal financial 

assistance from, or conducted by, DoD. 

These revisions will update and clarify 

the obligations that section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 

imposes on recipients of Federal 

financial assistance and DoD 

Components, and the obligations that 

the Architectural Barriers Act imposes 

on DoD Components. The updates will 

also clarify the procedures for resolving 

complaints regarding information and 

communication technology accessible to 

and usable by individuals with 

disabilities in accordance with section 

508 of the Rehabilitation Act, as 

amended. This rule promotes the Biden 

Administration’s priorities on diversity, 

equity, and inclusion. 

Statement of Need: Finalization of 

this Department-wide rule will clarify 

the longstanding policy of the 

Department. It does not change the 

Department’s practices in addressing 

issues of discrimination. This rule 

amends the Department’s prior 

regulation to include updated 

accessibility standards for recipients of 

Federal financial assistance to be more 

user-friendly and to support individuals 

with disabilities. This update is 

particularly relevant in light of 

Executive Order 14035, Diversity, 

Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in 

the Federal Workforce. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is 

proposed under the authorities of title 

29, U.S.C., chapter 16, subchapter V, 

sections 794 through 794d, codifying 

legislation prohibiting discrimination 

on the basis of disability under any 

program or activity receiving Federal 

financial assistance or under any 

program or activity conducted by any 

Federal agency, including provisions 

establishing the United States Access 

Board and requiring Federal agencies to 

ensure that information and 

communication technology is accessible 

to and usable by individuals with 

disabilities. Title 28, Code of Federal 

Regulations, part 41 implementing 

Executive Order 12250, which assigns 

the DOJ responsibility to coordinate 

implementation of section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act. 

Alternatives: The Department 

considered taking no new action and 

continuing to rely on the existing 

regulation. The Department considered 

issuing sub-regulatory guidance to 

clarify existing regulation. Both options 

were rejected because of the need to 

update and clarify the Department’s 

obligations pursuant to section 504 and 

section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, as amended. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Because OMB originally determined this 

rule to not be a significant regulatory 

action, a cost and benefit analysis has 

not yet been completed. 

Risks: Without this final rule, the 

Department’s current regulation is 

inconsistent with current Federal 

statutes and regulations, as well as 

developments in Supreme Court 

jurisprudence, regarding unlawful 

discrimination on the basis of disability. 

Consistent with congressional intent, 

the provisions in the final rule are 

consistent with the nondiscrimination 

provisions in DOJ regulations 

implementing title II of the ADA 

Amendments Act (applicable to state 

and local government entities). 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/16/20 85 FR 43168 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

09/14/20 

Final Action ......... 06/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: The full title 

of the rule is ‘‘Nondiscrimination on the 

Basis of Disability in Programs or 

Activities Assisted or Conducted by the 

DoD and in Equal Access to Information 

and Communication Technology Used 

by DoD, and Procedures for Resolving 

Complaints.’’ That title is too long to 

include above, so I am including it here. 

DoD Instruction 1020.dd (‘‘Unlawful 

Discrimination on the Basis of Disability 

in Programs or Activities Receiving 

Federal Financial Assistance from, or 

Conducted by, the DoD’’) will be 

codified as a rule under 32 CFR part 56. 

The rule was originally reported as 

being codified under 32 CFR part 195. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5035 

Agency Contact: Randy Cooper, 

Director, Department of Defense 

Disability EEO Policy and Compliance, 

Department of Defense, Office of the 

Secretary, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Room 

5D641, Washington, DC 20301–4000, 

Phone: 703 571–9327, Email: 

randy.d.cooper3.civ@mail.mil. 

RIN: 0790–AJ04 

DOD—OS 

18. Federal Voting Assistance Program 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: E.O. 12642; 10 U.S.C. 

1566a; 52 U.S.C. 20506; 52 U.S.C. ch. 

203 

CFR Citation: 32 CFR 233. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The FVAP assists overseas 

service members and other overseas 

citizens with exercising their voting 

rights by serving as a critical resource to 

successfully register to vote. It requires 

Federal agencies to enter into 

Memorandums of Understanding with 

the DoD to provide accurate, 

nonpartisan voting information and 

assistance to ensure military and 

overseas voters understand their voting 

rights, how to register and apply for an 

absentee ballot, and how to return their 

absentee ballot successfully. 

Statement of Need: This rule 

establishes policy and assigns 

responsibilities for the Federal Voting 

Assistance Program (FVAP). It 

establishes policy and assigns 

responsibilities for the development and 

implementation of installation voter 

assistance (IVA) offices as voter 

registration agencies. This part 

establishes policy to develop and 

implement, jointly with States, 

procedures for persons to apply to 

register to vote at recruitment offices of 

the Military Services. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is 

proposed under the authorities of the 

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 

Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), 52 

U.S.C. chapter 203, on behalf of the 

Secretary of Defense, as the Presidential 

designee under 53 U.S.C. 20301(a). See 

Executive Order No. 12642, Designation 

of Secretary of Defense as Presidential 

Designee, 53 FR 21975 (June 8, 1988) 

and Executive Order 14019, Promoting 

Access to Voting. 

Alternatives: No Action—If DoD took 

no action, decreases in successful voting 

by voters covered by the Uniformed and 

Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act 

could occur. 

Voters who received assistance from 

FVAP or Voting Assistance Officers 

were significantly more likely to submit 

a ballot than if they did not receive that 

assistance a consistent finding across 

the last four General Elections. The 

impacted public, without coordinated 

FVAP voter assistance, could experience 

confusion with the voting registration 

process, and may endure inefficient 

FVAP assistance leading up to, and on 

Election Day. With no purposeful effort 

to streamline these regulations, there is 

a dire possibility that absentee voter 

ballots will not be sent and received in 

time to be counted. DoD, as the 

presidential designee agency, pursuant 

to Executive Order 12642, shoulders the 

responsibility and desire to resolve 

known issues, better communicate with 

the public, and provide a seamless and 

uniform voting assistance framework for 

the public populations overseas. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

amendment of the current policies seeks 

to establish uniform framework within 

DoD on how to interact and disseminate 

communications with the impacted 

public populations overseas. The 

changes outlined in this rule improve 

the transparency and effectiveness of 

communication to the general public, 

absent overseas voters, Service member 

spouse and dependents, and eligible 

voters who seek to register to vote on 

Military Service installations. This 

includes maximizing awareness of voter 

UOCAVA eligibility, and providing 

resources to the impacted public 

populations. These changes will 

maximize voting assistance 

effectiveness and outcomes, address 

known concerns impacting the public, 

ahead of upcoming election cycles. 

While the Department estimates that 

the public will not incur any costs as a 

result of this rule, the public may 

receive better voter assistance since DoD 

will improve the Government’s 

coordination to provide voter assistance 

to absent uniformed service voters and 

overseas voters and support the 

government’s efforts to implement a 

comprehensive program to cover all 

executive branch agencies and overseas 

citizens more broadly. 

Risks: This rule seeks to increase the 

likelihood of voters protected under 

UOCAVA and military voting assistance 

laws to receive and return absentee 

ballots. It enables FVAP to provide 

assistance and information to military 

and overseas American voters in an 

effective manner based on surveys, 

research and historical after action 

reports. 

Should FVAP become unable to foster 

voter awareness through the States and 

voter assistance programs, the 

Department of Defense will become less 

effective to meet military and civilian 

voter assistance requirements, thus 

increasing the possible risk of absentee 

ballot rejections during federal election 

cycles. This may bring unwanted 

stakeholder and Congressional scrutiny. 

FVAP would cease to provide active 

engagement mechanisms to elicit input 

and offer recommendations to improve 

levels of voter success and effectiveness 

for State absentee balloting processes for 

absent overseas uniformed voters and 

citizens. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 03/06/20 85 FR 13045 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

03/06/20 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

04/06/20 

Final Action ......... 11/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: David Beirne, 

Director, DODHRA FVAP, Department 

of Defense, Office of the Secretary, 48 

Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 

22408, Phone: 571 372–0740, Email: 

david.e.beirne.civ@mail.mil. 

RIN: 0790–AK90 

DOD—DEFENSE ACQUISITION 

REGULATIONS COUNCIL (DARC) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

19. Small Business Innovation Research 

Program Data Rights (DFARS Case 

2019–D043) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 227; 48 CFR 

252. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

implement changes related to data rights 

in the Small Business Administration’s 

Policy Directive for the Small Business 

Innovation Research (SBIR) Program, 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 2, 2019 (84 FR 12794). The final 

SBA Policy Directive includes several 

revisions to clarify data rights, which 

require corresponding revisions to the 

DFARS. 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

necessary to implement the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) related 

to data rights in the Small Business 

Innovation Research (SBIR) Program 

and Small Business Technology 

Transfer (STTR) Program Policy 

Directive, published in the Federal 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5036 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Register on April 2, 2019 (84 FR 12794). 

The final SBA Policy Directive includes 

several revisions to clarify data rights, 

which require corresponding revisions 

to the DFARS. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal 

basis for this rule is 15 U.S.C. 638, 

which provides the authorization, 

policy, and framework for SBIR/STTR 

programs. 

Alternatives: There are no alternatives 

that would meet the stated objective of 

this rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: While 

specific costs and savings have not been 

quantified, this rule is expected to have 

significant benefit for small businesses 

participating in the DoD SBIR/STTR 

program. SBIR and STTR enable small 

businesses to explore their technological 

potential and provide the incentive to 

profit from its commercialization. By 

including qualified small businesses in 

the nation’s R&D arena, high-tech 

innovation is stimulated, and the United 

States gains entrepreneurial spirit as it 

meets its specific research and 

development needs. 

Risks: The continuous protection of 

an awardee’s SBIR/STTR Data while 

actively pursuing or commercializing its 

technology with the Federal 

Government, provides a significant 

incentive for innovative small 

businesses to participate in these 

programs. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 08/31/20 85 FR 53758 

Correction ............ 09/21/20 85 FR 59258 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

10/30/20 

Comment Period 

Extended.

12/04/20 85 FR 78300 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/31/21 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Jennifer Johnson, 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System, Department of Defense, Defense 

Acquisition Regulations Council, 3060 

Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060, Phone: 

571 372–6100, Email: 

jennifer.d.johnson1.civ@mail.mil. 

RIN: 0750–AK84 

DOD—DARC 

20. Reauthorization and Improvement 

of Mentor-Protege Program (DFARS 

Case 2020–D009) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303; Pub. 

L. 116–92, sec. 872 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR, ch. 2, app. I. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement to implement 

section 872 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 

which reauthorizes and improves the 

DoD Mentor-Protege Program. 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

necessary to amend the DFARS to 

implement the reauthorization of and 

amendments to the Mentor Prote ́ge ́

Program provided by section 872 of the 

National Defense authorization act 

(NDAA) of Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal 

basis for this rule is section 872 of the 

NDAA for FY 2020 (Pub. L. 116–92). 

Alternatives: There are no alternatives 

that would meet the requirements of the 

statute. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

rule is expected to be of significant 

benefit to small businesses accepted as 

prote ́ge ́s under the program, as well as 

the firms that mentor such small 

businesses, by bringing more small 

businesses into DoD’s supply chain. 

DoD’s Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ Program is the 

oldest continuously operating Federal 

mentor-prote ́ge ́ program in existence. 

DoD’s Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ Program has 

successfully helped more than 190 

small businesses fill unique niches and 

become part of the military’s supply 

chain. Many mentors have made the 

Program an integral part of their 

sourcing plans. Prote ́ge ́s have used their 

involvement in the Program to develop 

technical capabilities. Successful 

mentor-prote ́ge ́ agreements provide a 

winning relationship for the prote ́ge ́, the 

mentor, and DoD. 

Risks: Failure to implement section 

872 and extend DoD’s Mentor-Prote ́ge ́

Program would significantly inhibit the 

Department’s ability to provide 

incentives for DoD contractors to assist 

small businesses in enhancing their 

capabilities and to increase 

participation of such firms in 

Government and commercial contracts. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Jennifer Johnson, 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System, Department of Defense, Defense 

Acquisition Regulations Council, 3060 

Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060, Phone: 

571 372–6100, Email: 

jennifer.d.johnson1.civ@mail.mil. 

RIN: 0750–AK96 

DOD—DARC 

Final Rule Stage 

21. Maximizing the Use of AmericanMade Goods (DFARS Case 2019–D045) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 225; 48 CFR 

252. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: DoD is issuing a final rule to 

amend the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

implement Executive Order 13881, 

Maximizing Use of American-Made 

Goods, Products, and Materials. 

Executive Order 13881 requires an 

amendment to the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) to provide that 

materials shall be considered of foreign 

origin if: (a) For iron and steel end 

products, the cost of foreign iron and 

steel used in such iron and steel end 

products constitutes 5 percent or more 

of the cost of all the products used in 

such iron and steel end products; or (b) 

for all other end products, the cost of 

the foreign products used in such end 

products constitutes 45 percent or more 

of the cost of all the products used in 

such end products. The FAR changes 

were accomplished under FAR Case 

2019–016, published in the Federal 

Register at 86 FR 6180. This DFARS 

rule will make conforming changes to 

the DFARS. 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

needed to implement Executive Order 

13881, Maximizing Use of AmericanMade Goods, Products, and Materials, 

dated July 15, 2019, which requires an 

amendment to the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) and the Defense 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement (DFARS) to provide that 

under the Buy American statute, 

materials shall be considered of foreign 

origin if— 

(A) For iron and steel products, the 

cost of foreign iron and steel used in 

such iron and steel products constitutes 

5 percent or more of the cost of all the 

product’s domestic content; or 

(B) For all other products, the cost of 

the foreign components used in such 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5037 

products constitutes 45 percent or more 

of the cost of all the product’s domestic 

content. 

In addition, the Executive order 

provides that in determining price 

reasonableness, the evaluation factors of 

20 percent (for other than small 

businesses), or 30 percent (for small 

businesses) shall be applied to offers of 

materials of foreign origin. The DFARS 

applies a 50 percent factor and requires 

no additional revisions. This rule makes 

conforming changes to the applicable 

clauses as a result of implementation of 

the Executive order requirements in the 

FAR. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal 

basis for this rule is 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 

Executive Order 13881, Maximizing Use 

of American-Made Goods, Products, and 

Materials, dated July 15, 2019. 

Alternatives: There are no alternatives 

that would meet the requirements of 

Executive Order 13881. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

rule increases the percentages for use in 

the domestic content test applied to 

offers of products and materials to 

determine domestic or foreign origin. 

The rule will strengthen domestic 

preferences under the Buy American 

statute and provide both large and small 

businesses the opportunity and 

incentive to deliver U.S. manufactured 

products from domestic suppliers. It is 

expected that this rule will benefit large 

and small U.S. manufacturers, including 

those of iron or steel. 

Risks: N/A. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/30/21 86 FR 48370 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

10/29/21 

Final Action ......... 02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Agency Contact: Jennifer Johnson, 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System, Department of Defense, Defense 

Acquisition Regulations Council, 3060 

Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060, Phone: 

571 372–6100, Email: 

jennifer.d.johnson1.civ@mail.mil. 

RIN: 0750–AK85 

DOD—U.S. ARMY CORPS OF 

ENGINEERS (COE) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

22. Policy and Procedures for 

Processing Requests To Alter U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects 

Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 408 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 408 

CFR Citation: 33 CFR 350. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Where a party other than the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 

seeks to use or alter a Civil Works 

project that the Corps constructed, the 

proposed use or alteration is subject to 

the prior approval of the Corps. Some 

examples of such alterations include an 

improvement to the project; relocation 

of part of the project; or installing 

utilities or other non-project features. 

This requirement was established in 

section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act 

of 1899 and is codified at 33 U.S.C. 408 

(section 408). Section 408 provides that 

the Corps may grant permission for 

another party to alter a Civil Works 

project upon a determination that the 

alteration proposed will not be injurious 

to the public interest and will not 

impair the usefulness of the Civil Works 

project. The Corps is proposing to 

convert its policy that governs the 

section 408 program to a binding 

regulation. This policy, Engineer 

Circular 1165–2–220, Policy and 

Procedural Guidance for Processing 

Requests to Alter U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Civil Works Projects Pursuant 

to 33 U.S.C. 408, was issued in 

September 2018. 

Statement of Need: Through the Civil 

Works program, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps), in partnership with 

stakeholders, has constructed many 

Civil Works projects across the Nation’s 

landscape. Given the widespread 

locations of these projects, there may be 

a need for others outside of the Corps 

to alter or occupy these projects and 

their associated lands. Reasons for 

alterations could include activities such 

as improvements to the project; 

relocation of part of the project; or 

installing utilities or other non-project 

features. In order to ensure that these 

projects continue to provide their 

intended benefits to the public, 

Congress provided that any use or 

alteration of a Civil Works project by 

another party is subject to the prior 

approval of the Corps. This requirement 

was established in section 14 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and is 

codified at 33 U.S.C. 408 (section 408). 

Specifically, section 408 provides that 

the Corps may grant permission for 

another party to alter a Civil Works 

project upon a determination that the 

alteration proposed will not be injurious 

to the public interest and will not 

impair the usefulness of the Civil Works 

project. The Corps is proposing to 

convert its policy that governs the 

section 408 program to a binding 

regulation. Engineer Circular 1165–2– 

220, Policy and Procedural Guidance for 

Processing Requests to Alter U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects 

Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 408 was issued in 

September 2018. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Corps 

has legal authority over the section 408 

program under 33 U.S.C. 408. 

Alternatives: The preferred alternative 

would be to conduct rulemaking to 

issue the requirements governing the 

section 408 review process in the form 

of a binding regulation. The current 

Corps policy appears in an Engineer 

Circular that has expired. The next best 

alternative would involve issuing these 

requirements in the form of an Engineer 

Regulation. That alternative would not 

fulfill the intent of the law because it 

would not be binding on the regulated 

public. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed rule would reduce costs to the 

regulated public by clarifying the 

applicable requirements and providing 

consistent implementation of these 

requirements across the Corps program. 

Risks: The proposed action is not 

anticipated to increase risk to public 

health, safety, or the environment 

because it outlines the procedures the 

Corps will follow when evaluating 

requests for section 408 permissions. 

The Corps will comply with all 

statutory requirements when reviewing 

requests. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Virginia Rynk, 

Department of Defense, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Attn: CECW–EC, 

441 G Street NW, Washington, DC 

20314, Phone: 202 761–4741. 

RIN: 0710–AB22 

DOD—COE 

23. Credit Assistance for Water 

Resources Infrastructure Projects 

Priority: Other Significant. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5038 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114–94; Pub. 

L. 114–322; Pub. L. 115–270; 33 U.S.C. 

3901 

CFR Citation: 33 CFR 386. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps) proposes to 

implement a new credit program for 

dam safety work at non-Federal dams. 

The program is authorized under the 

Water Infrastructure Finance and 

Innovation Act of 2014 (WIFIA) and 

Division D, title 1 of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2020. WIFIA 

authorizes the Corps to provide secured 

(direct) loans and loan guarantees 

(Federal Credit instruments) to eligible 

water resources infrastructure projects 

and to charge fees to recover all or a 

portion of the Corps’ cost of providing 

credit assistance and the costs of 

conducting engineering reviews and 

retaining expert firms, including 

financial and legal services, to assist in 

the underwriting and servicing of 

Federal credit instruments. Projects 

would be evaluated and selected by the 

Secretary of the Army (the Secretary) 

based on the requirements and the 

criteria described in this rule. 

Statement of Need: The USACE 

WIFIA program is focused on providing 

Federal loans, and potentially to also 

include loan guarantees, to projects for 

maintaining, upgrading, and repairing 

dams identified in the National 

Inventory of Dams owned by nonfederal entities. These loans will be 

repaid with non-Federal funding. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The USACE 

WIFIA program was authorized under 

Subtitle C of Title V of the Water 

Resources Reform and Development Act 

of 2014 (WRRDA 2014), which 

authorizes USACE to provide secured 

(direct) loans, and potentially to also 

include loan guarantees, to eligible 

water resources infrastructure projects 

(needed further authorization was 

provided by Division D, Title 1 of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2020). The statute also authorizes 

USACE to charge fees to recover all or 

a portion of USACE’s cost of providing 

credit assistance and the costs of 

conducting engineering reviews and 

retaining expert firms, including 

financial and legal services, to assist in 

the underwriting and servicing of 

Federal credit instruments. 

The Fiscal 2021 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, provided USACE 

WIFIA appropriations of $2.2M admin, 

and $12M credit subsidy and a loan 

volume limit of $950M. These 

appropriated funds are limited to fund 

projects focused on maintaining, 

upgrading, and repairing dams 

identified in the National Inventory of 

Dams owned by non-federal entities. 

Alternatives: The preferred alternative 

would be to conduct proposed 

rulemaking to implement a new credit 

program for dam safety work at nonFederal dams in the form of a binding 

regulation in compliance with the Water 

Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 

Act of 2014 (WIFIA) and Division D, 

title 1 of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2020. The next 

best alternative would involve issuing 

these implementing procedures in the 

form of an Engineer Regulation. That 

alternative would not fulfill the intent of 

the law because it would not be binding 

on the regulated public. The no action 

alternative would be to not conduct 

rulemaking which would not fulfill the 

authorization provided by Congress. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed rule would add Corps 

procedures to the CFR on the 

implementation of a new credit program 

for dam safety work at non-Federal 

dams to allow for consistent 

implementation across the Corps and 

clear understanding of the program and 

its requirements by the regulated public. 

The USACE would incur costs to 

administer the loan program while 

benefits are expected for the public in 

the form of benefits from projects 

enabled by WIFIA loans. 

Risks: The proposed action is not 

anticipated to increase risk to public 

health, safety, or the environment 

because it outlines the procedures the 

Corps will follow for implementing a 

federal loan program. The Corps will 

comply with all statutory requirements 

when reviewing requests. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Aaron Snyder, 

Department of Defense, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20314, Phone: 651 290– 

5489, Email: aaron.m.snyder@

usace.army.mil. 

Related RIN: Merged with 0710– 

AB32. 

RIN: 0710–AB31 

DOD—COE 

24. Flood Control Cost-Sharing 

Requirements Under the Ability To Pay 

Provision 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 2213(m) 

CFR Citation: 33 CFR 241. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Section 103(m) of the Water 

Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 

1986, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)), 

authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps) to reduce the nonFederal share of the cost of a study or 

project for certain communities that are 

not able financially to afford the 

standard non-Federal cost-share. Part 

241 of title 33 in the Code of Federal 

Regulations provides the criteria that 

the Corps uses in making these 

determinations where the primary 

purpose of the study or project is flood 

damage reduction. The proposed rule 

would update this regulation, including 

by broadening its applicability by 

including projects with other purposes 

(instead of just flood damage reduction) 

and by including the feasibility study of 

a project (instead of just design and 

construction). 

Statement of Need: The Corps may 

conduct a rulemaking to propose 

amendments to the Corps’ regulations at 

33 CFR part 241 for Corps projects. The 

WRDA 2000 modified Section 103(m) to 

also include the following mission 

areas: Environmental protection and 

restoration, flood control, navigation, 

storm damage protection, shoreline 

erosion, hurricane protection, and 

recreation or an agricultural water 

supply project which have not yet been 

added to the regulation. It also included 

the opportunity to cost share all phases 

of a USACE project to also include 

feasibility in addition to the already 

covered design and construction. This 

rule would provide a framework for 

deciding which projects are eligible for 

consideration for a reduction in the nonFederal cost share based on ability to 

pay. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 33 U.S.C. 

2213(m). 

Alternatives: The preferred alternative 

would be to conduct rulemaking to 

amend 33 CFR 241 by broadening the 

project purposes for which the Corps 

could reduce the non-Federal cost-share 

based on ability to pay and by allowing 

such a reduction for feasibility studies. 

The next best alternative would be to 

provide additional guidance instead of 

amending the existing regulation. This 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5039 

alternative could lead to confusion for 

the regulated public. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed rule would add Corps 

procedures on the ability to pay 

provision allowing for consistent 

implementation across the Corps and 

clear understanding of the program and 

its requirements by the regulated public. 

Risks: The proposed action is not 

anticipated to increase risk to public 

health, safety, or the environment 

because it outlines the procedures the 

Corps will follow when evaluating the 

ability to pay provision for cost-sharing 

with the non-Federal sponsor. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Amy Frantz, Program 

Manager, Department of Defense, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, CECW–P, 441 

G Street NW, Washington, DC 20314, 

Phone: 202 761–0106, Email: 

amy.k.frantz@usace.army.mil. 

Related RIN: Previously reported as 

0710–AA91. 

RIN: 0710–AB34 

DOD—COE 

25. Revised Definition of ‘‘Waters of the 

United States’’—Rule 1 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1344 

CFR Citation: 33 CFR 328. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: In April 2020, the EPA and 

the Department of the Army (‘‘the 

agencies’’) published the Navigable 

Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) that 

revised the previously codified 

definition of ‘‘waters of the United 

States’’ (85 FR 22250, April 21, 2020). 

The agencies are now initiating this new 

rulemaking process that restores the 

regulations (51 FR 41206) in place prior 

to the 2015 ‘‘Clean Water Rule: 

Definition of ’Waters of the United 

States’’ (80 FR 37054, June 29, 2015), 

updated to be consistent with relevant 

Supreme Court decisions. The agencies 

intend to consider further revisions in a 

second rule in light of additional 

stakeholder engagement and 

implementation considerations, 

scientific developments, and 

environmental justice values. This effort 

will also be informed by the experience 

of implementing the pre-2015 rule, the 

2015 Clean Water Rule, and the 2020 

Navigable Waters Protection Rule. 

Statement of Need: In 2015, the 

Environmental Protection Agency and 

the Department of the Army (‘‘the 

agencies’’) published the ‘‘Clean Water 

Rule: Definition of ’Waters of the United 

States (80 FR 37054, June 29, 2015).’’ In 

April 2020, the agencies published the 

Navigable Waters Protection Rule (85 FR 

22250, April 21, 2020). The agencies 

conducted a substantive re-evaluation of 

the definition of ‘‘waters of the United 

States’’ in accordance with the 

Executive Order 13990 and determined 

that they need to revise the definition to 

ensure the agencies listen to the science, 

protect the environment, ensure access 

to clean water, consider how climate 

change resiliency may be affected by the 

definition of waters of the United States, 

and to ensure environmental justice is 

prioritized in the rulemaking process. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Clean 

Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). 

Alternatives: Please see EPA’s 

alternatives. EPA is the lead for this 

rulemaking action. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Please 

see EPA’s statement of anticipated costs 

and benefits. EPA is the lead for this 

rulemaking action. 

Risks: Please see EPA’s risks. EPA is 

the lead for this rulemaking action. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Stacey M. Jensen, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army, Department of Defense, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, 108 Army 

Pentagon, Washington, DC 22202, 

Phone: 703 695–6791, Email: 

stacey.m.jensen.civ@mail.mil. 

RIN: 0710–AB40 

DOD—COE 

26. • Revised Definition of ‘‘Waters of 

the United States’’—Rule 2 (Reg Plan 

Seq No. XX) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1344 

CFR Citation: 33 CFR 328. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of the Army 

and the Environmental Protection 

Agency intend to pursue a second rule 

defining ‘‘Waters of the United States’’ 

to consider further revisions to the 

agencies’ first rule (RIN 0710–AB40) 

which proposes to restore the 

regulations in place prior to the 2015 

waters of the United States rule (51 FR 

41206), updated to be consistent with 

relevant Supreme Court Decisions. This 

second rule proposes to include 

revisions reflecting on additional 

stakeholder engagement and 

implementation considerations, 

scientific developments, and 

environmental justice values. This effort 

will also be informed by the experience 

of implementing the pre-2015 rule, the 

2015 Clean Water Rule, and the 2020 

Navigable Waters Protection Rule. 

Statement of Need: In 2015, the 

Environmental Protection Agency and 

the Department of the Army (‘‘the 

agencies’’) published the ‘‘Clean Water 

Rule: Definition of ’Waters of the United 

States (80 FR 37054, June 29, 2015).’’ In 

April 2020, the agencies published the 

Navigable Waters Protection Rule (85 FR 

22250, April 21, 2020). The agencies 

conducted a substantive re-evaluation of 

the definition of ‘‘waters of the United 

States’’ in accordance with the 

Executive Order 13990 and determined 

that they need to revise the definition to 

ensure the agencies listen to the science, 

protect the environment, ensure access 

to clean water, consider how climate 

change resiliency may be affected by the 

definition of waters of the United States, 

and to ensure environmental justice is 

prioritized in the rulemaking process. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Clean 

Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). 

Alternatives: Please see EPA’s 

alternatives. EPA is the lead for this 

rulemaking action. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Please 

see EPA’s statement of anticipated costs 

and benefits. EPA is the lead for this 

rulemaking action. 

Risks: Please see EPA’s risks. EPA is 

the lead for this rulemaking action. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Stacey M. Jensen, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army, Department of Defense, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, 108 Army 

Pentagon, Washington, DC 22202, 

Phone: 703 695–6791, Email: 

stacey.m.jensen.civ@mail.mil. 

RIN: 0710–AB47 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5040 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

DOD—OFFICE OF ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS 

(DODOASHA) 

Final Rule Stage 

27. Tricare Coverage and Payment for 

Certain Services in Response to the 

Covid–19 Pandemic 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 

U.S.C. ch. 55 

CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Defense 

is finalizing an interim final rule that 

temporarily amended 32 CFR part 199 

to revise: (1) 32 CFR part 199.4 to 

remove the restriction on audio-only 

telemedicine services; (2) 32 CFR part 

199.6 to authorize reimbursement for 

interstate practice by TRICAREauthorized providers when such 

authority is consistent with State and 

Federal licensing requirements; and (3) 

32 CFR part 199.17 to eliminate 

copayments for telemedicine services. 

The changes in this rule are effective 

from the date published through the end 

of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID–19) 

pandemic. These changes reduce the 

spread of COVID–19 among TRICARE 

beneficiaries by incentivizing use of 

telemedicine services, and aid providers 

in caring for TRICARE beneficiaries by 

temporarily waiving some licensure 

requirements. 

The final rule adopts this interim final 

rule as final with changes. 

Statement of Need: Pursuant to the 

President’s health emergency 

declaration and as a result of the 

worldwide coronavirus 2019 (COVID– 

19) pandemic, the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Health Affairs hereby 

modifies the following regulations, but 

in each case, only to the extent 

necessary, as determined by the 

Director, Defense Health Agency, to 

encourage social distancing and prevent 

the spread of COVID–19 by 

incentivizing the use of telehealth 

services, and to allow TRICAREauthorized providers to care for 

TRICARE beneficiaries wherever there 

is need as a result of the consequences 

of the COVID–19 pandemic. 

The modifications to section 

199.4(g)(52) in this interim final rule 

(IFR) will allow TRICARE beneficiaries 

to obtain telephonic office visits with 

TRICARE-authorized providers for 

medically necessary care and treatment 

and allow reimbursement to those 

providers during the COVID–19 

pandemic. It provides an exception to 

the regulatory exclusion prohibiting 

audio-only telephone services. 

The modifications to section 

199.6(c)(2)(i) in this IFR will allow 

providers to be reimbursed for interstate 

practice, both in person and via 

telehealth, during the global pandemic 

so long as the provider meets the 

requirements for practicing in that State 

or under Federal law. It removes the 

requirement that the provider must be 

licensed in the State where practicing, 

even if that license is optional. For 

providers overseas, this will allow 

providers, both in person and via 

telehealth, to practice outside of the 

nation where licensed when permitted 

by the host nation. 

The modifications to section 

199.17(l)(3) will remove cost-shares and 

copayments for telehealth services for 

TRICARE Prime and Select beneficiaries 

utilizing telehealth services with an innetwork, TRICARE-authorized provider 

during the global pandemic. It adds innetwork telehealth services as a special 

cost-sharing rule to waive the 

beneficiary copay. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is 

issued under 10 U.S.C. 1073 (a)(2) 

giving authority and responsibility to 

the Secretary of Defense to administer 

the TRICARE program. 

Alternatives: 

(1) No action. 

(2) Only apply the regulatory 

modifications to COVID–19-related 

diagnoses. This was rejected because the 

effects of the COVID–19 pandemic are 

causing stress on the entire health care 

system. The regulatory modifications in 

this IFR will take the pressure off of the 

health care system by: (1) Covering 

telephone appointments with a 

TRICARE-authorized provider and 

thereby supporting social distancing 

recommendations; (2) covering 

TRICARE-authorized providers 

practicing across state lines, thereby 

increasing the overall access to medical 

care and treatment; and (3) waiving all 

copayments for in-network telehealth 

services, thereby removing the potential 

cost barrier to obtaining medical 

services remotely and inducing demand 

for these services, reducing potential 

person-to-person transmission of 

COVID–19 during medical 

appointments. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Health 

Care Costs Associated with Removing 

Copays for Telehealth. 

There are three factors that would 

increase Department of Defense (DoD) 

health care costs due to this rule. First, 

the government would lose cost-sharing 

revenue paid by beneficiaries on the 

existing level of telehealth visits. 

Second, there would be induced 

demand costs, as removal of patient 

costs will increase patient demand for 

these services. Finally, there would be 

a substitution effect, as the COVID–19 

pandemic and removal of telehealth 

cost-shares would encourage a shift 

from in-person visits, for which 

beneficiaries would pay a copay, to 

telehealth visits, which would be free to 

beneficiaries. 

The below provides a summary of the 

combined government health care and 

administrative costs of the IFR. 

SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENT COSTS OF THE PROPOSED COVID–19 TELEHEALTH IFR 

Government Healthcare Cost (HC) 3-Month scenario 6-Month scenario 9-Month scenario 

Loss of copays on existing telehealth ....................................................................... $156,949 $313,897 $470,846 

Induced demand ........................................................................................................ 117,772 235,544 353,316 

Loss of copays on in-person shifting to Telehealth .................................................. 26,673,895 48,611,002 65,459,795 

Subtotal, Government HC cost .......................................................................... 26,948,616 49,160,443 66,283,957 

Start-up administrative cost ....................................................................................... 67,494 67,494 67,494 

Total Government Cost increase ....................................................................... 27,016,110 49,227,937 66,351,451 

Beneficiary Cost Impact 

There are two types of savings for 

beneficiaries estimated here. First, 

beneficiaries would avoid the costsharing they otherwise would have paid 

on existing telehealth visits and on inperson visits that would shift to 

telehealth. It is estimated the costsharing savings to beneficiaries would 

be: $26,830,844 for a three-month 

scenario; $48,924,899 for a six-month 

scenario; and $65,930,641 for a nineVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Jan 28, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31JAP2.SGM 31JAP2

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5041 

month scenario. Second, for the share of 

historical visits that is estimated would 

shift from in-person to telehealth, 

beneficiaries would avoid travel time 

and time spent in the provider’s waiting 

room. Two parameters were considered 

in developing the estimate of the value 

of time saved for TRICARE 

beneficiaries: (1) The average amount of 

time saved per visit, and (2) a monetized 

estimate of the value of the time saved, 

based on the opportunity cost of that 

time. See the below table Estimated 

Value to Beneficiaries for the combined 

results of avoided cost-sharing and 

dollar value of saved time. 

ESTIMATED VALUE TO BENEFICIARIES

3-Month scenario 6-Month scenario 9-Month scenario 

Avoided cost-sharing ................................................................................................. $26,830,844 $48,924,899 $65,930,641 

Dollar value of time saved ......................................................................................... 17,085,995 31,089,668 41,384,466 

Total estimated value to beneficiaries ................................................................ 43,916,839 80,014,567 107,315,107 

An important value to beneficiaries 

that is not feasible to estimate but worth 

noting is the possibility that shifting 

visits from in-person to telehealth might 

reduce the risk of COVID–19 exposure, 

with all the potential benefits that could 

accompany that reduced exposure risk. 

This reduced risk of COVID–19 

exposure may also result in downstream 

reductions in cost to the TRICARE 

Program in avoided COVID–19 

diagnostics and treatment. 

Risks: None. This rule will promote 

the efficient functioning of the economy 

and markets by temporarily modifying 

regulations to ensure that actors in the 

health care market (primarily health 

care providers) will continue to be 

reimbursed despite disruption in the 

health care ecosystem by the COVID–19 

pandemic. Reimbursing providers 

despite changing licensing requirements 

and in ways that recognize the critical 

role telehealth will play in the coming 

months ensures that TRICARE supports 

not just its beneficiaries, but the 

economy in general. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 05/12/20 85 FR 27921 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

05/12/20 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

06/11/20 

Final Action ......... 02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Erica Ferron, Defense 

Health Agency, Medical Benefits and 

Reimbursement Division, Department of 

Defense, Office of Assistant Secretary 

for Health Affairs, 16401 E Centretech 

Parkway, Aurora, CO 80011–9066, 

Phone: 303 676–3626, Email: 

erica.c.ferron.civ@mail.mil. 

RIN: 0720–AB81 

DOD—DODOASHA 

28. Tricare Coverage of Certain Medical 

Benefits in Response to the Covid–19 

Pandemic 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 

U.S.C. ch. 55 

CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Defense 

is finalizing an interim final rule that 

temporarily amended 32 CFR part 199 

to revise certain elements of the 

TRICARE program under 32 CFR part 

199 to: (1) Waive the three-day prior 

hospital qualifying stay requirement for 

coverage of skilled nursing facility care; 

(2) add coverage for treatment use of 

investigational drugs under expanded 

access authorized by the United States 

(U.S.) Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) when for the treatment of 

coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19); 

(3) waive certain provisions for acute 

care hospitals that permitted 

authorization of temporary hospital 

facilities and freestanding ambulatory 

surgical centers providing inpatient and 

outpatient hospital services; and, 

consistent with similar changes under 

the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare 

Services; (4) revise diagnosis related 

group (DRG) reimbursement by 

temporarily reimbursing DRGs at a 20 

percent higher rate for COVID–19 

patients; and (5) waive certain 

requirements for long term care 

hospitals. The final action permanently 

adopts Medicare’s New Technology 

Add-On Payments adjustment to DRGs 

for new medical services and 

technologies and adopted Medicare’s 

Hospital Value Based Purchasing 

Program. 

The final rule adopts the interim final 

rule with changes, except for the note to 

section 199.4(g)(15)(i)(A), published at 

85 FR 54923, September 3, 2020, which 

remains interim. 

Statement of Need: Pursuant to the 

President’s emergency declaration and 

as a result of the worldwide coronavirus 

disease 2019 (COVID–19) pandemic, the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Health Affairs is temporarily modifying 

the following regulations, but in each 

case, only to the extent necessary to 

ensure that TRICARE beneficiaries have 

access to the most up-to-date care 

required for the diagnosis and treatment 

of COVID–19, and that TRICARE 

continues to reimburse like Medicare, to 

the extent practicable, as required by 

statute. 

The modification to paragraph 

199.4(b)(3)(xiv) waives the requirement 

for a minimum three-day prior hospital 

stay, not including leave day, for 

coverage of a skilled nursing facility 

admission. This provision reduces stress 

on acute care hospitals. 

The modification to paragraph 

199.4(g)(15) permits cost-sharing of 

investigational new drugs (INDs). This 

provision also increases access to 

emerging therapies. 

The modification to paragraph 

199.6(b)(4)(i) waives certain provisions 

for acute care hospitals that will permit 

authorization of temporary hospital 

facilities and freestanding ambulatory 

surgical centers. This provision 

supports increased access to acute care. 

The modifications to paragraph 

199.14(a)(1)(iii)(E) increase the 

diagnosis related group (DRG) amount 

by 20 percent for an individual 

diagnosed with COVID–19 and adopt 

Medicare’s New Technology Add-On 

Payments (NTAPs) and Hospital ValueBased Purchasing (HVBP) Program. 

These provisions support the 

requirement that TRICARE reimburse 

like Medicare. The NTAPs and HVBP 

Program are adopted permanently. 

The modification to paragraph 

199.14(a)(9) waives site neutral payment 

provisions by reimbursing all long-term 

care hospitals (LTCHs) at the standard 

federal rate for claims. This provision 

supports the requirement that TRICARE 

reimburse like Medicare. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is 

issued under 10 U.S.C. 1073 (a)(2) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5042 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

giving authority and responsibility to 

the Secretary of Defense to administer 

the TRICARE program. 

Alternatives: 

(1) No action. 

(2) The second alternative the 

Department of Defense considered was 

implementing a more limited benefit 

change for COVID–19 patients by not 

covering treatment INDs. While this 

would have the benefit of reimbursing 

only care that has more established 

evidence in its favor, this alternative is 

not preferred because early access to 

treatments is critical for TRICARE 

beneficiaries given the rapid progression 

of the disease and the lack of available 

approved treatments. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Health 

Care and Administrative Costs. 

The cost estimates related to the 

changes discussed in this Interim Final 

Rule (IFR) include incremental health 

care cost increases as well as 

administrative costs to the government. 

The duration of the COVID–19 national 

emergency and Health and Human 

Services Public Health Emergency (PHE) 

are uncertain, resulting in a range of 

estimates for each provision in this IFR. 

Cost estimates are provided for an 

approximate nine-month (ending 12/31/ 

2020) and eighteen-month scenario 

(ending 9/30/2021). The nine-month 

and 18-month periods would be longer 

for those provisions applicable 

beginning in January of this year, and 

shorter for those effective the date this 

IFR publishes. The terms nine-month 

and 18-month period are used 

throughout this estimate for the sake of 

simplicity. 

The cost estimates consider whether 

the outbreak will have more than one 

active stage. The first active stage is 

considered to be March through August 

2020, based on the Institutes for Health 

Metrics and Evaluation data as of May 

12, 2020 (https://covid19.healthdata.

org/united-states-of-america). A twowave scenario would have a second 

stage in winter/spring 2021, while a 

three-wave scenario would have 

additional waves from September 2020 

to December 2020 and from January 

2021 to June 2021. 

Based on these factors, we estimate 

that the total cost estimate for this IFR 

will be between $43.6M and $59.4M for 

a nine-month period, and $66.3M to 

$82.1M for an 18-month period. This 

estimate includes just over $1M in 

administrative start-up costs and no 

ongoing administrative costs. The 

primary cost drivers in this analysis are 

the reimbursement changes being 

adopted under the statutory requirement 

that TRICARE reimburse like Medicare; 

that is, the 20 percent DRG increase for 

COVID–19 patients, the adoption of 

NTAPs and HVBP, and the waiver of 

LTCH site neutral payment reductions. 

A breakdown of costs, by provision, is 

provided in the below table. A 

discussion of assumptions follows. 

Provision Nine-month 

scenario 

Eighteenmonth 

scenario 

Paragraph 199.4(b)(3)(xiv) SNF Three-Day Prior Stay Waiver .............................................................................. $0.3M $0.6M 

Paragraph 199.4(g)(15)(A) INDs for COVID–19 ..................................................................................................... 0.7M–2.2M 2.7M–4.2M 

Paragraph 199.6(b)(4)(i) Temporary Hospitals and Freestanding ASCs Registering as Hospitals ....................... 0M 0M 

Paragraph 199.14(a)(1)(iii)(E)(2) 20 Percent DRG Increase for COVID–19 Patients ............................................ 27.7M–42M 37.1M–51.4M 

Paragraph 199.14(a)(1)(iii)(E)(5) NTAPs ................................................................................................................. 5.7M 11.6M 

Paragraph 199.14(a)(1)(iii)(E)(6) HVBP .................................................................................................................. 2.5M 2.5M 

Paragraph 199.14(a)(9) LTCH Site Neutral Payments ........................................................................................... 5.6M 10.6M 

Administrative Costs ................................................................................................................................................ 1.1M 1.2M 

Estimated Total Cost Impact ............................................................................................................................ 43.6M–59.4M 66.3M–82.1M 

Benefits to the TRICARE Program 

Depending on the impact of certain 

provisions of this IFR, some cost savings 

could be achieved from a reduction in 

hospitalization rates (i.e., use of 

treatment INDs), estimated from no 

savings to $40M over 18 months. The 

amount of cost-savings achieved will be 

determined by the therapies developed, 

how widespread their usage is, the 

extent to which the therapies are 

authorized as treatment INDs, the 

effectiveness of the therapies in 

reducing hospitalizations and/or the use 

of mechanical ventilators, and how long 

the therapies remain as INDs before 

transitioning to United States Food and 

Drug Administration-approval, 

clearance, or emergency use 

authorization. 

Any benefits achieved in reduced 

hospitalizations and/or mechanical 

ventilator use are also benefits to 

TRICARE beneficiaries, for whom 

avoidance of more serious COVID–19 

illness is of paramount concern. While 

we cannot estimate the value of this 

avoidance in quantitative figures, the 

potential long-term consequences of a 

serious COVID–19 illness, including 

permanent cardiac or lung damage, are 

not insignificant. If beneficiaries are 

able to access emerging therapies that 

prevent long-term consequences 

(including death), this will be a benefit 

to the beneficiary. 

The largest creators of costs under this 

IFR (reimbursement changes) are not 

anticipated or intended to create any 

cost savings. However, these changes 

will benefit TRICARE institutional 

providers and take stress off the entire 

health care system by ensuring adequate 

reimbursement during the PHE, at a 

time during which hospitals are losing 

revenue due to reduced elective 

procedures and patients who delay care 

due to fears of contracting COVID–19 

during health care encounters. Ensuring 

a robust health care system is of benefit 

to our beneficiaries and the general 

public, particularly in rural or 

underserved areas, even though this 

benefit is not quantifiable. 

Risks: 

None. This rule will promote the 

efficient functioning of the economy 

and markets by modifying the 

regulations to better reimburse health 

care providers for care provided during 

the COVID–19 pandemic, particularly as 

strain on the health care economy is 

being felt due to reductions in higher 

cost elective procedures. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 09/03/20 85 FR 54915 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

09/03/20 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

11/02/20 

Final Action ......... 02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Erica Ferron, Defense 

Health Agency, Medical Benefits and 

Reimbursement Division, Department of 

Defense, Office of Assistant Secretary 

for Health Affairs, 16401 E Centretech 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5043 

Parkway, Aurora, CO 80011–9066, 

Phone: 303 676–3626, Email: 

erica.c.ferron.civ@mail.mil. 

RIN: 0720–AB82 

DOD—DODOASHA 

29. TRICARE Coverage of National 

Institute of Allergy and Infectious 

Disease Coronavirus Disease 2019 

Clinical Trials 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 

U.S.C. ch 55 

CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Defense 

is finalizing an interim final rule that 

temporarily amended 32 CFR 199 to 

revise certain elements of the TRICARE 

program, to add coverage for National 

Institute of Allergy and Infectious 

Disease-sponsored clinical trials for the 

treatment or prevention of coronavirus 

disease 2019 (COVID–19). 

Statement of Need: Pursuant to the 

President’s national emergency 

declaration and as a result of the 

worldwide COVID–19 pandemic, the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Health Affairs hereby temporarily 

modifies the regulation at 32 CFR 

199.4(e)(26) to permit TRICARE 

coverage for National Institute of 

Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID)- 

sponsored COVID–19 phase I, II, III, and 

IV clinical trials for the treatment or 

prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 

(COVID–19). This provision supports 

increased access to emerging therapies 

for TRICARE beneficiaries. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is 

issued under 10 U.S.C. 1079 giving 

authority and responsibility to the 

Secretary of Defense to administer the 

TRICARE program. 

Alternatives: 

(1) No action. 

(2) The second alternative the DoD 

considered was implementing a more 

limited benefit change for COVID–19 

patients by not covering phase I clinical 

trials. Although this would have the 

benefit of reimbursing only care that has 

more established evidence in its favor, 

this alternative is not preferred because 

early access to treatments is critical for 

TRICARE beneficiaries given the rapid 

progression of the disease and the lack 

of available approved treatments. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Costs: We estimate the total cost for 

TRICARE participation in NIAIDsponsored COVID–19 clinical trials will 

be $3.2M for the duration of the national 

emergency, with an additional $4.0M 

for continued care for beneficiaries 

enrolled in clinical trials prior to 

termination of the national emergency. 

There were several assumptions we 

made in developing this estimate. The 

duration of the COVID–19 national 

emergency is uncertain; however, for 

the purposes of this estimate, we 

assumed the national emergency would 

expire on September 30, 2021. As of the 

drafting of this IFR, there were 27 

NIAID-sponsored COVID–19 clinical 

trials begun since the start of the 

national emergency. We assumed 6.2 

new trials every 30 days, for a total of 

126 trials by September 2021. We 

assumed, based on average trial 

enrollment and that TRICARE 

beneficiaries would participate in trials 

at the same rate as the general 

population, that 4,549 TRICARE 

beneficiaries would participate through 

September 2021. Each of the 

assumptions in this estimate is highly 

uncertain, and our estimate could be 

higher or lower depending on real world 

events (more or fewer trials, a longer or 

shorter national emergency, and/or 

higher or lower participation in clinical 

trials by TRICARE beneficiaries). 

Benefits: These changes expand the 

therapies available to TRICARE 

beneficiaries in settings that ensure 

informed consent of the beneficiary, and 

where the benefits of treatment 

outweigh the potential risks. 

Participation in clinical trials may 

provide beneficiaries with benefits such 

as reduced hospitalizations and/or use 

of a mechanical ventilator. Although we 

cannot estimate the value of avoiding 

these outcomes quantitatively, the 

potential long-term consequences of 

serious COVID–19 illness, including 

permanent cardiac or lung damage, are 

not insignificant. Beneficiary access to 

emerging therapies that reduce these 

long-term consequences or even death 

can be considered to be high-value for 

those able to participate. 

TRICARE providers will be positively 

affected by being able to provide their 

patients with a broader range of 

treatment options. The general public 

will benefit from an increased pool of 

available participants for the 

development of treatments and vaccines 

for COVID–19, as well as the evidence 

(favorable or otherwise) that results 

from this participation. 

Risks: None. This rule will not 

directly affect the efficient functioning 

of the economy or private markets. 

However, increasing the pool of 

available participants for clinical trials 

may help speed the development of 

treatments or vaccines for COVID–19. 

Once effective treatments or vaccines for 

COVID–19 exist, individuals are likely 

to be more confident interacting in the 

public sphere, resulting in a positive 

impact on the economy and private 

markets. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 10/30/20 85 FR 68753 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

10/30/20 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

11/30/20 

Final Action ......... 06/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Erica Ferron, Defense 

Health Agency, Medical Benefits and 

Reimbursement Division, Department of 

Defense, Office of Assistant Secretary 

for Health Affairs, 16401 E Centretech 

Parkway, Aurora, CO 80011–9066, 

Phone: 303 676–3626, Email: 

erica.c.ferron.civ@mail.mil. 

RIN: 0720–AB83 

DOD—DODOASHA 

30. Expanding TRICARE Access to Care 

in Response to the COVID–19 Pandemic 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 

U.S.C. ch. 55 

CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This interim final rule with 

comment will temporarily amend the 

TRICARE regulation at 32 CFR part 199 

by: (1) Adding freestanding End Stage 

Renal Disease facilities as a category of 

TRICARE-authorized institutional 

provider and modifying the 

reimbursement for such facilities; (2) 

adding coronavirus 2019 (COVID–19) 

Immunizers who are not otherwise an 

eligible TRICARE-authorized provider 

as providers eligible for reimbursement 

for COVID–19 vaccines and vaccine 

administration; (3) and adopting 

Medicare New COVID–19 Treatments 

Add-on Payments (NTCAPs). 

Statement of Need: Pursuant to the 

President’s emergency declaration and 

as a result of the COVID–19 pandemic, 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Health Affairs is temporarily modifying 

the following regulations (except for the 

modifications to paragraphs 

199.6(b)(4)(xxi) and 

199.14(a)(1)(iii)(E)(7), which will not 

expire), but, in each case, only to the 

extent necessary to ensure that 

TRICARE beneficiaries have access to 

the most up-to-date care required for the 

prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5044 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

COVID–19, and that TRICARE continues 

to reimburse like Medicare, to the extent 

practicable, as required by statute. 

The modifications to paragraphs 

199.6(b)(4)(xxi) and 

199.14(a)(1)(iii)(E)(7) establish 

freestanding End Stage Renal Disease 

(ESRD) facilities as a category of 

TRICARE-authorized institutional 

provider and modify TRICARE 

reimbursement of freestanding ESRD 

facilities. These provisions will improve 

TRICARE beneficiary access to 

medically necessary dialysis and other 

ESRD services and supplies. These 

provisions also support the requirement 

that TRICARE reimburse like Medicare, 

and will help to alleviate regional health 

care shortages due to the COVID–19 

pandemic by ensuring access to dialysis 

care in freestanding ESRD facilities 

rather than hospital outpatient 

departments. 

The modification to paragraph 

199.14(a)(iii)(E) adopts Medicare’s New 

COVID–19 Treatments Add-on Payment 

(NCTAP) for COVID–19 cases that meet 

Medicare’s criteria. This provision 

increases access to emerging COVID–19 

treatments and supports the 

requirement that TRICARE reimburse 

like Medicare. 

The modification to paragraph 

199.6(d)(7) adds providers who 

administer COVID–19 vaccinations, but 

are not otherwise authorized under 

199.6, as TRICARE-authorized 

providers. This provision increases 

access to COVID–19 vaccinations. This 

provision increases access to COVID–19 

vaccines for eligible TRICARE 

beneficiaries and supports the United 

States (U.S.) public health goal of 

ending the COVID–19 pandemic. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is 

issued under 10 U.S.C. 1073(a)(2) giving 

authority and responsibility to the 

Secretary of Defense to administer the 

TRICARE program. 

Alternatives: 

(1) No action. 

(2) The second alternative the 

Department of Defense considered was 

to adopt Medicare’s ESRD 

reimbursement methodology, the ESRD 

Prospective Payment System (PPS), in 

total. While this would have been 

completely consistent with the statutory 

provision to pay institutional providers 

using the same reimbursement 

methodology as Medicare, this 

alternative is not preferred because 

there is still a relatively low volume of 

TRICARE beneficiaries who receive 

dialysis services from freestanding 

ESRDs and who are not enrolled to 

Medicare. The cost of implementing the 

full ESRD PPS system is estimated to be 

at least $600,000.00 in start-up costs, 

plus ongoing administrative costs, to 

ensure all adjustments were made for 

each claim, plus additional special 

pricing software or algorithms. In 

contrast, we estimate that the option 

provided in this IFR can be 

implemented relatively quickly (within 

six months of publication), and for 

approximately $300,000.00 in start-up 

costs with lower ongoing administrative 

costs. Further, the flat rate will provide 

the ESRD facilities with predictability 

with regard to TRICARE payments and 

will reduce uncertainty and specialized 

coding or case-mix documentation 

requirements that may be required by 

the ESRD PPS, reducing the 

administrative burden on the provider. 

To summarize, adopting the ESRD 

PPS was considered, but was deemed 

impracticable and overly burdensome to 

both the Government and providers due 

to the relative low volume of claims that 

will be priced and paid by TRICARE as 

primary under this system. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Health 

Care and Administrative Costs. 

The Independent Cost A by Kennell 

and Associates, Inc., estimates a total of 

$6.8M. Only the ESRD provisions are 

expected to result in recurring 

incremental health care costs; the 

remaining two provisions are expected 

to result in one-time cost increases. For 

these temporary changes to the 

regulation, our cost estimate assumes 

that the majority of adults in the U.S. 

will be vaccinated by September 2021, 

based on the most recent information 

provided by Federal and state agencies, 

and, as a result, that the President’s 

emergency declaration and the public 

health emergency relating to the 

COVID–19 pandemic will end by 

September 2021. While this estimate 

would have the President’s emergency 

declaration end shortly after publication 

of the rule, the COVID–19 pandemic 

contains substantial uncertainty 

including the possibility of a virus 

variant resistant to current vaccines. As 

such, we find it appropriate to make 

these regulatory changes despite the 

potential short effective period, as the 

end of the pandemic is by no means a 

certainty. 

Based on these factors, as well as the 

assumptions for each provision detailed 

below, we estimate that the total cost 

estimate for this Interim Final Rule (IFR) 

will be approximately $6.8M. This 

estimate includes approximately $0.9M 

in administrative costs and $5.9M in 

direct health care costs. $1.8M of the 

total cost impact is expected to be a onetime start-up cost for both the temporary 

and permanent provisions, while the 

permanent ESRD provisions are 

expected to result in $5M in 

incremental annual costs. 

A breakdown of costs, by provision, is 

provided in the below table. 

Provision Costs 

Add Freestanding ESRD Facilities as TRICARE-Authorized Institutional Providers and Modify ESRD Reimbursement ................. $5.3M 

Temporarily Authorize Immunizers Providing COVID–19 Vaccines ................................................................................................... 0.4M 

Temporarily Adopt DRG Add-On Payment for NCTAPs ..................................................................................................................... 1.1M 

Estimated Total Cost Impact ........................................................................................................................................................ 6.8M 

Risks: None. This rule will promote 

the efficient functioning of the economy 

and markets by modifying the 

regulations to better reimburse health 

care providers for care provided during 

the COVID–19 pandemic, particularly as 

strain on the health care economy is 

being felt due to reductions in higher 

cost elective procedures. Additionally, 

this rule will increase the access of 

TRICARE beneficiaries to more 

providers administering COVID–19 

vaccinations, which promotes the 

efficient functioning of the U.S. 

economy by quickening the pace at 

which the public receives COVID–19 

vaccinations. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 11/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Jahanbakhsh 

Badshah, Healthcare Program 

Specialist—Reimbursement, Department 

of Defense, Office of Assistant Secretary 

for Health Affairs, 16401 E. Centretech 

Parkway, Aurora, CO 80011, Phone: 303 

676–3881, Email: 

jahanbakhsh.badshah.civ@mail.mil. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5045 

RIN: 0720–AB85 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Department of Education 

(Department) supports States, local 

communities, institutions of higher 

education, and families in improving 

education and other services nationwide 

to ensure that all Americans, including 

those with disabilities and who have 

been underserved, receive a high-quality 

and safe education and are prepared for 

employment that provides a livable 

wage. We provide leadership and 

financial assistance pertaining to 

education and related services at all 

levels to a wide range of stakeholders 

and individuals, including State 

educational and other agencies, local 

school districts, providers of early 

learning programs, elementary and 

secondary schools, institutions of higher 

education, career and technical schools, 

nonprofit organizations, students, 

members of the public, families, and 

many others. These efforts are helping 

to advance equity, recover from the 

COVID–19 pandemic, and ensure that 

all children and students from prekindergarten through grade 12 will be 

ready for, and succeed in, 

postsecondary education, and 

employment, and that students 

attending postsecondary institutions, or 

participating in other postsecondary 

education options, are prepared for a 

profession or career. 

We also vigorously monitor and 

enforce the implementation of Federal 

civil rights laws in educational 

programs and activities that receive 

Federal financial assistance from the 

Department, and support innovative and 

promising programs, research and 

evaluation activities, technical 

assistance, and the dissemination of 

data, research, and evaluation findings 

to improve the quality of education. 

Overall, the laws, regulations, and 

programs that the Department 

administers will affect nearly every 

American during his or her life. Indeed, 

in the 2020–21 school year, about 56 

million students attended an estimated 

131,000 elementary and secondary 

schools in approximately 13,600 

districts, and about 20 million students 

were enrolled in postsecondary schools. 

Many of these students may benefit 

from some degree of financial assistance 

or support from the Department. 

In developing and implementing 

regulations, guidance, technical 

assistance, evaluations, data gathering 

and reporting, and monitoring related to 

our programs, we are committed to 

working closely with affected persons 

and groups. Our core mission includes 

serving the most vulnerable, and 

facilitating equal access for all, to ensure 

all students receive a high-quality and 

safe education, and complete it with a 

well-considered and attainable path to a 

sustainable career. Toward these ends, 

we work with a broad range of 

interested parties and the general 

public, including families, students, and 

educators; State, local, and Tribal 

governments; other Federal agencies; 

and neighborhood groups, communitybased early learning programs, 

elementary and secondary schools, 

postsecondary institutions, 

rehabilitation service providers, adult 

education providers, professional 

associations, civil rights, nonprofits, 

advocacy organizations, businesses, and 

labor organizations. 

If we determine that it is necessary to 

develop regulations, we seek public 

participation at the key stages in the 

rulemaking process. We invite the 

public to submit comments on all 

proposed regulations through the 

internet or by regular mail. We also 

continue to seek greater public 

participation in our rulemaking 

activities through the use of transparent 

and interactive rulemaking procedures 

and new technologies. 

To facilitate the public’s involvement, 

we participate in the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS), an 

electronic single Government-wide 

access point (www.regulations.gov) that 

enables the public to submit comments 

on different types of Federal regulatory 

documents and read and respond to 

comments submitted by other members 

of the public during the public comment 

period. This system provides the public 

with the opportunity to submit 

comments electronically on any notice 

of proposed rulemaking or interim final 

regulations open for comment as well as 

read and print any supporting 

regulatory documents. 

II. Regulatory Priorities 

The following are the key rulemaking 

actions the Department is planning for 

the coming year. These rulemaking 

actions advance the Department’s 

mission of ‘‘promot[ing] student 

achievement and preparation for global 

competitiveness by fostering 

educational excellence and ensuring 

equal access.’’ These rulemaking actions 

also advance the President’s priorities of 

ensuring that every American has access 

to a high-quality education, regardless 

of background, and that government 

should affirmatively work to expand 

educational opportunities for 

underserved communities. During his 

first year in office, the President has 

repeatedly made clear the importance of 

advancing equity and opportunity for 

those who have historically been 

underserved, both as a general matter 

and with regard to the education system 

in particular. See Executive Order 13985 

(On Advancing Racial Equity and 

Support for Underserved Communities 

Through the Federal Government); 

Executive Order 14021 (Guaranteeing an 

Educational Environment Free From 

Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, 

Including Sexual Orientation or Gender 

Identity); Executive Order 14041 (White 

House Initiative on Advancing 

Educational Equity, Excellence, and 

Economic Opportunity Through 

Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities); Executive Order 14045 

(White House Initiative on Advancing 

Educational Equity, Excellence, and 

Economic Opportunity for Hispanics); 

Executive Order 14049 (White House 

Initiative on Advancing Educational 

Equity, Excellence, and Economic 

Opportunity for Native Americans and 

Strengthening Tribal Colleges and 

Universities); and Executive Order 

14050 (White House Initiative on 

Advancing Educational Equity, 

Excellence, and Economic Opportunity 

for Black Americans). The rulemaking 

actions on the Department’s agenda seek 

to advance the President’s priorities, as 

set out in these executive orders and 

more broadly. The rules below cover a 

wide range of topics, and a wide range 

of educational institutions—from those 

serving our youngest children to 

colleges, universities, and adult 

education programs. In each of these 

contexts, promoting equity and 

opportunity for students who have been 

historically underserved is central to the 

Department’s regulatory plan. 

These key rulemakings include Public 

Service Loan Forgiveness, Income 

Contingent Repayment, Improving 

Student Loan Cancellation Authorities, 

Pell Grants for Prison Education 

Programs, State-Defined Processes for 

Ability to Benefit, and Civil Rights, such 

as Title IX Nondiscrimination on the 

Basis of Sex in Education Program or 

Activities Receiving Federal Financial 

Assistance. For example, the Pell Grants 

for Prison Education Programs rule 

would support increased educational 

opportunities for individuals who are 

incarcerated and provide quality 

options for individuals in this 

underserved community. Additionally, 

the Income Contingent Repayment rule 

would make student loan payments 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5046 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

more affordable for borrowers, with a 

particular goal of helping increase 

educational opportunities for many lowincome borrowers. The Department has 

also dispersed billions of dollars in 

funding during the COVID–19 pandemic 

to address inequities exacerbated by the 

pandemic, which targets resources to 

historically underserved groups of 

students and those students most 

impacted by the pandemic through the 

American Rescue Plan and other relief 

efforts. 

For rulemakings that we are just 

beginning now, we have limited 

information about their potential costs 

and benefits. We note that some policies 

that were previously included in the 

Spring Unified Agenda, such as policies 

impacting the magnet schools and 

charter school programs, are still part of 

the Department’s plans but do not 

require regulation and, therefore, are not 

included as items in the Fall regulatory 

agenda or in this regulatory plan. We 

have also identified the Innovative 

Assessment Demonstration Authority 

(IADA) rulemaking as a long-term action 

because we are waiting for the 

forthcoming progress report on the 

initial demonstration authority to 

inform any potential regulatory 

proposal. 

Postsecondary Education/Federal 

Student Aid 

The Department’s upcoming higher 

education regulatory efforts include the 

following areas: 

• Public Service Loan Forgiveness 

• Borrower Defense to Repayment 

• Improving Student Loan Cancellation 

Authorities 

• Income Contingent Repayment 

• Pell Grants for Prison Education 

Programs 

• Gainful Employment 

• 90/10 rule 

These areas are focused on several 

general areas which include improving 

the rules governing student loan 

repayment and targeted student loan 

cancellation authorities and protecting 

students and taxpayers from poorperforming programs, among other 

topics. These rulemakings reflect the 

Department’s commitment to serving 

students and borrowers well and 

protecting them from harmful programs 

and practices that may derail their 

postsecondary and career goals. 

Through these regulatory efforts, the 

Department plans to address gaps in 

postsecondary outcomes, particularly 

those related to student loan repayment, 

affordability, and default. The 

Department is also focused on the 

disparate impacts by income, race/ 

ethnicity, gender, disability status, and 

other demographic characteristics that 

may affect students’ postsecondary and 

career goals. For its higher education 

rulemakings, generally the Department 

uses a negotiated rulemaking process. 

We have selected participants for the 

negotiated rulemaking committees from 

nominees of the organizations and 

groups that represent the interests 

significantly affected by the proposed 

regulations. To the extent possible, we 

selected nominees who reflect the 

diversity among program participants. 

Specifically, the Department is 

currently conducting negotiated 

rulemaking addressing, among other 

things, student loan repayment and 

targeted student loan discharges by 

improving Public Service Loan 

Forgiveness, Borrower Defense to 

Repayment, and other targeted student 

loan cancellation authorities. On 

Income Contingent Repayment, the 

Department plans to create or adjust an 

income-contingent repayment plan that 

would allow borrowers to more easily 

afford their student loan payments. For 

Public Service Loan Forgiveness, the 

Department plans to streamline the 

process for receiving loan forgiveness 

after 10 years of qualifying payments on 

qualifying loans while engaging in 

public service. For Borrower Defense, 

the Secretary plans to amend the 

regulations that specify the acts or 

omissions of an institution of higher 

education that a borrower may assert as 

a defense to repayment of a loan made 

under the Federal Direct Loan Program. 

In Improving Student Loan Cancellation 

Authorities, the Department plans to 

propose improvements in areas where 

Congress has provided borrowers with 

relief or benefits related to Federal 

student loans. This includes authorities 

granted under the Higher Education Act 

(HEA) that allow the Department to 

cancel loans for borrowers who meet 

certain criteria, such as having a total 

and permanent disability, attending a 

school that closed, or having been 

falsely certified for a student loan. For 

these borrowers, the Secretary plans to 

amend the regulations relating to 

borrower eligibility and streamline 

application requirements and the 

application and certification processes. 

To increase access to educational 

opportunities, the Department also 

plans to propose regulations that would 

guide correctional facilities and eligible 

institutions of higher education that 

seek to establish eligibility for the Pell 

Grant program for individuals who are 

incarcerated. 

The Department also plans to conduct 

negotiated rulemaking on Gainful 

Employment and how to determine the 

amount of Federal educational 

assistance received by institutions of 

higher education through 

implementation of the 90/10 rule. For 

Gainful Employment, the Department 

plans to propose regulations on program 

eligibility under the HEA, including 

regulations that determine whether 

postsecondary educational programs 

prepare students for gainful 

employment in recognized occupations, 

and the conditions under which 

programs remain eligible for student 

financial assistance programs under title 

IV of the HEA. On the 90/10 rule, in 

response to changes to the HEA made by 

the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, 

the Department plans to amend 

provisions governing whether 

proprietary institutions meet 

requirements that institutions receive at 

least 10 percent of their revenue from 

sources other than Federal education 

assistance funds. 

Civil Rights/Title IX 

The Secretary is planning a new 

rulemaking to amend its regulations 

implementing Title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972, as amended, 

consistent with the priorities of the 

Biden-Harris Administration. These 

priorities include those set forth in 

Executive Order 13988 on Preventing 

and Combating Discrimination on the 

Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual 

Orientation and Executive Order 14021 

on Guaranteeing an Educational 

Environment Free from Discrimination 

on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual 

Orientation and Gender Identity. 

Student Privacy 

The Department is considering policy 

options to amend the Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act 

(FERPA) regulations, to update, clarify, 

and improve the current regulations. 

The proposed regulations are also 

needed to implement statutory 

amendments to FERPA contained in the 

Uninterrupted Scholars Act of 2013 and 

the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 

2010, to reflect a change in the name of 

the office designated to administer 

FERPA, and to make changes related to 

the enforcement responsibilities of the 

office concerning FERPA. 

COVID–19 Regulations 

As part of the Biden-Harris 

Administration’s efforts to combat 

COVID–19, safely reopen and support 

schools, and implement the American 

Rescue Plan Act (ARP), the Department 

has issued: Interim final requirements to 

promote accountability, transparency, 

and the effective use of ARP Elementary 

and Secondary School Emergency Relief 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5047 

Funds; a request for information 

regarding implementation of the 

statutory requirements for ARP’s 

maintenance of equity (a first-of-its-kind 

requirement to protect schools and 

districts serving students from lowincome backgrounds from harmful 

budget cuts); final requirements to 

clarify the requirements applicable to 

the ARP Emergency Assistance to NonPublic Schools program; amended 

regulations so that an institution of 

higher education (IHE) may 

appropriately determine which 

individuals currently or previously 

enrolled at an institution are eligible to 

receive emergency financial aid grants 

to students under the Higher Education 

Emergency Relief programs; and a final 

rule regarding the allocations to 

Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities (HBCUs) awarded under 

section 314(a)(2) of the Coronavirus 

Response and Relief Supplemental 

Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA). 

III. Principles for Regulating 

Over the next year, we may need to 

issue other regulations because of new 

legislation or programmatic changes. In 

doing so, we will follow the Principles 

for Regulating, which determine when 

and how we will regulate. Through 

consistent application of those 

principles, we have eliminated 

unnecessary regulations and identified 

situations in which major programs 

could be implemented without 

regulations or with limited regulatory 

action. 

In deciding when to regulate, we 

consider the following: 

• Whether regulations are essential to 

promote quality and equality of 

opportunity in education. 

• Whether a demonstrated problem 

cannot be resolved without regulation. 

• Whether regulations are necessary 

to provide a legally binding 

interpretation to resolve ambiguity. 

• Whether entities or situations 

subject to regulation are similar enough 

that a uniform approach through 

regulation would be meaningful and do 

more good than harm. 

• Whether regulations are needed to 

protect the Federal interest, that is, to 

ensure that Federal funds are used for 

their intended purpose and to eliminate 

fraud, waste, and abuse. 

In deciding how to regulate, we are 

mindful of the following principles: 

• Regulate no more than necessary. 

• Minimize burden to the extent 

possible and promote multiple 

approaches to meeting statutory 

requirements if possible. 

• Encourage coordination of federally 

funded activities with State and local 

reform activities. 

• Ensure that the benefits justify the 

costs of regulating. 

• To the extent possible, establish 

performance objectives rather than 

specify the behavior or manner of 

compliance a regulated entity must 

adopt. 

• Encourage flexibility, to the extent 

possible and as needed to enable 

institutional forces to achieve desired 

results. 

ED—OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS (OCR) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

31. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Sex in Education Programs or Activities 

Receiving Federal Financial Assistance 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 34 CFR 106. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department plans to 

propose to amend its regulations 

implementing Title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et 

seq., consistent with the priorities of the 

Biden-Harris Administration. These 

priorities include those set forth in 

Executive Order 13988 on Preventing 

and Combating Discrimination on the 

Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual 

Orientation and Executive Order 14021 

on Guaranteeing an Educational 

Environment Free from Discrimination 

on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual 

Orientation and Gender Identity. We 

anticipate this rulemaking may include, 

but would not be limited to, 

amendments to 34 CFR 106.8 

(Designation of coordinator, 

dissemination of policy, and adoption of 

grievance procedures), 106.30 

(Definitions), 106.44 (Recipient’s 

response to sexual harassment), and 

106.45 (Grievance process for formal 

complaints of sexual harassment). 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is 

necessary to align the Title IX 

regulations with the priorities of the 

Biden-Harris Administration, including 

those set forth in the Executive Order on 

Preventing and Combating 

Discrimination on the Basis of Gender 

Identity or Sexual Orientation (E.O. 

13988) and the Executive Order on 

Guaranteeing an Educational 

Environment Free from Discrimination 

on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual 

Orientation and Gender Identity (E.O. 

14021). 

Summary of Legal Basis: We are 

conducting this rulemaking under 20 

U.S.C. 1681 et seq. 

Alternatives: We have limited 

information about the alternatives at 

this time. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We 

have limited information about the 

anticipated costs and benefits at this 

time. 

Risks: We have limited information 

about the risks at this time. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Anne Hoogstraten, 

Department of Education, Office for 

Civil Rights, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room PCP–6148, Washington, DC 

20202, Phone: 202 245–7466, Email: 

anne.hoogstraten@ed.gov. 

RIN: 1870–AA16 

ED—OFFICE OF PLANNING, 

EVALUATION AND POLICY 

DEVELOPMENT (OPEPD) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

32. Family Educational Rights and 

Privacy Act 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g; 20 

U.S.C. 1221e–3; 20 U.S.C. 3474 

CFR Citation: 34 CFR 99. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department plans to 

propose to amend the Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act 

(FERPA) regulations, 34 CFR part 99, to 

update, clarify, and improve the current 

regulations by addressing outstanding 

policy issues, such as clarifying the 

definition of ‘‘education records’’ and 

clarifying provisions regarding 

disclosures to comply with a judicial 

order or subpoena. The proposed 

regulations are also needed to 

implement statutory amendments to 

FERPA contained in the Uninterrupted 

Scholars Act of 2013 and the Healthy, 

Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, to reflect 

a change in the name of the office 

designated to administer FERPA, and to 

make changes related to the 

enforcement responsibilities of the 

office concerning FERPA. 

Statement of Need: These regulations 

are needed to implement amendments 

to FERPA contained in the Healthy, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5048 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 

111296) and the Uninterrupted Scholars 

Act (USA) of 2013 (Pub. L. 112278); to 

provide needed clarity regarding the 

definitions of terms and other key 

provisions of FERPA; and to make 

necessary changes identified as a result 

of the Department’s experience 

administering FERPA and the current 

regulations. A number of the proposed 

changes reflect the Department’s 

existing guidance and interpretations of 

FERPA. 

Summary of Legal Basis: These 

regulations are being issued under the 

authority provided in 20 U.S.C. 1221e– 

3, 20 U.S.C. 3474, and 20 U.S.C. 1232g. 

Alternatives: These are discussed in 

the preamble to the proposed 

regulations. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These 

are discussed in the preamble to the 

proposed regulations. 

Risks: These are discussed in the 

preamble to the proposed regulations. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Dale King, 

Department of Education, Office of 

Planning, Evaluation and Policy 

Development, 400 Maryland Avenue 

SW, Room 6C100, Washington, DC 

20202, Phone: 202 453–5943, Email: 

dale.king2@ed.gov. 

RIN: 1875–AA15 

ED—OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY 

EDUCATION (OPE) 

Prerule Stage 

33. Determining the Amount of Federal 

Education Assistance Funds Received 

by Institutions of Higher Education (90/ 

10) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1085, 1088, 

1091, 1092, 1094, 1099a–3, 1099c 

CFR Citation: 34 CFR 668.28. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: To reflect changes to the 

HEA made by the American Rescue Plan 

Act, the Secretary plans to propose to 

amend the Student Assistance General 

Provisions (34 CFR 668.28 Non-Title IV 

revenue) governing whether proprietary 

institutions meet the requirement in 34 

CFR 668.14(b)(16) that institutions 

receive at least 10 percent of their 

revenue from sources other than Federal 

education assistance funds. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is 

necessary to reflect changes to the HEA 

made by the American Rescue Plan Act, 

governing whether proprietary 

institutions meet the requirement in 34 

CFR 668.14(b)(16) that these institutions 

receive at least 10 percent of their 

revenue from sources other than Federal 

education assistance funds. 

Summary of Legal Basis: We are 

conducting this rulemaking under the 

following authorities: 20 U.S.C. 1085, 

1088, 1091, 1092, 1094, 1099a–3, and 

1099c. 

Alternatives: We have limited 

information about the alternatives at 

this time. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We 

have limited information about the 

anticipated costs and benefits at this 

time. 

Risks: We have limited information 

about the risks at this time. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice of Intent to 

Commence Negotiated Rulemaking.

11/00/21 

NPRM .................. 07/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Gregory Martin, 

Department of Education, Office of 

Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW, Room 2C136, Washington, 

DC 20202, Phone: 202 453–7535, Email: 

gregory.martin@ed.gov. 

RIN: 1840–AD55 

ED—OPE 

Proposed Rule Stage 

34. Borrower Defense 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1082(a)(5), 

(a)(6); 20 U.S.C. 1087(a); 20 U.S.C. 

1087e(h); 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3; 20 U.S.C. 

1226a–1; 20 U.S.C. 1234(a); 31 U.S.C. 

3711 

CFR Citation: 34 CFR 30; 34 CFR 668; 

34 CFR 674; 34 CFR 682; 34 CFR 685; 

34 CFR 686. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Secretary proposes to 

amend regulations that determine what 

acts or omissions of an institution of 

higher education a borrower may assert 

as a defense to repayment of a loan 

made under the Federal Direct Loan and 

Federal Family Education Loan 

Programs and specify the consequences 

of such borrower defenses for 

borrowers, institutions, and the 

Secretary. Further, the Secretary intends 

to review the use of class-action 

lawsuits and pre-dispute arbitration 

agreements for matters pertaining to 

borrower defense claims by schools 

receiving Title IV assistance under the 

Higher Education Act. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is 

necessary to determine what acts or 

omissions of an institution of higher 

education a borrower may assert as a 

defense to repayment of a loan made 

under the Federal Direct Loan Program 

and specify the consequences of such 

borrower defenses for borrowers, 

institutions, and the Secretary. 

Summary of Legal Basis: We are 

conducting this rulemaking under the 

following authorities: 20 U.S.C. 

1082(a)(5), (a)(6); 20 U.S.C.1087(a); 20 

U.S.C. 1087e(h); 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3; 20 

U.S.C. 1226a–1; 20 U.S.C. 1234(a); and 

31 U.S.C. 3711. 

Alternatives: We have limited 

information about the alternatives at 

this time. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We 

have limited information about the 

anticipated costs and benefits at this 

time. 

Risks: We have limited information 

about the risks at this time. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice of Intent to 

Commence Negotiated Rulemaking.

05/26/21 86 FR 28299 

NPRM .................. 05/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Jennifer Hong, 

Director, Policy Coordination Group, 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW, Room 287–23, Washington, 

DC 20202, Phone: 202 453–7805, Email: 

jennifer.hong@ed.gov. 

RIN: 1840–AD53 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5049 

ED—OPE 

35. Pell Grants for Prison Education 

Programs 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001–1002; 

20 U.S.C. 1070a, 1070a–1, 1070b, 

1070c–1, 1070c–2, 1070g; 20 U.S.C. 

1085, 1087aa–1087hh, 1088, 1091; 1094; 

1099b, and 1099c; 42 U.S.C. 2753 

CFR Citation: 34 CFR 600.20; 34 CFR 

600.21; 34 CFR 668.8. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Consolidated 

Appropriation Act, 2021 defines prison 

education programs for purposes of Pell 

Grant eligibility. The Department plans 

to propose regulations that would guide 

correctional facilities and eligible 

institutions of higher education that 

seek to establish eligibility for the Pell 

Grant program. 

Statement of Need: These regulations 

are necessary to increase access to 

educational opportunities for 

individuals who are incarcerated 

because research demonstrates that 

high-quality prison education programs 

increase the knowledge and skills 

necessary to obtain high-quality and 

stable employment. 

Summary of Legal Basis: These 

regulations are being issued under the 

following authorities: 20 U.S.C. 1001– 

1002; 20 U.S.C. 1070a, 1070a–1, 1070b, 

1070c–1, 1070c–2, 1070g; 20 U.S.C. 

1085, 1087aa–1087hh, 1088, 1091; 1094; 

1099b, and 1099c; and 42 U.S.C. 2753. 

Alternatives: We have limited 

information about the alternatives at 

this time. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We 

have limited information about the 

anticipated costs and benefits at this 

time. 

Risks: We have limited information 

about the risks at this time. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice of Intent to 

Commence Negotiated Rulemaking.

05/26/21 86 FR 28299 

NPRM .................. 05/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Aaron Washington, 

Department of Education, Office of 

Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW, Room 294–12, Washington, 

DC 20202, Phone: 202 453–7241, Email: 

aaron.washington@ed.gov. 

RIN: 1840–AD54 

ED—OPE 

36. Gainful Employment 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001; 20 

U.S.C. 1002; 20 U.S.C. 1003; 20 U.S.C. 

1088; 20 U.S.C. 1091; 20 U.S.C. 1094; 20 

U.S.C. 1099(b); 20 U.S.C. 1099(c); 20 

U.S.C. 1082; . . . 

CFR Citation: 34 CFR 668; 34 CFR 

600. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Secretary plans to 

propose to amend 34 CFR parts 668 and 

600 on institution and program 

eligibility under the HEA, including 

regulations that determine whether 

postsecondary educational programs 

prepare students for gainful 

employment in recognized occupations, 

and the conditions under which 

institutions and programs remain 

eligible for student financial assistance 

programs under Title IV of the HEA. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is 

necessary to determine whether 

postsecondary educational programs 

prepare students for gainful 

employment and the conditions under 

which institutions and programs remain 

eligible for student financial assistance 

programs under Title IV of the HEA. 

Summary of Legal Basis: We are 

conducting this rulemaking under the 

following authorities: 20 U.S.C. 1001; 20 

U.S.C. 1002; 20 U.S.C. 1003; 20 U.S.C. 

1088; 20 U.S.C. 1091; 20 U.S.C. 1094; 20 

U.S.C. 1099(b); 20 U.S.C. 1099(c); and 

20 U.S.C. 1082. 

Alternatives: We have limited 

information about the alternatives at 

this time. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We 

have limited information about the 

anticipated costs and benefits at this 

time. 

Risks: We have limited information 

about the risks at this time. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice of Intent to 

Commence Negotiated Rulemaking.

05/26/21 86 FR 28299 

NPRM .................. 07/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Gregory Martin, 

Department of Education, Office of 

Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW, Room 2C136, Washington, 

DC 20202, Phone: 202 453–7535, Email: 

gregory.martin@ed.gov. 

RIN: 1840–AD57 

ED—OPE 

37. Improving Student Loan 

Cancellation Authorities 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1087; 20 

U.S.C. 1087e; 20 U.S.C. 1087dd 

CFR Citation: 34 CFR 674; 34 CFR 

682; 34 CFR 685. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department plans to 

propose improvements in areas where 

Congress has provided borrowers with 

relief or benefits related to Federal 

student loans. This includes authorities 

granted under the HEA that allow the 

Department to cancel loans for 

borrowers who meet certain criteria, 

such as: (a) Being totally and 

permanently disabled; (b) attending a 

school that recently closed; or (c) having 

been falsely certified as able to benefit 

from a program despite not having a 

high school diploma or its recognized 

equivalent. For these borrowers, the 

Secretary plans to amend regulations to 

improve borrower eligibility, 

application requirements, and 

processes. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is 

necessary to improve areas where 

Congress has provided borrowers with 

relief or benefits related to Federal 

student loans, including to improve 

borrower eligibility, application 

requirements, and processes. 

Summary of Legal Basis: We are 

conducting this rulemaking under 20 

U.S.C. 1087; 20 U.S.C. 1087e; and 20 

U.S.C. 1087dd. 

Alternatives: We have limited 

information about the alternatives at 

this time. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We 

have limited information about the 

potential cost and benefits and cannot 

estimate them at this time. 

Risks: We have limited information 

about the risks at this time. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice of Intent to 

Commence.

05/26/21 86 FR 28299 

Negotiated Rulemaking.


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5050 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Jennifer Hong, 

Director, Policy Coordination Group, 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW, Room 287–23, Washington, 

DC 20202, Phone: 202 453–7805, Email: 

jennifer.hong@ed.gov. 

RIN: 1840–AD59 

ED—OPE 

38. Income Contingent Repayment 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1087e 

CFR Citation: 34 CFR 685. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Using the incomecontingent repayment (ICR) authority 

under the Higher Education Act of 1965, 

the Secretary of Education may create or 

adjust income-driven repayment plans 

to cap borrower payments at a set share 

of their income. The Department will 

propose improvements to these plans in 

34 CFR part 685. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is 

necessary to make improvements to the 

income- driven repayment plans created 

under the ICR authority in Higher 

Education Act of 1965 that allows the 

Secretary to cap payments at a set share 

of a borrower’s income. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Department is conducting this 

rulemaking under 20 U.S.C. 1087e. 

Alternatives: We have limited 

information about the alternatives at 

this time. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We 

have limited information about the 

anticipated costs and benefits at this 

time. 

Risks: We have limited information 

about the risks at this time. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice of Intent to 

Commence Negotiated Rulemaking.

05/26/21 86 FR 28299 

NPRM .................. 05/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Jennifer Hong, 

Director, Policy Coordination Group, 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW, Room 287–23, Washington, 

DC 20202, Phone: 202 453–7805, Email: 

jennifer.hong@ed.gov. 

RIN: 1840–AD69 

ED—OPE 

39. Public Service Loan Forgiveness 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1087e 

CFR Citation: 34 CFR 685. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Higher Education Act of 

1965 allows borrowers to receive loan 

forgiveness after 10 years of qualifying 

payments on qualifying loans while 

engaging in public service. The 

Department will propose improvements 

to this program in 34 CFR part 685. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is 

necessary to make improvements that 

more closely align the Public Service 

Loan Forgiveness program with the 

statute and purpose of the program. 

Summary of Legal Basis: We are 

conducting this rulemaking under 20 

U.S.C. 1087e. 

Alternatives: We have limited 

information about the alternatives at 

this time. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We 

have limited information about the 

anticipated costs and benefits at this 

time. 

Risks: We have limited information 

about the risks at this time. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice of Intent to 

Commence Negotiating Rulemaking.

05/26/21 86 FR 28299 

NPRM .................. 05/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Jennifer Hong, 

Director, Policy Coordination Group, 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW, Room 287–23, Washington, 

DC 20202, Phone: 202 453–7805, Email: 

jennifer.hong@ed.gov. 

RIN: 1840–AD70 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Statement of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Priorities 

The Department of Energy 

(Department or DOE) makes vital 

contributions to the Nation’s welfare 

through its activities focused on 

improving national security, energy 

supply, energy efficiency, 

environmental remediation, and energy 

research. The Department’s mission is 

to: 

• Promote dependable, affordable and 

environmentally sound production and 

distribution of energy; 

• Advance energy efficiency and 

conservation; 

• Provide responsible stewardship of 

the Nation’s nuclear weapons; 

• Provide a responsible resolution to 

the environmental legacy of nuclear 

weapons production; and 

• Strengthen U.S. scientific 

discovery, economic competitiveness, 

and improve quality of life through 

innovations in science and technology. 

The Department’s regulatory activities 

are essential to achieving its critical 

mission and to implementing the 

President’s clean energy and climate 

initiatives. Among other things, the 

Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda 

contain the rulemakings the Department 

will be engaged in during the coming 

year to fulfill the Department’s 

commitment to meeting deadlines for 

issuance of energy conservation 

standards and related test procedures. 

The Regulatory Plan and Unified 

Agenda also reflect the Department’s 

continuing commitment to cut costs, 

reduce regulatory burden, and increase 

responsiveness to the public. 

Review of Regulations Under Executive 

Order 13990 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13990, 

‘‘Protecting Public Health and the 

Environment and Restoring Science To 

Tackle the Climate Crisis,’’ DOE 

reviewed all regulations, orders, 

guidance documents and policies 

promulgated or adopted between 

January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, 

and determined whether these actions 

are consistent with the policy goals of 

protecting public health and the 

environment, including reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions and bolstering 

the Nation’s resilience to the impacts of 

climate change. DOE identified fourteen 

rulemakings that the Department will 

review under E.O. 13990. 

In response to E.O. 13990, DOE 

published ten notices of proposed 

rulemakings or technical determinations 

re-evaluating rulemakings finalized in 

the prior four years. Four of these 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5051 

publications were explicitly required to 

be published in 2021. First, DOE 

published two notices of proposed 

rulemaking in 2021 that remove 

unnecessary obstacles to DOE’s ability 

to develop energy conservation 

standards and test procedures for 

consumer products and commercial/ 

industrial equipment. Second, DOE 

published two technical determinations 

that determined that the latest version of 

a commercial building code and 

residential building code are more 

efficient than the prior versions of these 

codes, paving the path for states to 

adopt these codes. 

Other 2021 proposed Departmental 

appliance standards program actions 

triggered by E.O. 13990 but based on 

DOE statutory authorities included a 

rule to revert to the prior, water-saving 

definition of showerheads; a rule to 

remove a product class for dishwashers, 

clothes washers and clothes dryers that 

had the effect of removing standards 

from these products; a rule to streamline 

the test procedure waiver process; a rule 

to broaden the definition of general 

service lamps; and a rule proposing to 

reinterpret a features provision for some 

types of consumer products and 

commercial equipment. 

Energy Efficiency Program for 

Consumer Products and Commercial 

Equipment 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act requires DOE to set appliance 

efficiency standards at levels that 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. The 

Department continues to follow its 

schedule for setting new appliance 

efficiency standards by both addressing 

its backlog of rulemakings with missed 

statutory deadlines and advancing 

rulemakings with upcoming statutory 

deadlines. In the August 2021 Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 Report to Congress, 

DOE notes that it plans to publish 31 

actions relating to energy conservation 

standards, including four final rules, 

and 31 actions related to test 

procedures, including six final rules, 

before the end of 2021. See: https://

www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/reportsand-publications. These rulemakings 

are expected to save American 

consumers billions of dollars in energy 

costs over a 30-year timeframe. 

In the Department’s 2021 Fall 

Regulatory Plan, DOE is highlighting 

three important appliance rules. The 

first rule is ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards for Commercial Water 

Heating Equipment.’’ DOE estimates 

that the energy conservation standards 

rulemaking for commercial water 

heating-equipment will result in energy 

savings for combined natural gas and 

electricity of up to 1.8 quads over 30 

years and the net benefit to the Nation 

will be between $2.26 billion and $6.75 

billion. 

The second rule is ‘‘Procedures, 

Interpretations, and Policies for 

Consideration in New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test 

Procedures for Consumer Products and 

Commercial/Industrial Equipment.’’ 

This rulemaking is focused on both the 

procedural requirements as well as the 

methodologies used to establish all DOE 

energy conservation standards and their 

related test procedures. DOE anticipates 

that the contemplated revisions would 

allow DOE to eliminate inefficiencies 

that lengthen the rulemaking process 

and consume DOE and stakeholder 

resources without appreciable benefit, 

while not affecting the ability of the 

public to participate in the agency’s 

rulemaking process. Eliminating these 

inefficiencies would allow DOE to more 

quickly develop energy conservation 

standards that deliver benefits to the 

Nation, including environmental 

benefits such as reductions in 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

The third rule is ‘‘Backstop 

Requirement for General Service 

Lamps.’’ This rulemaking would codify 

in the Code of Federal Regulations the 

45 lumens per watt backstop 

requirement for general service lamps 

(‘‘GSLs’’) that Congress prescribed in the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as 

amended. Codifying the statutory 

standard, which would also prohibit 

sales of GSLs that do not meet a 

minimum 45 lumens per watt standard, 

is estimated to result in total net 

benefits of $3.3 billion to $4.9 billion 

per year. 

Federal Agency Leadership in Climate 

Change 

Beyond the appliance program, DOE 

is supporting Federal agency leadership 

in climate change in various ways, 

including in its Federal government 

energy efficiency rulemakings. DOE is 

highlighting one rule supporting Federal 

agency leadership in climate change 

under the Energy Conservation and 

Production Act. The rule establishes 

baseline Federal energy efficiency 

performance standards for the 

construction of new Federal commercial 

and multi-family high-rise residential 

buildings. The total incremental first 

cost savings under the rule is $32.67 

million per year, with a potential cost 

reduction in new Federal construction 

costs of 0.85%, and life-cycle cost net 

savings of $161.9 million. Compared to 

the prior building standard, DOE 

expects a 4,472,870 metric ton reduction 

in carbon dioxide emissions over 30 

years. 

DOE—ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND 

RENEWABLE ENERGY (EE) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

40. Energy Conservation Standards for 

Commercial Water Heating-Equipment 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under Public 

Law 104–4. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)(i) and (vi) 

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 429; 10 CFR 

431. 

Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, 

Subject to 6-year-look-back in 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C). 

Abstract: Once completed, this 

rulemaking will fulfill the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s (DOE) statutory 

obligation under the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended, (EPCA) 

to either propose amended energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

water heaters and hot water supply 

boilers, or determine that the existing 

standards do not need to be amended. 

(Unfired hot water storage tanks and 

commercial heat pump water heaters are 

being considered in a separate 

rulemaking.) DOE must determine 

whether national standards more 

stringent than those that are currently in 

place would result in a significant 

additional amount of energy savings and 

whether such amended national 

standards would be technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

Statement of Need: DOE is required 

under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C) to 

consider the need for amended 

performance-based energy conservation 

standards for commercial water heaters. 

This rulemaking is being conducted to 

satisfy that requirement by evaluating 

potential standards related to certain 

classes of commercial water heating 

equipment. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This 

rulemaking is being conducted under 

DOE’s authority pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6311, which establishes the agency’s 

legal authority over water heaters as one 

type of covered equipment that DOE 

may regulate, and 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C), which requires DOE to 

conduct a rulemaking to consider the 

need for amended performance-based 

energy conservation standards for this 

equipment. 

Alternatives: Under EPCA, DOE shall 

either establish an amended uniform 

national standard for this equipment at 

the minimum level specified in the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5052 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, 

unless the Secretary determines, by rule 

published in the Federal Register, and 

supported by clear and convincing 

evidence, that adoption of a uniform 

national standard more stringent than 

the amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 

90.1 for this equipment would result in 

significant additional conservation of 

energy and is technologically feasible 

and economically justified (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)–(C)). 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE 

preliminarily determined that the 

anticipated benefits to the Nation of the 

proposed energy conservation standards 

for the subject commercial water heating 

equipment would outweigh the burdens 

DOE estimates that potential amended 

energy conservation standards for 

commercial water heaters may result in 

energy savings for combined natural gas 

and electricity of 1.8 quads over 30 

years and the net benefit to the Nation 

of between $2.26 billion and $6.75 

billion. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Request for Information (RFI).10/21/14 79 FR 62899 

RFI Comment Period End.11/20/14 

NPRM .................. 05/31/16 81 FR 34440 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

08/01/16 

NPRM Comment 

Period Reopened.

08/05/16 81 FR 51812 

NPRM Comment 

Period Reopened End.

08/30/16 

Notice of Data 

Availability 

(NODA).

12/23/16 81 FR 94234 

NODA Comment 

Period End.

01/09/17 

Notice of NPRM 

Withdrawal.

01/15/21 86 FR 3873 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/product.aspx/ 

productid/51. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD0042. 

Agency Contact: Julia Hegarty, 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585, Phone: 240 597–6737, Email: 

julia.hegarty@ee.doe.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1904–AE39. 

RIN: 1904–AD34 

DOE—EE 

41. Backstop Requirement for General 

Service Lamps 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(6)(A) 

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430. 

Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, 

Subject to 7-year-lookback in 42 U.S.C. 

6293(b). 

Abstract: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) proposes to codify the 45 

lumens per watt (‘‘im/W’’) backstop 

requirement for general service lamps 

(GSLs) that Congress prescribed in the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as 

amended. DOE proposes this backstop 

requirement apply because DOE failed 

to complete a rulemaking regarding 

general service lamps in accordance 

with certain statutory criteria. This 

proposal represents a departure from 

DOE’s previous determination 

published in 2019 that the backstop 

requirement was not triggered. DOE reevaluates its previous determination 

that the backstop was not triggered in 

accordance with the review requirement 

under E.O. 13990, ‘‘Protecting Public 

Health and the Environment and 

Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate 

Crisis,’’ 86 FR 7037 (January 25, 2021). 

Statement of Need: Under the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as 

amended, if DOE fails to complete a 

rulemaking regarding general service 

lamps (GSL’s) in accordance with 

certain statutory criteria, the Secretary 

of Energy (Secretary) must prohibit the 

sale of any GSL that does not meet a 

minimum efficacy of 45 lumens per 

watt. In two final rules published on 

September 5, 2019 and December 27, 

2019, DOE determined that this 

statutory backstop requirement for GSLs 

was not triggered. DOE now revisits this 

determination and proposes to 

determine that the statutory backstop 

does not apply, consistent with its 

statutory obligations under EPCA. This 

action was triggered in part by 

Executive order 13990, which 

specifically instructed DOE to examine 

the GSL rules. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Codifying the statutory standard, which 

would also prohibit sales of GSLs that 

do not meet a minimum 45 lumens per 

watt standard, is estimated to result in 

total net benefits of 3.3 billion to $4.9 

billion per year. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Request for Information (RFI); 

Early Assessment Review.

05/25/21 86 FR 28001 

RFI Comment Period End.06/24/21 

NPRM .................. 01/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Stephanie Johnson, 

General Engineer, Department of 

Energy, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW, Building Technologies 

Office, EE5B, Washington, DC 20585, 

Phone: 202 287–1943, Email: 

stephanie.johnson@ee.doe.gov. 

RIN: 1904–AF09 

DOE—EE 

Final Rule Stage 

42. Energy Efficiency Standards for 

New Federal Commercial and MultiFamily High-Rise Residential Buildings 

Baseline Standards Update 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6834 

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 433. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

October 31, 2020, 42 U.S.C. 

6834(a)(3)(B). 

Abstract: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is working on a final rule 

to implement provisions in the Energy 

Conservation and Production Act 

(ECPA) that require DOE to update the 

baseline Federal energy efficiency 

performance standards for the 

construction of new Federal commercial 

and multi-family high-rise residential 

buildings. This rule would update the 

baseline Federal commercial standard to 

the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1– 

2019, if the Secretary determines that 

the baseline Federal energy efficiency 

performance standards should be 

updated to reflect the new standard, 

based on the cost-effectiveness of the 

requirements under the amendment. 

Statement of Need: This rule 

addresses DOE’s statutory obligation 

under ECPA to review the newest 

version of ASHRAE 90.1, that is, 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019, and update the 

energy efficiency performance standards 

for federal commercial and multifamily, high-rise buildings to reflect the 

new version of this industry standard. 

the rule will also support federal agency 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5053 

leadership in addressing climate change 

by reducing energy use in Federal 

buildings and reducing emissions. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

rule is expected to result in 432.67 

million annual incremental first-cost 

savings and annual life-cycle cost net 

savings of $161.9 million. Furthermore, 

compared to the prior Federal buildings 

standard, DOE expects a 4,472,870 

metric ton reduction in carbon dioxide 

emissions over 30 years. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Final Rule ............ 01/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Nicolas Baker, Office 

of Federal Energy Management Program, 

EE–2L, Department of Energy, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585, Phone: 202 586–8215, Email: 

nicolas.baker@ee.doe.gov. 

RIN: 1904–AE44 

DOE—EE 

43. Energy Conservation Program for 

Appliance Standards: Procedures for 

Use in New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test 

Procedures for Consumer Products and 

Commercial/Industrial Equipment 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6191 to 

6317 

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430, subpart C, 

App. A; 10 CFR 431. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or ‘‘the Department’’) is 

finalizing its revisions to the 

Department’s current rulemaking 

guidance titled ‘‘Procedures, 

Interpretations, and Policies for 

Consideration of New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test 

Procedures for Consumer Products and 

Certain Commercial/Industrial 

Equipment’’ (‘‘Process Rule’’), which 

was last modified in 2020. These 

proposed revisions, which are the first 

of two sets of revisions to the Process 

Rule that DOE intends to propose, are 

consistent with longstanding DOE 

practice prior to the 2020 amendment 

and would remove unnecessary 

obstacles to DOE’s ability to meet its 

statutory obligations under the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act (‘‘EPCA’’) 

and other applicable law. These 

proposed changes would include 

modifying the Process Rule to remove 

its mandatory application, removing its 

recently-added threshold for 

determining when significant energy 

savings is met, removing the current 

provision regarding the use of a 

comparative analysis when selecting 

potential energy conservation standards, 

and reverting to its prior guidance for 

determining whether a trial standard 

level is economically justified, among 

other changes. DOE is undertaking this 

action as required by E.O. 13990, 

‘‘Protecting Public Health and the 

Environment and Restoring Science to 

Tackle the Climate Crisis’’, 86 FR 7037 

(January 25, 2021). 

Statement of Need: On February 14, 

2020 and August 19, 2020, DOE 

published two final rules (‘‘Process Rule 

Amendment Final Rules’’) that made 

significant revisions to the existing 

Process Rule. DOE is reconsidering the 

merits of the approach taken by these 

2020 revisions to the Process Rule— 

specifically, the one-fits-all rulemaking 

approach and the added rulemaking 

steps now required under the Process 

Rule. In its proposed revisions, the 

Department seeks to ensure that the 

document remains consistent with 

DOE’s legal obligations under the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as 

amended. DOE’s action in examining 

the current Process Rule was triggered 

in part by Executive Order 13990, which 

specifically instructed DOE to examine 

the Process Rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE 

anticipates that the contemplated 

revisions would allow DOE to eliminate 

inefficiencies that lengthen the 

rulemaking process and consume DOE 

and stakeholder resources without 

appreciable benefit, while not affecting 

the ability of the public to participate in 

the agency’s rulemaking process. 

Eliminating these inefficiencies would 

allow DOE to more quickly develop 

energy conservation standards that 

deliver benefits to the Nation, including 

environmental benefits, such as 

reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, 

that DOE is directed to pursue under 

E.O. 13990. DOE notes that these 

revisions would not dictate any 

particular rulemaking outcome in an 

energy conservation standard or test 

procedure rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM (Round 1) 04/12/21 86 FR 18901 

NPRM (Round 1) 

Comment Period End.

05/27/21 

NPRM (Round 2) 07/07/21 86 FR 35668 

NPRM (Round 2) 

Comment Period Extended.

08/09/21 86 FR 43429 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM (Round 2) 

Comment Period Extended 

End.

09/13/21 

Final Rule ............ 12/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: John Cymbalsky, 

Building Technologies Office, EE–5B, 

Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585, Phone: 202 287–1692, Email: 

john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov. 

RIN: 1904–AF13 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities for 

Fiscal Year 2022 

As the federal agency with principal 

responsibility for protecting the health 

of all Americans and for providing 

essential human services, the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS or the Department) 

implements programs that strengthen 

the health care system; advance 

scientific knowledge and innovation; 

and improve the health, safety, and 

wellbeing of the American people. 

The Department’s Regulatory Plan for 

Fiscal Year 2022 delivers on the BidenHarris Administration’s commitment to 

tackle the COVID–19 pandemic, build, 

and expand access to affordable health 

care, address health disparities, increase 

health equity, and promote the 

wellbeing of children and families: 

• This agenda expands access to 

quality, affordable health care for all 

Americans, with rules to provide 

evidence-based behavioral health 

treatment via telehealth and rules to 

streamline enrollment and improve 

access to care in Medicaid and the 

Children’s Health Insurance Program 

(CHIP) to ensure that children and 

families eligible for these programs are 

able to maintain coverage and obtain 

needed care. 

• As we work to expand access to 

affordable health care, we will 

simultaneously tackle disparities that 

persist in who gain access to care. 

Forthcoming rules—including one 

designed to prevent discrimination in 

accessing care and coverage—serve to 

protect every person’s right to access the 

health care they need, no matter where 

they live or who they are. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5054 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

• Building on recent rules requiring 

COVID–19 vaccinations for staff at most 

Medicare- and Medicaid-participating 

health care providers and in Head Start 

programs, our Regulatory Plan augments 

our fight against COVID–19 and future 

pandemics by including new rules that 

permit CDC to set vaccination 

requirements for airline passengers 

entering the U.S. and increase the 

resilience of HHS programs to deal with 

COVID–19 and future public health 

emergencies. 

• Our work to promote the health and 

wellbeing of every person includes 

extending additional support and 

resources to children and families. 

Whether we are providing flexibility to 

ensure more children in foster care are 

placed in homes with their relatives or 

reimbursing state foster care agencies for 

the cost of providing independent legal 

representation for children and parents, 

we are working to support our next 

generation of leaders—and the people 

who help raise them. 

In short, this agenda allows the 

Department to support governmentwide efforts to build a healthy America 

by charting a course to Build Back 

Better with rules designed to help 

protect public health and improve the 

health and wellbeing of every person 

touched by our programs. 

I. Building and Expanding Access to 

Affordable Health Care 

Since its enactment, the Affordable 

Care Act (ACA) has dramatically 

reduced the number of uninsured 

Americans while strengthening 

consumer protections and improving 

our nation’s health care system. Yet 

high uninsured rates and other barriers 

to care continue to persist, compounded 

by the health and economic challenges 

facing Americans nationwide due to the 

COVID–19 pandemic. From day one, the 

Biden-Harris Administration has been 

focused on closing these gaps in 

coverage and access. The American 

Rescue Plan (ARP) alongside the ACA 

and executive actions by the BidenHarris Administration have already led 

to lower premiums for consumers and 

more opportunities to gain coverage, 

achieving record-high enrollment in 

ACA Marketplace and Medicaid 

coverage. 

The Department plans to continue 

expanding access to affordable health 

care over the next year, including 

through its regulatory actions. Secretary 

Becerra’s regulatory priorities in this 

area include: Enhancing coverage and 

access for Americans in the ACA 

Marketplace, Medicaid, CHIP, and 

Medicare; expanding the accessibility 

and affordability of drugs and medical 

products; addressing behavioral health 

needs; and streamlining the secure 

exchange of health information. 

Enhancing Coverage and Access in the 

ACA Marketplace, Medicaid, CHIP, and 

Medicare 

The Department will take several 

regulatory actions in the next year 

building on the success of the ACA and 

improving access to care for Americans. 

In his Executive Order on Strengthening 

Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act 

(E.O. 14009), President Biden asked the 

Department to consider a range of 

actions, including actions that would 

protect and strengthen Medicaid. 

Following this regulatory review, the 

Department is issuing two rules. First, 

the Department will issue a proposed 

rule on Assuring Access to Medicaid 

and Children’s Health Insurance 

Program (CHIP) Services. Together, 

Medicaid and CHIP cover nearly one in 

four Americans and provide for access 

to a broad array of health benefits and 

services critical to underserved 

populations, including low-income 

adults, children, pregnant women, 

elderly, and people with disabilities. 

This rule would empower the 

Department to assure and monitor 

equitable access to services in Medicaid 

and CHIP. 

Additionally, the Department will 

issue a proposed rule on Streamlining 

the Medicaid and CHIP Application, 

Eligibility Determination, Enrollment, 

and Renewal Processes. Although 

considerable progress has been made in 

these areas, gaps remain in states’ ability 

to seamlessly process beneficiaries’ 

eligibility and enrollment. This rule 

would streamline eligibility and 

enrollment processes for all Medicaid 

and CHIP populations and create new 

enrollment pathways to maximize 

enrollment and retention of eligible 

individuals. The first step to ensuring 

access to services is making certain that 

people can maintain a consistent source 

of high-quality coverage. 

The Department also plans to issue a 

proposed rule on Requirements for 

Rural Emergency Hospitals. This rule 

would establish health and safety 

requirements as Conditions of 

Participation (CoPs) for Rural 

Emergency Hospitals (REHs) 

participating in Medicare or Medicaid, 

in accordance with Section 125 of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, 

and will establish payment policies and 

payment rates for REHs. This rule will 

aim to address barriers to health care, 

unmet social needs, and other health 

challenges and risks faced by rural 

communities. 

Improving access to care for 

populations with ACA Marketplace 

coverage is also a regulatory priority of 

the Department. For instance, the 

Department will issue a proposed rule 

to protect patients’ access to care and 

promote competition by ensuring that 

plans do not engage in unlawful 

discrimination against health care 

providers. While the ACA’s provider 

nondiscrimination protections are 

currently set forth in guidance, the No 

Surprises Act directs the Department to 

implement these protections through 

regulation. 

The Department will also work to 

ensure access to benefits and services 

afforded under the law. A critical part 

of this work will include amending 

regulations on contraceptive coverage 

which guarantee cost-free coverage to 

the consumer under the ACA. In 

addition to the actions described above, 

the Department’s regulatory agenda 

includes several payment rules and 

notices issued annually by the Centers 

for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) 

that affect Medicare, Medicaid, and the 

ACA Marketplace. These rules, though 

they are not included in the HHS 

Regulatory Plan, will include policies in 

service of the Secretary’s priority of 

expanding access to affordable, highquality health care. 

Expanding the Accessibility and 

Affordability of Drugs and Medical 

Products 

The Department is committed to 

improving Americans’ access to 

affordable drugs and medical products. 

Earlier this year, the Department issued 

a proposed rule entitled Medical 

Devices; Ear, Nose and Throat Devices; 

Establishing Over-the-Counter Hearing 

Aids and Aligning Other Regulations. 

Consistent with President Biden’s 

Executive Order on Promoting 

Competition in the American Economy 

(E.O. 14036), this rule proposes to 

establish a new category of over the 

counter of hearing aids. If finalized, the 

rule would allow hearing aids within 

this category to be sold directly to 

consumers in stores or online without a 

medical exam or a fitting by an 

audiologist. This action will address 

existing barriers on access to hearing 

aids, improve consumer choice, and 

have a direct impact on quality of life. 

Over the next year, the Department 

will continue pursuing greater 

accessibility and affordability for 

Americans in need of drugs and medical 

products, consistent with the 

Department’s Comprehensive Plan for 

Addressing High Drug Prices, released 

in September 2021. For example, the 

Department plans to issue a proposed 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5055 

rule entitled Nonprescription Drug 

Product With an Additional Condition 

for Nonprescription Use. This rule 

would establish requirements for drug 

products that could be marketed as 

nonprescription drug products with an 

additional condition that a 

manufacturer must implement to ensure 

appropriate self-selection or appropriate 

actual use or both for consumers. The 

rule is expected to increase consumer 

access to drug products, which could 

translate into a reduction in undertreatment of certain diseases and 

conditions. The Department also plans 

to issue a proposed rule on Biologics 

Regulation Modernization, which would 

update Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) biologics regulations to account 

for the existence of biosimilar and 

interchangeable biological products. 

This rule is intended to support 

competition and enhance consumer 

choice by preventing efforts to delay or 

block competition from biosimilars and 

interchangeable products. 

In addition, the Department will issue 

a proposed rule entitled 340B Drug 

Pricing Program; Administrative 

Dispute Resolution. The 340B Drug 

Pricing Program, which requires drug 

manufacturers to provide discounts on 

outpatient prescription drugs to certain 

safety net providers, is critical to the 

ability of safety net providers to stretch 

scarce federal resources and reach 

patients with low incomes or without 

insurance. The rule would establish 

new requirements and procedures for 

the Program’s Administrative Dispute 

Resolution (ADR) process, making the 

process more equitable and accessible 

for participation by program 

participants. This is intended to replace 

the previous administration’s 

rulemaking on the same subject, which 

was finalized in December 2020. 

Addressing Behavioral Health Needs 

The COVID–19 pandemic has made 

clear that too many Americans have 

unmet behavioral health needs, which 

have seen an alarming rise during the 

pandemic due to illness, grief, job loss, 

food insecurity, and isolation. The 

Secretary is committed to addressing the 

behavioral health effects of the COVID– 

19 pandemic—including mental health 

conditions and substance use 

disorders—especially in underserved 

communities. This commitment informs 

the Department’s regulatory priorities 

over the next year. 

The Department is proposing two 

rules intended to extend telehealth 

flexibilities for substance use disorder 

treatments that were granted during the 

COVID–19 public health emergency. 

First, the Department will issue a 

proposed rule on Treatment of Opioid 

use Disorder With Extended Take Home 

Doses of Methadone. This rule would 

propose revisions to Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services 

Administration (SAMHSA) regulations 

to make permanent regulatory 

flexibilities for opioid treatment 

programs to provide extended takehome doses of methadone to patients 

when it is safe and appropriate to do so. 

Likewise, the Department also plans to 

issue a proposed rule on Treatment of 

Opioid Use Disorder with 

Buprenorphine Utilizing Telehealth. 

This rule would propose revisions to 

SAMHSA regulations to permanently 

allow opioid treatment programs and 

certain other providers to provide 

buprenorphine via telehealth. Both 

changes would allow more patients to 

receive comprehensive opioid use 

disorder treatment and could address 

barriers to treatment such as 

transportation, geographic proximity, 

employment, or other required activities 

of daily living. 

Furthermore, the Department, 

working closely with the Department of 

Labor, will issue a proposed rule on the 

Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act (MHPAEA) and the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. 

The MHPAEA is a federal law that 

prevents group health plans and health 

insurance issuers that provide mental 

health or substance use disorder 

benefits from imposing less favorable 

benefit limitations on those benefits 

than on medical and surgical benefits. 

This rule would clarify group health 

plans and health insurance issuers’ 

obligations under the MHPAEA and 

promote compliance with MHPAEA, 

among other improvements. 

Finally, the Department also plans to 

issue a proposed rule on the 

Confidentiality of Substance Use 

Disorder Patient Records. Section 3221 

of the CARES Act modifies the statute 

that establishes protections for the 

confidentiality of substance use disorder 

treatment records and directs the 

Department to work with other federal 

agencies to update the regulations at 42 

CFR part 2 (part 2). As required by the 

CARES Act, this rule would align 

certain provisions of part 2 with aspects 

of the HIPAA Privacy, Breach 

Notification, and Enforcement Rules; 

strengthen part 2 protections against 

uses and disclosures of patients’ 

substance use disorder records for civil, 

criminal, administrative, and legislative 

proceedings; and require that a HIPAA 

Notice of Privacy Practices address 

privacy practices with respect to Part 2 

records. 

Streamlining the Secure Exchange of 

Health Information 

The secure exchange of health 

information among health care 

providers and other entities improves 

patient care, reduces costs, and provides 

more accurate public health data. The 

21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act) 

included important provisions related to 

improving the interoperability and 

transparency of health information. 

Two of the Department’s planned 

rulemakings directly address and 

implement these statutory provisions. 

First, the Department plans to finalize 

the implementation of the Cures Act 

provision that authorizes the 

Department to impose civil monetary 

penalties, assessments, and exclusions 

upon individuals and entities that 

engage in fraud and other misconduct 

related to HHS grants, contracts, and 

other agreements. It would also 

implement Cures Act provisions on 

information blocking, which authorize 

the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to 

investigate claims of information 

blocking and grant the Department the 

power to impose civil monetary 

penalties (CMPs) for information 

blocking. The Department’s regulations 

would also be updated to include the 

increased civil monetary penalties 

provided in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 

2018. 

Additionally, the Department will 

issue a proposed rule entitled Health 

Information Technology: Updates to the 

ONC Health IT Certification Program, 

Establishment of the Trusted Exchange 

Framework and Common Agreement 

Attestation Process, and Enhancements 

to Support Information Sharing. This 

rule would implement certain 

provisions of the Cures Act, including 

the Electronic Health Record (EHR) 

Reporting Program condition and 

maintenance of certification 

requirements under the ONC Health IT 

Certification Program (Certification 

Program); a process for health 

information networks that voluntarily 

adopt the Trusted Exchange Framework 

and Common Agreement to attest to the 

agreed upon interoperable data 

exchange; and enhancements to support 

information sharing under the 

information blocking regulations. 

II. Addressing Health Disparities and 

Promoting Equity 

Equity is the focus of over a dozen 

Executive Orders issued by President 

Biden, and it remains a cornerstone of 

the Biden-Harris Administration’s 

agenda. The Department recognizes that 

people of color, people with disabilities, 

lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5056 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

queer (LGBTQ+) people, and other 

underserved groups in the U.S. have 

been systematically denied a full and 

fair opportunity to participate in 

economic, social, and civic life. Among 

its other manifestations, this history of 

inequality shows up as persistent 

disparities in health outcomes and 

access to care. As the federal agency 

responsible for ensuring the health and 

wellbeing of Americans, the Department 

under Secretary Becerra’s leadership is 

committed to tackling these entrenched 

inequities and their root causes 

throughout its programs and policies. 

This regulatory priority includes 

promoting equity in health care, 

strengthening health and safety 

standards for consumer products that 

impact underserved communities, 

preventing and combatting 

discrimination, and ensuring the 

equitable administration of HHS 

programs. The Department is also 

systematically reviewing existing 

regulations to make certain they 

adequately address the needs of those 

most vulnerable to climate change 

related impacts. 

Promoting Equity in Health Care 

The Department is taking action to 

promote equity in health care programs 

and delivery. Earlier this year, the 

Department finalized a rule on Ensuring 

Access to Equitable, Affordable, Clientcentered, Quality Family Planning 

Services. This rule revoked the previous 

administration’s harmful restrictions on 

the use of Title X family planning funds, 

which had a disproportionate impact on 

low-income clients and caused 

substantial decreases in utilization 

among clients of color. Revoking the 

previous rule will allow the Title X 

service network to expand in size and 

capacity to provide quality family 

planning services to more clients. 

In addition, the rule updates the Title 

X regulations to ensure access to 

equitable, affordable, client-centered, 

quality family planning services. 

The Department is also committed to 

improving the effectiveness of federal 

health programs that constitute an 

important source of care for 

underserved communities. For instance, 

the Department plans to issue a 

proposed rule on the Catastrophic 

Health Emergency Fund (CHEF). CHEF 

was established to reimburse tribally 

operated Indian Health Service (IHS) 

Purchased/Referred Care programs, 

which serve American Indian/Alaska 

Native patients, for medical expenses 

related to high-cost illnesses and events 

after a threshold cost has been met. This 

rule would establish regulations 

governing CHEF, set the threshold cost 

that must be reached before CHEF 

reimbursement can be paid, and 

establish the procedures for 

reimbursement under the program. 

Strengthening Health and Safety 

Standards for Consumer Products That 

Impact Underserved Communities 

The Department recognizes that 

people of color, LGBTQ+ people, people 

with disabilities, people with low 

incomes, and other underserved 

populations experience longstanding 

disparities in leading public health 

indicators—including obesity and the 

use of certain tobacco products. To 

protect the public health and advance 

equity, the Department is pursuing 

regulatory action with respect to 

consumer products that have a 

disproportionate impact on the health of 

underserved groups. 

For instance, the Department plans to 

propose two rules on tobacco product 

standards. First, the Department will 

issue a proposed rule on Tobacco 

Product Standard for Menthol in 

Cigarettes, which would ban menthol as 

a characterizing flavor in cigarettes. 

Menthol cigarettes are marketed to and 

disproportionately used by Black 

smokers and increase the appeal of 

smoking for youth and young adults. 

This standard would reduce the 

availability of menthol cigarettes. By 

likely decreasing consumption and 

increasing the likelihood of cessation, 

the standard would likely improve the 

health of current menthol cigarette 

smokers. Similarly, the Department 

plans to issue a proposed rule on 

Tobacco Product Standard for 

Characterizing Flavors in Cigars. This 

rule is a tobacco product standard that 

would ban characterizing flavors—such 

as strawberry, grape, orange, and 

cocoa—in all cigars. As with menthol 

cigarettes, flavored cigars appeal to 

youth and disproportionately affect 

underserved communities. This product 

standard would likely reduce the appeal 

of cigars, particularly to youth and 

young adults, and is intended to 

decrease the likelihood of 

experimentation, progression to regular 

use, and the potential for addiction to 

nicotine. 

Furthermore, the Department will 

issue a proposed rule entitled Nutrient 

Content Claims, Definition of Term: 

Healthy. This rule would update the 

definition for the implied nutrient 

content claim ‘‘healthy’’ to be consistent 

with current nutrition science and 

federal dietary guidelines. This would 

ensure that foods labeled ‘‘healthy’’ can 

help consumers build more healthful 

diets to help reduce their risk of dietrelated chronic disease. This action is 

necessary to improve the public health 

and reduce disparities in health 

outcomes, particularly among people of 

color and people with low incomes in 

the U.S., who are disproportionately 

affected by obesity and diet-related 

chronic illness. 

Preventing and Remedying 

Discrimination 

The Department is taking actions to 

eliminate discrimination as a barrier for 

historically marginalized communities 

seeking access to HHS programs and 

activities. This includes two proposed 

rules in the Department’s Regulatory 

Plan for the coming year. First, the 

Department will issue a proposed rule 

on Nondiscrimination in Health 

Programs and Activities, which would 

make changes to the previous 

administration’s final rule 

implementing the nondiscrimination 

provisions in section 1557 of the ACA. 

The current section 1557 regulations 

significantly narrow the scope of section 

1557’s protections. Because 

discrimination in the U.S. health care 

system is a driver of health disparities, 

the Section 1557 regulations present a 

key opportunity for the Department to 

promote equity and ensure protection of 

health care as a right. Additionally, the 

Department will issue a proposed rule 

entitled Rulemaking on Discrimination 

on the Basis of Disability in Critical 

Health and Human Services Programs or 

Activities. This rule would revise 

regulations under section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to address 

unlawful discrimination on the basis of 

disability in certain vital HHS-funded 

health and human services programs. 

Covered topics include 

nondiscrimination in life-sustaining 

care, organ transplantation, suicide 

prevention services, child welfare 

programs and services, health care value 

assessment methodologies, accessible 

medical equipment, auxiliary aids and 

services, Crisis Standards of Care and 

other relevant health and human 

services activities. 

Ensuring the Equitable Administration 

of HHS Programs 

Consistent with President Biden’s 

Executive Order on Advancing Racial 

Equity and Support for Underserved 

Communities Through the Federal 

Government (E.O. 13985), the 

Department is working to embed equity 

throughout HHS programs and policies, 

including in the awarding of grants, 

loans, and procurement contracts. 

For instance, the Department plans to 

issue a proposed rule on the National 

Institute for Disability, Independent 

Living, and Rehabilitation Research 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5057 

(NIDILRR), which would propose 

revisions to the NIDILRR regulations to 

advance equity in the peer review 

criteria used to evaluate disability 

research applications across all of its 

research programs, in addition to 

making other changes. The Department 

will also issue a proposed rule on the 

Native Hawaiian Revolving Loan Fund 

(NHRLF). The Native Hawaiian 

Revolving Loan Fund (NHRLF) was 

established to provide loans and loan 

guarantees to Native Hawaiians who are 

unable to obtain loans from private 

sources on reasonable terms and 

conditions for the purpose of promoting 

economic development in Hawaii. This 

rule proposes to reduce the required 

Native Hawaiian ownership or control 

for an eligible applicant to NHRLF 

program from 100 percent, as the 100 

percent Native Hawaiian ownership 

requirement prevents many Native 

Hawaiian family-owned businesses and 

families from obtaining a loan. 

Additionally, the Department plans to 

issue a proposed rule entitled 

Acquisition Regulations; Buy Indian 

Act; Procedures for Contracting. This 

rule would establish regulations guiding 

implementation of the Buy Indian Act, 

which allows the Department to set 

aside procurement contracts for Indianowned and controlled businesses. This 

would promote the growth and 

development of Indian industries and in 

turn, foster economic development and 

sustainability in Indian Country. 

III. Tackling the COVID–19 Pandemic 

As the federal agency charged with 

protecting the health of all Americans, 

the Department plays a central role in 

the Biden-Harris Administration’s 

whole-of-government response to the 

COVID–19 pandemic. From ensuring 

access to COVID–19 testing, treatment, 

and vaccines, to bolstering the capacity 

of the health care system in a public 

health emergency, to addressing the 

effects of the pandemic on the 

behavioral health of Americans, 

Secretary Becerra has leveraged the 

Department’s full resources to pursue a 

comprehensive strategy to combat 

COVID–19. Over the last several 

months, the Secretary has pursued this 

regulatory priority by issuing a number 

of critical rules requiring COVID–19 

vaccinations to keep schools, 

workplaces, and communities safe and 

increasing regulatory oversight of 

SARS–CoV–2 laboratory 

experimentation. Over the next year, the 

Department plans to continue its work 

to address COVID–19 through new 

regulations. 

Building on COVID–19 Vaccine 

Requirements To Keep Schools, 

Workplaces, and Communities Safe 

Despite tremendous gains over the 

course of 2021, tens of millions of 

people remain unvaccinated against 

COVID–19. Reaching this population is 

an essential component of the BidenHarris Administration’s strategy to 

accelerate our nation’s path out of the 

pandemic. For this reason, vaccine 

requirements are one of the 

Department’s most impactful regulatory 

options in combatting COVID–19. 

Accordingly, the Department has 

recently issued rules expanding COVID– 

19 vaccine requirements. For example, 

the Department issued an interim final 

rule requiring COVID–19 vaccinations 

for staff at most Medicare- and 

Medicaid-participating providers and 

suppliers. 

Additionally, the Department issued 

an interim final rule with comment 

period to add new provisions to the 

Head Start Program Performance 

Standards to mitigate the spread of the 

COVID–19 in Head Start programs 

through COVID–19 vaccine 

requirements. 

Building on these accomplishments, 

in the coming months, the Department 

plans to issue an interim final rule that 

will provide CDC with authority to 

require individuals entering the U.S. at 

any port of entry to present proof of 

vaccination or other proof of immunity 

against any quarantinable 

communicable diseases for which the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) determines that a 

public health need exists. This rule will 

provide CDC with authority to require 

travelers to be fully vaccinated upon 

arrival and will reduce the number of 

international travelers arriving while 

infected. 

Increasing the Resilience of HHS 

Programs To Deal With COVID–19 and 

Future Public Health Emergencies 

The Department is planning to 

introduce new flexibilities in HHS 

programs to minimize disruptions and 

alleviate burdens that may be caused by 

COVID–19 or future emergencies. For 

example, the Department issued a final 

rule on Flexibility for Head Start 

Designation Renewals in Certain 

Emergencies. This rule adds a new 

provision to the Head Start Program 

Performance Standards to establish 

parameters by which the Administration 

for Children and Families (ACF) may 

make designation renewal 

determinations during widespread 

disasters or emergencies and in the 

absence of all normally required data. 

The Department also plans to issue a 

proposed rule on Administration for 

Native Americans (ANA) Non-federal 

Share Emergency Waivers. The rule will 

propose the ability for current grantees 

to request an emergency waiver for the 

non-federal share match. This update to 

ANA’s regulation would provide a new 

provision for recipients to request an 

emergency waiver in the event of a 

natural or man-made emergency such as 

a public health pandemic. 

Additionally, the Department issued a 

proposed rule on Paternity 

Establishment Percentage Performance 

Relief. This rule proposes to modify the 

Paternity Establishment Percentage 

performance requirements in child 

support regulations to provide relief 

from financial penalties to states 

impacted by the COVID–19 pandemic. 

Without regulatory relief, 20 out of the 

54 child support programs may be 

subject to financial penalties associated 

with their failure to achieve 

performance for the Paternity 

Establishment Percentage (PEP). PEPrelated financial penalties, which are 

imposed as reductions in the state’s 

Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) program funding, 

place an undue burden on state budgets 

and threaten funding that supports the 

very families who are most in need 

during this time of crisis. 

IV. Boosting the Wellbeing of Children 

and Families 

The Department’s mission to provide 

effective human services to Americans 

includes a focus on protecting the 

wellbeing of children and families. This 

focus has special significance given the 

COVID–19 pandemic and its economic 

consequences, which have deeply 

affected the lives of children and youth, 

especially those who are in foster care 

or otherwise involved in the child 

welfare system. Secretary Becerra has 

therefore prioritized children and youth 

that are in, or candidates for, foster care 

in the HHS Regulatory Plan. 

In support of this priority, the 

Department will issue a proposed rule 

to allow Licensing Standards for 

Relative or Kinship Foster Family 

Homes that are different from nonrelative homes. Currently, in order to 

claim Title IV–E funding, federal 

regulations require that all foster family 

homes meet the same licensing 

standards, regardless of whether the 

foster family home is a relative or nonrelative placement. The proposed 

change would address barriers to 

licensing relatives and kin who can 

provide continuity and a safe and loving 

home for children when they cannot be 

with their parents. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5058 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

The Department will also issue a 

proposed rule to reimburse agencies for 

Title IV–E Administrative Expenditures 

for Independent Legal Representation in 

Foster Care and other Related Civil 

Legal Issues. This rule would make it 

easier for Title IV–E agencies to 

facilitate the provision of independent 

legal representation to a child who is a 

candidate for foster care or in foster care 

and to a parent preparing for 

participation in foster care legal 

proceedings. Improving access to 

independent legal representation may 

help prevent the removal of a child from 

the home or, for a child in foster care, 

achieve permanence faster. 

HHS—OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR 

GENERAL (OIG) 

Final Rule Stage 

44. Amendments to Civil Monetary 

Penalty Law Regarding Grants, 

Contracts, and Information Blocking 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 21st Century Cures 

Act; Pub. L. 114–255; secs. 4004 and 

5003; Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 

(BBA 2018), Pub. L. 115–123. sec. 50412 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 1003; 42 CFR 

1005. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The final regulation 

modifies 42 CFR 1003 and 1005 by 

addressing three issues. First, the 21st 

Century Cures Act (Cures Act) provision 

that authorizes the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) to 

impose civil monetary penalties, 

assessments, and exclusions upon 

individuals and entities that engage in 

fraud and other misconduct related to 

HHS grants, contracts, and other 

agreements. Second, the Cures Act 

information blocking provisions that 

authorize the Office of Inspector General 

to investigate claims of information 

blocking and provide HHS the authority 

to impose CMPs for information 

blocking. Third, the Bipartisan Budget 

Act of 2018 increases in penalty 

amounts in the Civil Monetary Penalties 

Law. 

Statement of Need: The 21st Century 

Cures Act (Cures Act) set forth new 

authorities which need to be added to 

HHS’s existing civil monetary penalty 

authorities. This final rule seeks to add 

the new authorities to the existing civil 

monetary penalty regulations and to set 

forth the procedural and appeal rights 

for individuals and entities. The 

Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA) 

amended the Civil Monetary Penalties 

Law (CMPL) to increase the amounts of 

certain civil monetary penalties which 

requires amending the existing 

regulations for conformity. The final 

rule seeks to ensure alignment between 

the increased civil monetary penalties 

in the statute and the civil monetary 

penalties set forth in the OIG’s rules. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal 

authority for this regulatory action is 

found in: (1) Section 1128A(a)–(b) of the 

Social Security Act, the Civil Monetary 

Penalties Law (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a), 

which provides for civil monetary 

penalty amounts; (2) section 1128A(o)– 

(s) of the Social Security Act, which 

provides for civil monetary penalties for 

fraud and other misconduct related to 

grants, contracts, and other agreements; 

and (3) section 3022(b) of the Public 

Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300jj–52), 

which provides for investigation and 

enforcement of information blocking. 

Alternatives: The regulations 

incorporate the statutory changes to 

HHS’ authority found in the Cures Act 

and the BBA. The alternative would be 

to rely solely on the statutory authority 

and not align the regulations 

accordingly. However, we concluded 

that the public benefit of providing 

clarity by placing the new civil 

monetary penalties and updated civil 

monetary penalty amounts within the 

existing regulatory framework 

outweighed any burdens of additional 

regulations promulgated. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We 

believe that there are no significant 

costs associated with these proposed 

revisions that would impose any 

mandates on State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

regulation will provide a disincentive 

for bottlenecks to the flow of health data 

that exist, in part, because parties are 

reticent to share data across the 

healthcare system or prefer not to do so. 

The final rule will help foster 

interoperability, thus improving care 

coordination, access to quality 

healthcare, and patients’ access to their 

healthcare data. 

Risks: We believe the risks of this 

regulatory action are minimal because 

we are relying upon statutory 

authorities and placing the regulation 

within our existing regulatory 

framework. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/24/20 85 FR 22979 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

06/23/20 

Final Action ......... 03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Chris Hinkle, Senior 

Advisor, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Office of the Inspector 

General, 330 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 202 891– 

6062, Email: christina.hinkle@

oig.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0936–AA09 

HHS—OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS 

(OCR) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

45. Rulemaking on Discrimination on 

the Basis of Disability in Critical Health 

and Human Services Programs or 

Activities (Rulemaking Resulting From 

a Section 610 Review) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: Sec. 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

CFR Citation: 45 CFR 84. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

revise regulations under section 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to 

address unlawful discrimination on the 

basis of disability in certain vital HHSfunded health and human services 

programs. Covered topics include nondiscrimination in life-sustaining care, 

organ transplantation, suicide 

prevention services, child welfare 

programs and services, health care value 

assessment methodologies, accessible 

medical equipment, auxiliary aids and 

services, Crisis Standards of Care and 

other relevant health and human 

services activities. 

Statement of Need: To robustly 

enforce the prohibition of 

discrimination on the basis of disability, 

OCR will update the section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act regulations to clarify 

obligations and address issues that have 

emerged in our enforcement experience 

(including complaints OCR has 

received), caselaw, and statutory 

changes under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act and other relevant laws, 

in the forty-plus years since the 

regulation was promulgated. OCR has 

heard from complainants and many 

other stakeholders, as well as federal 

partners, including the National Council 

on Disability, on the need for updated 

regulations in a number of important 

areas, including non-discrimination in 

life-sustaining care, organ 

transplantation, suicide prevention 

services, child welfare programs and 

services, health care value assessment 

methodologies, accessible medical 

equipment, auxiliary aids and services, 

Crisis Standards of Care and other 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5059 

relevant health and human services 

activities. 

Summary of Legal Basis: These 

regulations are required by law. The 

current regulations have not been 

updated to be consistent with the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, the 

Americans with Disabilities 

Amendments Act, or the 1992 

Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act, 

all of which made changes that should 

be reflected in the HHS section 504 

regulations. Under Executive Order 

12250, the Department of Justice has 

provided a template for HHS to update 

this regulation. 

Alternatives: OCR considered issuing 

guidance, and/or investigating 

individual complaints and compliance 

reviews. However, we concluded that 

not taking regulatory action could result 

in continued discrimination, inequitable 

treatment and even untimely deaths of 

people with disabilities. OCR continues 

to receive complaints alleging serious 

acts of disability discrimination each 

year. While we continue to engage in 

enforcement, we believe that our 

enforcement and recipients’ overall 

compliance with the law will be better 

supported by the presence of a clearly 

articulated regulatory framework than 

continuing the status quo. Continuing to 

conduct case-by-case investigations 

without a broader framework risks lack 

of clarity on the part of providers and 

violations of section 504 that could have 

been avoided and may go unaddressed. 

By issuing a proposed rule, we are 

undertaking the most efficient and 

effective means of promoting 

compliance with section 504. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Department anticipates that this 

rulemaking will result in significant 

benefits, namely by providing clear 

guidance to the covered entity 

community regarding requirements to 

administer their health programs and 

activities in a non-discriminatory 

manner. In turn, the Department 

anticipates cost savings as individuals 

with disabilities can access a range of 

health care services. The Department 

expects that the rule, when finalized, 

will generate some changes in action 

and behavior that may generate some 

costs. The rule will address a wide 

range of issues, with varying impacts 

and a comprehensive analysis is 

underway. 

Risks: To be determined. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Molly Burgdorf, 

Section Chief, Civil Rights Division, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Office for Civil Rights, 200 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20201, Phone: 202 357–3411, Email: 

ocrmail@hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0945–AA15 

HHS—OCR 

46. Confidentiality of Substance Use 

Disorder Patient Records 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 290dd–2 

amended by the Coronavirus Aid, 

Relief, and Economic Security Act (the 

CARES Act), Pub. L. 116–136, sec. 3221 

(March 27, 2020); Health Information 

Technology for Economic and Clinical 

Health (HITECH) Act, Pub. L. 111–5, 

sec. 13402 and 13405 (February 17, 

2009); Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) 

Pub. L. 104–191, sec. 264 (August 21, 

1996); Social Security Act, Pub. L. 74– 

271 (August 14, 1935) (see secs. 1171 to 

1179 of the Social Security Act, 42 

U.S.C. 1320d to 1320d–8) 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 2; 45 CFR 160; 

45 CFR 164. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

March 27, 2021. 

The CARES Act requires the revisions 

to regulations with respect to uses and 

disclosures of information occurring on 

or after the date that is 12 months after 

the date of enactment of the Act (March 

27, 2021); and not later than one year 

after the date of enactment, an update to 

the Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP) 

provisions of the HIPAA Privacy Rule at 

45 CFR 164.520. 

Abstract: This rulemaking, to be 

issued in coordination with the 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration (SAMHSA), 

would implement provisions of section 

3221 of the CARES Act. Section 3221 

amended 42 U.S.C. 290dd–2 to better 

harmonize the 42 CFR part 2 (part 2) 

confidentiality requirements with 

certain permissions and requirements of 

the HIPAA Rules and the HITECH Act. 

This rulemaking also would implement 

the requirement in section 3221 of the 

CARES Act to modify the HIPAA 

Privacy Rule NPP provisions so that 

HIPAA covered entities and part 2 

programs provide notice to individuals 

regarding part 2 records, including 

patients’ rights and uses and disclosures 

permitted or required without 

authorization. 

Statement of Need: Rulemaking is 

needed to implement section 3221 of 

the CARES Act, which modified the 

statute that establishes protections for 

the confidentiality of substance use 

disorder (SUD) treatment records and 

authorizes the implementing regulations 

at 42 CFR part 2 (part 2). As required by 

the CARES Act, this NPRM proposes 

regulatory modifications to: (1) Align 

certain provisions of part 2 with aspects 

of the HIPAA Privacy, Breach 

Notification, and Enforcement Rules. (2) 

Strengthen part 2 protections against 

uses and disclosures of patients’ SUD 

records for civil, criminal, 

administrative, and legislative 

proceedings. (3) Require that a HIPAA 

Notice of Privacy Practices address 

privacy practices with respect to part 2 

records. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

3221(i) of the CARES Act requires 

rulemaking as may be necessary to 

implement and enforce section 3221. 

Alternatives: HHS considered whether 

the CARES Act provisions could be 

implemented through guidance. 

However, rulemaking is required 

because the current part 2 regulations 

are inconsistent with the authorizing 

statute, as amended by the CARES Act. 

HHS considered whether to include the 

anti discrimination provisions of section 

3221(g) in this rulemaking. However, 

because implementation of the anti 

discrimination provisions implicates 

numerous civil rights authorities, which 

require collaboration with the 

Department of Justice, HHS will address 

the anti discrimination provisions in a 

separate rulemaking. HHS considered 

whether to propose additional changes 

to part 2 that are not required by section 

3221 of the CARES Act. However, 

adding more proposals would delay 

publication of the proposed rule and 

eventual implementation of the CARES 

Act requirements. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: HHS 

estimates that the effects of the 

proposed requirements for regulated 

entities would result in new costs of 

$16,872,779 within 12 months of 

implementing the final rule. HHS 

estimates these first-year costs would be 

partially offset by $11,182,618 of first 

year cost savings, followed by net 

savings of $9,612,567 annually in years 

two through five, resulting in overall net 

cost savings of $32,760,108 over 5 years. 

Risks: To be determined. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM ............. 01/00/22 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5060 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Marissa GordonNguyen, Senior Advisor for Health 

Information Privacy Policy, Department 

of Health and Human Services, Office 

for Civil Rights, 200 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201, 

Phone: 800 368–1019, TDD Phone: 800 

537–7697, Email: ocrprivacy@hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0945–AA16 

HHS—OCR 

47. Nondiscrimination in Health 

Programs and Activities 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: Sec. 1557 of the 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

Act (42 U.S.C. 18116) 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 92. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rulemaking 

would propose changes to the 2020 

Final Rule implementing section 1557 

of the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act (PPACA). Section 1557 of 

PPACA prohibits discrimination on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, sex, 

age, or disability under any health 

program or activity, any part of which 

is receiving Federal financial assistance, 

including credits, subsidies, or contracts 

of insurance, or under any program or 

activity that is administered by an 

Executive Agency, or any entity 

established under title I of the PPACA. 

Statement of Need: The Biden 

Administration has made advancing 

health equity a cornerstone of its policy 

agenda. The current section 1557 

implementing regulation significantly 

curtails the scope of application of 

section 1557 protections and creates 

uncertainty and ambiguity as to what 

constitutes prohibited discrimination in 

covered health programs and activities. 

Issuance of a revised section 1557 

implementing regulation is important 

because it would provide clear and 

concise regulations that protect 

historically marginalized communities 

as they seek access to health programs 

and activities. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Secretary of the Department is 

statutorily authorized to promulgate 

regulations to implement section 1557. 

42 U.S.C. 18116(c). The current section 

1557 Final Rule is pending litigation. 

Alternatives: The Department has 

considered the alternative of 

maintaining the section 1557 

implementing regulation in its current 

form; however, the Department believes 

it is appropriate to undertake 

rulemaking given the Administration’s 

commitment to advancing equity and 

access to health care and in light of the 

issues raised in litigation challenges to 

the current rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In 

enacting section 1557 of the ACA, 

Congress recognized the benefits of 

equal access to health services and 

health insurance that all individuals 

should have, regardless of their race, 

color, national origin, sex, age, or 

disability. The Department anticipates 

that this rulemaking will result in 

significant benefits, namely by 

providing clear guidance to the covered 

entity community regarding 

requirements to administer their health 

programs and activities in a nondiscriminatory manner. In turn, the 

Department anticipates cost savings as 

individuals are able to access a range of 

health care services that will result in 

decreased health disparities among 

historically marginalized groups and 

increased health benefits. The 

Department does not yet have an 

anticipated cost for this proposed 

rulemaking; however, it is important to 

recognize that this NPRM applies preexisting nondiscrimination 

requirements in Federal civil rights laws 

to various entities, the great majority of 

which have been covered by these 

requirements for years. 

Risks: To be determined. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Dylan Nicole de 

Kervor, Section Chief, Civil Rights 

Division, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, 

200 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 800 368– 

1019, TDD Phone: 800 537–7697, Email: 

ocrmail@hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0945–AA17 

HHS—OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL 

COORDINATOR FOR HEALTH 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (ONC) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

48. • ONC Health IT Certification 

Program Updates, Health Information 

Network Attestation Process for the 

Trusted Exchange Framework and 

Common Agreement, and 

Enhancements To Support Information 

Sharing 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300jj–11; 

42 U.S.C. 300jj–14; 42 U.S.C. 300jj–19a; 

42 U.S.C. 300jj–52; 5 U.S.C. 552; Pub. L. 

114–255; Pub. L. 116–260 

CFR Citation: 45 CFR 170; 45 CFR 

171; 45 CFR 172. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

December 13, 2017, Conditions of 

certification and maintenance of 

certification. 

Final, Statutory, July 24, 2019, 

Publish a list of the health information 

networks that have adopted the 

common agreement and are capable of 

trusted exchange pursuant to the 

common agreement. 

Abstract: The rulemaking implements 

certain provisions of the 21st Century 

Cures Act, including: the Electronic 

Health Record Reporting Program 

condition and maintenance of 

certification requirements under the 

ONC Health IT Certification Program; a 

process for health information networks 

that voluntarily adopt the Trusted 

Exchange Framework and Common 

Agreement to attest to such adoption of 

the framework and agreement; and 

enhancements to support information 

sharing under the information blocking 

regulations. The rulemaking would also 

include proposals for new standards 

and certification criteria under the 

Certification Program related to realtime benefit tools and electronic prior 

authorization and potentially other 

revisions to the Certification Program. 

Statement of Need: The rulemaking 

would implement certain provisions of 

the 21st Century Cures Act, including: 

the Electronic Health Record (EHR) 

Reporting Program condition and 

maintenance of certification 

requirements under the (Certification 

Program); a process for health 

information networks that voluntarily 

adopt the Trusted Exchange Framework 

and Common Agreement to attest to 

such adoption of the framework and 

agreement; and enhancements to 

support information sharing under the 

information blocking regulations. The 

rulemaking would also include 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5061 

proposals for new standards and 

certification criteria under the 

Certification Program related to realtime benefit tools and electronic prior 

authorization. These proposals would 

fulfill statutory requirements, provide 

transparency, advance interoperability, 

and support the access, exchange, and 

use of electronic health information. 

Transparency regarding health care 

information and activities as well as the 

interoperability and electronic exchange 

of health information are central to the 

efforts of the Department of Health and 

Human Services to enhance and protect 

the health and well-being of all 

Americans. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

provisions would be implemented 

under the authority of the Public Health 

Service Act, as amended by the HITECH 

Act and the 21st Century Cures Act. 

Alternatives: ONC will consider 

different options and measures to 

improve transparency, and the 

interoperability and access to electronic 

health information so that the benefits 

to providers, patients, and payers are 

maximized and the economic burden to 

health IT developers, providers, and 

other stakeholders is minimized. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

majority of costs for this proposed rule 

would be incurred by health IT 

developers in terms of meeting new 

requirements and continual compliance 

with the EHR Reporting Program 

condition and maintenance of 

certification requirements. We also 

expect that implementation of new 

standards and information sharing 

requirements may also account for some 

costs. We expect that through 

implementation and compliance with 

the regulations, the market (particularly 

patients, payers, and providers) will 

benefit greatly from increased 

transparency, interoperability, and 

streamlined, lower cost access to 

electronic heath information. 

Risks: At this time, ONC has not been 

able to identify any substantial risks that 

would undermine likely proposals in 

the proposed rule. ONC will continue to 

consider and deliberate regarding any 

identified potential risks and will be 

sure to identify them for stakeholders 

and seek comment from stakeholders 

during the comment period for the 

proposed rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/00/22 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

09/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Michael Lipinski, 

Director, Regulatory & Policy Affairs 

Division, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Office of the National 

Coordinator for Health Information 

Technology, Mary E. Switzer Building, 

330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 

20201, Phone: 202 690–7151, Email: 

michael.lipinski@hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0955–AA03 

HHS—SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND 

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION (SAMHSA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

49. • Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder 

With Buprenorphine Utilizing 

Telehealth 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: The Controlled 

Substances Act, as amended by the 

Ryan Haight Act (21 U.S.C. 802(54)(G)) 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 8.11(h). 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: In the face of an escalating 

overdose crisis and an increasing need 

to reach remote and underserved 

communities, extending the 

buprenorphine telehealth flexibility is 

of paramount importance. To 

permanently continue this flexibility 

among OTPs after the COVID–19 public 

health emergency ends, SAMHSA 

proposes to revise OTP regulations 

under 42 CFR part 8. 

Statement of Need: This change will 

help facilitate access to Medications for 

Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) in 

SAMHSA-regulated opioid treatment 

programs (https://www.samhsa.gov/ 

medication-assisted-treatment/becomeaccredited-opioid-treatment-program). 

Research details that many patients are 

unable to regularly access OTPs due to 

unreliable transportation, geographic 

disparity, employment or required 

activities of daily living. Providing 

buprenorphine via telehealth will allow 

more patients to receive comprehensive 

treatment. 

Summary of Legal Basis: To be 

determined. 

Alternatives: In the absence of 

congressional action, rulemaking is 

required. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

change will help facilitate access to and 

ensure continuity of medication 

treatment for opioid use disorder in 

SAMHSA-regulated opioid treatment 

programs. The change will likely reduce 

long-term costs at the practice level, 

while also facilitating access to 

treatment. However, a minority of 

providers may face upfront technology 

costs as they scale-up the provision of 

treatment via telehealth. We expect that 

since many providers have now shifted 

in part to telehealth services during the 

COVID–19 Public Health Emergency, 

their costs should now be related to 

equipment upgrades and software 

updates. The cost to patients would 

involve either use of Wi-Fi, data usage 

with their respective cellular devices or 

landline telephone service. We expect 

that many patients already have 

acquired some of these services, so the 

cost would be monthly maintenance of 

such services. 

Risks: Patients seeking this care might 

still be required to have an in person 

visit, as specified by their provider’s 

plan of care, so to receive 

comprehensive treatment. Without this 

provision, there is risk of patients 

receiving a lower standard of care and 

increased risk of diversion of the 

prescribed medications. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 09/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Dr. Neeraj Gandotra, 

Chief Medical Officer, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 

18E67, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: 202 

823–1816, Email: neeraj.gandotra@

samhsa.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0930–AA38 

HHS—SAMHSA 

50. • Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder 

With Extended Take Home Doses of 

Methadone 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 8. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: SAMHSA will revise 42 CFR 

part 8 to make permanent some 

regulatory flexibilities for opioid 

treatment programs to provide extended 

take home doses of methadone. To 

facilitate this new treatment paradigm, 

sections of 42 CFR part 8 will require 

updating to reflect current treatment 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5062 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

practice. SAMHSA’s changes will 

impact roughly 1,800 opioid treatment 

programs and state opioid treatment 

authorities. 

Statement of Need: This change will 

help ensure continuity of access to 

Medications for Opioid Use Disorder 

(MOUD) in SAMHSA-regulated opioid 

treatment programs (https://

www.samhsa.gov/medication-assistedtreatment/become-accredited-opioidtreatment-program). Research and 

stakeholder feedback details that the 

take home flexibilities have been well 

received by treatment programs and 

patients. There are very few reports of 

diversion or overdose, and the provision 

of extended take home doses facilitates 

patient engagement in activities, such as 

employment, that support recovery. 

Moreover, those with limited access to 

transportation benefit from extended 

take home doses since they are not 

required to attend the OTP almost each 

day of the week to receive Methadone. 

In this way, making permanent the 

methadone extended take home 

flexibility will facilitate treatment 

engagement. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The current 

OTP exemption at issue allows OTPs to 

operate in a manner that is otherwise 

inconsistent with existing OTP 

regulations, and therefore, a permanent 

extension of such exemptions would 

necessitate revisions of the OTP 

regulations. 

Alternatives: In the absence of 

congressional action, rulemaking is 

required. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

change will help facilitate and ensure 

continuity of access to medication 

treatment for opioid use disorder in 

SAMHSA-regulated opioid treatment 

programs. Programs have already 

incorporated this flexibility into 

practice and have systems in place that 

support its delivery in a cost effective 

and patient centered manner. This 

proposed rule is not expected to impart 

a cost to patients. In fact, the proposed 

rule allows patients to engage in 

employment and necessary daily 

activities. This supports income 

generation and also recovery. The 

increased number of take homes 

allowed may affect OTP clinic visit and 

thereby reduce revenue derived from 

clinical encounters and medication 

visits. Conversely patients may 

experience more convenient 

engagement with OTPs as the visits to 

clinic would be decreased. 

Risks: Patients seeking this care 

should still be required to have an inperson visit at the OTP in between 

provision of take-home doses, as 

directed by their treating physician’s 

plan of care. Without this provision, 

there is risk of patients receiving a lower 

standard of care and increased risk of 

diversion of the prescribed medications. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 09/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: State. 

Agency Contact: Dr. Neeraj Gandotra, 

Chief Medical Officer, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 

18E67, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: 202 

823–1816, Email: neeraj.gandotra@

samhsa.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0930–AA39 

HHS—CENTERS FOR DISEASE 

CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC) 

Final Rule Stage 

51. • Requirement for Proof of 

Vaccination or Other Proof of Immunity 

Against Quarantinable Communicable 

Diseases 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: secs. 215 and 311 of 

the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 216, 243); sec. 361 

to 369, PHS Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

264 to 272) 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 71. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This Interim Final Rule 

(IFR) will amend current regulations to 

permit CDC to require proof of 

vaccination or other proof of immunity 

against quarantinable communicable 

diseases. When CDC exercises this 

authority, persons arriving at a U.S. port 

of entry will be required to provide 

proof of immunity against quarantinable 

communicable diseases or proof of 

having been fully vaccinated against 

quarantinable communicable diseases. 

Additionally, as a condition of 

controlled free pratique under 42 CFR 

71.31(b), carriers destined for the United 

States must also comply with 

requirements of any order issued 

pursuant to the IFR. 

Statement of Need: In response to the 

COVID–19 pandemic, CDC is amending 

current regulations to require proof of 

vaccination or other proof of immunity 

against quarantinable communicable 

diseases for persons arriving at a U.S. 

port of entry. 

Summary of Legal Basis: HHS/CDC is 

promulgating this rule under sections 

215 and 311 of the Public Health 

Service Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 216, 

243); section 361 to 369, PHS Act, as 

amended (42 U.S.C 264 to 272). 

Alternatives: An alternative 

considered would allow non-U.S. 

nationals to submit accurate contact 

information, complete post-arrival 

testing, and self-quarantine after arrival 

in the United States in lieu of the 

vaccination requirement. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: HHS/ 

CDC believes it is likely that this 

rulemaking will be determined to be 

economically significant under E.O. 

12866. 

Risks: This rulemaking addresses the 

risk of introduction of communicable 

diseases by international travelers into 

the United States. By implementing this 

rulemaking, CDC can reduce the risk of 

importation of new COVID–19 variants 

into the United States. This rulemaking 

is expected to increase the number of 

travelers who are fully vaccinated upon 

arrival and reduce the number of 

international travelers arriving while 

infected. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 12/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Agency Contact: Ashley C. 

Altenburger JD, Public Health Analyst, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, 

MS: H 16–4, Atlanta, GA 30307, Phone: 

800 232–4636, Email: 

dgmqpolicyoffice@cdc.gov. 

RIN: 0920–AA80 

HHS—FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION (FDA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

52. Nonprescription Drug Product With 

an Additional Condition for 

Nonprescription Use 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 

U.S.C. 352; 21 U.S.C. 355; 21 U.S.C. 371; 

42 U.S.C. 262; 42 U.S.C. 264; . . . 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5063 

CFR Citation: 21 CFR 201.67; 21 CFR 

314.56; 21 CFR 314.81; 21 CFR 314.125; 

21 CFR 314.127. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The proposed rule is 

intended to increase access to 

nonprescription drug products. The 

proposed rule would establish 

requirements for a drug product that 

could be marketed as a nonprescription 

drug product with an additional 

condition that an applicant must 

implement to ensure appropriate selfselection, appropriate actual use, or 

both by consumers. 

Statement of Need: Nonprescription 

products have traditionally been limited 

to drugs that can be labeled with 

information for consumers to safely and 

appropriately self-select and use the 

drug product without supervision of a 

health care provider. There are certain 

prescription medications that may have 

comparable risk-benefit profiles to overthe-counter medications in selected 

populations. However, appropriate 

consumer selection and use may be 

difficult to achieve in the 

nonprescription setting based solely on 

information included in labeling. FDA 

is proposing regulations that would 

establish the requirement for a drug 

product that could be marketed as a 

nonprescription drug product with an 

additional condition that an applicant 

must implement to ensure appropriate 

self-selection or appropriate actual use 

or both for consumers. 

Summary of Legal Basis: FDA’s 

proposed revisions to the regulations 

regarding labeling and applications for 

nonprescription drug products labeling 

are authorized by the FD&C Act (21 

U.S.C. 321 et seq.) and by the Public 

Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262 and 

264). 

Alternatives: FDA evaluated various 

requirements for new drug applications 

to assess flexibility of nonprescription 

drug product design through drug 

labeling for appropriate self-selection 

and appropriate use. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

benefits of the proposed rule would 

include increased consumer access to 

drug products, which could translate to 

a reduction in under treatment of 

certain diseases and conditions. Benefits 

to industry would arise from the 

flexibility in drug product approval. The 

proposed rule would impose costs 

arising from the development of an 

innovative approach to assist consumers 

with nonprescription drug product selfselection or use. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Chris Wheeler, 

Supervisory Project Manager, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Food and Drug 

Administration, 10903 New Hampshire 

Avenue, Building 51, Room 3330, Silver 

Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 301 796– 

0151, Email: chris.wheeler@fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AH62 

HHS—FDA 

53. Nutrient Content Claims, Definition 

of Term: Healthy 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 

U.S.C. 331; 21 U.S.C. 343; 21 U.S.C. 371 

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 101.65 

(revision). 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The proposed rule would 

update the definition for the implied 

nutrient content claim ‘‘healthy’’ to be 

consistent with current nutrition 

science and federal dietary guidelines. 

The proposed rule would revise the 

requirements for when the claim 

‘‘healthy’’ can be voluntarily used in the 

labeling of human food products so that 

the claim reflects current science and 

dietary guidelines and helps consumers 

maintain healthy dietary practices. 

Statement of Need: FDA is proposing 

to redefine ‘‘healthy’’ to make it more 

consistent with current public health 

recommendations, including those 

captured in recent changes to the 

Nutrition Facts label. The existing 

definition for ‘‘healthy’’ is based on 

nutrition recommendations regarding 

intake of fat, saturated fat, and 

cholesterol, and specific nutrients 

Americans were not getting enough of in 

the early 1990s. Nutrition 

recommendations have evolved since 

that time; recommended diets now 

focus on dietary patterns, which 

includes getting enough of certain food 

groups such as fruits, vegetables, low-fat 

dairy, and whole grains. Chronic 

diseases, such as heart disease, cancer, 

and stroke, are the leading causes of 

death and disability in the United States 

and diet is a contributing factor to these 

diseases. Claims on food packages such 

as ‘‘healthy’’ can provide quick signals 

to consumers about the healthfulness of 

a food or beverage, thereby making it 

easier for busy consumers to make 

healthy choices. 

FDA is proposing to update the 

existing nutrient content claim 

definition of ‘‘healthy’’ based on the 

food groups recommended by the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans and 

also require a food product to be limited 

in certain nutrients, including saturated 

fat, sodium, and added sugar, to ensure 

that foods bearing the claim can help 

consumers build more healthful diets to 

help reduce their risk of diet-related 

chronic disease. 

Summary of Legal Basis: FDA is 

issuing this proposed rule under 

sections 201(n), 301(a), 403(a), 403(r), 

and 701(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 

321(n), 331(a), 343(a), 343(r), and 

371(a)). These sections authorize the 

agency to adopt regulations that prohibit 

labeling that bears claims that 

characterize the level of a nutrient 

which is of a type required to be 

declared in nutrition labeling unless the 

claim is made in accordance with a 

regulatory definition established by 

FDA. Pursuant to this authority, FDA 

issued a regulation defining the 

‘‘healthy’’ implied nutrient content 

claim, which is codified at 21 CFR 

101.65. This proposed rule would 

update the existing definition to be 

consistent with current federal dietary 

guidance. 

Alternatives: 

Alternative 1: Codify the policy in the 

current enforcement discretion 

guidance. 

In 2016, FDA published ‘‘Use of the 

Term ‘Healthy’ in the Labeling of 

Human Food Products: Guidance for 

Industry.’’ This guidance was intended 

to advise food manufacturers of FDA’s 

intent to exercise enforcement 

discretion relative to foods that use the 

implied nutrient content claim 

‘‘healthy’’ on their labels which: (1) Are 

not low in total fat, but have a fat profile 

makeup of predominantly mono and 

polyunsaturated fats; or (2) contain at 

least 10 percent of the Daily Value (DV) 

per reference amount customarily 

consumed (RACC) of potassium or 

vitamin D. 

One alternative is to codify the policy 

in this guidance. Although guidance is 

non-binding, we assume that most 

packaged food manufacturers are aware 

of the guidance and, over the past 2 

years, have already made any 

adjustments to their products or product 

packaging. Therefore, we assume that 

this alternative would have no costs to 

industry and no benefits to consumers. 

Alternative 2: Extend the compliance 

date by 1 year. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5064 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Extending the anticipated proposed 

compliance date on the rule updating 

the definition by 1 year would reduce 

costs to industry as they would have 

more time to change products that may 

be affected by the rule or potentially 

coordinate label changes with already 

scheduled label changes. On the other 

hand, a longer compliance date runs the 

risk of confusing consumers that may 

not understand whether a packaged 

food product labeled ‘‘healthy’’ follows 

the old definition or the updated one. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Food 

products bearing the ‘‘healthy’’ claim 

currently make up a small percentage 

(5%) of total packaged foods. Quantified 

costs to manufacturers include labeling, 

reformulating, and recordkeeping. 

Discounted at seven percent over 20 

years, the mean present value of costs of 

the proposed rule is $237 million, with 

a lower bound of $110 million and an 

upper bound of $434 million. 

Updating the definition of ‘‘healthy’’ 

to align with current dietary 

recommendations can help consumers 

build more healthful diets to help 

reduce their risk of diet-related chronic 

diseases. Discounted at seven percent 

over 20 years, the mean present value of 

benefits of the proposed rule is $260 

million, with a lower bound estimate of 

$17 million and an upper bound 

estimate of $700 million. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Vincent De Jesus, 

Nutritionist, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Food and Drug 

Administration, Center for Food Safety 

and Applied Nutrition, (HFS–830), 

Room 3D–031, 5100 Paint Branch 

Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, 

Phone: 240 402–1774, Fax: 301 436– 

1191, Email: vincent.dejesus@

fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AI13 

HHS—FDA 

54. Biologics Regulation Modernization 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 262; 42 

U.S.C. 301, et seq. 

CFR Citation: 21 CFR 601. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: FDA’s biologics regulations 

will be updated to clarify existing 

requirements and procedures related to 

Biologic License Applications and to 

promote the goals associated with FDA’s 

implementation of the abbreviated 

licensure pathway created by the 

Biologics Price Competition and 

Innovation Act of 2009. 

Statement of Need: As biologics 

regulations were primarily drafted in 

the 1970s, before passage of the BPCI 

Act, the regulations need to be updated 

and modernized to account for the 

existence of biosimilar and 

interchangeable biological products. 

The intent of this rulemaking is to make 

high priority updates to FDA’s biologics 

regulations with the goals of (1) 

providing enhanced clarity and 

regulatory certainty for manufacturers of 

both originator and biosimilar/ 

interchangeable products and (2) help 

prevent the gaming of FDA regulatory 

requirements to prevent or delay 

competition from biosimilars and 

interchangeable products. 

Summary of Legal Basis: FDA’s 

authority for this rule derives from the 

biological product provisions in section 

351 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262), and 

the provisions of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 

U.S.C. 301, et seq.) applicable to 

biological products. 

Alternatives: FDA would continue to 

rely on guidance and one-on-one 

communications with sponsors through 

formal meetings and correspondence to 

provide clarity on existing requirements 

and procedures related to Biologic 

License Applications, increasing the 

risk of potential confusion and burden. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

proposed rule would impose 

compliance costs on affected entities to 

read and understand the rule and to 

provide certain information relevant to 

the regulation. The provisions in this 

proposed rule would reduce regulatory 

uncertainty for manufacturers of 

originator and biosimilar and 

interchangeable products. This 

reduction of uncertainty may lead to 

time-savings to industry and costsavings to government due to better 

organized and more complete BLAs and 

increased procedural clarity and 

predictability. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Sandra Benton, 

Senior Policy Coordinator, Department 

of Health and Human Services, Food 

and Drug Administration, 10903 New 

Hampshire Avenue, Building 22, Room 

1132, Silver Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 

301 796–1042, Email: sandra.benton@

fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AI14 

HHS—FDA 

55. Medical Devices; Ear, Nose and 

Throat Devices; Establishing Over-theCounter Hearing Aids and Aligning 

Other Regulations 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 

U.S.C. 331 to 334; 21 U.S.C. 351 and 

352; 21 U.S.C. 360; 21 U.S.C. 360c to 

360e; Pub. L. 115–52, 131 Stat. 1065–67; 

21 U.S.C. 360i to 360k; 21 U.S.C. 360l; 

21 U.S.C. 371; 21 U.S.C. 374; 21 U.S.C. 

381; . . . 

CFR Citation: 21 CFR 800; 21 CFR 

801; 21 CFR 808; 21 CFR 874. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

August 18, 2020. 

Abstract: FDA is proposing to 

establish an over-the-counter category of 

hearing aids to promote the availability 

of additional kinds of devices that 

address mild to moderate hearing loss, 

and proposing related amendments to 

the current hearing aid regulations, the 

regulations codifying FDA decisions on 

State applications for exemption from 

preemption, and the hearing aid 

classification regulations. 

Statement of Need: Hearing loss 

affects an estimated 30 million people 

in the United States and can have a 

significant impact on communication, 

social participation, and overall health 

and quality of life. However, only about 

one-fifth of people who could benefit 

from a hearing aid seek intervention. 

Several barriers likely impede the use of 

hearing aids, and FDA is proposing 

rules to address some of these concerns. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 

301 et seq.) establishes a comprehensive 

system for the regulation of devices 

intended for human use, and hearing 

aids are subject to those provisions. 

Furthermore, the FDA Reauthorization 

Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115–52, 131 Stat. 

1005, 1066) directs FDA to establish by 

regulation a category of over-the-counter 

hearing aids. This rulemaking 

establishes requirements for the safe and 

effective use of hearing aids, including 

for the over-the-counter category of 

hearing aids. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5065 

Alternatives: FDA must establish the 

category of over-the-counter hearing 

aids as well as requirements that 

provide for reasonable assurance of 

safety and effectiveness of these hearing 

aids. However, FDA will consider 

different specific options to maximize 

the health benefits to hearing aid users 

while minimizing the economic burdens 

of the final rules. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FDA 

expects benefits of the rule to include 

cost savings to consumers who wish to 

buy lower-cost hearing aids, in part by 

enabling consumers to cross-compare 

and purchase the devices more easily. 

Other benefits may include improving 

health equity, especially for Americans 

living in rural areas, those with limited 

mobility, or those with limited means. 

Individual benefits may include 

improved health outcomes, and 

therefore improved social and economic 

participation. FDA expects costs to 

include those costs to manufacturers for 

changing labeling and updating existing 

processes. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/20/21 86 FR 58150 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/18/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: State. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

E.O. 13132. 

Agency Contact: Ian Ostermiller, 

Regulatory Counsel, Center for Devices 

and Radiological Health, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Food and 

Drug Administration, 10903 New 

Hampshire Avenue, WO 66, Room 5454, 

Silver Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 301 

796–5678, Email: ian.ostermiller@

fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AI21 

HHS—FDA 

56. Tobacco Product Standard for 

Characterizing Flavors in Cigars 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 331; 21 

U.S.C. 333; 21 U.S.C. 371(a); 21 U.S.C. 

387b and 387c; 21 U.S.C. 387f(d) and 

387g; . . . 

CFR Citation: 21 CFR 1166. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Evidence shows that 

flavored tobacco products appeal to 

youth and also shows that youth may be 

more likely to initiate tobacco use with 

such products. Characterizing flavors in 

cigars, such as strawberry, grape, 

orange, and cocoa, enhance taste and 

make them easier to use. Over a half 

million youth in the United States use 

flavored cigars, placing these youth at 

risk for cigar-related disease and death. 

This proposed rule is a tobacco product 

standard that would ban characterizing 

flavors (other than tobacco) in all cigars. 

We are taking this action with the 

intention of reducing the tobaccorelated death and disease associated 

with cigar use. 

Statement of Need: The Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as 

amended by the Family Smoking 

Prevention and Tobacco Control Act 

(Tobacco Control Act), authorizes FDA 

to adopt tobacco product standards 

under section 907 if the Secretary finds 

that a tobacco product standard is 

appropriate for the protection of the 

public health. This product standard 

would ban characterizing flavors (other 

than tobacco) in all cigars. 

Characterizing flavors in cigars, such as 

strawberry, grape, cocoa, and fruit 

punch, increase appeal and make the 

cigars easier to use, particularly among 

youth and young adults. This product 

standard would reduce the appeal of 

cigars, particularly to youth and young 

adults, and is intended to decrease the 

likelihood of experimentation, 

progression to regular use, and potential 

for addiction to nicotine. In addition, 

most of the users of flavored cigars are 

from under served communities and/or 

at risk populations, including racial/ 

ethnic minorities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, 

transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) 

persons, those of lower socioeconomic 

status, and youth. As such, reducing the 

appeal and use of cigars by eliminating 

characterizing flavors is also expected to 

decrease tobacco-related disparities and 

promote health equity across population 

groups. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 907 

of the FD&C Act authorizes the adoption 

of tobacco product standards if the 

Secretary finds that a tobacco product 

standard is appropriate for the 

protection of the public health. Section 

907 also authorizes FDA to include in 

a product standard a provision that 

restricts the sale and distribution of a 

tobacco product to the extent that it may 

be restricted by a regulation under 

section 906(d) of the FD&C Act. Section 

701(a) of the FD&C Act authorizes the 

promulgation of regulations for the 

efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act. 

Alternatives: In addition to the costs 

and benefits of the proposed rule, FDA 

will assess the costs and benefits of 

changing the effective date of the rule, 

and including pipe tobacco in the 

proposed standard. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

anticipated benefits of the proposed rule 

stem from diminished exposure to 

tobacco smoke for users of cigars from 

decreased experimentation, progression 

to regular use, and consumption of 

cigars with characterizing flavors other 

than tobacco. The diminished exposure 

and use is expected to reduce illness 

and improve health. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 03/21/18 83 FR 12294 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

07/19/18 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Samantha 

LohColladom, Regulatory Counsel, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Food and Drug 

Administration, Center for Tobacco 

Products, 10903 New Hampshire 

Avenue, Document Control Center, 

Building 71, Room G335, Silver Spring, 

MD 20993, Phone: 877 287–1373, Email: 

ctpregulations@fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AI28 

HHS—FDA 

57. Conduct of Analytical and Clinical 

Pharmacology, Bioavailability and 

Bioequivalence Studies 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 355; 21 

U.S.C. 371; 21 U.S.C. 374; 42 U.S.C. 262 

CFR Citation: 21 CFR 16; 21 CFR 314; 

21 CFR 320; 21 CFR 321; 21 CFR 601; 

. . . 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: FDA is proposing to amend 

21 CFR 320, in certain parts, and 

establish a new 21 CFR 321 to clarify 

FDA’s study conduct expectations for 

analytical and clinical pharmacology, 

bioavailability (BA) and bioequivalence 

(BE) studies that support marketing 

applications for human drug and 

biological products. The proposed rule 

would specify needed basic study 

conduct requirements to enable FDA to 

ensure those studies are conducted 

appropriately and to verify the 

reliability of study data from those 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5066 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

studies. This regulation would align 

with FDA’s other good practice 

regulations, would also be consistent 

with current industry best practices, and 

would harmonize the regulations more 

closely with related international 

regulatory expectations. 

Statement of Need: FDA receives 

clinical pharmacology and clinical and 

analytical bioavailability (BA) and 

bioequivalence (BE) study data in 

support of new and abbreviated new 

drug applications, and biological license 

applications. Our ability to ensure 

studies supporting those applications 

are reliable and valid, including data 

reliability and human subject 

protection, is severely limited because 

our regulations governing BA and BE 

studies at 21 CFR part 320 lack basic 

study conduct requirements necessary 

for the Agency to verify study data 

reliability. Current part 320 does not 

describe specific responsibilities for 

persons involved in the conduct of 

clinical and analytical BA and BE 

studies, recordkeeping and record 

retention requirements, standing 

operating procedures, or compliance 

provisions. The proposed rule would 

revise part 320 and establish a new part 

321 to codify the Agency’s expectations, 

and industry best practices, for the 

conduct of clinical pharmacology and 

clinical and analytical BA and BE 

studies for human drug and biological 

product marketing applications. 

Summary of Legal Basis: FDA’s 

proposed revisions to the regulations 

regarding the conduct of clinical 

pharmacology and clinical and 

analytical BA and BE are authorized by 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 371 and 374) and by 

the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

262). 

Alternatives: FDA considered 

providing guidance to applicants and 

their contractors that conduct and 

submits clinical pharmacology and 

clinical and analytical BA and BE 

studies to the Agency in support of 

marketing applications. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

benefits of the proposed rule would be 

increased clarity to industry on study 

conduct expectations that should 

improve study quality and thereby, to 

the extent possible, result in fewer study 

rejections due to deficiencies identified 

by Agency inspections, and thus 

promote faster application approvals. 

Also, potential benefit to patients by 

increasing the speed in which new 

human drug and biological products are 

approved to market. The costs would 

stem from the proposed rule 

establishing recordkeeping requirements 

and procedures and processes 

requirements that applicants and their 

contractors would need to meet. These 

proposed requirements are in-line with 

current industry best practices. 

Risks: The current regulatory 

framework does not adequately describe 

FDA’s expectations for the conduct 

clinical pharmacology and clinical and 

analytical BA and BE studies to ensure 

industry performs those studies in a 

consistent and reliable manner. The 

proposed rule would establish basic 

study conduct expectations to ensure 

study reliability, including data 

reliability and human subject 

protection. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Brian Joseph Folian, 

Regulatory Counsel, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Food and 

Drug Administration, 10903 New 

Hampshire Avenue, Building 51, Room 

5215, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 

Phone: 240 402–4089, Email: 

brian.folian@fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AI57 

HHS—FDA 

58. Tobacco Product Standard for 

Menthol in Cigarettes 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 387g 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule is a 

tobacco product standard to prohibit the 

use of menthol as a characterizing flavor 

in cigarettes. 

Statement of Need: The Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as 

amended by the Family Smoking 

Prevention and Tobacco Control Act 

(Tobacco Control Act), authorizes FDA 

to adopt tobacco product standards 

under section 907 if the Secretary finds 

that a tobacco product standard is 

appropriate for the protection of the 

public health. This product standard 

would ban menthol as a characterizing 

flavor in cigarettes. The standard would 

reduce the availability of menthol 

cigarettes and thereby decrease the 

likelihood that nonusers who would 

experiment with these products would 

progress to regular cigarette smoking. In 

addition, among current menthol 

cigarette smokers, the proposed tobacco 

product standard is likely to improve 

the health of current menthol cigarette 

smokers by decreasing consumption and 

increasing the likelihood of cessation. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 907 

of the FD&C Act authorizes the adoption 

of tobacco product standards if the 

Secretary finds that a tobacco product 

standard is appropriate for the 

protection of public health. 

Alternatives: In addition to the costs 

and benefits of the proposed rule, FDA 

will assess the costs and benefits of 

extending the effective date of the rule, 

creating a process by which some 

products may apply for an exemption or 

variance from the proposed product 

standard, and prohibiting menthol as an 

additive in cigarette products rather 

than prohibiting menthol as a 

characterizing flavor. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed rule is expected to generate 

compliance costs on affected entities, 

such as one-time costs to read and 

understand the rule and alter 

manufacturing/importing practices. The 

quantified benefits of the proposed rule 

stem from improved health and 

diminished exposure to tobacco smoke 

for users of cigarettes from decreased 

experimentation, progression to regular 

use, and consumption of menthol 

cigarettes. The qualitative benefits of the 

proposed rule include impacts such as 

reduced illness for smokers. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 07/24/13 78 FR 44484 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

09/23/13 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Beth Buckler, Senior 

Regulatory Counsel, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Food and 

Drug Administration, Center for 

Tobacco Products, 10903 New 

Hampshire Avenue, Document Control 

Center, Building 71, Room G335, Silver 

Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 877 287– 

1373, Email: ctpregulations@

fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AI60 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5067 

HHS—HEALTH RESOURCES AND 

SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

59. • 340B Drug Pricing Program; 

Administrative Dispute Resolution 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 10. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

replace the Administrative Dispute 

Resolution (ADR) final rule currently in 

effect and apply to all drug 

manufacturers and covered entities that 

participate in the 340B Drug Pricing 

Program (340B Program), It would 

establish new requirements and 

procedures for the 340B Program’s ADR 

process. This administrative process 

would allow covered entities and 

manufacturers to file claims for specific 

compliance areas outlined in the statute 

after good faith efforts have been 

exhausted by the parties. 

Statement of Need: This NPRM 

proposes to replace the 340B 

Administrative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR) final rule, which was published 

in December 2020 and became effective 

January 13, 2021. This new rule will 

propose new requirements and 

procedures for the 340B Program’s ADR 

process. The proposed rule applies to 

drug manufacturers and covered entities 

participating in the 340B Drug Pricing 

Program (340B Program) by allowing 

these entities to file claims for specific 

compliance areas outlined in the 340B 

statute after good faith efforts have been 

exhausted by the parties. This NPRM 

better aligns with the President’s 

priorities on drug pricing, better reflects 

the current state of the 340B Program, 

and seeks to correct procedural 

deficiencies in the 340B ADR process. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

340B(d)(3) of the Public Health Service 

Act (PHS Act) requires the Secretary to 

promulgate regulations establishing and 

implementing an ADR process for 

certain disputes arising under the 340B 

Program. Under the 340B statute, the 

purpose of the ADR process is to resolve 

(1) Claims by covered entities that they 

have been overcharged for covered 

outpatient drugs by manufacturers and 

(2) claims by manufacturers, after a 

manufacturer has conducted an audit as 

authorized by section 340B(a)(5)(C) of 

the PHS Act, that a covered entity has 

violated the prohibition on diversion or 

duplicate discounts. 

Alternatives: N/A. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: N/A. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Michelle Herzog, 

Deputy Director, Office of Pharmacy 

Affairs, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Health Resources and 

Services Administration, 5600 Fishers 

Lane, 08W12, Rockville, MD 20857, 

Phone: 301 443–4353, Email: mherzog@

hrsa.gov. 

RIN: 0906–AB28 

HHS—INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE (IHS) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

60. Catastrophic Health Emergency 

Fund (Chef) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 94–437, sec. 

202(d), IHCI Act, as amended by Pub. L. 

111–148, sec. 10221 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Catastrophic Health 

Emergency Fund (CHEF) pays for 

extraordinary medical costs associated 

with treatment of victims of disasters or 

catastrophic illnesses. CHEF is used to 

reimburse PRC programs for high cost 

cases (e.g., burn victims, motor vehicle 

accidents, high risk obstetrics, 

cardiology, etc.). The proposed rule 

establishes conditions and procedures 

for payment from the fund. During the 

comment period for the NPRM, several 

Tribes and Tribal Organizations 

expressed concern about provisions in 

the NRPM related to coordination with 

Tribal self-insurance as an alternate 

resource. In response to those concerns, 

the IHS engaged in additional Tribal 

consultation and decided to delay 

moving forward with the NPRM 

pending the resolution of relevant 

litigation. IHS intends to proceed with 

developing the NPRM consistent with 

how Tribal self-insurance is currently 

recognized in agency policy at https:// 

www.ihs.gov/ihm/pc/part-2/chapter-3- 

purchased-referred-care/. On January 

29, 2021, IHS issued a Dear Tribal 

Leader Letter to clarify that the 

proposed rule should not be relied upon 

and that IHS will be moving forward by 

publishing a new proposed rule in the 

near future. A copy of the Dear Tribal 

Leader Letter concerning next steps for 

the CHEF regulations is available on the 

IHS website at: https://www.ihs.gov/ 

sites/newsroom/themes/ 

responsive2017/display_objects/ 

documents/2021_Letters/DTLL_

01292021.pdf. 

Statement of Need: These regulations 

propose to (1) establish definitions 

governing CHEF, including definitions 

of disasters and catastrophic illnesses; 

(2) establish that a service unit shall not 

be eligible for reimbursement for the 

cost of treatment from CHEF until its 

cost of treating any victim of such 

catastrophic illness or disaster has 

reached a certain threshold cost; (3) 

establish a procedure for reimbursement 

of the portion of the costs for authorized 

services that exceed such threshold 

costs; (4) establish a procedure for 

payment from CHEF for cases in which 

the exigencies of the medical 

circumstances warrant treatment prior 

to the authorization of such treatment; 

and (5) establish a procedure that will 

ensure no payment will be made from 

CHEF to a service unit to the extent that 

the provider of services is eligible to 

receive payment for the treatment from 

any other Federal, State, local, or private 

source of reimbursement for which the 

patient is eligible. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

202(d) of the Indian Health Care 

Improvement Act (IHCIA), Public Law 

94–437 (1976), as amended by the 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

Act, Public Law 111–148, section 10221 

(2010) requires the Secretary of the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, acting through the Indian 

Health Service (IHS), to promulgate 

regulations to implement section 202(d). 

Section 202(d) of the IHCIA amends the 

IHS Catastrophic Health Emergency 

Fund (CHEF) by establishing the CHEF 

threshold cost to the 2000 level of 

$19,000; maintains requirements in 

current law to promulgate regulations 

consistent with the provisions of the 

CHEF to establish a definition of 

disasters and catastrophic illnesses for 

which the cost of the treatment 

provided under contract would qualify 

for payment under CHEF; provides that 

a service unit shall not be eligible for 

reimbursement for the cost of treatment 

from CHEF until its cost of treating any 

victim of such catastrophic illness or 

disaster has reached a certain threshold 

cost which the Secretary shall establish 

at the 2000 level of $19,000; and for any 

subsequent year, not less than the 

threshold cost of the previous year 

increased by the percentage increase in 

medical care expenditure category of the 

consumer price index for all urban 

consumers; establish a procedure that 

will ensure no payment will be made 

from CHEF to a service unit to the 

extent that the provider of services is 

eligible to receive payment for the 

treatment from any other Federal, State, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5068 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

local, or private source of 

reimbursement for which the patient is 

eligible. 

Alternatives: None. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Reducing the threshold to $19,000 will 

allow for more purchased/referred care 

cases to be eligible for CHEF. Tribal and 

Federal PRC programs with limited 

budgets would have more of an 

opportunity to access the CHEF. 

Risks: The increase in cases will 

deplete the CHEF earlier in the fiscal 

year unless CHEF funding is increased. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/26/16 81 FR 4339 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

03/11/16 

NPRM .................. 02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: CAPT John E. Rael, 

Director, Office of Resource Access and 

Partnerships, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Indian Health Service, 

5600 Fishers Lane, Suite 10E73, 

Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: 301 443– 

0969, Email: john.rael@ihs.gov. 

RIN: 0917–AA10 

HHS—IHS 

Final Rule Stage 

61. Acquisition Regulations; Buy Indian 

Act; Procedures for Contracting 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Transfer Act of 1954 

(42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.); Transfer Act (42 

U.S.C. 2003); 25 U.S.C. 1633; Buy 

Indian Act 1910; Indian Community 

Economic Enhancement Act of 2020 

(Pub. L. 116–261); . . . 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Indian Health Service 

(IHS) is proposing to issue regulations 

guiding implementation of the Buy 

Indian Act, which provides IHS with 

authority to set-aside procurement 

contracts for Indian-owned and 

controlled businesses. This rule 

supplements the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) and the current HHS 

Acquisition Regulations (HHSAR). IHS 

may use the Buy Indian Act 

procurement authority for acquisitions 

in connection with those functions. This 

rule is proposed to describe 

administration procedures that the IHS 

will use in all of its locations to 

encourage procurement relationships 

with eligible Indian Economic 

Enterprises in the execution of the Buy 

Indian Act. These proposed rules are 

intended to be consistent with Buy 

Indian Act rules previously 

promulgated by the Department of 

Interior. IHS published the proposed 

rule on November 10, 2020, with a 60- 

day comment period ending January 11, 

2021 (85 FR 71596). Comments were 

received from tribes and tribal entities 

requesting an extension of the comment 

period due to the encompassing of the 

holiday season during the original 

comment period, as well as the 

disproportionately high impact of the 

pandemic on Indian Country. Both of 

these events delayed stakeholders from 

being able to perform a complete and 

full review and provide comments 

within the initial 60-day comment 

period. On April 21, 2021, HHS 

reopened the NPRM and extended the 

comment period for 60 days. The 

comment period closed on June 21, 

2021. 

Statement of Need: Due to the unique 

legal and political relationship with 

Indian Tribes, the Federal government 

has a number of programs and 

authorities to support and expand the 

economic development of tribal entities 

and their individual members. The Buy 

Indian Act of 1910 is one of these 

programs that allows for the Department 

of Health and Human Services’ IHS and 

the Department of the Interior’s BIA to 

award federal contracts to Indian-owned 

businesses without using the standard 

competitive process. The IHS annually 

obligates over $1 billion in commercial 

contracts. Much of this can be set-aside 

under the Buy Indian Act. The 

established use of this rule will promote 

the growth and development of Indian 

industries and in turn, foster economic 

development and sustainability in 

Indian Country. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule 

proposes to amend the HHSAR, which 

is maintained by Assistant Secretary for 

Financial Resources (ASFR) pursuant to 

48 CFR 301.103, to establish Buy Indian 

Act acquisition policies and procedures 

for IHS that are consistent with rules 

proposed and/or adopted by the 

Department of the Interior. This rule is 

to provide uniform administration 

procedures that the IHS will use in all 

of its locations to encourage 

procurement relationships with Indian 

labor and industry in the execution of 

the Buy Indian Act. IHS’ current rules 

are codified at HHSAR, 48 CFR part 326, 

subpart 326.6. The Transfer Act 

authorizes the Secretary of HHS to make 

such other regulations as he deems 

desirable to carry out the provisions of 

the [Transfer Act]. 42 U.S.C. 2003. The 

Secretary’s authority to carry out 

functions under the Transfer Act has 

been vested in the Director of the Indian 

Health Service under 25 U.S.C. 1661. 

Because of these authorities, use of the 

Buy Indian Act is reserved to IHS and 

is not available for use by any other 

HHS component. IHS authority to use 

the Buy Indian Act is further governed 

by 25 U.S.C.1633, which directs the 

Secretary to issue regulations governing 

the application of the Buy Indian Act to 

construction activities. Additionally, 

when Congress amended the Buy Indian 

Act, they added a requirement to 

harmonize the Buy Indian Act 

regulations. As such, the Secretaries 

shall promulgate regulations to 

harmonize the procurement procedures 

of the Department of the Interior and the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

Alternatives: There are no apparent 

alternatives to ensure compliance with 

this law. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

benefits of this rule include, policy and 

compliance objectives such as: 

Supporting procurement relationships 

with Indian labor and industry as well 

as overall Tribal relationships, in the 

execution of the Buy Indian Act; 

consistent IHS use with the DOI/BIA 

regulations; and fostering economic 

development and sustainability in 

Indian Country. To avoid additional 

costs, the rule supports utilization of 

fair and reasonable price requirements, 

pursuant to the Federal Acquisition 

Regulations (FAR). Additionally, IHS 

intends to conduct all training on the 

Buy Indian Act in-house and/or in 

collaboration with the DOI/BIA. 

Risks: IHS foresees minimal risks in 

the implementation of this rule. One 

potential risk is an increased number of 

Buy Indian Act challenges to 

representation requirement but IHS 

views this more as a benefit in ensuring 

Buy Indian Act set-aside commercial 

contracts are appropriately awarded to 

confirmed Indian Economic Enterprises. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/11/20 85 FR 71596 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/11/21 

NPRM Comment 

Period Reopened.

04/21/21 86 FR 20648 

NPRM Comment 

Period Reopened End.

06/21/21 

Final Action ......... 02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5069 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Santiago Almaraz, 

Acting Director, Office of Management 

Service, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Indian Health Service, 

5600 Fishers Lane, Suite 09E45, 

Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: 301 443– 

4872, Email: santiago.almaraz@ihs.gov. 

RIN: 0917–AA18 

HHS—CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & 

MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

62. Streamlining the Medicaid and Chip 

Application, Eligibility Determination, 

Enrollment, and Renewal Processes 

(CMS–2421) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 431; 42 CFR 

435; 42 CFR 457. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

streamline eligibility and enrollment 

processes for all Medicaid and CHIP 

populations and create new enrollment 

pathways to maximize enrollment and 

retention of eligible individuals. 

Statement of Need: Since the 

implementation of the Affordable Care 

Act (ACA), CMS has made 

improvements in streamlining the 

Medicaid and CHIP application, 

eligibility determination, enrollment, 

and renewal processes. Simplifying 

enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP 

coverage is a foundational step in efforts 

to address health disparities for lowincome individuals. However, gaps 

remain in States’ ability to seamlessly 

process beneficiaries’ eligibility and 

enrollment in order to maximize 

coverage. This proposed rule will 

provide States with the tools they need 

to reduce unnecessary barriers to 

enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP and 

to keep eligible beneficiaries covered. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule 

responds to the January 28, 2021, 

Executive Order on Strengthening 

Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. 

It addresses components of title XIX and 

title XXI of the Social Security Act and 

several sections of the Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111– 

148) and the Health Care and Education 

Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111– 

152), which amended and revised 

several provisions of the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

Alternatives: In developing the 

policies contained in this rule, we 

considered numerous alternatives to the 

presented proposals, including 

maintaining existing requirements. 

These alternatives will be described in 

the rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

provisions in this rule would streamline 

Medicaid and CHIP enrollment 

processes and ensure that eligible 

beneficiaries can maintain coverage. 

While states and the Federal 

Government may incur some initial 

costs to implement these changes, this 

rule aims to reduce administrative 

barriers to enrollment, which is 

expected to reduce administrative costs 

over time. The provisions in this rule 

are designed to increase access to 

affordable health coverage, and we 

believe that the benefits will justify any 

costs. Additionally, through clear and 

consistent requirements for the timely 

renewal of eligibility for all 

beneficiaries, this rule promotes 

program integrity, thereby protecting 

taxpayer funds at both the state and 

federal levels. As we move toward 

publication, estimates of the cost and 

benefits of these provisions will be 

included in the rule. 

Risks: We anticipate that the 

provisions of this rule would further the 

administration’s goal of strengthening 

Medicaid and making high-quality 

health care accessible and affordable for 

every American. At the same time, 

through clear and consistent 

requirements for conducting regular 

renewals of eligibility, acting on 

changes reported by beneficiaries and 

maintaining thorough recordkeeping on 

these activities, this rule would reduce 

the risk of improper payments. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Agency Contact: Sarah Delone, 

Deputy Director, Children and Adults 

Health Programs Group, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center 

for Medicaid and CHIP Services, MS: 

S2–01–16, 7500 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786– 

5647, Email: sarah.delone2@

cms.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0938–AU00 

HHS—CMS 

63. Provider Nondiscrimination 

Requirements for Group Health Plans 

and Health Insurance Issuers in the 

Group and Individual Markets (CMS– 

9910) 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 116–260, 

Division BB, title I; 42 U.S.C. 300gg–5(a) 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

January 1, 2022, Section 108 of the No 

Surprises Act requires proposed 

rulemaking by January 1, 2022. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

implement section 108 of the No 

Surprises Act. 

Statement of Need: Not yet 

determined. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Department of Health and Human 

Services regulations are adopted 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 2701 through 2763, 2791, 2792, 

2794, 2799A–1 through 2799B–9 of the 

PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–63, 300gg–91, 

300gg–92, 300gg–94, 300gg–139), as 

amended. 

Alternatives: Not yet determined. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet 

determined. 

Risks: Not yet determined. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

State. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Lindsey Murtagh, 

Director, Market-Wide Regulation 

Division, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, Center for Consumer 

Information and Insurance Oversight, 

7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21244, Phone: 301 492–4106, Email: 

lindsey.murtagh@cms.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0938–AU64 

HHS—CMS 

64. Assuring Access to Medicaid 

Services (CMS–2442) 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 438; 42 CFR 

447. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5070 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule proposes to assure 

and monitor equitable access in 

Medicaid and the Children’s Health 

Insurance Program (CHIP). These 

activities could include actions that 

support the implementation of a 

comprehensive access strategy as well 

as payment specific requirements 

related to particular delivery systems. 

Statement of Need: In order to assure 

equitable access to health care for all 

Medicaid and Children’s Health 

Insurance Program (CHIP) beneficiaries 

across all delivery systems, access 

regulations need to be multi-factorial 

and focus beyond payment rates. 

Barriers to accessing health care services 

can be as heterogeneous as Medicaid 

and CHIP populations ranging from 

potential barriers to access which can be 

measured through provider availability 

and provider accessibility -to- realized 

or perceived access barriers which can 

be measured through utilization and 

satisfaction with services. CMCS is 

developing a comprehensive access 

strategy that will address not only FeeFor-Service (FFS) payment, but also 

access in managed care and Home and 

Community-Based Services (HCBS). The 

scope of this rule is unknown at this 

time, but will seek to assure and 

monitor equitable access in Medicaid 

and CHIP. 

Summary of Legal Basis: At this time, 

the scope of the rule is unknown. 

However, there are no broad access 

requirements specified in the statute 

beyond payment: Section 1902(a)(30)(A) 

of the Act requires states to ‘‘assure that 

payments are consistent with efficiency, 

economy, and quality of care and are 

sufficient to enlist enough providers so 

that care and services are available 

under the plan at least to the extent that 

such care and services are available to 

the general population in the geographic 

area.’’ 

Alternatives: In developing the 

policies contained in this rule, we will 

consider numerous alternatives to the 

presented proposals, including 

maintaining existing requirements. 

These alternatives will be described in 

the rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

proposed rule would be expected to 

result in potential costs for states to 

come into and remain in compliance. 

Estimates for associated costs are 

unknown at this time and may vary by 

state. Information about anticipated 

costs will be included in the proposed 

rule. 

Risks: At this time, we are still at 

work developing a comprehensive 

access strategy. We have not yet 

concluded which pieces are best done 

through rulemaking versus other 

guidance. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: State. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Karen Llanos, 

Director, Medicaid Innovation 

Accelerator Program and Strategy 

Support, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, Center for Medicaid 

and CHIP Services, MS: S2–04–28, 7500 

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21244, Phone: 410 786–9071, Email: 

karen.llanos@cms.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0938–AU68 

HHS—CMS 

65. • Implementing Certain Provisions 

of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 

and Other Revisions to Medicare 

Enrollment and Eligibility Rules (CMS– 

4199) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 116–260, 

secs. 120 & 402; 42 U.S.C 1395i–2 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 400; 42 CFR 

406; 42 CFR 407; 42 CFR 408; . . . 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

October 1, 2022, Enrollments under 

section 402 of the CAA start on 10/1/22. 

Final, Statutory, January 1, 2023, 

Provisions under sections 120 and 402 

of the CAA must be effective 1/1/23. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

implement certain Medicare-related 

provisions of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA). 

Specifically, section 120 of the CAA 

allows for Medicare coverage to take 

effect earlier for people who enroll in 

the General Enrollment Period (GEP) or 

within the last three months of their 

Initial Enrollment Period (IEP). Section 

120 also gives the Secretary the 

authority to establish special enrollment 

periods for exceptional circumstances. 

Section 402 of the CAA extends 

immunosuppressive drug coverage for 

Medicare kidney transplant recipients 

beyond the current law 36-month limit 

following a transplant by providing 

immunosuppressive drug coverage 

under Medicare Part B for these 

individuals. Separately, this rule would 

address enrollment in Medicare Part A 

for applicants who are eligible for Social 

Security benefits, but are not yet 

receiving them, and make certain 

updates related to state payment of 

Medicare premiums. 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

necessary to implement section 120 of 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2021 (CAA) that revises effective dates 

of coverage for individuals enrolling in 

Medicare and gives the Secretary of the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services the authority to establish 

special enrollment periods (SEPs) for 

exceptional circumstances beginning 

January 1, 2023. This rule also 

implements section 402 of the CAA that, 

beginning January 1, 2023, provides for 

coverage of immunosuppressive drugs 

under part B for certain individuals 

whose Medicare entitlement based on 

end-stage renal disease (ESRD) would 

otherwise end 36-months after the 

month in which they received a 

successful kidney transplant. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal 

basis of this rule is the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021 (sections 120 

and 402). 

Alternatives: The provisions of this 

rule are primarily established in statute. 

Where there is discretion, alternatives 

will be discussed within the text of the 

rule. Public comments will also be 

considered in the development of the 

final rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We 

believe that this rule will have a 

positive impact on health outcomes of 

beneficiaries because it provides for 

Medicare coverage to begin earlier and 

provides for coverage of 

immunosuppressive drugs in situations 

where, currently, they are not covered. 

Risks: The risks associated with not 

publishing this regulation would be not 

establishing the regulatory authority 

under which immunosuppressive drug 

benefits and effective dates of coverage 

will be based upon beginning January 

2023. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Kristy Nishimoto, 

Health Insurance Specialist, Department 

of Health and Human Services, Centers 

for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 

Center for Medicare, MS: 100, 7500 

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21244, Phone: 206 615–2367, Email: 

kristy.nishimoto@cms.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0938–AU85 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5071 

HHS—CMS 

66. • Requirements for Rural 

Emergency Hospitals (CMS–3419) 

(Section 610 Review) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1395x 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

January 1, 2023, Per statute, 

amendments made by this section apply 

to items and services furnished on or 

after January 1, 2023. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

establish health and safety requirements 

for a new provider type, Rural 

Emergency Hospitals, in accordance 

with section 125 of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021. 

Statement of Need: This rule proposes 

health and safety standards for Rural 

Emergency Hospitals (REHs). 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule 

addresses section 125 of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. 

L. No: 116–260), which establishes 

REHs as a new provider type eligible for 

Medicare payment. 

Alternatives: We understand that the 

policies that will be included in this 

proposed rule will have impacts on 

rural communities and providers of 

health care services in these 

communities. These impacts will be 

taken into consideration as we evaluate 

policy alternatives in the development 

of this proposed rule. These alternatives 

will be included in the rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

proposed rule aims to increase access to 

health care services, including 

emergency services, to rural 

communities. Many rural Americans 

face healthcare inequities resulting in 

worse outcomes overall in rural areas. 

Increasing access to key health care 

services in these communities will help 

address such healthcare inequities. 

Estimates of the cost and benefits of the 

developed provisions will be included 

in the proposed rule. 

Risks: Although there are some risks 

associated with the potential loss of 

inpatient services in rural communities 

as providers convert to an REH, we 

anticipate that only eligible rural 

hospitals and critical access hospitals 

with very low average daily inpatient 

censuses will convert to an REH. We 

anticipate that the provisions of this 

proposed rule would help further HHS’s 

goal of increasing rural access to care. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Kianna Banks, 

Technical Advisor, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center 

for Clinical Standards and Quality, MS: 

S3–02–01, 7500 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786– 

8486, Email: kianna.banks@

cms.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0938–AU92 

HHS—CMS 

67. • Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act and the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 

(CMS–9902) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 116–260, 

Division BB, title II; Pub. L. 110–343, 

secs. 511 to 512 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule would propose 

amendments to the final rules 

implementing the Mental Health Parity 

and Addiction Equity Act, taking into 

account the amendments to the law 

enacted by the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021. 

Statement of Need: There have been 

a number of legislative enactments 

related to MHPAEA since issuance of 

the 2014 final rules, including the 21st 

Century Cures Act, the Support Act, and 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2021. This rule would propose 

amendments to the final rules and 

incorporate examples and modifications 

to account for this legislation and 

previously issued guidance. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Department of Health and Human 

Services regulations are adopted 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 2701 through 2763, 2791, 2792, 

2794, 2799A–1 through 2799B–9 of the 

PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–63, 300gg–91, 

300gg–92, 300gg–94, 300gg–139), as 

amended. 

Alternatives: Not yet determined. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet 

determined. 

Risks: Not yet determined. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

State. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

E.O. 13132. 

Agency Contact: Lindsey Murtagh, 

Director, Market–Wide Regulation 

Division, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, Center for Consumer 

Information and Insurance Oversight, 

7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21244, Phone: 301 492–4106, Email: 

lindsey.murtagh@cms.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0938–AU93 

HHS—CMS 

68. • Coverage of Certain Preventive 

Services (CMS–9903) 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111–148, sec. 

1001 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule would propose 

amendments to the final rules regarding 

religious and moral exemptions and 

accommodations regarding coverage of 

certain preventive services under title I 

of the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act. 

Statement of Need: Not yet 

determined. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Department of Health and Human 

Services regulations are adopted 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 2701 through 2763, 2791, 2792, 

2794, 2799A–1 through 2799B–9 of the 

PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–63, 300gg–91, 

300gg–92, 300gg–94, 300gg–139), as 

amended. 

Alternatives: Not yet determined. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet 

determined. 

Risks: Not yet determined. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

E.O. 13132. 

Agency Contact: Lindsey Murtagh, 

Director, Market–Wide Regulation 

Division, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5072 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Medicaid Services, Center for Consumer 

Information and Insurance Oversight, 

7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21244, Phone: 301 492–4106, Email: 

lindsey.murtagh@cms.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0938–AU94 

HHS—CMS 

Final Rule Stage 

69. • Omnibus COVID–19 Health Care 

Staff Vaccination (CMS–3415) (Section 

610 Review) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1395hh; 42 

U.S.C. 1302 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 483. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This interim final rule with 

comment period revises the infection 

control requirements that most 

Medicare- and Medicaid-participating 

providers and suppliers must meet to 

participate in the Medicare and 

Medicaid programs. These changes are 

necessary to protect the health and 

safety of residents, clients, patients, and 

staff and reflect lessons learned as result 

of the COVID–19 public health 

emergency. The revisions to the 

infection control requirements establish 

COVID–19 vaccination requirements for 

staff at the included Medicare- and 

Medicaid-participating providers and 

suppliers. 

Statement of Need: The rule 

establishes COVID–19 vaccination 

requirements for staff at the included 

Medicare-and Medicaid-participating 

providers and suppliers. These changes 

are necessary to protect the health and 

safety of residents, clients, patients, and 

staff. 

Summary of Legal Basis: CMS has 

broad statutory authority to establish 

health and safety regulations, which 

includes authority to establish health 

and safety standards for Medicare and 

Medicaid certified facilities. We believe 

requiring staff vaccinations for COVID– 

19 is critical to safeguarding the health 

and safety of all individuals seeking 

health care in Medicare and Medicaid 

certified facilities. Sections 1102 and 

1871 of the Social Security Act (the Act) 

grant the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services authority to make and 

publish such rules and regulations, not 

inconsistent with the Act, as may be 

necessary to the efficient administration 

of the functions with which the 

Secretary is charged under this Act. 

Alternatives: In developing the 

policies contained in this rule, we 

considered numerous alternatives to the 

final provisions including limiting 

vaccination requirements to direct care 

employees, additional requirements, 

and different implementation time 

frames. These alternatives are discussed 

in further detail in the rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We 

estimate costs associated with this 

rulemaking including those costs 

associated with information collection 

requirements, additional recordkeeping, 

and costs associated with vaccination. 

We anticipate benefits of the rule to 

include reduction in the transmission of 

infections and decreases in 

hospitalizations and mortality. 

Risks: Although there is some 

uncertainty about the effects of this rule 

on health care staffing, we believe that 

the wide application of these 

requirements will reduce the likelihood 

of individual workers seeking new 

employment in order to avoid 

vaccination. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 11/05/21 86 FR 61555 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

11/05/21 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

01/04/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

E.O. 13132. 

Agency Contact: Kim Roche, Nurse, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, Center for Clinical 

Standards and Quality, MS: C2–21–16, 

7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21244, Phone: 410 786–3524, Email: 

kim.roche@cms.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0938–AU75 

HHS—ADMINISTRATION FOR 

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

70. Native Hawaiian Revolving Loan 

Fund Eligibility Requirements 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2991 

CFR Citation: 45 CFR 1336. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This regulation proposes to 

reduce the required Native Hawaiian 

ownership or control for an eligible 

applicant to the Native Hawaiian 

Revolving Loan Fund program under 45 

CFR 1336.62. 

Statement of Need: The Native 

Hawaiian Revolving Loan Fund 

(NHRLF) was established to provide 

loans and loan guarantees to Native 

Hawaiians who are unable to obtain 

loans from private sources on 

reasonable terms and conditions for the 

purpose of promoting economic 

development in the State of Hawaii. 

Since many Native Hawaiians reside on 

leasehold interests that cannot be 

collateralized (Hawaiian Homelands), 

the NHRLF serves as an important 

lender of last resort for Native Hawaiian 

borrowers. Applicants for an NHRLF 

loan must be an individual Native 

Hawaiian or a 100 percent Native 

Hawaiian owned organization. To 

qualify for an NHRLF loan when one 

spouse is not Native Hawaiian, Native 

Hawaiian borrowers must establish or 

reorganize their business’ legal structure 

to exclude a non-Native Hawaiian 

spouse from ownership. As the 100 

percent Native Hawaiian ownership 

requirement prevents many Native 

Hawaiian family-owned businesses and 

families from obtaining a loan, the 

Administration for Children and 

Families (ACF) proposes to reduce the 

eligibility requirement to maximize loan 

funds and spur further economic 

development. This proposed change 

will likely increase the applicant pool 

and availability of loan proceeds to 

small Native Hawaiian-owned 

businesses and families whose credit 

would be deemed too risky for 

traditional lenders as businesses recover 

from the COVID–19 pandemic. As a 

lender of last resort, this revolving loan 

fund has filled and will continue to fill 

a unique credit niche for Native 

Hawaiian-owned businesses. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This NPRM 

is under the authority granted by section 

803A of Native Americans Programs 

Act. That section directed ACF’s 

Administration for Native Americans 

(ANA) to develop the regulations that 

set forth the procedures and criteria for 

making loans under the NHRLF. Section 

803A also permits the ANA 

Commissioner to prescribe any other 

regulations that the Commissioner 

determines are necessary to carry out 

the purposes of NHRLF. 

Alternatives: ACF reviewed 

alternatives to providing greater 

flexibility to NHRLF applicants that 

directly respond to barriers for accessing 

loans and other viable options were not 

identified. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: ANA 

does not provide loans directly to 

entities but does so through the 

regulated entity, the State of Hawaii’s 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5073 

Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The rule 

does not create additional requirements 

but provides flexibility by expanding 

eligibility and availability of loan 

proceeds to small entities. 

Risks: It is possible that this proposed 

change will increase business loan 

demand. There is also the possibility 

that businesses may act strategically to 

qualify for NHLRF loans by adding 

Native Hawaiian ownership. This 

restructuring may still benefit Native 

Hawaiians as more Native Hawaiians 

could become business partners with 

non-Native Hawaiians. Expansion of the 

program to more Native Hawaiian 

families is consistent with the policy 

goal of the statute which is promoting 

economic development among Native 

Hawaiians in Hawaii. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Mirtha Beadle, 

Senior Policy Advisor, Department of 

Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and 

Families, 330 C Street SW, Washington, 

DC 20201, Phone: 202 401–6506, Email: 

mirtha.beadle@acf.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0970–AC84 

HHS—ACF 

71. Paternity Establishment Percentage 

Performance Relief 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Sec. 1102 of the 

Social Security Act 

CFR Citation: 45 CFR 305. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This regulation proposes to 

modify the Paternity Establishment 

Percentage performance requirements in 

child support regulations under 45 CFR 

part 305, to provide relief from financial 

penalties to states impacted by the 

COVID–19 pandemic. 

Statement of Need: The COVID–19 

pandemic has had a debilitating effect 

on state child support programs, 

disrupting administrative and judicial 

operations and limiting states’ ability to 

provide services and maintain 

performance. Without regulatory relief, 

20 out of the 54 child support programs 

(title IV–D under the Act) will be subject 

to financial penalties associated with 

their failure to achieve performance for 

the Paternity Establishment Percentage 

(PEP) described in section 409(a)(8) and 

452(g) of the Social Security Act (the 

Act) and child support regulations 

under 45 CFR part 305. PEP-related 

financial penalties, which are imposed 

as reductions in the state’s Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

program funding, place an undue 

burden on state budgets and threaten 

funding that supports the very families 

who are most in need during this time 

of crisis. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This 

proposed rule is published under the 

authority granted to the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services by section 

1102 of the Social Security Act (the Act) 

(42 U.S.C. 1302). Section 1102 of the 

Act authorizes the Secretary to publish 

regulations, not inconsistent with the 

Act, as may be necessary for the 

efficient administration of the functions 

with which the Secretary is responsible 

under the Act. The proposed relief from 

the Paternity Establishment Percentage 

performance penalty under this NPRM 

is based on statutory authority granted 

under section 452(g)(3)(A) of the Act (42 

U.S.C. 652(g)(3)(A)). 

Alternatives: Because PEP 

performance measures and penalties are 

required by statute and regulation, relief 

can only be provided through regulation 

or legislation. The PEP performance 

requirement is established under 452(g) 

of the Social Security Act and 45 CFR 

305.40. Section 452(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Act 

requires the Secretary to determine 

whether State-reported data used to 

determine the performance levels are 

complete and reliable. Additionally, 

section 409(a)(8)(A) of the Act and 45 

CFR 305.61(a)(1) provides for a financial 

penalty if there is a failure to achieve 

the required level of performance or an 

audit determines that the data is 

incomplete or unreliable. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

proposed rule, if finalized, will ensure 

that penalties are not imposed against a 

state’s TANF grant, during a time when 

public assistance funds are critically 

needed. The financial penalties against 

states are estimated at $3.5 million of 

penalties for 3 states that did not meet 

PEP performance levels in FY 2019 and 

FY 2020 and $83 million for 18 states 

that did not meet performance levels in 

FY 2020 and FY 2021 PEP. 

Risks: To be determined. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/19/21 86 FR 57770 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

11/18/21 

Final Action ......... 10/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Yvette Riddick, 

Director, Division of Policy, Office of 

Child Support Enforcement, Department 

of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and 

Families, 330 C Street SW, Washington, 

DC 20201, Phone: 202 401–4885, Email: 

yvette.riddick@acf.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0970–AC86 

HHS—ACF 

72. ANA Non-Federal Share Emergency 

Waivers 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2991 

CFR Citation: 45 CFR 1336. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This regulation proposes to 

streamline the process for 

Administration for Native Americans 

(ANA) grant program applicants to 

request a waiver for non-federal share 

for the 20 percent match required by 

statute for ANA grants. The regulation 

will also propose the ability for current 

grantees to request an emergency waiver 

for the non-federal share match. 

Statement of Need: The Native 

American Programs Act of 1974, as 

amended, (NAPA) requires projects 

awarded funding through sections 803, 

804, and 805 provide a 20 percent 

match of the total cost of the project, 

unless a waiver is obtained through 

objective criteria as outlined in ANA’s 

regulations. The current regulations 

outline the requirements and criteria for 

applicants to request a waiver for nonfederal share (NFS) at 45 CFR part 

1336.50 at time of application for a new 

or continuation award. The COVID–19 

pandemic had a detrimental impact on 

the economies and financial resources 

of ANA’s Native American recipients, 

most of whom had to close their borders 

to protect their citizens. Many tribal 

enterprises were forced to close, and 

tourism revenues became non-existent. 

Partnerships and vendors were no 

longer able to contribute previously 

committed resources for NFS. During 

this time, many recipients grew 

concerned that they would be unable to 

fully meet their NFS of their grant 

award. ANA explored the possibility of 

providing emergency NFS waivers to 

ANA grantees. Unfortunately, ANA 

learned that it does not currently have 

the authority to issue emergency NFS 

waivers, as neither emergency waiver 

authority nor a process to approve such 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5074 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

requests exists in ANA’s regulations. 

Current regulations require waiver 

requests to be submitted at the time of 

application or during the noncompetitive continuation process. This 

request to update ANA’s regulation 

would provide a new provision for 

recipients to request an emergency NFS 

waiver in the event of a natural or manmade emergency such as a public health 

pandemic. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Native 

American Programs Act of 1974, as 

amended, (NAPA) requires projects 

awarded funding through sections 803, 

804, and 805 provide a 20 percent 

match of the cost of the project, unless 

a waiver is obtained through objective 

criteria as outlined in ANA’s 

regulations. Current regulations outline 

the requirements and criteria to request 

a waiver at 45 CFR part 1336.50 at time 

of application for a new or continuation 

award. However, there is no existing 

regulations or criteria to provide an 

emergency waiver for NFS to recipients 

experience a natural or man-made 

disaster or public health emergency 

such as COVID–19. 

Alternatives: The alternative would be 

to not offer the emergency waiver. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There 

are no known costs to the program by 

issuing this rule. Benefits—This 

proposed rule is responsive to the 

President’s Executive Order 13995: 

Ensuring an Equitable Pandemic 

Response and Recovery and the 

Executive Order on Economic Relief 

Related to the COVID–19 Pandemic and 

also responsive to the needs of Native 

American communities. Existing 

regulations states that ANA must 

determine that approval of an NFS 

waiver will not prevent the award of 

other grants at levels it believes are 

desirable for the purposes of the 

program. Approval of this emergency 

waiver regulation will also decrease the 

potential audit findings of entities not 

meeting the required NFS. In addition, 

it reduces further harm to recipients that 

are impacted by an emergency situation 

which caused unforeseen and additional 

financial hardships. 

Risks: There are no known risks to the 

program by issuing this rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Mirtha Beadle, 

Senior Policy Advisor, Department of 

Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and 

Families, 330 C Street SW, Washington, 

DC 20201, Phone: 202 401–6506, Email: 

mirtha.beadle@acf.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0970–AC88 

HHS—ACF 

73. • Foster Care Legal Representation 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: Sec. 474(a)(3) of the 

Social Security Act; sec. 1102 of the 

Social Security Act 

CFR Citation: 45 CFR 1356.60(c). 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This regulation proposes to 

allow a title IV–E agency to claim 

Federal financial participation for the 

administrative cost of providing 

independent legal representation to a 

child who is either a candidate for foster 

care or in foster care, and his/her parent 

to prepare for and participate in judicial 

determinations in foster care and other 

related civil legal proceedings. 

Statement of Need: Allowing title IV– 

E agencies to claim Federal 

reimbursement for independent legal 

representation in legal proceedings that 

are necessary to carry out the 

requirements in the agency’s title IV–E 

plan, including civil proceedings, may 

help prevent the need to remove a child 

from the home or, for a child in foster 

care, achieve permanence faster. 

Research demonstrates that some of the 

circumstances bringing families into 

contact with the child welfare system 

(poverty, educational neglect, 

inadequate housing, failure to provide 

adequate nutrition, and failure to 

safeguard mental health due to domestic 

violence) can be addressed before a 

child enters foster care by providing 

legal representation early in foster care 

legal proceedings and in civil legal 

matters. When children are removed 

from the home, studies show having 

access to legal representation for civil 

legal issues earlier in a case can improve 

the rate of reunification, nearly double 

the speed to legal guardianship or 

adoption, and result in more permanent 

outcomes for children and families. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

474(a)(3) of the Act authorizes Federal 

reimbursement for title IV–E 

administrative costs, which are defined 

as costs found necessary by the 

Secretary for the provision of child 

placement services and for the proper 

and efficient administration of the State 

[title IV–E] plan. Section 1102 of the Act 

authorizes the Secretary to publish 

regulations, not inconsistent with the 

Act, as may be necessary for the 

efficient administration of the functions 

with which the Secretary is responsible 

under the Act. 

Alternatives: If this NPRM is not 

published, agencies may continue to 

claim FFP for administrative costs of 

independent legal representation 

provided by attorneys representing 

children in title IV–E foster care, 

children who are candidates for title IV– 

E foster care, and the child’s parents in 

all stages of foster care legal proceedings 

(Child Welfare Policy Manual (CWPM) 

8.1B #30, 31 and 32). 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

final rule impacts state and tribal title 

IV–E (child welfare) agencies. ACF 

estimates that the proposed regulatory 

change would cost the federal 

government $141 million in FFP per 

year within 5 years of implementation. 

This proposal does not impose a burden 

or cost on the title IV–E agency. The 

title IV–E agency has discretion to 

provide allowable independent legal 

representation to families. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Kathleen McHugh, 

Director, Division of Policy, Children’s 

Bureau, ACYF/ACF/HHS, Department 

of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and 

Families, 370 L’Enfant Promenade SW, 

Washington, DC 20447, Phone: 202 401– 

5789, Fax: 202 205–8221, Email: 

kmchugh@acf.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0970–AC89 

HHS—ACF 

74. • Separate Licensing Standards for 

Relative or Kinship Foster Family 

Homes 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 620 et seq.; 

42 U.S.C. 670 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1302 

CFR Citation: 45 CFR 1355.20. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This regulation proposes to 

allow title IV–E agencies to adopt 

separate licensing standards for relative 

or kinship foster family homes. 

Statement of Need: Currently, the 

regulation provides that in order to 

claim title IVE, all foster family homes 

must meet the same licensing standards, 

regardless of whether the foster family 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5075 

home is a relative or non-relative 

placement. This Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) allows a title IV–E 

agency to adopt licensing or approval 

standards for all relative foster family 

homes that are different from the 

licensing standards used for non-related 

foster family homes. This will remove a 

barrier to licensing relatives, many of 

whom are older, more likely to be 

single, more likely to be African 

American, more likely to live in 

poverty, and less well educated. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This NPRM 

is published under the authority granted 

to the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services by section 1102 of the Social 

Security Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 1302. 

Section 1102 of the Act authorizes the 

Secretary to publish regulations, not 

inconsistent with the Act, as may be 

necessary for the efficient 

administration of the functions for 

which the Secretary is responsible 

pursuant to the Act. Section 472 of the 

Act authorizes federal reimbursement 

for a FCMP for an otherwise eligible 

child when the child is placed in a fully 

licensed or approved foster family 

home. 

Alternatives: There are no satisfactory 

alternatives to publishing this NPRM. 

This change cannot be made in subregulatory guidance. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

NPRM impacts state and tribal title IV– 

E agencies and does not impose a 

burden. The title IV–E agency has 

discretion to develop separate licensing 

standards for relatives and non-relatives 

and if they do so, they may claim title 

IV–E funding. ACF estimates that the 

proposed regulatory change would cost 

the Federal Government $3.085 billion 

in title IV–E foster care federal financial 

participation over 10 years. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Kathleen McHugh, 

Director, Division of Policy, Children’s 

Bureau, ACYF/ACF/HHS, Department 

of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and 

Families, 370 L’Enfant Promenade SW, 

Washington, DC 20447, Phone: 202 401– 

5789, Fax: 202 205–8221, Email: 

kmchugh@acf.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0970–AC91 

HHS—ADMINISTRATION FOR 

COMMUNITY LIVING (ACL) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

75. • National Institute for Disability, 

Independent Living, and Rehabilitation 

Research Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 29—Labor; 

Chapter 16—Vocational Rehabilitation 

and Other Rehabilitation Services 

Subchapter II—Research and Training; 

sec. 762—National Institute on 

Disability, Independent Living, and 

Rehabilitation Research 

CFR Citation: 45 CFR 1330.24. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The proposed rule will 

amend subsection 24 of the National 

Institute for Disability, Independent 

Living and Rehabilitation Research 

(NIDILRR) regulation (45 CFR 1330.24), 

which would make revisions to advance 

equity in the peer review criteria that 

NIDILRR uses to evaluate disability 

research applications across all of its 

research programs, as well as emphasize 

the need for engineering research and 

development activities within 

NIDILRR’s Rehabilitation Engineering 

Research Centers (RERC) program. 

Statement of Need: There is a need for 

increased representation of people with 

disabilities among the research teams of 

NIDILRR grantees to help ensure rigor 

and relevance of sponsored research. 

There is a separate need for increased 

emphasis on engineering R&D in 

NIDILRR’s Rehabilitation Engineering 

Research Centers program. 

Summary of Legal Basis: (1) An 

update of 45 CFR 1330.24 will 

strengthen NIDILRR’s ability to meet 

goals described in the Executive Orders 

on Advancing Equity. Updating this 

regulation will also better address one of 

NIDILRR’s core statutory purposes: To 

increase opportunities for researchers 

who are members of traditionally 

underserved populations, including 

researchers who are members of 

minority groups and researchers who 

are individuals with disabilities (29 

U.S.C. 760(7)). (2) NIDILRR’s statute 

calls for a Rehabilitation Engineering 

Research Centers program (29 U.S.C. 

764(b)(3)(A)), but related peer review 

criteria in 45 CFR 1330.24 do not 

currently emphasize the importance of 

engineering Research & Development 

methods. 

Alternatives: None. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: ACL 

anticipates little to no cost associated 

with this refinement of existing 

regulation. The benefits include the 

potential for greater representation of 

people with disabilities and other 

underrepresented populations among 

NIDILRR-sponsored researchers. The 

regulation update also will incite 

grantees of the NIDILRR Rehabilitation 

Engineering Research Centers program 

to include engineering Research & 

Development methods in their funded 

research projects. 

Risks: NIDILRR is addressing 

significant risks that (1) The research it 

sponsors may not address the needs and 

experiences of the full diversity of 

people with disabilities, and (2) 

NIDILRR Rehabilitation Engineering 

Research Centers are not optimally 

emphasizing engineering R&D methods. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Richard Nicholls, 

Chief of Staff and Executive Secretary, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Administration for 

Community Living, 330 C Street SW, 

Room 1004B, Washington, DC 20201, 

Phone: 202 795–7415, Fax: 202 205– 

0399, Email: rick.nicholls@acl.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0985–AA16 

BILLING CODE 4150–03–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY (DHS) 

Fall 2021 Statement of Regulatory 

Priorities 

The Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS or Department) was 

established in 2003 pursuant to the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–296. The DHS mission 

statement contains these words: ‘‘With 

honor and integrity, we will safeguard 

the American people, our homeland, 

and our values.’’ 

DHS was created in the aftermath of 

the horrific attacks of 9/11, and its 

distinctive mission is defined by that 

commitment. The phrase ‘‘homeland 

security’’ refers to the security of the 

American people, the homeland 

(understood in the broadest sense), and 

the nation’s defining values. A central 

part of the mission of protecting ‘‘our 

values’’ includes fidelity to law and the 

rule of law, reflected above all in the 

Constitution of the United States, and 

also in statutes enacted by Congress, 

including the Administrative Procedure 

Act. That commitment is also associated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5076 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

with a commitment to individual 

dignity. Among other things, the attacks 

of 9/11 were attacks on that value as 

well. 

The regulatory priorities of DHS are 

founded on insistence on the rule of 

law—and also on a belief that 

individual dignity, symbolized and 

made real by the opening words of the 

Constitution (‘‘We the People’’), the 

separation of powers, and the Bill of 

Rights (including the Due Process 

Clause), helps to define our mission. 

Fulfilling that mission requires the 

dedication of more than 240,000 

employees in jobs that range from 

aviation and border security to 

emergency response, from cybersecurity 

analyst to chemical facility inspector, 

from the economist seeking to identify 

the consequences of our actions to the 

scientist and policy analyst seeking to 

make the nation more resilient against 

flooding, drought, extreme heat, and 

wildfires. Our duties are wide-ranging, 

but our goal is clear: Keep America safe. 

Six overarching homeland security 

missions make up DHS’s strategic plan: 

(1) Counter terrorism and homeland 

security threats; (2) secure U.S. borders 

and approaches; (3) secure cyberspace 

and critical infrastructure; (4) preserve 

and uphold the Nation’s prosperity and 

economic security; (5) strengthen 

preparedness and resilience (including 

resilience from risks actually or 

potentially aggravated by climate 

change); and (6) champion the DHS 

workforce and strengthen the 

Department. See also 6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1) 

(identifying the primary mission of the 

Department). In promoting these goals, 

we attempt to evaluate our practices by 

reference to evidence and data, not by 

hunches and guesswork, and to improve 

them in real time. We also attempt to 

deliver our multiple services in a way 

that, at once, protects the American 

people and does not impose excessive 

or unjustified barriers and burdens on 

those who use them. 

In achieving those goals, we are 

committed to public participation and 

to listening carefully to the American 

people (and to noncitizens as well). We 

are continually strengthening our 

partnerships with communities, first 

responders, law enforcement, and 

Government agencies—at the Federal, 

State, local, tribal, and international 

levels. We are accelerating the 

deployment of science, technology, and 

innovation in order to make America 

more secure against risks old and new— 

and to perform our services better. We 

are becoming leaner, smarter, and more 

efficient, ensuring that every security 

resource is used as effectively as 

possible. For a further discussion of our 

mission, see the DHS website at https:// 

www.dhs.gov/mission. 

The regulations we have summarized 

below in the Department’s Fall 2021 

Regulatory Plan and Agenda support the 

Department’s mission. We are 

committed to continuing evaluation of 

our regulations, consistent with 

Executive Order 13563, and Executive 

Order 13707, and in a way that 

improves them over time. These 

regulations will improve the 

Department’s ability to accomplish its 

mission. In addition, these regulations 

respond to and implement legislative 

initiatives such as those found in the 

Implementing Recommendations of the 

9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 

Act), FAA Extension, Safety, and 

Security Act of 2016, and the Synthetics 

Trafficking and Overdose Prevention 

Act of 2018 (STOP Act). We emphasize 

here our commitments (1) To fidelity to 

law; (2) to treating people with dignity 

and respect; (3) to increasing national 

resilience against multiple risks and 

hazards, including those actually or 

potentially associated with climate 

change; (4) to modernization of existing 

requirements; and (5) to reducing 

unjustified barriers and burdens, 

including administrative burdens. 

DHS strives for organizational 

excellence and uses a centralized and 

unified approach to managing its 

regulatory resources. The Office of the 

General Counsel manages the 

Department’s regulatory program, 

including the agenda and regulatory 

plan. In addition, DHS senior leadership 

reviews each significant regulatory 

project in order to ensure that the 

project fosters and supports the 

Department’s mission. 

The Department is committed to 

ensuring that all of its regulatory 

initiatives are aligned with its guiding 

principles to protect civil rights and 

civil liberties, integrate our actions, 

listen to those affected by our actions, 

build coalitions and partnerships, 

eliminate unjustified burdens and 

barriers, develop human resources, 

innovate, and be accountable to the 

American public. 

DHS is strongly committed to the 

principles described in Executive 

Orders 13563 and 12866 (as amended). 

Both Executive Orders direct agencies to 

assess the costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives and, if regulation 

is necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. Executive Order 13563 

explicitly draws attention to human 

dignity and to equity. 

Finally, the Department values public 

involvement in the development of its 

regulatory plan, agenda, and 

regulations. It is particularly concerned 

with the impact its regulations have on 

small businesses and startups, 

consistent with its commitment to 

promoting economic growth. Consistent 

with President Biden’s Executive Order 

on Advancing Racial Equity and 

Support for Underserved Communities 

Through the Federal Government (E.O. 

13985). DHS is also concerned to ensure 

that its regulations are equitable, and 

that they do not have unintended or 

adverse effects on (for example) women, 

disabled people, people of color, or the 

elderly. Its general effort to modernize 

regulations, and to remove unjustified 

barriers and burdens, is meant in part to 

avoid harmful effects on small 

businesses, startups, and disadvantaged 

groups of multiple sorts. DHS and its 

components continue to emphasize the 

use of plain language in our regulatory 

documents to promote a better 

understanding of regulations and to 

promote increased public participation 

in the Department’s regulations. We 

want our regulations to be transparent 

and ‘‘navigable,’’ so that people are 

aware of how to comply with them (and 

in a position to suggest improvements). 

The Fall 2021 regulatory plan for DHS 

includes regulations from multiple DHS 

components, including U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services (USCIS), the 

U.S. Coast Guard (the Coast Guard), U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 

Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA), the U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), and the Cybersecurity and 

Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). 

We next describe the regulations that 

comprise the DHS fall 2021 regulatory 

plan. 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

The Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) is the government 

agency responsible for helping people 

before, during, and after disasters. 

FEMA supports the people and 

communities of our Nation by providing 

experience, perspective, and resources 

in emergency management. FEMA is 

particularly focused on national 

resilience in the face of the risks of 

flooding, drought, extreme heat, and 

wildfire; it is acutely aware that these 

risks, and others, are actually or 

potentially aggravated by climate 

change. FEMA seeks to ensure, to the 

extent possible, that changing weather 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5077 

conditions do not mean a more 

vulnerable nation. FEMA is also focused 

on individual equity, and it is aware 

that administrative burdens and undue 

complexity might produce inequitable 

results in practice. 

Consistent with President Biden’s 

Executive Order on Climate Related 

Financial Risk (E.O. 14030), FEMA will 

propose a regulation titled National 

Flood Insurance Program: Standard 

Flood Insurance Policy, Homeowner 

Flood Form. The National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP), established 

pursuant to the National Flood 

Insurance Act of 1968, is a voluntary 

program in which participating 

communities adopt and enforce a set of 

minimum floodplain management 

requirements to reduce future flood 

damages. This proposed rule would 

revise the Standard Flood Insurance 

Policy by adding a new Homeowner 

Flood Form and five accompanying 

endorsements. The new Homeowner 

Flood Form would replace the Dwelling 

Form as a source of coverage for one-tofour family residences. Together, the 

new Form and endorsements would 

more closely align with property and 

casualty homeowners’ insurance and 

provide increased options and coverage 

in a more user-friendly and 

comprehensible format. 

FEMA will also propose a regulation 

titled Individual Assistance Program 

Equity to further align with Executive 

Order 13895. Climate change results in 

more frequent and/or intense extreme 

weather events like severe storms, 

flooding and wildfires, 

disproportionately impacting the most 

vulnerable in society. FEMA will 

propose to amend its Individual 

Assistance (IA) regulations to increase 

equity and ease of entry to the IA 

Program. To provide a full opportunity 

for underserved communities to 

participate, FEMA will propose to 

amend application of ‘‘safe, sanitary, 

and functional’’ for IA repair assistance; 

re-evaluate the requirement to apply for 

a Small Business Administration loan 

prior to receipt of Other Needs 

Assistance; add eligibility criteria for its 

Serious Needs & Displacement 

Assistance; amend its requirements for 

Continued Temporary Housing 

Assistance; re-evaluate its approach to 

insurance proceeds; and amend its 

appeals process. FEMA will also 

propose revisions to reflect changes to 

statutory authority that have not yet 

been implemented in regulation, to 

include provisions for utility and 

security deposit payments, lease and 

repair of multi-family rental housing, 

childcare assistance, and maximum 

assistance limits. 

FEMA will issue a regulation titled 

Amendment to the Public Assistance 

Program’s Simplified Procedures Large 

Project Threshold. It will revise its 

regulations governing the Public 

Assistance program to update the 

monetary threshold at or below which 

FEMA will obligate funding based on an 

estimate of project costs, and above 

which FEMA will obligate funding 

based on actual project costs. This rule 

will ensure FEMA and recipients can 

more efficiently process unobligated 

Project Worksheets for COVID–19 

declarations, which continue to fund 

important pandemic-related work, while 

avoiding unnecessary confusion and 

administrative burden by not affecting 

previous project size determinations. 

On October 12, 2021, FEMA issued a 

Request for Information to receive the 

public’s input on revising the NFIP’s 

floodplain management standards for 

land management and use regulations to 

better align with the current 

understanding of flood risk and flood 

risk reduction approaches, as directed 

by Executive Order 14030. FEMA seeks 

input on the floodplain management 

standards that communities should 

adopt to result in safer, stronger, and 

more resilient communities. 

Additionally, FEMA seeks input on how 

the NFIP can better promote protection 

of and minimize any adverse impact to 

threatened and endangered species, and 

their habitats. 

United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Services 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS) is the government 

agency that administers the nation’s 

lawful immigration system, 

safeguarding its integrity and promise 

by efficiently and fairly adjudicating 

requests for immigration benefits while 

protecting Americans, securing the 

homeland, and honoring our values. 

USCIS is committed to taking the 

necessary steps to reduce barriers to 

legal immigration, increase access to 

immigration benefits (consistent with 

law), and reinvigorate the size and 

scope of humanitarian relief. In the 

coming year, USCIS intends to pursue 

several regulatory actions that support 

these goals while balancing our fiscal 

stability. 

Asylum Reforms. This Administration 

is focused on pursuing regulations to 

rebuild and streamline the asylum 

system, consistent with President 

Biden’s Executive Order on Creating a 

Comprehensive Regional Framework to 

Address the Causes of Migration, to 

Manage Migration Throughout North 

and Central America, and to Provide 

Safe and Orderly Processing of Asylum 

Seekers at the United States Border 

(E.O. 14010). On August 20, 2021, DHS/ 

USCIS and DOJ/Executive Office of 

Immigration Review (EOIR) jointly 

proposed regulatory amendments that 

aim to accelerate the adjudication 

process for individuals in expedited 

removal proceedings who are seeking 

asylum, withholding of removal, or 

protection under the Convention 

Against Torture. The current system in 

place has resulted in unsustainable 

backlogs that span many years. USCIS 

and EOIR will seek to issue a final rule 

that makes concrete and lasting 

improvements in the processing of those 

cases after considering public input 

received on the proposed rule. 

(Procedures for Credible Fear Screening 

and Consideration of Asylum, 

Withholding of Removal, and CAT 

Protection Claims by Asylum Officers). 

In addition, USCIS will propose 

regulations to remove barriers to 

affirmative asylum claims, while also 

proposing processing timeframes for 

initial application for employment 

authorization applications filed by 

pending asylum applicants that reflect 

the operational capabilities of USCIS. 

(Rescission of ‘‘Asylum Application, 

Interview, & Employment 

Authorization’’ Rule and Change to 

‘‘Removal of 30-Day Processing 

Provision for Asylum Applicant Related 

Form I–765 Employment 

Authorization’’). USCIS and EOIR will 

also take steps to remove or modify 

regulatory provisions that have created 

unnecessary hurdles in the asylum 

system, many of which are currently 

enjoined by various courts. (Bars to 

Asylum Eligibility and Procedures; 

Procedures for Asylum and Withholding 

of Removal; Credible Fear and 

Reasonable Fear Review). Finally, 

USCIS and EOIR will jointly propose 

updates to their regulations to clarify 

eligibility for asylum and withholding, 

and better describe the circumstances in 

which a person should be considered a 

member of a ‘‘particular social group.’’ 

(Asylum and Withholding Definitions). 

Review of the Public Charge of 

Inadmissibility Ground. On August 23, 

2021, USCIS published an Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPRM) to gather input from 

interested and impacted stakeholders on 

how USCIS should implement the 

public charge ground of inadmissibility. 

This action was the first step taken in 

response to President Biden’s Executive 

Order on Restoring Faith in Our Legal 

Immigration Systems and Strengthening 

Integration and Inclusion Efforts for 

New Americans (E.O. 14012). USCIS 

will propose regulations to define the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5078 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

term ‘‘public charge’’ and to identify 

considerations relevant to the public 

charge inadmissibility determination, 

while recognizing that we must 

continue to be a Nation of opportunity 

and of welcome, and that we must 

provide due consideration to the 

confusion, fear, and negative public 

health consequences that may result 

from public charge policies. 

(Inadmissibility on Public Charge 

Grounds). 

Deferred Action for Childhood 

Arrivals (DACA). On September 28, 

2021, USCIS issued a proposed rule that 

establishes specified guidelines for 

considering requests for deferred action 

submitted by certain individuals who 

entered the United States many years 

ago as children. The proposed rule 

invites public comments on a number of 

issues relating to DACA, including 

issues identified in a recent decision of 

the U.S. District Court for the Southern 

District of Texas court regarding DHS’s 

authority to maintain the DACA policy, 

and possible alternatives. In keeping 

with President Biden’s Presidential 

Memorandum: Preserving and Fortifying 

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 

(DACA), USCIS will consider public 

comments and seek to finalize the 

proposed rule in the coming months 

(Deferred Action for Childhood 

Arrivals). 

Improvements to the Overall 

Immigration System. After performing 

the required biennial fee review, USCIS 

will propose adjustments to certain 

immigration and naturalization benefit 

request fees to ensure that fees recover 

full costs borne by the agency. In doing 

so, USCIS will adhere to the ideals 

described in Executive Orders 14010 

and 14012 of removing barriers and 

promoting access to the immigration 

system; improving and expanding 

naturalization processing; and meeting 

the administration’s humanitarian 

priorities. (U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services Fee Schedule). 

United States Coast Guard 

The Coast Guard is a military, multimission, maritime service of the United 

States and the only military 

organization within DHS. It is the 

principal Federal agency responsible for 

maritime safety, security, and 

stewardship in U.S. ports and 

waterways. 

Effective governance in the maritime 

domain hinges upon an integrated 

approach to safety, security, and 

stewardship. The Coast Guard’s policies 

and capabilities are integrated and 

interdependent, delivering results 

through a network of enduring 

partnerships with maritime 

stakeholders. Consistent standards of 

universal application and enforcement, 

which encourage safe, efficient, and 

responsible maritime commerce, are 

vital to the success of the maritime 

industry. The Coast Guard’s ability to 

field versatile capabilities and highly 

trained personnel is one of the U.S. 

Government’s most significant and 

important strengths in the maritime 

environment. 

America is a maritime nation, and our 

security, resilience, and economic 

prosperity are intrinsically linked to the 

oceans. Safety, efficient waterways, and 

freedom of transit on the high seas are 

essential to our well-being. The Coast 

Guard is leaning forward, poised to 

meet the demands of the modern 

maritime environment. The Coast Guard 

creates value for the public through 

solid prevention and response efforts. 

Activities involving oversight and 

regulation, enforcement, maritime 

presence, and public and private 

partnership foster increased maritime 

safety, security, and stewardship. 

The statutory responsibilities of the 

Coast Guard include ensuring marine 

safety and security, preserving maritime 

mobility, protecting the marine 

environment, enforcing U.S. laws and 

international treaties, and performing 

search and rescue. The Coast Guard 

supports the Department’s overarching 

goals of mobilizing and organizing our 

Nation to secure the homeland from 

terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and 

other emergencies. These goals include 

protection against the risks associated 

with climate change, and the Coast 

Guard seeks to obtain scientific 

information to assist in that task, while 

also acting to promote resilience and 

adaptation. 

The Coast Guard highlights the 

following regulatory actions: 

Shipping Safety Fairways Along the 

Atlantic Coast. The Coast Guard 

published an ANPRM on June 19, 2020. 

The Coast Guard is reviewing comments 

to help develop a proposed rule that 

would establish shipping safety 

fairways (fairways) along the Atlantic 

Coast of the United States. Fairways are 

marked routes for vessel traffic. They 

facilitate the direct and unobstructed 

transit of ships. The proposed fairways 

will be based on studies about vessel 

traffic along the Atlantic Coast. The 

Coast Guard is taking this action to 

ensure that obstruction-free routes are 

preserved to and from U.S. ports and 

along the Atlantic coast and to reduce 

the risk of collisions, allisions and 

grounding, as well as alleviate the 

chance of increased time and expenses 

in transit. 

Electronic Chart and Navigation 

Equipment Carriage Requirements. The 

Coast Guard will seek comment on the 

modification of its chart and 

navigational equipment regulations. We 

plan to publish an ANPRM that outlines 

the Coast Guard’s strategy to revise the 

chart and navigational equipment 

requirements for all commercial U.S.- 

flagged vessels and foreign-flagged 

vessels operating in the waters of the 

United States to fulfill the electronic 

chart use requirements as required by 

statute. Acceptable standards and 

capabilities need to be clarified before 

paper charts are discontinued and 

replaced by digital electronic navigation 

charts. The ANPRM should provide us 

with information on how widely 

electronic charts are used, who is using 

them, the appropriate equipment 

requirements for different vessel classes, 

and where they operate. The public 

comments should better enable us to 

tailor proposed electronic charts 

requirements to vessel class and 

location. 

MARPOL Annex VI; Prevention of Air 

Pollution from Ships. The Coast Guard 

is proposing regulations to carry out the 

provisions of Annex VI of the MARPOL 

Protocol, which is focused on the 

prevention of air pollution from ships. 

The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships 

has already given direct effect to most 

provisions of Annex VI, and the Coast 

Guard and the Environmental Protection 

Agency have carried out some Annex VI 

provisions through previous 

rulemakings. This proposed rulemaking 

would fill gaps in the existing 

framework for carrying out the 

provisions of Annex VI. Chapter 4 of 

Annex VI contains shipboard energy 

efficiency measures that include shortterm measures reducing carbon 

emissions linked to climate change and 

supports Administration goals outlined 

in Executive Order 14008 titled 

Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and 

Abroad. This proposed rulemaking 

would apply to U.S.-flagged ships. It 

would also apply to foreign-flagged 

ships operating either in U.S. navigable 

waters or in the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone. 

United States Customs and Border 

Protection 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

is the Federal agency principally 

responsible for the security of our 

Nation’s borders, both at and between 

the ports of entry into the United States. 

CBP must accomplish its border security 

and enforcement mission without 

stifling the flow of legitimate trade and 

travel. The primary mission of CBP is its 

homeland security mission, that is, to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5079 

prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons 

from entering the United States. An 

important aspect of this mission 

involves improving security at our 

borders and ports of entry, but it also 

means extending our zone of security 

beyond our physical borders. 

CBP is also responsible for 

administering laws concerning the 

importation of goods into the United 

States and enforcing the laws 

concerning the entry of persons into the 

United States. This includes regulating 

and facilitating international trade; 

collecting import duties; enforcing U.S. 

trade, immigration and other laws of the 

United States at our borders; inspecting 

imports; overseeing the activities of 

persons and businesses engaged in 

importing; enforcing the laws 

concerning smuggling and trafficking in 

contraband; apprehending individuals 

attempting to enter the United States 

illegally; protecting our agriculture and 

economic interests from harmful pests 

and diseases; servicing all people, 

vehicles, and cargo entering the United 

States; maintaining export controls; and 

protecting U.S. businesses from theft of 

their intellectual property. 

In carrying out its mission, CBP’s goal 

is to facilitate the processing of 

legitimate trade and people efficiently 

without compromising security. 

Consistent with its primary mission of 

homeland security, CBP intends to issue 

several regulations that are intended to 

improve security at our borders and 

ports of entry. During the upcoming 

year, CBP will also work on various 

projects to streamline CBP processing, 

reduce duplicative processes, reduce 

various burdens on the public, and 

automate various paper forms. Below, 

CBP provides highlights of certain 

planned actions for the coming fiscal 

year. 

Implementation of the Electronic 

System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) 

at U.S. Land Borders—Automation of 

CBP Form I–94W. CBP intends to amend 

existing regulations to implement the 

ESTA requirements under the 

Implementing Recommendations of the 

9/11 Commission Act of 2007 for 

noncitizens who intend to enter the 

United States under the Visa Waiver 

Program (VWP) at land ports of entry. 

Currently, noncitizens from VWP 

countries must provide certain 

biographic information to U.S. CBP 

officers at land ports of entry on a paper 

form. Under this rule, these VWP 

travelers would instead provide this 

information to CBP electronically 

through ESTA prior to application for 

admission to the United States. In 

addition to fulfilling a statutory 

mandate, this rule will strengthen 

national security through enhanced 

traveler vetting, will streamline the 

processing of visitors, will reduce 

inadmissible traveler arrivals, and will 

save time for both travelers and the 

government. (Note: There is no 

associated Regulatory Plan entry for this 

rule because this rule is non-significant 

under Executive Order 12866. There is 

an entry, however, in the Unified 

Agenda.) 

Automation of CBP Form I–418 for 

Vessels. CBP intends to amend existing 

regulations regarding the submission of 

Form I–418, Passenger List—Crew List. 

Currently, the master or agent of every 

commercial vessel arriving in the 

United States, with limited exceptions, 

must submit a paper Form I–418 to CBP 

at the port where immigration 

inspection is performed. Most 

commercial vessel operators are also 

required to submit a paper Form I–418 

to CBP at the final U.S. port prior to 

departing for a foreign port. Under this 

rule, most vessel operators would be 

required to electronically submit the 

data elements on Form I–418 to CBP 

through the National Vessel Movement 

Center in lieu of submitting a paper 

form. This rule would eliminate the 

need to file the paper Form I–418 in 

most cases. This rule is included in this 

narrative because it reduces 

administrative and paperwork burdens 

on the regulated public. (Note: There is 

no associated Regulatory Plan entry for 

this rule because this rule is nonsignificant under Executive Order 

12866. There is an entry, however, in 

the Unified Agenda.) 

Advance Passenger Information 

System: Electronic Validation of Travel 

Documents. CBP intends to amend 

current Advance Passenger Information 

System (APIS) regulations to 

incorporate additional carrier 

requirements that would further enable 

CBP to determine whether each 

passenger is traveling with valid, 

authentic travel documents prior to the 

passenger boarding the aircraft. The 

proposed regulation would require 

commercial air carriers to receive a 

second message from CBP that would 

state whether CBP matched the travel 

documents of each passenger to a valid, 

authentic travel document recorded in 

CBP’s databases. The proposed 

regulation would also require air 

carriers to transmit additional data 

elements regarding contact information 

through APIS for all commercial aircraft 

passengers arriving in the United States 

to support border operations and 

national security. CBP expects that the 

collection of these elements would 

enable CBP to further support the Center 

for Disease Control and Prevention’s 

(CDC’s) mission in monitoring and 

tracing the contacts for persons involved 

in health incidents (e.g., COVID–19). 

This action will result in time savings 

to passengers and cost savings to CBP, 

carriers, and the public. 

In addition to the regulations that CBP 

issues to promote DHS’s mission, CBP 

issues regulations related to the mission 

of the Department of the Treasury. 

Under section 403(1) of the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002, the former-U.S. 

Customs Service, including functions of 

the Secretary of the Treasury relating 

thereto, transferred to the Secretary of 

Homeland Security. As part of the 

initial organization of DHS, the Customs 

Service inspection and trade functions 

were combined with the immigration 

and agricultural inspection functions 

and the Border Patrol and transferred 

into CBP. The Department of the 

Treasury retained certain regulatory 

authority of the U.S. Customs Service 

relating to customs revenue function. In 

the coming year, CBP expects to 

continue to issue regulatory documents 

that will facilitate legitimate trade and 

implement trade benefit programs. For a 

discussion of CBP regulations regarding 

the customs revenue function, see the 

regulatory plan of the Department of the 

Treasury. 

Transportation Security Administration 

The Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) protects the 

Nation’s transportation systems to 

ensure freedom of movement for people 

and commerce. TSA applies an 

intelligence-driven, risk-based approach 

to all aspects of its mission. This 

approach results in layers of security to 

mitigate risks effectively and efficiently. 

TSA seeks to ensure ever-improving 

‘‘customer service’’ so as to improve the 

experience of the many millions of 

travelers whom it serves. In fiscal year 

2022, TSA is prioritizing the following 

actions that are required to meet 

statutory mandates and that are 

necessary for national security. 

Vetting of Certain Surface 

Transportation Employees. TSA will 

propose a rule that requires security 

threat assessments for security 

coordinators and other frontline 

employees of certain public 

transportation agencies (including rail 

mass transit and bus systems), railroads 

(freight and passenger), and over-theroad bus owner/operators. The NPRM 

will also propose provisions to 

implement TSA’s statutory requirement 

to recover its cost of vetting user fees. 

While many stakeholders conduct 

background checks on their employees, 

their actions are limited based upon the 

data they can access. Through this rule, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5080 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

TSA will be able to conduct a more 

thorough check against terrorist watchlists of individuals in security-sensitive 

positions. 

Flight Training Security. In 2004, TSA 

published an Interim Final Rule (IFR) 

that requires flight schools to notify 

TSA when noncitizens, and other 

individuals designated by TSA, apply 

for flight training or recurrent training. 

TSA subsequently issued exemptions 

and interpretations in response to 

comments on the IFR, questions raised 

during operation of the program since 

2004, and a notice extending the 

comment period on May 18, 2018. 

Based on the comments and questions 

received, TSA is finalizing the rule with 

modifications. TSA is considering 

modifications that would change the 

frequency of security threat assessments 

from a high-frequency event-based 

interval to a time-based interval, clarify 

the definitions and other provisions of 

the rule, and enable industry to use 

TSA-provided electronic recordkeeping 

systems for all documents required to 

demonstrate compliance with the rule. 

Indirect Air Carrier Security. Current 

regulations for Indirect Air Carriers 

(IACs) require annual renewal of the 

IAC’s security program and prompt 

notification to TSA of any changes to 

operations related to information 

previously provided to TSA. This rule 

will propose a three-year renewal 

schedule, rather than annual renewal. 

This change will align the security 

program renewal requirement with 

those applicable to other regulated 

entities within the air cargo industry. 

These changes will not have a negative 

impact on security as TSA will maintain 

the requirement to notify the agency of 

changes to operations and will continue 

its robust inspection and compliance 

program. TSA believes this action will 

reduce burdens on an industry affected 

by the COVID–19 public health crisis 

and enhance the industry’s ability to 

focus limited human resources on the 

core tasks of moving air cargo. 

Cybersecurity Requirements for 

Certain Surface Owner/Operators. On 

July 28, 2021, the President issued the 

National Security Memorandum on 

Improving Cybersecurity for Critical 

Infrastructure Control Systems. 

Consistent with that Memorandum and 

in response to the ongoing cybersecurity 

threat to pipeline systems, TSA issued 

security directives to owners and 

operators of TSA-designated critical 

pipelines that transport hazardous 

liquids and natural gas. The security 

directives implement urgently needed 

protections against cyber intrusions. 

The first directive, issued in May 2021, 

requires critical owner/operators to (1) 

Report confirmed and potential 

cybersecurity incidents to DHS’s 

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure 

Security Agency (CISA); (2) designate a 

Cybersecurity Coordinator to be 

available 24 hours a day, seven days a 

week; (3) review current cybersecurity 

practices; and (4) identify any gaps and 

related remediation measures to address 

cyber-related risks and report the results 

to TSA and CISA within 30 days of 

issuance of the security directive. A 

second security directive, issued in July 

2021, requires these owners and 

operators to (1) implement specific 

mitigation measures to protect against 

ransomware attacks and other known 

threats to information technology and 

operational technology systems; (2) 

develop and implement a cybersecurity 

contingency and recovery plan; and (3) 

conduct a cybersecurity architecture 

design review. TSA is committed to 

enhancing and sustaining cybersecurity 

in transportation and intends to issue a 

rulemaking to codify these and other 

requirements for certain surface 

transportation owner-operators. 

Amending Vetting Requirements for 

Employees with Access to a Security 

Identification Display Area. The FAA 

Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 

2016 mandates that TSA consider 

modifications to the list of disqualifying 

criminal offenses and criteria, develop a 

waiver process for approving the 

issuance of credentials for unescorted 

access, and propose an extension of the 

look back period for disqualifying 

crimes. Based on these requirements, 

and current intelligence pertaining to 

the ‘‘insider threat,’’ TSA is developing 

a proposed rule. The rule would revise 

current vetting requirements to enhance 

eligibility and disqualifying criminal 

offenses for individuals seeking or 

having unescorted access to any 

Security Identification Display Area of 

an airport. 

United States Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement 

U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) is the principal 

criminal investigative arm of DHS and 

one of the three Department 

components charged with the criminal 

and civil enforcement of the Nation’s 

immigration laws. Its primary mission is 

to protect national security, public 

safety, and the integrity of our borders 

through the criminal and civil 

enforcement of Federal law governing 

border control, customs, trade, and 

immigration. During the coming fiscal 

year, ICE will focus rulemaking efforts 

on regulations pertaining to adjusting 

fees, including the rule mentioned 

below. 

Fee Adjustment for U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement Form I–246, 

Application for a Stay of Deportation or 

Removal. ICE will propose a rule that 

would adjust the fee for adjudicating 

and handling Form I–246, Application 

for a Stay of Deportation or Removal. 

The Form I–246 fee was last adjusted in 

1989. After a comprehensive fee review, 

ICE has determined that the current 

Form I–246 fee does not recover the full 

costs of processing and adjudicating 

Form I–246. The rule will also clarify 

the availability of Form I–246 fee 

waivers. 

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure 

Security Agency 

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure 

Security Agency (CISA) is responsible 

for leading the national effort to develop 

cybersecurity and critical infrastructure 

security programs, operations, and 

associated policy to enhance the 

security and resilience of physical and 

cyber infrastructure. 

Ammonium Nitrate Security Program. 

This rule implements a 2007 

amendment to the Homeland Security 

Act. The amendment requires DHS to 

‘‘regulate the sale and transfer of 

ammonium nitrate facility . . . to 

prevent the misappropriation or use of 

ammonium nitrate in an act of 

terrorism.’’ CISA published a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in 2011. CISA is 

planning to issue a Supplemental Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking. 

A more detailed description of the 

priority regulations that comprise the 

DHS regulatory plan follows. 

DHS—U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 

IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

76. Procedures for Asylum and 

Withholding of Removal; Credible Fear 

and Reasonable Fear Review 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1158; 8 

U.S.C. 1225; 8 U.S.C. 1231 and 1231 

(note) 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 235; 8 CFR 208; 

8 CFR 1208. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On December 11, 2020, the 

Department of Justice and the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(collectively, ‘‘the Departments’’) 

published a final rule titled Procedures 

for Asylum and Withholding of 

Removal; Credible Fear and Reasonable 

Fear Review (RINs 1125–AA94 and 

1615–AC42) to amend the regulations 

governing credible fear determinations 

so that individuals found to have such 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5081 

a fear will have their claims for asylum, 

withholding of removal under section 

241(b)(3) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (‘‘INA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’) 

(‘‘statutory withholding of removal’’), or 

protection under the regulations issued 

pursuant to the legislation 

implementing the Convention Against 

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 

Degrading Treatment or Punishment 

(‘‘CAT’’), adjudicated by an immigration 

judge within the Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (‘‘EOIR’’) in 

separate proceedings (rather than in 

proceedings under section 240 of the 

Act), and to specify what standard of 

review applies in such proceedings. The 

final rule amended the regulations 

regarding asylum, statutory withholding 

of removal, and withholding and 

deferral of removal under the CAT 

regulations. The final rule also made 

changes to the standards for 

adjudication of applications for asylum 

and statutory withholding. The 

Departments are planning to rescind or 

modify the December 2020 rule, in 

several rulemaking efforts. The 

Departments have proposed to rescind 

certain portions of the final rule 

(including regulations related to 

credible fear screenings) as part of the 

rulemaking action described in RIN 

1615–AC67.The Departments will also 

propose to rescind or modify the 

remaining portions of the December 

2020 rule under this RIN, 1615–AC42. 

Statement of Need: The Departments 

are reviewing the regulatory changes 

made in the final rule in light of the 

issuance of Executive Order 14010 and 

Executive Order 14012. This rule is 

needed to ensure that the regulations 

align with the goals and principles 

outlined in Executive Order 14010 and 

Executive Order 14012. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is 

still currently considering the specific 

cost and benefit impacts associated with 

the proposal to rescind or modify the 

December 2020 rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/15/20 85 FR 36264 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

07/15/20 

Final Rule ............ 12/11/20 85 FR 80274 

Final Rule; Correction.01/11/21 86 FR 1737 

Final Rule Effective.01/11/21 

Second NPRM .... 08/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Andria Strano, Chief, 

Humanitarian Affairs Division, 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

Office of Policy and Strategy, 5900 

Capital Gateway Drive, Suite 4S190, 

Camp Springs, MD 20588–0009, Phone: 

240 721–3000. 

Related RIN: Related to 1125–AA94, 

Related to 1125–AB14, Related to 1615– 

AC65. 

RIN: 1615–AC42 

DHS—USCIS 

77. Deferred Action for Childhood 

Arrivals 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; 

8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 106; 8 CFR 236; 

8 CFR 274a. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On June 15, 2012, the DHS 

established the DACA policy. The 

policy directed USCIS to create a 

process to defer removal of certain 

noncitizens who years earlier came to 

the United States as children, meet 

other criteria, and do not present other 

circumstances that would warrant 

removal. On January 20, 2021, President 

Biden directed DHS, to take all 

appropriate actions to preserve and 

fortify DACA, consistent with 

applicable law. On July 16, 2021, the 

U.S. District Court for the Southern 

District of Texas vacated the June 2012 

Memorandum that created the DACA 

policy and permanently enjoined DHS 

from ‘‘administering the DACA program 

and from reimplementing DACA 

without compliance with the APA.’’ 

However, the district court temporarily 

stayed its vacatur and injunction with 

respect to most individuals granted 

deferred action under DACA on or 

before July 16, 2021, including with 

respect to their renewal requests. The 

district court’s vacatur and injunction 

were based, in part, on its conclusion 

that the June 2012 Memorandum 

announced a legislative rule that 

required notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. The district court further 

remanded the DACA policy to DHS for 

further consideration. DHS has 

announced its intent to appeal the 

district court’s decision. Consistent with 

the Presidential Memorandum, DHS 

intends to engage in notice- andcomment rulemaking to consider all 

issues regarding DACA, including those 

identified by the district court relating 

to the policy’s substantive legality. 

Statement of Need: The Secretary 

proposes in this rule to establish 

specified guidelines for considering 

requests for deferred action submitted 

by certain individuals who entered the 

United States many years ago as 

children. This proposed rule will also 

address the availability of employment 

authorization for persons who receive 

deferred action under the rule, as well 

as the issue of lawful presence. The 

Secretary will invite public comments 

on a number of issues relating to DACA, 

including issues identified by the 

district court regarding the authority of 

DHS to maintain the DACA policy, and 

possible alternatives. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is 

currently considering the specific cost 

and benefit impacts of the proposed 

provisions. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 09/28/21 86 FR 53736 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

11/29/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Andria Strano, Chief, 

Humanitarian Affairs Division, 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

Office of Policy and Strategy, 5900 

Capital Gateway Drive, Suite 4S190, 

Camp Springs, MD 20588–0009, Phone: 

240 721–3000. 

RIN: 1615–AC64 

DHS—USCIS 

78. Asylum and Withholding 

Definitions 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42); 

8 U.S.C. 1158; 8 U.S.C. 1225; 8 U.S.C. 

1231 and 1231 (note); E.O. 14010; 86 FR 

8267 (Feb. 2, 2021) 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 2; 8 CFR 208; 8 

CFR 1208. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule proposes to amend 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) 

regulations that govern eligibility for 

asylum and withholding of removal. 

The amendments focus on portions of 

the regulations that deal with the 

definitions of membership in a 

particular social group, the 

requirements for failure of State 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5082 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

protection, and determinations about 

whether persecution is on account of a 

protected ground. This rule is consistent 

with Executive Order 14010 of February 

2, 2021, which directs the Departments 

to, within 270 days, promulgate joint 

regulations, consistent with applicable 

law, addressing the circumstances in 

which a person should be considered a 

member of a particular social group. 

Statement of Need: This rule provides 

guidance on a number of key 

interpretive issues of the refugee 

definition used by adjudicators deciding 

asylum and withholding of removal 

(withholding) claims. The interpretive 

issues include whether persecution is 

inflicted on account of a protected 

ground, the requirements for 

establishing the failure of State 

protection, and the parameters for 

defining membership in a particular 

social group. This rule will aid in the 

adjudication of claims made by 

applicants whose claims fall outside of 

the rubric of the protected grounds of 

race, religion, nationality, or political 

opinion. One example of such claims 

which often fall within the particular 

social group ground concerns people 

who have suffered or fear domestic 

violence. This rule is expected to 

consolidate issues raised in a proposed 

rule in 2000 and to address issues that 

have developed since the publication of 

the proposed rule. This rule should 

provide greater stability and clarity in 

this important area of the law. This rule 

will also provide guidance to the 

following adjudicators: USCIS asylum 

officers, Department of Justice Executive 

Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) 

immigration judges, and members of the 

EOIR Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA). 

Furthermore, on February 2, 2021, 

President Biden issued Executive Order 

14010 that directs DOJ and DHS within 

270 days of the date of this order, [to] 

promulgate joint regulations, consistent 

with applicable law, addressing the 

circumstances in which a person should 

be considered a member of a ‘particular 

social group,’ as that term is used in 8 

U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A), as derived from 

the 1951 Convention relating to the 

Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The purpose 

of this rule is to provide guidance on 

certain issues that have arisen in the 

context of asylum and withholding 

adjudications. The 1951 Geneva 

Convention relating to the Status of 

Refugees contains the internationally 

accepted definition of a refugee. United 

States immigration law incorporates an 

almost identical definition of a refugee 

as a person outside his or her country 

of origin ‘‘who is unable or unwilling to 

return to, and is unable or unwilling to 

avail himself or herself of the protection 

of, that country because of persecution 

or a well-founded fear of persecution on 

account of race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, 

or political opinion.’’ Section 101(a)(42) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is 

currently considering the specific cost 

and benefit impacts of the proposed 

provisions. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Agency Contact: Ronald W. Whitney, 

Deputy Chief, Refugee and Asylum Law 

Division, Department of Homeland 

Security, U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, Office of Chief 

Counsel, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 415 293– 

1244, Fax: 415 293–1269, Email: 

ronald.w.whitney@uscis.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1615–AC42, 

Related to 1125–AB13, Related to 1125– 

AA94. 

RIN: 1615–AC65 

DHS—USCIS 

79. Rescission of ‘‘Asylum Application, 

Interview, & Employment 

Authorization’’ Rule and Change to 

‘‘Removal of 30 Day Processing 

Provision for Asylum Applicant 

Related Form I–765 Employment 

Authorization’’ 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(2); 8 

U.S.C. 1101 and 1103 ; Pub. L. 103–322; 

8 U.S.C. 1105a; 8 U.S.C. 1151, 1153 and 

1154; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 1186a; 8 

U.S.C. 1255; Pub. L. 113–4; 5 U.S.C. 801 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 208.3; 8 CFR 

208.4; 8 CFR 208.7; 8 CFR 208.9; 8 CFR 

208.10; 8 CFR 274a.12; 8 CFR 274a.13; 

8 CFR 274a.14. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: DHS plans to issue a notice 

of proposed rulemaking that would 

rescind or substantively revise two final 

rules related to employment 

authorization for asylum applicants. On 

August 25, 2020, the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) published a 

final rule that modified DHS’s 

regulations governing asylum 

applications, interviews, and eligibility 

for employment authorization based on 

a pending asylum application. (85 FR 

38532). On August 21, 2020, the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) published a final rule that 

removed a Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) regulatory provision 

stating that U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS) has 30 

days from the date an asylum applicant 

files the initial Form I–765, Application 

for Employment Authorization, to grant 

or deny that initial employment 

authorization application. (85 FR 

37502). 

Statement of Need: The proposed 

change is intended to help ensure the 

eligibility requirements for employment 

authorization for asylum applicants and 

processing times established in the DHS 

regulations are reasonable. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is 

currently considering the specific cost 

and benefit impacts of the proposed 

provisions. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Andria Strano, Chief, 

Humanitarian Affairs Division, 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

Office of Policy and Strategy, 5900 

Capital Gateway Drive, Suite 4S190, 

Camp Springs, MD 20588–0009, Phone: 

240 721–3000. 

Related RIN: Related to 1615–AC19, 

Related to 1615–AC27. 

RIN: 1615–AC66 

DHS—USCIS 

80. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services Fee Schedule 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), (n) 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 106. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: DHS will propose to adjust 

the fees charged by U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS) for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5083 

immigration and naturalization benefit 

requests. On August 3, 2020, DHS 

adjusted the fees USCIS charges for 

immigration and naturalization benefit 

requests, imposed new fees, revised 

certain fee waiver and exemption 

policies, and changed certain 

application requirements via the rule 

‘‘USCIS Fee Schedule & Changes to 

Certain Other Immigration Benefit 

Request Requirements.’’ DHS has been 

preliminarily enjoined from 

implementing that rule by court order. 

This rule would rescind and replace the 

changes made by the August 3, 2020, 

rule and establish new USCIS fees to 

recover USCIS operating costs. 

Statement of Need: USCIS projects 

that its costs of providing immigration 

adjudication and naturalization services 

will exceed the financial resources 

available to it under its existing fee 

structure. DHS proposes to adjust the 

USCIS fee structure to ensure that 

USCIS recovers the costs of meeting its 

operational requirements. 

The CFO Act requires each agency’s 

chief financial officer to ‘‘review, on a 

biennial basis, the fees, royalties, rents, 

and other charges imposed by the 

agency for services and things of value 

it provides, and make recommendations 

on revising those charges to reflect costs 

incurred by it in providing those 

services and things of value.’’ 

Summary of Legal Basis: INA 286(m) 

and (n), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m) and (n) 

authorize the Attorney General and 

Secretary of Homeland Security to 

recover the full cost of providing 

immigration adjudication and 

naturalization services by establishing 

and collecting fees deposited into the 

Immigration Examinations Fee Account. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is 

currently considering the specific cost 

and benefit impacts of the proposed 

provisions. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Kika M. Scott, Chief 

Financial Officer, Department of 

Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, 5900 Capital 

Gateway Drive, Suite 4S190, Camp 

Springs, MD 20588–0009, Phone: 202 

721–3000. 

RIN: 1615–AC68 

DHS—USCIS 

81. Bars to Asylum Eligibility and 

Procedures 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: Homeland Security 

Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 

2135, sec. 1102, as amended; 8 U.S.C. 

1103(a)(1); 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(3); 8 U.S.C. 

1103(g); 8 U.S.C. 1225(b); 8 U.S.C. 

1231(b)(3) and 1231 (note); 8 U.S.C. 

1158 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 235; 

8 CFR 1003; 8 CFR 1208; 8 CFR 1235. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: In 2020, the Department of 

Homeland Security and Department of 

Justice (collectively, the Departments) 

published final rules amending their 

respective regulations governing bars to 

asylum eligibility and procedures, 

including the Procedures for Asylum 

and Bars to Asylum Eligibility, (RINs 

1125–AA87 and 1615–AC41), 85 FR 

67202 (Oct. 21, 2020), Asylum 

Eligibility and Procedural 

Modifications, (RINs 1125–AA91 and 

1615–AC44), 85 FR 82260 (Dec. 17, 

2020) and Security Bars and Processing, 

(RINs 1125–AB08 and 1615–AC57), 85 

FR 84160, (Dec. 23, 2020) final rules. 

The Departments propose to modify or 

rescind the regulatory changes 

promulgated in these three final rules 

consistent with Executive Order 14010 

(Feb. 2, 2021). 

Statement of Need: The Departments 

are reviewing these regulations in light 

of the issuance of Executive Order 

14010 and Executive Order 14012. This 

rule is needed to restore and strengthen 

the asylum system and to address 

inconsistencies with the goals and 

principles outlined in the Executive 

Order 14010 and Executive Order 

14012. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is 

currently considering the specific cost 

and benefit impacts of the proposed 

provisions. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Andria Strano, Chief, 

Humanitarian Affairs Division, 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

Office of Policy and Strategy, 5900 

Capital Gateway Drive, Suite 4S190, 

Camp Springs, MD 20588–0009, Phone: 

240 721–3000. 

Related RIN: Related to 1125–AA87, 

Split from 1615–AC41, Related to 1125– 

AA91, Related to 1615–AC44, Related to 

1125–AB08, Related to 1615–AC57. 

RIN: 1615–AC69 

DHS—USCIS 

82. Inadmissibility on Public Charge 

Grounds 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; 

8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 245; 

. . . 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Section 4 of Executive Order 

14012 of February 2, 2021 (86 FR 8277) 

directed DHS and other federal agencies 

to immediately review agency actions 

related to the public charge grounds of 

inadmissibility and deportability for 

noncitizens at sections 212(a)(4) and 

237(a)(5) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 

1182(a)(4), 1227(a)(5)). 

DHS intends to proceed with 

rulemaking to define the term public 

charge and identify considerations 

relevant to the public charge 

inadmissibility determination. DHS will 

conduct the rulemaking consistent with 

section 212(a)(4) of the INA and 

consistent with the principles described 

in Executive Order 14012. Such 

principles include recognizing our 

character as a Nation of opportunity and 

of welcome and of providing due 

consideration to the confusion, fear, and 

negative public health consequences 

that may result from public charge 

policies. 

Consistent with section 6 of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735) and section 

2 of Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 

3821), and in consideration of the 

significant public interest in this 

rulemaking proceeding, DHS published 

an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking and notice of virtual public 

listening sessions on August 23, 2021. 

There is a 60-day public comment 

period and the listening sessions are 

scheduled for September 14 and 

October 5, 2021. 

Statement of Need: DHS published an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

seeking broad public feedback on the 

public charge ground of inadmissibility 

to inform DHS’s development of a future 

regulatory proposal. DHS intends to use 

this feedback to develop a proposed rule 

that will be fully consistent with law; 

that will reflect empirical evidence to 

the extent relevant and available; that 

will be clear, fair, and comprehensible 

for officers as well as for noncitizens 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5084 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

and their families; that will lead to fair 

and consistent adjudications and thus 

avoid unequal treatment of the similarly 

situated; and that will not otherwise 

unduly impose barriers on noncitizens 

seeking admission to or adjustment of 

status in the United States. DHS also 

intends to ensure that its regulatory 

proposal does not cause undue fear 

among immigrant communities or 

present other obstacles to immigrants 

and their families accessing public 

services available to them, particularly 

in light of the COVID–19 pandemic and 

the resulting long-term public health 

and economic impacts in the United 

States. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is 

currently considering the specific cost 

and benefit impacts of the proposed 

provisions. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 08/23/21 86 FR 47025 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

10/22/21 

NPRM .................. 03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

URL For More Information: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Mark Phillips, 

Residence and Naturalization Division 

Chief, Department of Homeland 

Security, U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, Office of Policy 

and Strategy, 5900 Capital Gateway 

Drive, Suite 4S190, Camp Springs, MD 

20588–0009, Phone: 240 721–3000. 

RIN: 1615–AC74 

DHS—USCIS 

Final Rule Stage 

83. Procedures for Credible Fear 

Screening and Consideration of 

Asylum, Withholding of Removal and 

Cat Protection Claims by Asylum 

Officers 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: INA sec. 103(a)(1); 

INA sec. 103(a)(3); 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1); 

8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(3); INA sec. 

235(b)(1)(B); 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B); The 

Refugee Act of 1980 (‘‘Refugee Act’’) 

(Pub. L. 96–212, 94 Stat. 102) 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 235; 

8 CFR 1003; 8 CFR 1208; 8 CFR 1235. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On August 20, 2021 the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) and the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) (collectively, the Departments) 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the 

regulations governing the determination 

of certain protection claims raised by 

individuals subject to expedited 

removal and found to have a credible 

fear of persecution or torture. Under the 

proposed rule, such individuals would 

have their claims for asylum, 

withholding of removal under section 

241(b)(3) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (INA or the Act) 

(statutory withholding of removal), or 

protection under the regulations issued 

pursuant to the legislation 

implementing U.S. obligations under 

Article 3 of the Convention Against 

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 

Degrading Treatment or Punishment 

(CAT) initially adjudicated by an 

asylum officer within U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services (USCIS). Such 

individuals who are denied protection 

would be able to seek prompt, de novo 

review with an immigration judge (IJ) in 

the DOJ Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (EOIR), with appeal 

available to the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA). These changes are 

intended to improve the Departments’ 

ability to consider the asylum claims of 

individuals encountered at or near the 

border more promptly while ensuring 

fundamental fairness. 

In conjunction with the above 

changes, the Departments are proposing 

to return the regulatory framework 

governing the credible fear screening 

process so as to once more apply the 

longstanding ‘‘significant possibility’’ 

screening standard to all protection 

claims, but not apply the mandatory 

bars to asylum and withholding of 

removal (with limited exception) at this 

initial screening stage. The Departments 

also propose that, if an asylum officer 

makes a positive credible fear 

determination, the documentation the 

USCIS asylum officer creates from the 

individual’s sworn testimony during the 

credible fear screening process would 

serve as an initial asylum application, 

thereby improving efficiency in the 

asylum adjudication system. Lastly, the 

Departments are proposing to allow, 

when detention is unavailable or 

impracticable, for the consideration of 

parole prior to a positive credible fear 

determination of an individual placed 

into expedited removal who makes a 

fear claim. The Departments are 

reviewing the public comments received 

and plan to issue a final rule. 

Statement of Need: There is wide 

agreement that the system for dealing 

with asylum and related protection 

claims at the southwest border has long 

been overwhelmed and in desperate 

need of repair. As the number of such 

claims has skyrocketed over the years, 

the system has proven unable to keep 

pace, resulting in large backlogs and 

lengthy adjudication delays. A system 

that takes years to reach a result delays 

justice and certainty for those who need 

protection, and it encourages abuse by 

those who will not qualify for protection 

and smugglers who exploit the delay for 

profit. The aim of this rule is to begin 

replacing the current system, within the 

confines of the law, with a better and 

more efficient one that will adjudicate 

protection claims fairly and 

expeditiously. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS 

estimated the resource cost needed to 

implement and operationalize the rule 

along a range of possible future credible 

fear volumes. The average annualized 

costs could range from $179.5 million to 

$995.8 million at a 7 percent discount 

rate. At a 7 percent discount factor, the 

total ten-year costs could range from 

$1.3 billion to $7.0 billion, with a 

midrange of $3.2 billion. 

There could also be cost-savings 

related to Forms I–589 and I–765 filing 

volume changes. In addition, some 

asylum applicants may realize potential 

early labor earnings, which could 

constitute a transfer from workers in the 

U.S. labor force to certain asylum 

applicants, as well as tax impacts. 

Qualitative benefits include, but may 

not be limited to: (i) Beneficiaries of 

new parole standards may not have to 

wait lengthy times for a decision on 

whether their asylum claims will 

receive further consideration; (ii) some 

individuals could benefit from de novo 

review by an IJ of the asylum officer’s 

denial of their asylum; (iii) DOJ–EOIR 

may focus efforts on other priority work 

and reduce its substantial current 

backlog; (iv) as some applicants may be 

able to earn income earlier than they 

otherwise could currently, burdens to 

the support network of the applicant 

may be lessened. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/20/21 86 FR 46906 

NPRM Correction 10/18/21 86 FR 57611 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

10/19/21 

Final Action ......... 03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5085 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

URL For More Information: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Andria Strano, Chief, 

Humanitarian Affairs Division, 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

Office of Policy and Strategy, 5900 

Capital Gateway Drive, Suite 4S190, 

Camp Springs, MD 20588–0009, Phone: 

240 721–3000. 

Related RIN: Related to 1125–AB20. 

RIN: 1615–AC67 

DHS—U.S. COAST GUARD (USCG) 

Prerule Stage 

84. • Electronic Chart and Navigation 

Equipment Carriage Requirements 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3105 

CFR Citation: 33 CFR 164 ; 46 CFR 25 

and 26 ; 46 CFR 28; 46 CFR 32; 46 CFR 

35; 46 CFR 77 and 78; 46 CFR 96 and 

97; 46 CFR 108 and 109; 46 CFR 121; 

46 CFR 130; 46 CFR 140; 46 CFR 167; 

46 CFR 169; 46 CFR 184; 46 CFR 195 

and 196. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Coast Guard seeks 

comments regarding the modification of 

the chart and navigational equipment 

requirements in titles 33 and 46 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations. This 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPRM) outlines the Coast Guard’s 

broad strategy to revise the chart and 

navigational equipment requirements 

for all commercial U.S.-flagged vessels 

and foreign-flagged vessels operating in 

the waters of the United States to fulfill 

the electronic chart use requirements as 

required by statute. This ANPRM is 

necessary to obtain additional 

information from the public before 

issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. 

It will allow us to verify the extent of 

the requirements for the rule, such as 

how widely electronic charts are used, 

who is using them, the appropriate 

equipment requirements for different 

vessel classes, and where they operate, 

allowing us to tailor electronic charts 

requirements to vessel class and 

location. 

Statement of Need: In this ANPRM, 

we are seeking information on how 

widely electronic charts are used, which 

types of vessels are using them, and 

where the vessels operate, as well as 

views on the appropriate equipment 

requirements for different vessel classes. 

Issuing this ANPRM to obtain 

information from the public before 

drafting a proposed rule should enable 

us to issue a proposed rule that better 

tailors electronic charts requirements to 

vessel class and location. 

Alternatives: The Coast Guard will 

use the information solicited from the 

ANPRM to shape regulatory language 

and alternatives. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Coast Guard will use the ANPRM to 

solicit public input to help develop 

estimates of the costs and benefits of 

any proposed regulation. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Additional Information: Docket 

number USCG–2021–0291. 

Agency Contact: John Stone, Program 

Manager, Department of Homeland 

Security, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of 

Navigation Systems (CG–NAV), 2703 

Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, 

STOP 7418, Washington, DC 20593– 

7418, Phone: 202 372–1093, Email: 

john.m.stone2@uscg.mil. 

RIN: 1625–AC74 

DHS—USCG 

Proposed Rule Stage 

85. Shipping Safety Fairways Along the 

Atlantic Coast 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70003 

CFR Citation: 33 CFR 166. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Coast Guard seeks 

comments regarding the possible 

establishment of shipping safety 

fairways (fairways) along the Atlantic 

Coast of the United States. Fairways are 

marked routes for vessel traffic in which 

any obstructions are prohibited. The 

proposed fairways are based on two 

studies about vessel traffic along the 

Atlantic Coast. The Coast Guard is 

coordinating this action with the Bureau 

of Offshore Energy Management (BOEM) 

to minimize the impact on potential 

offshore energy leases. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking 

would establish shipping safety 

fairways along the Atlantic coast of the 

United States to facilitate the direct and 

unobstructed transits of ships. The 

establishment of fairways would ensure 

that obstruction-free routes are 

preserved to and from U.S. ports and 

along the Atlantic coast. This will 

reduce the risk of collision, allision and 

grounding, as well as alleviate the 

chance of increased time and expenses 

in transit. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

70003 of title 46 United States Code (46 

U.S.C. 70003) directs the Secretary of 

the department in which the Coast 

Guard resides to designate necessary 

fairways that provide safe access routes 

for vessels proceeding to and from U.S. 

ports. 

Alternatives: The ANPRM outlined 

the Coast Guard’s plans for fairways 

along the Atlantic Coast and requested 

information and data associated with 

the regulatory concepts. The Coast 

Guard will use this information and 

data to shape regulatory language and 

alternatives and assess the associated 

impacts in the NPRM. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

fairways are intended to preserve 

traditional vessel navigation routes and 

are not mandatory. The Coast Guard 

anticipates the proposed fairways to 

improve navigational safety. 

Risks: The Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM) is leasing offshore 

areas that could affect customary 

shipping routes. Expeditious pursuit of 

this rulemaking is intended to prevent 

conflict between customary shipping 

routes and areas that may be leased by 

BOEM. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 06/19/20 85 FR 37034 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

08/18/20 

NPRM .................. 06/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Additional Information: Docket 

number USCG–2019–0279. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: John Stone, Program 

Manager, Department of Homeland 

Security, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of 

Navigation Systems (CG–NAV), 2703 

Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, 

STOP 7418, Washington, DC 20593– 

7418, Phone: 202 372–1093, Email: 

john.m.stone2@uscg.mil. 

RIN: 1625–AC57 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5086 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

DHS—USCG 

86. • Marpol Annex VI; Prevention of 

Air Pollution From Ships 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903 

CFR Citation: 33 CFR 151. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Coast Guard is 

proposing regulations to carry out the 

provisions of Annex VI of the MARPOL 

Protocol, which is focused on the 

prevention of air pollution from ships. 

The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships 

has already given direct effect to most 

provisions of Annex VI, and the Coast 

Guard and the Environmental Protection 

Agency have carried out some Annex VI 

provisions through previous 

rulemakings. This proposed rulemaking 

would fill gaps in the existing 

framework for carrying out the 

provisions of Annex VI. Chapter 4 of 

Annex VI contains shipboard energy 

efficiency measures that include shortterm measures reducing carbon 

emissions linked to climate change and 

supports Administration goals outlined 

in Executive Order 14008 titled 

Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and 

Abroad. This proposed rulemaking 

would apply to U.S.-flagged ships. It 

would also apply to foreign-flagged 

ships operating either in U.S. navigable 

waters or in the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone. 

Statement of Need: The Coast Guard 

is proposing regulations to carry out the 

provisions of Annex VI of the MARPOL 

Protocol, which is focused on the 

prevention of air pollution from ships. 

The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships 

has already given direct effect to most 

provisions of Annex VI, and the Coast 

Guard and the Environmental Protection 

Agency have carried out some Annex VI 

provisions through previous 

rulemakings. This proposed rule would 

fill gaps in the existing framework for 

carrying out the provisions of Annex VI 

and explain how the United States has 

chosen to carry out certain discretionary 

aspects of Annex VI. This proposed rule 

would apply to U.S.-flagged ships. And 

it would also apply to foreign-flagged 

ships operating in U.S. navigable waters 

or in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 4 of 

the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships 

(Pub. L. 96–478, Oct. 21, 1980, 94 Stat 

2297), as reflected in 33 U.S.C. 1903, 

directs the Secretary of Homeland 

Security to prescribe any necessary or 

desired regulations to carry out the 

provisions of the MARPOL Protocol. 

The ‘‘MARPOL Protocol’’ is defined in 

33 U.S.C. 1901 and includes Annex VI 

of the International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 

1973. 

Alternatives: 

Alternative 1—No Action. USCG 

considered taking no action, but 33 

U.S.C. 1903 (c)(1) directs the DHS 

Secretary to prescribe any regulations 

necessary to implement Annex VI. We 

have determined that it is necessary for 

the Coast Guard to issue regulations to 

implement Annex VI. Therefore, if we 

take no action, the Coast Guard having 

been delegated this rulemaking 

authority from the DHS Secretary would 

not fulfill its mandate from Congress to 

implement Annex VI. 

Alternative 2—USCG considered not 

pursuing a rulemaking and allowing the 

Annex VI International Air Pollution 

Prevention (IAPP) certificate provision 

(Regulation 6) to be a mechanism to 

ensure compliance with Annex VI. We 

did not follow this alternative because 

not all ships subject to Annex VI would 

be required to obtain an IAPP certificate. 

Alternative 3—USCG considered 

issuing only regulations that were 

required to explain how the United 

States planned to exercise its discretion 

under Annex VI, but we determined that 

additional regulations were necessary to 

clarify how we would be implementing 

Annex VI. The intent of these clarifying 

regulations (e.g., how will a vessel that 

does not have a GT ITC measurement 

know if it will be subject to surveys 

under Regulation 5.1) is not to impose 

any additional burden—for it is APPS 

that requires compliance with Annex 

VI, but to make implementation of 

Annex VI more effective, efficient, and 

transparent. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: USCG 

anticipates the costs for the proposed 

rule to come primarily from additional 

labor for 5 requirements including 

overseeing surveys; developing and 

maintaining a fuel-switching procedure; 

recording various data during each fuel 

switching; developing and managing a 

Volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

management plan; crew member to 

calculate and report the attained Energy 

Efficient Design Index (EEDI) of the 

vessel, and crew member to develop and 

maintain the Ship Energy Efficiency 

Management Plan (SEEMP). USCG 

estimates that the requirement will total 

approximately $2 million over a ten 

year period. 

USCG expects the proposed rule to 

have unquantified benefits from 

reduction in fatalities and injuries due 

to pollutant in engine emissions, and 

also reduced risk of retaliation due to 

breaching international agreement. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Frank Strom, Chief, 

Systems Engineering Division (CG– 

ENG–3), Department of Homeland 

Security, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of 

Design and Engineering Standards, 2703 

Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20593, Phone: 202 372– 

1375, Email: frank.a.strom@uscg.mil. 

RIN: 1625–AC78 

DHS—U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER 

PROTECTION (USCBP) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

87. Advance Passenger Information 

System: Electronic Validation of Travel 

Documents 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 44909; 8 

U.S.C. 1221 

CFR Citation: 19 CFR 122. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) regulations require 

commercial air carriers to electronically 

transmit passenger information to CBP’s 

Advance Passenger Information System 

(APIS) prior to an aircraft’s arrival in or 

departure from the United States. CBP 

proposes to amend these regulations to 

incorporate additional carrier 

requirements that will enable CBP to 

validate each passenger’s travel 

documents prior to the passenger 

boarding the aircraft. This proposed rule 

would also require air carriers to 

transmit additional data elements 

through APIS for all commercial aircraft 

passengers arriving in the United States 

in order to support border operations 

and national security. The collection of 

additional data elements will support 

the efforts of the Centers for Disease 

Control, within the Department of 

Health and Human Services, to monitor 

and contract-trace health incidents. 

Statement of Need: Current 

regulations require U.S. citizens and 

foreign travelers entering and leaving 

the United States via air travel to submit 

travel documents containing 

biographical information, such as a 

passenger’s name and date of birth. For 

security purposes, CBP compares the 

information on passengers’ documents 

to various databases and the terrorist 

watch list through APIS and 

recommends that air carriers deny 

boarding to those deemed inadmissible. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5087 

To further improve CBP’s vetting 

processes with respect to identifying 

and preventing passengers with 

fraudulent or improper documents from 

traveling or leaving the United States, 

CBP proposes to require carriers to 

receive from CBP a message that would 

state whether CBP matched the travel 

documents of each passenger to a valid, 

authentic travel document prior to 

departure to the United States from a 

foreign port or place or departure from 

the United States. The proposed rule 

also would require carriers to submit 

passenger contact information while in 

the United States to CBP through APIS. 

Submission of such information would 

enable CBP to identify and interdict 

individuals posing a risk to border, 

national, and aviation safety and 

security more quickly. Collecting these 

additional data elements would also 

enable CBP to further assist CDC to 

monitor and trace the contacts of those 

involved in serious public health 

incidents upon CDC request. 

Additionally, the proposed rule would 

allow carriers to include the aircraft tail 

number in their electronic messages to 

CBP and make technical changes to 

conform with current practice. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed rule would result in 

additional opportunity costs of time to 

CBP, air carriers, and passengers for 

coordination required to resolve a 

passenger’s status should there be a 

security issue. In addition, CBP has 

incurred costs for technological 

improvements to its systems. CBP, air 

carriers, and passengers would benefit 

from reduced passenger processing 

times during customs screening. 

Unquantified benefits would result from 

greater efficiency in passenger 

processing pre-flight, improved national 

security, and fewer penalties for air 

carriers following entry denial of a 

passenger. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Robert Neumann, 

Program Manager, Office of Field 

Operations, Department of Homeland 

Security, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20229, Phone: 202 

412–2788, Email: robert.m.neumann@

cbp.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1651–AB43 

DHS—USCBP 

Final Rule Stage 

88. Automation of CBP Form I–418 for 

Vessels 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 8 U.S.C. 

1101 and 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 

1221; 8 U.S.C. 1281 and 1282; 19 U.S.C. 

66; 19 U.S.C. 1431; 19 U.S.C. 1433; 19 

U.S.C. 1434; 19 U.S.C. 1624; 19 U.S.C. 

2071 note; 46 U.S.C. 501; 46 U.S.C. 

60105 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 251.1; 8 CFR 

251.3; 8 CFR 251.5; 8 CFR 258.2; 19 CFR 

4.7 and 4.7a; 19 CFR 4.50; 19 CFR 4.81; 

19 CFR 4.85; 19 CFR 4.91. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule amends the 

Department of Homeland Security’s 

regulations regarding the submission of 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Form I–418, Passenger List—Crew List 

(Form I–418). Currently, the master or 

agent of every commercial vessel 

arriving in the United States, with 

limited exceptions, must submit a paper 

Form I–418, along with certain 

information regarding longshore work, 

to CBP at the port where immigration 

inspection is performed. Most 

commercial vessel operators are also 

required to submit a paper Form I–418 

to CBP at the final U.S. port prior to 

departing for a foreign port. Under this 

rule, most vessel operators would be 

required to electronically submit the 

data elements on Form I–418 to CBP 

through the National Vessel Movement 

Center in lieu of submitting a paper 

form. This rule would eliminate the 

need to file the paper Form I–418 in 

most cases. This will result in an 

opportunity cost savings for vessel 

operators as well as a reduction in their 

printing and storage costs. CBP no 

longer needs this information as it is 

receiving it from the Coast Guard. 

Statement of Need: Currently, the 

master or agent of every commercial 

vessel arriving in the United States, 

with limited exceptions, must submit 

Form I–418, along with certain 

information regarding longshore work, 

in paper form to CBP at the port where 

immigration inspection is performed. 

Most commercial vessel operators are 

also required to submit a paper Form I– 

418 to CBP at the final U.S. port prior 

to departing for a foreign place. 

Alternative, most vessel operators are 

required to electronically submit the 

same information to the U.S. Coast 

Guard (USCG) prior to arrival into a U.S. 

port. Under this rule, vessel operators 

will be required to electronically submit 

the data elements on Form I–418 to CBP 

through an electronic data interchange 

system (EDI) approved by CBP in lieu of 

submitting a paper form. This rule will 

streamline vessel arrival and departure 

processes by providing for the electronic 

submission of the information collected 

on the Form I–418, eliminating 

redundant data submissions, 

simplifying vessel inspections, and 

automating recordkeeping. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

rule will automate the Form I–418 

process for all commercial vessel 

operators and eliminate the regulatory 

guidelines in place regarding the 

submission and retention of paper Form 

I–418s. These changes will generally not 

introduce new costs to commercial 

vessel operators, but they will introduce 

some costs to CBP. If vessel operators 

request a copy of their stamped and 

annotated electronic Form I–418, which 

they receive by paper now for CBP 

processing, they will incur negligible 

costs to do so. CBP will incur 

technology and printing costs from the 

Form I–418 Automation regulatory 

program, including costs to maintain 

mobile devices for real-time, electronic 

processing, and to print the paper Form 

I–418 until the admissibility inspection 

process is completely paperless. 

However, this rule will provide 

considerable benefits and cost savings to 

both vessel operators and CBP. 

Following this rule’s implementation, 

vessel operators will enjoy cost savings 

from forgone paper Form I–418 

submissions and form printing. CBP 

will experience a cost savings from the 

rule’s avoided printing, streamlined 

mobile post-inspection processing and 

electronic recordkeeping. In turn, CBP 

may dedicate these cost savings to other 

agency mission areas, such as improving 

border security or facilitating trade. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 12/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Brian Sale, Branch 

Chief, Manifest & Conveyance Security 

Division, Cargo & Conveyance, Office of 

Field Operation, Department of 

Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20229, 

Phone: 202 325–3338, Email: 

brian.a.sale@cbp.dhs.gov; ofomanifestbranch@cbp.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1651–AB18 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5088 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

DHS—TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION (TSA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

89. Vetting of Certain Surface 

Transportation Employees 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; Pub. L. 

110–53, secs. 1411, 1414, 1512, 1520, 

1522, and 1531 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, 

August 3, 2008, Background and 

immigration status check for all public 

transportation frontline employees is 

due no later than 12 months after date 

of enactment. 

Sections 1411 and 1520 of Public Law 

110–53, Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), 

(121 Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007), require 

background checks of frontline public 

transportation and railroad employees 

not later than one year from the date of 

enactment. Requirement will be met 

through regulatory action. 

Abstract: The 9/11 Act requires 

vetting of certain railroad, public 

transportation, and over-the-road bus 

employees. Through this rulemaking, 

the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) intends to 

propose the standards and procedures to 

conduct the required vetting. This 

regulation is related to 1652–AA55, 

Security Training for Surface 

Transportation Employees. 

Statement of Need: Employee vetting 

is an important and effective tool for 

averting or mitigating potential attacks 

by those with malicious intent who may 

target surface transportation and plan or 

perpetrate actions that may cause 

significant injuries, loss of life, or 

economic disruption. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA is 

in the process of determining the costs 

and benefits of this rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Victor Parker, 

Transportation Security Specialist, 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Transportation Security Administration, 

Policy, Plans and Engagement, 6595 

Springfield Center Drive, Springfield, 

VA 20598–6028, Phone: 571 227–3664, 

Email: victor.parker@tsa.dhs.gov. 

Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, 

Economic Analysis Branch– 

Coordination & Analysis Division, 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Transportation Security Administration, 

Policy, Plans, and Engagement, 6595 

Springfield Center Drive, Springfield, 

VA 20598–6028, Phone: 571 227–5839, 

Email: alex.moscoso@tsa.dhs.gov. 

Christine Beyer, Senior Counsel, 

Regulations and Security Standards, 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Transportation Security Administration, 

Chief Counsel’s Office, 6595 Springfield 

Center Drive, Springfield, VA 20598– 

6002, Phone: 571 227–3653, Email: 

christine.beyer@tsa.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1652–AA55, 

Related to 1652–AA56. 

RIN: 1652–AA69 

DHS—TSA 

90. Indirect Air Carrier Security 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; 49 

U.S.C. 5103; 49 U.S.C. 40113; 49 U.S.C. 

44901 to 44905; 49 U.S.C. 4491 to 

44914; 49 U.S.C. 44916 to 44917; 49 

U.S.C. 44932; 49 U.S.C. 449354 to 

44936; 49 U.S.C. 46105; . . . 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1548. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) is reducing the 

frequency of renewal applications for 

indirect air carriers (IACs). Currently, 

these entities must submit an 

application to renew their security 

program each year. Following a review 

of TSA’s regulatory requirements 

seeking to reduce the cost of 

compliance, TSA determined that the 

duration of the security program for 

these entities can be increased from one 

year to three years without having a 

negative impact on transportation 

security. 

Statement of Need: Consistent with 

Executive Order 12866 and OMB 

Circular A–4, TSA identified portions of 

air cargo regulations that may be 

tailored to impose a lesser burden on 

society and that may improve 

government processes. Under 49 CFR 

1548 indirect air carriers are required to 

renew their security programs each year. 

TSA’s robust inspection and compliance 

requirements make the annual renewal 

requirement unnecessary. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA is 

in the process of determining the costs 

and benefits of this rulemaking. Cost 

savings are expected to arise from time 

saved due to a less frequent security 

program renewal cycle. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Final Rule ............ 09/16/09 74 FR 47705 

NPRM .................. 05/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Ronoy Varghese, 

Section Chief, Department of Homeland 

Security, Transportation Security 

Administration, 6595 Springfield Center 

Drive, Springfield, VA 20598–6028, 

Phone: 571 227–2230, Email: 

ronoy.varghese@tsa.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1652–AA23. 

RIN: 1652–AA72 

DHS—TSA 

Final Rule Stage 

91. Flight Training Security 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 6 U.S.C. 469(b); 49 

U.S.C. 114; 49 U.S.C. 44939; 49 U.S.C. 

46105 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1552. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

February 10, 2004, sec. 612(a) of Vision 

100 requires the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) to issue an 

interim final rule within 60 days of 

enactment of Vision 100. 

Requires the TSA to establish a 

process to implement the requirements 

of section 612(a) of Vision 100–Century 

of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 

108–176, 117 Stat. 2490, Dec. 12, 2003), 

including the fee provisions, not later 

than 60 days after the enactment of the 

Act. 

Abstract: An Interim Final Rule (IFR) 

published and effective on September 

20, 2004, created a new part 1552, Flight 

Schools, in title 49 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR). This IFR 

applies to flight schools and to 

individuals who apply for or receive 

flight training. Flight schools are 

required to notify TSA when 

noncitizens, and other individuals 

designated by TSA, apply for flight 

training or recurrent training. TSA 

subsequently issued exemptions and 

interpretations in response to comments 

on the IFR, questions raised during 

operation of the program since 2004, 

and a notice extending the comment 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5089 

period on May 18, 2018. Based on the 

comments and questions received, TSA 

is finalizing the rule with modifications, 

and considering modifications that 

would change the frequency of security 

threat assessments from a highfrequency event-based interval to a 

time-based interval, clarify the 

definitions and other provisions of the 

rule, and enable industry to use TSAprovided electronic recordkeeping 

systems for all documents required to 

demonstrate compliance with the rule. 

Statement of Need: In the years since 

TSA published the IFR, members of the 

aviation industry, the public, and 

Federal oversight organizations have 

identified areas where the Flight 

Training Security Program (formerly the 

Alien Flight Student Program) could be 

improved. TSA’s internal procedures 

and processes for vetting applicants also 

have improved and advanced. 

Publishing a final rule that addresses 

external recommendations and aligns 

with modern TSA vetting practices 

would streamline the Flight Training 

Security Program application, vetting, 

and recordkeeping process for all parties 

involved. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA is 

considering revising the requirements of 

the Flight Training Security Program to 

reduce costs and industry burden. One 

action TSA is considering is an 

electronic recordkeeping platform 

where all flight providers would upload 

certain information to a TSA-managed 

website. Also at industry’s request, TSA 

is considering changing the interval for 

a security threat assessment of each 

noncitizen flight student, eliminating 

the requirement for a security threat 

assessment for each separate training 

event. This change would result in an 

annual savings, although there may be 

additional start-up and record retention 

costs for the agency as a result of these 

revisions. The benefits of these actions 

would be immediate cost savings to 

flight schools and noncitizen students 

without compromising the security 

profile. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule; 

Request for 

Comments.

09/20/04 69 FR 56324 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

09/20/04 

Interim Final Rule; 

Comment Period End.

10/20/04 

Notice-Information 

Collection; 60- 

Day Renewal.

11/26/04 69 FR 68952 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice-Information 

Collection; 30- 

Day Renewal.

03/30/05 70 FR 16298 

Notice-Information 

Collection; 60- 

Day Renewal.

06/06/08 73 FR 32346 

Notice-Information 

Collection; 30- 

Day Renewal.

08/13/08 73 FR 47203 

Notice-Alien Flight 

Student Program Recurrent 

Training Fees.

04/13/09 74 FR 16880 

Notice-Information 

Collection; 60- 

Day Renewal.

09/21/11 76 FR 58531 

Notice-Information 

Collection; 30- 

Day Renewal.

01/31/12 77 FR 4822 

Notice-Information 

Collection; 60- 

Day Renewal.

03/10/15 80 FR 12647 

Notice-Information 

Collection; 30- 

Day Renewal.

06/18/15 80 FR 34927 

IFR; Comment 

Period Reopened.

05/18/18 83 FR 23238 

IFR; Comment 

Period Reopened End.

06/18/18 

Notice-Information 

Collection; 60- 

Day Renewal.

07/06/18 83 FR 31561 

Notice-Information 

Collection; 30- 

Day Renewal.

10/31/18 83 FR 54761 

Final Rule ............ 09/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Johannes Knudsen, 

Program Manager, Alien Flight Student 

Program, Department of Homeland 

Security, Transportation Security 

Administration, Intelligence and 

Analysis, 6595 Springfield Center Drive, 

Springfield, VA 20598–6010, Phone: 

571 227–2188, Email: 

johannes.knudsen@tsa.dhs.gov. 

Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, 

Economic Analysis Branch— 

Coordination & Analysis Division, 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Transportation Security Administration, 

Policy, Plans, and Engagement, 6595 

Springfield Center Drive, Springfield, 

VA 20598–6028, Phone: 571 227–5839, 

Email: alex.moscoso@tsa.dhs.gov. 

David Ross, Attorney–Advisor, 

Regulations and Security Standards, 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Transportation Security Administration, 

Chief Counsel’s Office, 6595 Springfield 

Center Drive, Springfield, VA 20598– 

6002, Phone: 571 227–2465, Email: 

david.ross1@tsa.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1652–AA61. 

RIN: 1652–AA35 

DHS—TSA 

Long-Term Actions 

92. • Surface Transportation 

Cybersecurity Measures 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1570. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On July 28, 2021, the 

President issued the National Security 

Memorandum on Improving 

Cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure 

Control Systems. Consistent with this 

priority of the Administration and in 

response to the ongoing cybersecurity 

threat to pipeline systems, TSA used its 

authority under 49 U.S.C. 114 to issue 

security directives to owners and 

operators of TSA-designated critical 

pipelines that transport hazardous 

liquids and natural gas to implement a 

number of urgently needed protections 

against cyber intrusions. The first 

directive, issued in May 2021, requires 

critical owner/operators to (1) Report 

confirmed and potential cybersecurity 

incidents to the Cybersecurity and 

Infrastructure Agency (CISA); (2) 

designate a Cybersecurity Coordinator to 

be available 24 hours a day, seven days 

a week; (3) review current cybersecurity 

practices; and (4) identify any gaps and 

related remediation measures to address 

cyber-related risks and report the results 

to TSA and CISA within 30 days of 

issuance of the SD. A second security 

directive issued in July requires these 

owners and operators to (1) Implement 

specific mitigation measures to protect 

against ransomware attacks and other 

known threats to information 

technology and operational technology 

systems; (2) develop and implement a 

cybersecurity contingency and recovery 

plan; and (3) conduct a cybersecurity 

architecture design review. TSA is 

committed to enhancing and sustaining 

cybersecurity and intends to issue a 

rulemaking that will codify certain 

requirements with respect to pipeline 

and certain other surface modes. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is 

necessary to address the ongoing 

cybersecurity threat to U.S. 

transportation modes. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA is 

in the process of determining the costs 

and benefits of this rulemaking. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5090 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. To Be Determined 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Scott Gorton, 

Executive Director, Surface Policy 

Division, Department of Homeland 

Security, Transportation Security 

Administration, Policy, Plans, and 

Engagement, 6595 Springfield Center 

Drive, Springfield, VA 20598–6002, 

Phone: 571 227–1251, Email: tsasurface@tsa.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1652–AA74 

DHS—U.S. IMMIGRATION AND 

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (USICE) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

93. Fee Adjustment for U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Form I–246, Application for a Stay of 

Deportation or Removal 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1231; 8 

U.S.C. 1356(m); 8 U.S.C. 1356(n) 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of 

Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will 

propose to adjust the fee for ICE Form 

I–246, Application for a Stay of 

Deportation or Removal. ICE has 

determined that the current fee does not 

fully recover the costs incurred to 

perform the full range of activities 

associated with determining if a 

noncitizen ordered deported or removed 

from the United States is eligible to 

obtain a stay of deportation or removal. 

Statement of Need: ICE has 

determined that the current fee for Form 

I–246 does not fully recover the costs 

incurred to perform the full range of 

activities associated with determining if 

a foreign national ordered deported or 

removed from the United States is 

eligible to obtain a stay of deportation 

or removal. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: ICE is 

in the process of assessing the impacts 

of this rule. The rule would increase the 

fee for foreign nationals applying for a 

stay of deportation or removal with the 

Form I–246. The fee adjustment would 

result in an increase in transfers from 

foreign nationals to ICE. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Sharon Hageman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Director, 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

500 12th Street SW, Mail Stop 5006, 

Washington, DC 20536, Phone: 202 732– 

6960, Email: ice.regulations@

ice.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1653–AA82 

DHS—FEDERAL EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) 

Prerule Stage 

94. • RFI National Flood Insurance 

Program’s Floodplain Management 

Standards for Land Management & Use, 

& an Assessment of the Program’s 

Impact on Threatened and Endangered 

Species & Their Habitats 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 44 CFR 59.1; 44 CFR 

60.3(d)(3); 44 CFR 64.3(a)(1). 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) is issuing 

this Request for Information to receive 

the public’s input on two topics. First, 

FEMA seeks the public’s input on 

revising the National Flood Insurance 

Program’s (NFIP) floodplain 

management standards for land 

management and use regulations to 

better align with the current 

understanding of flood risk and flood 

risk reduction approaches. Specifically, 

FEMA is seeking input from the public 

on the floodplain management 

standards that communities should 

adopt to result in safer, stronger, and 

more resilient communities. 

Additionally, FEMA seeks input on how 

the NFIP can better promote protection 

of and minimize any adverse impact to 

threatened and endangered species, and 

their habitats. 

Statement of Need: FEMA is issuing 

this Request for Information to seek 

information from the public on the 

agency’s current floodplain management 

standards to ensure the agency receives 

public input as part of the agency’s 

regular review of programs, regulations, 

and policies, and to inform any action 

to revise the NFIP minimum floodplain 

management standards. FEMA also 

plans to re-evaluate the implementation 

of the NFIP under the Endangered 

Species Act at the national level to 

complete a revised Biological 

Evaluation re-examining how NFIP 

actions influence land development 

decisions; the potential for such actions 

to have adverse effects on threatened 

and endangered species and critical 

habitats; and to identify program 

changes that would prevent jeopardy to 

threatened and endangered species, 

and/or destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical 

habitats, as well as to promote the 

survival and recovery of threatened and 

endangered species. As a result, FEMA 

also requests input from the public on 

what measures the NFIP can take to 

further protect and minimize any 

adverse impacts to threatened and 

endangered species and their habitat. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is 

currently considering the specific cost 

and benefit impacts of the proposed 

provisions. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Request for Information.10/12/21 86 FR 56713 

Announcement of 

Public Meetings.

10/28/21 86 FR 59745 

Announcement of 

Additional Public Meeting; Extension of Comment Period.

11/22/21 86 FR 66329 

Request for Information Comment Period 

End.

01/27/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: Docket ID 

FEMA–2021–0024. 

URL For More Information: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Rachel Sears, Federal 

Insurance and Mitigation 

Administration, Department of 

Homeland Security, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 400 C Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20472, Phone: 202 646– 

2977, Email: fema-regulations@

fema.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1660–AB11 

DHS—FEMA 

Proposed Rule Stage 

95. National Flood Insurance Program: 

Standard Flood Insurance Policy, 

Homeowner Flood Form 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

under 5 U.S.C. 801. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5091 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 44 CFR 61. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP), established 

pursuant to the National Flood 

Insurance Act of 1968, is a voluntary 

program in which participating 

communities adopt and enforce a set of 

minimum floodplain management 

requirements to reduce future flood 

damages. This proposed rule would 

revise the Standard Flood Insurance 

Policy by adding a new Homeowner 

Flood Form and five accompanying 

endorsements. The new Homeowner 

Flood Form would replace the Dwelling 

Form as a source of coverage for one-tofour family residences. Together, the 

new Form and endorsements would 

more closely align with property and 

casualty homeowners’ insurance and 

provide increased options and coverage 

in a more user-friendly and 

comprehensible format. 

Statement of Need: The National 

Flood Insurance Act requires FEMA to 

provide by regulation the general terms 

and conditions of insurability 

applicable to properties eligible for 

flood insurance coverage. 42 U.S.C. 

4013(a). To comply with this 

requirement, FEMA adopts the Standard 

Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) in 

regulation, which sets out the terms and 

conditions of insurance. See 44 CFR 

part 61, Appendix A. FEMA must use 

the SFIP for all flood insurance policies 

sold through the NFIP. See 44 CFR 

61.13. 

The SFIP is a single-peril (flood) 

policy that pays for direct physical 

damage to insured property. There are 

currently three forms of the SFIP: The 

Dwelling Form, the General Property 

Form, and the Residential 

Condominium Building Association 

Policy (RCBAP) Form. The Dwelling 

Form insures a one-to-four family 

residential building or a single-family 

dwelling unit in a condominium 

building. See 44 CFR part 61, Appendix 

A(1). Policies under the Dwelling Form 

offer coverage for building property, up 

to $250,000, and personal property up 

to $100,000. The General Property Form 

ensures a five-or-more family residential 

building or a non-residential building. 

See 44 CFR part 61, Appendix A(2). The 

General Property Form offers coverage 

for building and contents up to 

$500,000 each. The RCBAP Form 

insures residential condominium 

association buildings and offers 

building coverage up to $250,000 

multiplied by the number of units and 

contents coverage up to $100,000 per 

building. See 44 CFR part 61, appendix 

A(3). RCBAP contents coverage insures 

property owned by the insured 

condominium association. Individual 

unit owners must purchase their own 

Dwelling Form policy in order to insure 

their own contents. 

FEMA last substantively revised the 

SFIP in 2000. See 65 FR 60758 (Oct. 12, 

2000). In 2020, FEMA published a final 

rule that made non-substantive 

clarifying and plain language 

improvements to the SFIP. See 85 FR 

43946 (July 20, 2020). However, many 

policyholders, agents, and adjusters 

continue to find the SFIP difficult to 

read and interpret compared to other, 

more modern, property and casualty 

insurance products found in the private 

market. Accordingly, FEMA proposes to 

adopt a new Homeowner Flood Form. 

The new Homeowner Flood Form, 

which FEMA proposes to add to its 

regulations at 44 CFR 61 appendix A(4), 

would protect property owners in a oneto-four family residence. Upon 

adoption, the Homeowner Flood Form 

would replace the Dwelling Form as a 

source of coverage for this class of 

residential properties. FEMA would 

continue to use the Dwelling Form to 

insure landlords, renters, and owners of 

mobile homes, travel trailers, and 

condominium units. Compared to the 

current Dwelling Form, the new 

Homeowner Flood Form would clarify 

coverage and more clearly highlight 

conditions, limitations, and exclusions 

in coverage as well as add and modify 

coverages and coverage options. FEMA 

also proposes adding to its regulations 

five endorsements to accompany the 

new Form: Increased Cost of 

Compliance Coverage, Actual Cash 

Value Loss Settlement, Temporary 

Housing Expense, Basement Coverage, 

and Builder’s Risk. These endorsements, 

which FEMA proposes to codify at 44 

CFR 61 appendices A(101)–(105), 

respectively, would give policyholders 

the option of amending the Homeowner 

Flood Form to modify coverage with a 

commensurate adjustment to premiums 

charged. Together, the Homeowner 

Flood Form and accompanying 

endorsements would increase options 

and coverage for owners of one-to-four 

family residences. 

FEMA intends that this new Form 

will be more user-friendly and 

comprehensible. As a result, the new 

Homeowner Flood Form and its 

accompanying endorsements would 

provide a more personalized, 

customizable product than the NFIP has 

offered during its 50 years. In addition 

to aligning with property and casualty 

homeowners’ insurance, the result 

would increase consumer choice and 

simplify coverage. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FEMA 

estimates that this rulemaking would 

result in an increase in transfer 

payments from policyholders to FEMA 

and insurance providers in the form of 

flood insurance premiums, and from 

FEMA to policyholders in the form of 

claims payments. Additionally, this 

rulemaking would result in benefits to 

policyholders, insurance providers, and 

FEMA, mostly through cost savings due 

to increased clarity and expanded 

coverage options. It would also help the 

NFIP better signal risk through 

premiums, reduce the need for Federal 

assistance, and increase resilience by 

enhancing mitigation efforts. Lastly, one 

increase in costs for FEMA will be for 

expenditures on implementation and 

familiarization of the rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Christine Merk, Lead 

Management and Program Analyst, 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, Insurance Analytics and Policy 

Branch, 400 C Street SW, Washington, 

DC 20472, Phone: 202 735–6324, Email: 

christine.merk@fema.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1660–AB06 

DHS—FEMA 

Final Rule Stage 

96. • Amendment to the Public 

Assistance Program’s Simplified 

Procedures Large Project Threshold 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5189 

CFR Citation: 44 CFR 206.203(c)(1); 

44 CFR 206.203(c)(2). 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

February 26, 2014, Every 3 years, the 

President, acting through the 

Administrator, shall review the 

threshold for eligibility under section 

422 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. 

Abstract: The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) is revising 

its regulations governing the Public 

Assistance program to update the 

monetary threshold at or below which 

FEMA will obligate funding based on an 

estimate of project costs, and above 

which FEMA will obligate funding 

based on actual project costs. This rule 

will ensure FEMA and recipients can 

more efficiently process unobligated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5092 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Project Worksheets for COVID–19 

declarations, which continue to fund 

important pandemic-related work, while 

avoiding unnecessary confusion and 

administrative burden by not affecting 

previous project size determinations. 

Statement of Need: FEMA’s Public 

Assistance (PA) program provides grants 

to State, local, Tribal, and Territorial 

governments, as well as eligible private 

nonprofit (PNP) organizations, for debris 

removal, emergency protective 

measures, and the repair, replacement, 

or restoration of disaster-damaged 

facilities after a Presidentially-declared 

major disaster. FEMA categorizes each 

grant award as either a small or large 

project, which is determined by a 

monetary threshold set each year by 

FEMA pursuant to statute. (See section 

422 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 

codified at 42 U.S.C. 5189). FEMA 

obligates money for a small project 

based on an estimate of the project 

costs, and FEMA obligates money for a 

large project based on actual project 

costs as the project progresses and cost 

documentation is provided to FEMA. 

This expedites FEMA’s processing of PA 

grant funding by eliminating much of 

the administrative burden that FEMA 

experiences when awarding projects at 

or above the threshold (i.e., large 

projects). Ultimately, this reduces 

FEMA’s cost of administering PA 

funding and allows FEMA to expedite 

its provision of Federal disaster 

assistance. 

In 2013, the Sandy Recovery 

Improvement Act amended section 

422(b) of the Stafford Act and required 

FEMA to complete an analysis to 

determine whether an increase in the 

large project threshold was appropriate. 

Following this analysis, in 2014 FEMA 

updated the maximum threshold from 

$68,500 to $120,000 and continued to 

adjust the threshold annually to reflect 

changes in the Consumer Price Index, as 

required under section 422(b)(2). 

Section 422(b)(3) requires FEMA to 

review the threshold every three years. 

FEMA conducted an analysis in 2017 

and recommended no change to the 

threshold at that time. As a result, the 

maximum threshold for Fiscal Year (FY) 

2021 is currently set at $132,800. 

Since FEMA’s analysis in 2017, the 

U.S. has seen increased disaster activity 

either due to, or amplified or aggravated 

by, the climate crisis. For example, in 

2017, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and 

Maria caused a combined total of $293.6 

billion in damages. Damages from 

wildfires in that year and the next 

totaled approximately $61 billion. In 

2020, FEMA responded to 22 one 

billion-dollar events the highest in its 

history which included a record number 

of tropical storms in the Atlantic and 

the Nation’s most active wildfire year 

recorded. The estimated damages from 

these 22 events totaled approximately 

$95 billion. In addition to increased 

natural disasters, in 2020 FEMA also 

issued an unprecedented 57 major 

disaster declarations in response to 

COVID–19, including for every State, 5 

territories, the Seminole Tribe of 

Florida, and the District of Columbia. In 

FY 2020 declarations, FEMA’s funding 

under the PA program is over $32 

billion. Although costs for COVID–19 

accounted for 94 percent of this 

funding, FEMA expects climate change 

to make natural disasters more frequent 

and more destructive, requiring greater 

spending on recovery in the future. 

As a result, in 2020, FEMA conducted 

another analysis to ensure that FEMA is 

maximizing the benefits of simplified 

procedures in light of its more recent 

disaster spending. Based on this 

analysis, FEMA determined that it 

should increase the threshold to 

$1,000,000, with continued annual 

adjustment for inflation based on the 

Consumer Price Index. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FEMA 

estimates that this rulemaking would 

result in transfers from FEMA to PA 

recipients and familiarization costs for 

PA applicants. Additionally, this rule 

would reduce the administrative burden 

and improve program efficiency for PA 

recipients, subrecipients, and FEMA, 

resulting in cost savings to FEMA and 

PA recipients/subrecipients. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Final Rule ............ 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Agency Contact: Valerie Boulet, 

Program Administration Section, Public 

Assistance Division, Department of 

Homeland Security, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20472–3100, Phone: 

202 538–3860, Email: valerie.boulet@

fema.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1660–AB10 

DHS—FEMA 

Long-Term Actions 

97. Individual Assistance Program 

Equity 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5155; 42 

U.S.C. 5174; 42 U.S.C. 5189a 

CFR Citation: 44 CFR 206.101; 44 CFR 

206.110 to 206.115; 44 CFR 206.117 to 

206.119; 44 CFR 206.191. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: As climate change results in 

more frequent and/or intense extreme 

weather events like severe storms, 

flooding and wildfires, 

disproportionately impacting the most 

vulnerable in society and in furtherance 

of E.O. 13895, the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) proposes 

to amend its Individual Assistance (IA) 

regulations to increase equity and ease 

of entry to the IA Program. To provide 

a full opportunity for underserved 

communities to participate, FEMA 

proposes to amend application of ‘safe, 

sanitary, and functional’ for IA repair 

assistance; re-evaluate the requirement 

to apply for a Small Business 

Administration loan prior to receipt of 

Other Needs Assistance; add eligibility 

criteria for its Serious Needs & 

Displacement Assistance; amend its 

requirements for Continued Temporary 

Housing Assistance; re-evaluate its 

approach to insurance proceeds; and 

amend its appeals process. FEMA also 

proposes revisions to reflect changes to 

statutory authority that have not yet 

been implemented in regulation, to 

include provisions for utility and 

security deposit payments, lease and 

repair of multi-family rental housing, 

childcare assistance, and maximum 

assistance limits. 

Statement of Need: FEMA’s 

Individuals and Households Program 

(IHP) regulations have not had a major 

review and update since section 206 of 

the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 

replaced the Individual and Family 

Grant Assistance Program with the 

current IHP. Some minor changes to 

Repair Assistance were completed in 

2013, but Congress has passed multiple 

other laws that have superseded 

portions of the regulations and created 

other programs or forms of assistance 

with no supporting regulations. FEMA 

proposes an update to the IHP 

regulations now to bring them up to 

date and address other lessons learned 

through the course of implementing the 

IHP in disasters much larger than any 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5093 

previously addressed at the time the 

regulations were first developed. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Kristina McAlister, 

Supervisory Emergency Management 

Specialist (Recovery), Department of 

Homeland Security, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Individual 

Assistance Division Recovery 

Directorate, 500 C Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20472, Phone: 202 604– 

8007, Email: kristina.mcalister@

fema.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1660–AB07 

DHS—CYBERSECURITY AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY 

AGENCY (CISA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

98. Ammonium Nitrate Security 

Program 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under PL 104– 

4. 

Legal Authority: 6 U.S.C. 488 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 6 CFR 31. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

May 26, 2008, Publication of Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. Final, Statutory, 

December 26, 2008, Publication of Final 

Rule. 

Abstract: The Cybersecurity and 

Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is 

proposing a rulemaking to implement 

the December 2007 amendment to the 

Homeland Security Act titled ‘‘Secure 

Handling of Ammonium Nitrate.’’ This 

amendment requires the Department of 

Homeland Security to ‘‘regulate the sale 

and transfer of ammonium nitrate by an 

ammonium nitrate facility . . . to 

prevent the misappropriation or use of 

ammonium nitrate in an act of 

terrorism.’’ CISA previously issued a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

on August 3, 2011. CISA is planning to 

issue a Supplemental Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM). 

Statement of Need: A Federal 

regulation governing the sale and 

transfer of ammonium nitrate is 

statutorily mandated. The statute 

requires that purchasers of ammonium 

nitrate and owners of ammonium nitrate 

facilities register with the Department of 

Homeland Security and be vetted 

against the Terrorist Screening Database. 

The statute further requires that 

information about transactions of 

ammonium nitrate be recorded and 

kept. Given the widespread use of 

ammonium nitrate in many sectors of 

the economy, including industrial, 

agricultural, and consumer uses, the 

Department is exploring ways to reduce 

the threat of terrorism posed by 

ammonium nitrate while remaining 

sensitive to the impacts on the supply 

chain and legitimate users. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This 

regulation is statutorily mandated by 6 

U.S.C. 488 et seq. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In the 

2011 NPRM, CISA estimated cost of this 

proposed rule would range from $300 

million to $1,041 million over 10 years 

at a 7 percent discount rate. In the 

intervening years, CISA has adjusted its 

approach to this rulemaking and has 

made significant changes to the way we 

estimate the costs associated with this 

SNPRM. At this time CISA is still 

developing the cost estimates for and 

substantive contents of this SNPRM. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 10/29/08 73 FR 64280 

ANPRM Correction.11/05/08 73 FR 65783 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

12/29/08 

NPRM .................. 08/03/11 76 FR 46908 

Notice of Public 

Meetings.

10/07/11 76 FR 62311 

Notice of Public 

Meetings.

11/14/11 76 FR 70366 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

12/01/11 

Notice of Availability.06/03/19 84 FR 25495 

Notice of Availability Comment 

Period End.

09/03/19 

Supplemental 

NPRM.

03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

E.O. 13132. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Ryan Donaghy, 

Deputy Branch Chief for Chemical 

Security Policy, Rulemaking, and 

Engagement, Department of Homeland 

Security, Cybersecurity and 

Infrastructure Security Agency, 245 

Murray Lane SW, Mail Stop 0610, 

Arlington, VA 20528, Phone: 571 532– 

4127, Email: ryan.donaghy@

cisa.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Previously reported as 

1601–AA52. 

RIN: 1670–AA00 

BILLING CODE 9110–9B–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities for 

Fiscal Year 2022 

Introduction 

The Regulatory Plan for the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) for Fiscal Year (FY) 

2022 highlights the most significant 

regulations and policy initiatives that 

HUD seeks to complete during the 

upcoming fiscal year. As the Federal 

agency that serves as the nation’s 

housing agency, HUD is committed to 

addressing the housing needs of all 

Americans by creating strong, 

sustainable, inclusive communities, and 

quality affordable homes for all. As a 

result, HUD plays a significant role in 

the lives of families and in communities 

throughout America. 

HUD is currently working to 

strengthen the housing market to bolster 

the economy and protect consumers; 

meet the need for quality affordable 

rental homes; utilize housing as a 

platform for improving quality of life; 

build inclusive and sustainable 

communities free from discrimination 

and transform the way HUD does 

business. Under the leadership of 

Secretary Marcia L. Fudge, HUD is 

dedicated to implementing the 

Administration’s priorities by setting 

forth initiatives related to recovery from 

the COVID–19 pandemic, providing 

economic relief to those HUD serves, 

advancing racial equity and civil rights, 

and tackling the climate emergency. 

Since the beginning of the 

Administration, HUD has taken a 

number of actions to advance equity in 

its programs and secure equal access to 

housing opportunity for all. For 

example, on February 11, 2021, HUD 

issued a memorandum directing its 

Office of Fair Housing and Equal 

Opportunity and organizations that 

enter into agreements with the 

Department to carry out fair housing 

laws and activities to fully enforce the 

Fair Housing Act to prohibit 

discrimination based on sexual 

orientation and gender identity; on 

April 26, 2021, HUD issued a plan of 

action the Department will take to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5094 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

strengthen Nation-to-Nation relations 

and improve HUD-wide Tribal 

consultation; on June 10, 2021, HUD 

published an interim final rule to 

restore certain definitions and 

certifications to its regulations 

implementing the Fair Housing Act’s 

requirement to affirmatively further fair 

housing (AFFH) (86 FR 30779); and on 

June 25, 2021, HUD published a 

proposed rule to reinstate HUD’s 

discriminatory effects standard (86 FR 

33590). 

The rules highlighted in HUD’s 

regulatory plan for FY 2022 reflect 

HUD’s efforts to continue its work in 

meeting the needs of underserved 

communities and providing for equal 

access to housing opportunities. In 

addition, it reflects HUD’s efforts to 

strengthen the housing market and 

protect consumers, and to aid in 

recovery from the COVID–19 pandemic. 

Additionally, HUD notes that the FY 

2022 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda 

includes additional rules that advance 

the Administration’s priorities, 

including, rules to advance equity by 

ensuring non-discrimination based on 

disability in HUD programs, and a rule 

to help address the climate emergency 

by improving the resilience of HUDassisted or financed projects to the effect 

of climate change. 

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 

Executive Order 13985, ‘‘Advancing 

Racial Equity and Support for 

Underserved Communities Through the 

Federal Government,’’ (86 FR 7009, 

January 20, 2021) requires each agency 

to consider whether new policies, 

regulations, or guidance documents may 

be necessary to advance equity in 

agency actions and programs. Further, 

on January 26, 2021 (86 FR 7487), 

President Biden issued a ‘‘Memorandum 

on Redressing Our Nation’s and the 

Federal Government’s History of 

Discriminatory Housing Practices and 

Policies,’’ which explained that the 

Federal Government will work with 

communities to, among other things, 

end housing discrimination, lift barriers 

that restrict housing and neighborhood 

choice, promote diverse and inclusive 

communities, and to secure equal access 

to housing opportunity for all. 

As noted above, on June 10, 2021, 

HUD published an interim final rule to 

restore certain definitions and 

certifications to its regulations 

implementing the Fair Housing Act’s 

requirement. HUD will build on that 

rule and issue an AFFH proposed rule 

that seeks to ensure that HUD and its 

grantees are sufficiently effective in 

fulfilling the purposes and policies of 

the Fair Housing Act. HUD’s proposed 

rule will provide HUD and its program 

participants with a more effective Fair 

Housing Planning Process as a means to 

meet their duty to affirmatively further 

the Fair Housing Act. Currently, HUD 

funding recipients must certify 

compliance with their duty to AFFH on 

an annual basis and HUD itself has a 

continuous statutory obligation to 

ensure that the Fair Housing Act’s 

AFFH obligations are followed. 

For decades, courts have held that the 

AFFH obligation imposes a duty on 

HUD and its grantees to affirmatively 

further the purposes of the Fair Housing 

Act. These courts have held that for 

funding recipients to meet their AFFH 

obligations they must, at a minimum, 

make decisions informed by preexisting 

racial and socioeconomic residential 

segregation. The courts have further 

held that, informed by such 

information, funding recipients must 

strive to dismantle historic patterns of 

racial segregation; preserve integrated 

housing that already exists; and 

otherwise take meaningful steps to 

further the Fair Housing Act’s purposes 

beyond merely refraining from taking 

discriminatory actions and banning 

others from such discrimination. 

Through this proposed rule, HUD plans 

to implement the AFFH mandate and 

work towards a more equitable future 

for all by developing a Fair Housing 

Planning Process that reduces burdens 

for program participants and achieves 

material, positive change that 

affirmatively furthers fair housing. 

Specifically, HUD is focused on 

advancing equity and providing access 

to opportunity for underserved 

populations in a manner that is more 

effective in achieving measurable 

improvements while avoiding 

unnecessary burden. 

Aggregate Costs and Benefits 

Executive Order 12866, as amended, 

requires the agency to provide its best 

estimate of the combined aggregate costs 

and benefits of all regulations included 

in the agency’s Regulatory Plan that will 

be pursued in FY 2022. HUD expects 

that the neither the total economic costs 

nor the total efficiency gains will exceed 

$100 million. HUD grantees are already 

familiar with the AFFH compliance 

process as instituted by the 2015 rule 

and the 2021 interim final rule. Having 

learned from prior rulemakings, HUD 

believes that the rule will create the 

right balance of analysis so that grantees 

will have the available data necessary to 

help them in completing any analytical 

requirements without adding the same 

level of costs associated with the 2015 

rulemaking. 

Statement of Need 

The rule is needed to conform HUD 

regulations with statutory standards and 

judicial interpretations of those 

standards, and to ensure consistency in 

fair housing certifications across HUD 

programs. This proposed rule would 

consider HUD’s AFFH rule published 

on July 16, 2015 (80 FR 42272) (2015 

AFFH rule) but improve upon its 

framework and impose less regulatory 

burden. 

Alternatives: Alternatives to 

promulgating this rule involve finalizing 

the interim rule, ‘‘Restoring 

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 

Definitions and Certifications,’’ without 

taking further action or repromulgating 

the 2015 AFFH rule without considering 

changes that could reduce regulatory 

burden and enable a more meaningful 

fair housing planning process. If HUD 

were to finalize the interim rule without 

taking further action, there would be 

inconsistency in fair housing 

certifications across different 

jurisdictions, as the interim rule does 

not require that jurisdictions submit fair 

housing plans in any particular form, 

such as an Analysis of Impediments, or 

an Assessment of Fair Housing, as was 

previously required. If HUD were to 

repromulgate the 2015 AFFH rule 

without considering changes, HUD 

would miss an opportunity to improve 

upon that rule and reduce the 

significant regulatory burdens resulting 

from that rule. HUD believes neither of 

those options are better than providing 

for a new certification process that will 

undergo new public comment. 

Risks: Previous iterations of the AFFH 

rule have resulted in an amount of 

burden on grantees that made 

implementation challenging. HUD must 

balance the use of data and the depth of 

analysis that is required of differing 

sized grantees to ensure that grantees 

can implement the affirmatively 

furthering fair housing mandate while 

continuing to fulfill their programmatic 

requirements. In promulgating this rule, 

HUD will attempt to secure support 

from as many stakeholders as possible 

to ensure maximum compliance with 

the duty to AFFH. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Proposed Rule .... 12/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Governmental 

jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: Yes. 

Federalism Affected: No. 

Energy Affected: No. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5095 

1 24 CFR 203.501. 

2 24 CFR 203.616 

International Impacts: No. 

Increased Forty-Year Term for Loan 

Modifications 

Executive Order 14002, ‘‘Economic 

Relief Related to the COVID–19 

Pandemic’’ (Jan. 22, 2021), directs 

federal agencies to ‘‘promptly identify 

actions they can take within existing 

authorities to address the current 

economic crisis resulting from the 

[COVID 19] pandemic.’’ In response to 

this Executive Order and in support of 

the goal of achieving broad economic 

recovery following the COVID–19 

pandemic, HUD has established 

expanded COVID–19 Loss Mitigation 

Options to address the impacts many 

Americans are experiencing in 

recovering financially from the longlasting effects of the pandemic. HUD 

continues to evaluate both the effects of 

the pandemic on its portfolio as well as 

the economic indicators of the broader 

recovery. 

This proposed rule would amend 

HUD’s current regulation to allow for 

mortgagees to recast the total unpaid 

loan and other eligible costs for a new 

term not exceeding 480 months. HUD 

anticipates that this would allow 

mortgagees greater ability to assist 

defaulted borrowers, including 

borrowers affected by the COVID–19 

pandemic, with avoiding foreclosure. 

HUD’s current regulations allow 

mortgagees to modify a Federal Housing 

Administration (FHA) insured mortgage 

by recasting the total unpaid loan and 

other eligible costs for a term limited to 

360 months to cure a borrower’s default. 

Mortgagees are required to consider 

utilizing deeds in lieu of foreclosure, 

pre-foreclosure sales, partial claims, 

assumptions, special forbearance, and 

recasting of mortgages.1 One of these 

options allows mortgagees to modify a 

mortgage for the purpose of changing 

the amortization provisions and 

recasting the total unpaid loan and other 

eligible costs for a term not exceeding 

360 months from the date of the 

modification.2

Allowing mortgagees to provide a 40- 

year loan modification would support 

HUD’s mission of fostering 

homeownership by assisting more 

borrowers with retaining their homes 

after a default episode while mitigating 

losses to FHA’s Mutual Mortgage 

Insurance (MMI) Fund. For many 

borrowers who have become delinquent, 

a lowered monthly payment is key to 

their ability to bring the mortgage 

current, prevent re-default, and 

ultimately retain their home and build 

wealth through homeownership. The 

difference between the monthly 

payment provided under a 40-year loan 

modification and a 30-year loan 

modification may be significant for a 

borrower and their ability to afford the 

modified payment. 

Aggregate Costs and Benefits 

Executive Order 12866, as amended, 

requires the agency to provide its best 

estimate of the combined aggregate costs 

and benefits of all regulations included 

in the agency’s Regulatory Plan that will 

be pursued in FY 2021. HUD expects 

that neither the total economic costs nor 

the total efficiency gains will exceed 

$100 million. This proposed rule would 

increase available loss mitigation 

options for borrowers and enable more 

borrowers to avoid foreclosure and 

remain in their homes. HUD also 

anticipates that this would have a 

positive effect on the FHA Mutual 

Mortgage Insurance Fund by lowering 

defaults. 

Statement of Need 

Borrowers impacted by the COVID–19 

pandemic, including those who may redefault in the future after having 

received a loss mitigation option under 

HUD’s COVID–19 policies, may need a 

40-year loan modification to provide a 

monthly payment that they can afford. 

It is vital that these borrowers receive 

any loss mitigation options at HUD’s 

disposal and for which they are eligible 

to avoid foreclosure whenever possible 

and to mitigate the impact of the 

COVID–19 pandemic. 

Additionally, given the large number 

of FHA-insured mortgages that have 

been originated or refinanced in the past 

few years in a historically low interest 

rate environment, simply extending out 

the term of a mortgage in default for 

another 30 years at a similar interest rate 

would not provide a substantial 

reduction to a borrower’s monthly 

mortgage payment. Therefore, providing 

this option for relief for all borrowers 

and originators is prudent for all FHAinsured mortgages. 

Alternatives 

HUD has considered other loss 

mitigation options which would allow 

borrowers to avoid foreclosure in 

response to the COVID–19 pandemic. 

HUD has made many of these options 

available through mortgagee letter. HUD 

does not view these options as 

alternatives, as different circumstances 

may call for different forms of loss 

mitigation. Additionally, HUD finds that 

this new option should not be limited 

only in response to the COVID–19 

pandemic, but should be available in all 

circumstances where it could help 

individuals keep their homes. 

Risks 

Although the impact of introducing a 

40-year loan modification option for 

borrowers on the MMI Fund will 

needed to be modeled, HUD anticipates 

a favorable impact through reduced 

utilization of other, more costly loss 

mitigation options and foreclosure 

prevention. 

Additionally, HUD anticipates that 

the effect on FHA-insured mortgagors 

will be minor. HUD recognizes that a 

40-year mortgage would cost the 

borrower in the form of greater interest 

paid over time and slower equity 

building. However, HUD notes that the 

average life of an FHA-insured mortgage 

is approximately seven years, and HUD 

anticipates that a borrower would 

similarly refinance a 40-year mortgage. 

Any additional interest and slowed 

equity build that a borrower might pay 

with a 40-year modified loan compared 

to a 30-year modified loan, especially 

when looked at over the life of an 

average FHA-insured mortgage, would 

not impose a significant burden to 

borrowers and would be outweighed by 

the benefits to a borrower of being able 

to retain their home. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Proposed rule ...... 12/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Federalism Affected: No. 

Energy Affected: No. 

International Impacts: No. 

HUD—OFFICE OF HOUSING (OH) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

99. Increased 40-Year Term for Loan 

Modifications (FR–6263) 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1707, 1709, 

1710, 1715b, 1715z–16, 1715u, and 

1715z–21; 15 U.S.C. 1639c; 42 U.S.C. 

3535(d) 

CFR Citation: 24 CFR 203. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This would amend the 

current regulation at 24 CFR 203.616 to 

permit the modification of an FHAinsured mortgage for a maximum term 

not to exceed 480 months, or 40 years. 

The current regulation allows a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5096 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

mortgagee to modify a loan to cure a 

default by recasting the total unpaid 

amount due and other eligible costs for 

a term not exceeding 360 months, or 30 

years. Increasing the term length of a 

modified loan would provide borrowers 

with a deeper reduction to their 

monthly mortgage payments as the 

outstanding principal would be spread 

over a longer time frame. This change 

would provide more FHA borrowers 

with the ability to retain their homes 

after default, including borrowers who 

have exhausted their partial claim 

allocation, as well as provide more 

affordable housing payments. This 

change would also align FHA with 

modifications available to borrowers 

with mortgages backed by Fannie Mae 

or Freddie Mac, which currently 

provide a 40-year loan modification 

option. 

Statement of Need: HUD anticipates 

that this would allow mortgagees greater 

ability to assist defaulted borrowers, 

including mortgagees affected by the 

COVID–19 pandemic, with avoiding 

foreclosure. It is vital that borrowers 

receive any loss mitigation options at 

HUD’s disposal and for which they are 

eligible to avoid foreclosure whenever 

possible and to mitigate the impact of a 

loss of job or other financial strains such 

as those resulting from the COVID–19 

pandemic. 

Additionally, given the large number 

of FHA-insured mortgages that have 

been originated or refinanced in the past 

few years in a historically low interest 

rate environment, simply extending out 

the term of a mortgage in default for 

another 30 years at a similar interest rate 

would not provide a substantial 

reduction to a borrower’s monthly 

mortgage payment. Therefore, providing 

this option for relief for all borrowers 

and originators is prudent for all FHAinsured mortgages. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Executive 

Order 14002, Economic Relief Related to 

the COVID–19 Pandemic (Jan. 22, 2021), 

directs federal agencies to promptly 

identify actions they can take within 

existing authorities to address the 

current economic crisis resulting from 

the [COVID 19] pandemic. In response 

to this Executive Order and in support 

of the goal of achieving broad economic 

recovery following the COVID–19 

pandemic, HUD has established 

expanded COVID–19 Loss Mitigation 

Options to address the impacts many 

Americans are experiencing in 

recovering financially from the longlasting effects of the pandemic. 

Alternatives: HUD has considered 

other loss mitigation options which 

would allow borrowers to avoid 

foreclosure in response to the COVID– 

19 pandemic. HUD has made many of 

these options available through 

mortgagee letter. HUD does not view 

these options as alternatives, as different 

circumstances may call for different 

forms of loss mitigation. Additionally, 

HUD finds that this new option should 

not be limited only in response to the 

COVID–19 pandemic, but should be 

available in all circumstances where it 

could help individuals keep their 

homes. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Executive Order 12866, as amended, 

requires the agency to provide its best 

estimate of the combined aggregate costs 

and benefits of all regulations included 

in the agency’s Regulatory Plan that will 

be pursued in FY 2021. HUD expects 

that neither the total economic costs nor 

the total efficiency gains will exceed 

$100 million. This proposed rule would 

increase available loss mitigation 

options for borrowers and enable more 

borrowers to avoid foreclosure and 

remain in their homes. HUD also 

anticipates that this would have a 

positive effect on the FHA Mutual 

Mortgage Insurance Fund by lowering 

defaults. 

Risks: Although the impact of 

introducing a 40-year loan modification 

option for borrowers on the MMI Fund 

will needed to be modeled, HUD 

anticipates a favorable impact through 

reduced utilization of other, more costly 

loss mitigation options and foreclosure 

prevention. 

Additionally, HUD anticipates that 

the effect on FHA-insured mortgagors 

will be minor. HUD recognizes that a 

40-year mortgage would cost the 

borrower in the form of great interest 

paid over time and slower equity 

building. However, HUD notes that the 

average life of an FHA-insured mortgage 

is approximately seven years, and HUD 

anticipates that a borrower would 

similarly refinance a 40-year mortgage. 

Any additional interest and slowed 

equity build that a borrower might pay 

with a 40-year modified loan compared 

to a 30-year modified loan, especially 

when looked at over the life of an 

average FHA-insured mortgage, would 

not impose a significant burden to 

borrowers and would be outweighed by 

the benefits to a borrower of being able 

to retain their home. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Elissa Saunders, 

Acting Director, Office of Single Family 

Asset Management, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, Office 

of Housing, 451 Seventh Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 708– 

2121. 

RIN: 2502–AJ59 

HUD—OFFICE OF FAIR HOUSING AND 

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (FHEO) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

100. Affirmatively Furthering Fair 

Housing (FR–6250) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3608(e)(5); 

42 U.S.C. 5304; 42 U.S.C. 12705(b); 42 

U.S.C. 1437c–1; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d); 42 

U.S.C. 3600 to 3620 

CFR Citation: 24 CFR 5, 91, 92, 570, 

574, 576, and 903. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Through this proposed rule, 

HUD seeks to provide HUD and its 

program participants with a more 

effective means to affirmatively further 

the purposes and policies of the Fair 

Housing Act. The current procedures for 

affirmatively furthering fair housing 

carried out by program participants are 

not sufficiently effective to fulfill the 

purposes and policies of the Fair 

Housing Act. HUD will be seeking 

public comment on a new proposed rule 

that is focused on advancing equity and 

providing access to opportunity for 

underserved populations in a manner 

that is more effective in achieving 

measurable improvements while 

avoiding unnecessary burden. 

Statement of Need: The rule is needed 

to conform HUD regulations with 

statutory standards and judicial 

interpretations of those standards, and 

to ensure consistency in fair housing 

certifications across HUD programs. 

This proposed rule would consider 

HUD’s AFFH rule published on July 16, 

2015 (80 FR 42272) (2015 AFFH rule) 

but improve upon its framework and 

impose less regulatory burden. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Executive 

Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity 

and Support for Underserved 

Communities Through the Federal 

Government, (86 FR 7009, January 20, 

2021) requires each agency to consider 

whether new policies, regulations, or 

guidance documents may be necessary 

to advance equity in agency actions and 

programs. Further, on January 26, 2021 

(86 FR 7487), President Biden issued a 

Memorandum on Redressing Our 

Nation’s and the Federal Government’s 

History of Discriminatory Housing 

Practices and Policies, which explained 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5097 

that the Federal Government will work 

with communities to, among other 

things, end housing discrimination, lift 

barriers that restrict housing and 

neighborhood choice, promote diverse 

and inclusive communities, and secure 

equal access to housing opportunity for 

all. 

Alternatives: Alternatives to 

promulgating this rule involve finalizing 

the interim rule, Restoring Affirmatively 

Furthering Fair Housing Definitions and 

Certifications, without taking further 

action or repromulgating the 2015 AFFH 

rule without considering changes that 

could reduce regulatory burden and 

enable a more meaningful fair housing 

planning process. If HUD were to 

finalize the interim rule without taking 

further action, there would be 

inconsistency in fair housing 

certifications across different 

jurisdictions, as the interim rule does 

not require that jurisdictions submit fair 

housing plans in any particular form, 

such as an Analysis of Impediments or 

an Assessment of Fair Housing, as was 

previously required. If HUD were to 

repromulgate the 2015 AFFH rule 

without considering changes, HUD 

would miss an opportunity to improve 

upon that rule and reduce the 

significant regulatory burdens resulting 

from that rule. HUD believes neither of 

those options are better than providing 

for a new certification process that will 

undergo new public comment. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Executive Order 12866, as amended, 

requires the agency to provide its best 

estimate of the combined aggregate costs 

and benefits of all regulations included 

in the agency’s Regulatory Plan that will 

be pursued in FY 2022. HUD expects 

that the neither the total economic costs 

nor the total efficiency gains will exceed 

$100 million. HUD grantees are already 

familiar with the AFFH compliance 

process as instituted by the 2015 rule 

and the 2021 interim final rule. Having 

learned from prior rulemakings, HUD 

believes that the rule will create the 

right balance of analysis so that grantees 

will have the available data necessary to 

help them in completing any analytical 

requirements without adding the same 

level of costs associated with the 2015 

rulemaking. 

Risks: Previous iterations of the AFFH 

rule have resulted in an amount of 

burden on grantees that made 

implementation challenging. HUD must 

balance the use of data and the depth of 

analysis that is required of differing 

sized grantees to ensure that grantees 

can implement the affirmatively 

furthering fair housing mandate while 

continuing to fulfill their programmatic 

requirements. In promulgating this rule, 

HUD will attempt to secure support 

from as many stakeholders as possible 

to ensure maximum compliance with 

the duty to AFFH. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Agency Contact: Demetria McCain, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Office of Fair Housing 

and Equal Opportunity, 451 Seventh 

Street, Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 

202 402–5188. 

RIN: 2529–AB05 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR 

Fall 2021 Regulatory Plan 

Introduction 

The U.S. Department of the Interior 

(Department) is the principal steward of 

our Nation’s public lands and resources, 

including many of our cultural 

treasures. The Department serves as 

trustee to Native Americans, Alaska 

Natives, and Federally-Recognized 

Tribes and is responsible for our 

ongoing relationships with the island 

territories under U.S. jurisdiction and 

the freely associated states. Among the 

Department’s many responsibilities is 

managing more than 500 million surface 

acres of Federal land, which constitutes 

approximately 20 percent of the 

Nation’s land area, as well as 

approximately 700 million subsurface 

acres of Federal mineral estate, and 

more than 2.5 billion acres of 

submerged lands on the Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS). 

In addition, the Department protects 

and recovers endangered species; 

protects natural, historic, and cultural 

resources; provides scientific and other 

information about those resources; and 

manages water projects that are an 

essential lifeline and economic engine 

for many communities. 

Hundreds of millions of people visit 

Department-managed lands each year to 

take advantage of a wide range of 

recreational pursuits—including 

camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, and 

various other forms of outdoor 

recreation—and to learn about our 

Nation’s history. Each of these activities 

supports local communities and their 

economies. The Department also 

provides access to Federal lands and 

offshore areas for the development of 

energy, minerals, and other natural 

resources that generate billions of 

dollars in revenue. 

In short, the Department of the 

Interior plays a central role in how the 

United States stewards its public lands, 

ensures environmental protections, 

pursues environmental justice, honors 

the nation-to-nation relationship with 

tribes and the special relationships with 

other indigenous people and the insular 

areas. 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities 

To help advance the Secretary of the 

Interior’s (Secretary) commitment to 

honoring the Nation’s trust 

responsibilities and to conserve and 

manage the Nation’s natural resources 

and cultural heritage, the Department’s 

regulatory and deregulatory priorities in 

the coming fiscal year (FY) will focus 

on: 

• Tackling the Climate Crisis, 

Strengthening Climate Resiliency, and 

Facilitating the Transition to Renewable 

Energy; 

• Upholding Trust Responsibilities to 

Federally-Recognized American Indian 

and Alaska Native Tribes Restoring 

Tribal Lands, and Protecting Natural 

and Cultural Resources Advancing 

Equity and Supporting Underserved 

Communities; 

• Investing in Healthy Lands, Waters 

and Local Economies and Strengthening 

Conservation, and Protecting 

Endangered Species and their Habitat 

Tackling the Climate Crisis, 

Strengthening Climate Resiliency, and 

Facilitating the Transition to Renewable 

Energy 

In one of his first official actions after 

taking the oath of office on January 20, 

2021, President Biden signed Executive 

Order (E.O.) 13990, entitled ‘‘Protecting 

Public Health and the Environment and 

Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate 

Crisis.’’ This Executive order 

established the Biden-Harris 

administration’s policy to ‘‘improve 

public health and protect our 

environment, to ensure access to clean 

air and water, to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions and to bolster resilience of 

the impacts of climate change.’’ An 

accompanying document, entitled ‘‘Fact 

Sheet: List of Agency Actions for 

Review,’’ directed several Federal 

agencies, including the Department, to 

review various regulations in 

accordance with E.O. 13990, and that 

review will continue for FY 2022. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5098 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

To help implement the commitment 

to tackling the climate crisis, Secretary 

Haaland signed her first Secretary’s 

Order (SO), SO 3398, entitled 

‘‘Revocation of Secretary’s Orders 

Inconsistent with Protecting Public 

Health and the Environment and 

Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate 

Crisis.’’ SO 3398 implements the review 

of Departmental actions mandated by 

Executive Order 13990. Foundational to 

this process is the commitment to 

science and transparency and a pledge 

‘‘to conserve and restore our land, 

water, and wildlife; to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions; to create jobs 

through a growing clean energy 

economy; and to bolster resilience to the 

impacts of climate change.’’ SO 3398 

revoked 12 SOs that were issued 

between March 29, 2017, and December 

22, 2020, and directed the Department 

to conduct reviews and take appropriate 

actions on certain regulations. The SO 

further directed Bureaus and Offices to 

review all policies and guidance 

documents that may warrant further 

action to be consistent with Executive 

Order 13990. 

Recognizing the ongoing threat that 

climate change poses to our Nation and 

to the world, on January 27, 2021, 

President Biden also issued Executive 

Order 14008 entitled, ‘‘Tackling the 

Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.’’ 

Executive Order 14008 directed Federal 

agencies to take a government-wide 

approach to the climate crisis and 

established a National Climate Task 

Force to facilitate the organization and 

deployment of such an approach. 

To implement the directives in 

Executive Order 14008, on April 16, 

2021, Secretary Haaland issued SO 

3399, which directs a ‘‘DepartmentWide Approach to the Climate Crisis 

and Restoring Transparency and 

Integrity to the Decision-Making 

Process.’’ SO 3399 established a 

Departmental Climate Task Force 

charged with developing a strategy to 

reduce climate pollution; improving and 

increasing adaptation and resilience to 

the impacts of climate change; 

addressing current and historic 

environmental injustice; protecting 

public health; and conserving 

Department-managed lands. 

In accordance with Executive Orders 

13990 and 14008, a number of bureaus 

in the Department are pursuing 

regulatory actions to implement these 

administration priorities. The Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), for example, 

is proposing rules to ensure the 

responsible development of oil and gas 

on public lands, including ‘‘Waste 

Prevention, Production Subject to 

Royalties, and Resource Conservation 43 

CFR parts 3160 and 3170’’ (1004–AE79), 

known as the Waste Prevention Rule, 

and ‘‘Revision of Existing Regulations 

Pertaining to Fossil Fuel Leases and 

Leasing Process 43 CFR parts 3100 and 

3400’’ (1004–AE80), known as the Fossil 

Fuel Rule. The Waste Prevention Rule 

would reduce methane emissions in the 

oil and gas sector and mitigate impacts 

of climate change. The Fossil Fuel Rule 

would update BLM’s process for leasing 

to ensure the protection and proper 

stewardship of the public lands, 

including potential climate and other 

impacts associated with fossil fuel 

activities. Also, to comply with 

Executive Order 14008, BLM plans to 

complete a comprehensive review and 

reconsideration of Federal fossil fuel 

leasing practices considering BLM’s 

broad stewardship responsibilities over 

the public lands, including potential 

climate and other impacts associated 

with fossil fuel activities on public 

lands. 

Similarly, the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM) is also 

undertaking a comprehensive review 

and reconsideration of offshore Federal 

oil and gas permitting and leasing 

practices, including potential climate 

and other impacts associated with 

offshore oil and gas activities. The 

BOEM will evaluate the sources and 

impacts of climate change on the OCS, 

working in consultation with the 

Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary 

of Commerce, through the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, and the Secretary of 

Energy. Given the Secretary’s Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) 

mandate to conserve the natural 

resources on the OCS, this initiative will 

evaluate the causes and effects of 

climate change and determine what 

appropriate measures BOEM should 

take to further control emissions of 

greenhouse gasses, including whether to 

adjust royalties associated with coal, oil, 

and gas resources extracted from public 

lands and offshore waters, develop 

regulations, or to take other action to 

account for corresponding climate costs. 

One of the explicit directions in 

Executive Order 14008 provides that the 

Secretary, in consultation with the 

heads of other relevant agencies, will 

review siting and permitting processes 

on public lands and in offshore waters 

to identify steps that can be taken, 

consistent with applicable law, to 

increase renewable energy production. 

The Department is committed to fully 

facilitating the development of 

renewable energy on public lands and 

waters, as well as supporting tribal and 

territorial efforts to develop renewable 

energy, including deploying 30 

gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind by 2030 

and 25GW of onshore renewable energy 

by 2025. This mandate is to be 

undertaken while also ensuring 

appropriate protection of public lands, 

waters, and biodiversity and creating 

good jobs. 

As part of these efforts in FY 2022, 

BOEM will propose a rule entitled, 

‘‘Renewable Energy Modernization 

Rule’’ (1010–AE04), that will 

substantially update the existing 

renewable energy regulations to 

facilitate responsible development of 

renewable energy resources more 

rapidly on the OCS and promote U.S. 

energy independence. This rule would 

also significantly reduce costs to 

developers for expanding renewable 

energy development in an 

environmentally sound manner. 

Similarly, BLM plans to update its 

regulations for onshore rights-of-way, 

leasing, and operations related to all 

activities associated with renewable 

energy and transmission lines (1004– 

AE78). This proposed rule would 

improve permitting activities and 

processes to facilitate increased 

renewable energy production on public 

lands. 

Upholding Trust Responsibilities to 

Federally-Recognized American Indian 

and Alaska Native Tribes Restoring 

Tribal Lands, and Protecting Natural 

and Cultural Resources 

Among the Department’s most 

important responsibilities is its 

commitment to honor the nation-tonation relationship between the Federal 

Government and Tribes. Secretary 

Haaland is strongly committed to 

strengthening how the Department 

carries out its trust responsibilities and 

to increasing economic development 

opportunities for Tribes and other 

historically underserved communities. 

As part of these efforts, on April 27, 

2021, Secretary Haaland signed SO 3400 

entitled, ‘‘Delegation of Authority for 

Non-Gaming Off-Reservation Fee-toTrust Acquisitions.’’ SO 3400 is 

intended to ensure that off-reservation 

fee-to-trust applications are effectively 

and efficiently processed. As Secretary 

Haaland noted upon signing the SO, ‘‘At 

Interior, we have an obligation to work 

with Tribes to protect their lands and 

ensure that each Tribe has a homeland 

where its citizens can live together and 

lead safe and fulfilling lives . . . Our 

actions today will help us meet that 

obligation and will help empower 

Tribes to determine how their lands are 

used—from conservation to economic 

development projects.’’ 

To advance the Department’s trust 

responsibilities, the Bureau of Indian 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5099 

Affairs (BIA) is currently identifying 

opportunities to promote Tribal 

economic growth and development. For 

example, BIA is working to remove 

barriers to the development of 

renewable energy and other resources in 

Indian country. During FY 2021, BIA 

finalized a rule that removed several 

required items from Tribal Energy 

Resource Agreement (TERA) 

applications and offered a new 

economic development option for Tribal 

Energy Development Organizations 

(TEDOs) (1076–AF65) (86 FR 40147, 

July 27, 2021). 

In consultation with Tribes, BIA has 

been engaged in efforts to update and 

improve its regulations governing how it 

manages land held in trust or in 

restricted status for Tribes and 

individual Indians. This year, BIA 

published a final rule that modernizes 

the way the BIA Land Title and Records 

Office (LTRO) maintains title to Indian 

trust land and streamlines the process 

for probating estates that contain trust 

property to reduce delays (1076–AF56) 

(86 FR 45631, August 16, 2021). The 

bureau has also launched a broader 

review to determine whether any 

regulatory reforms are needed to 

facilitate restoration of Tribal lands and 

safeguard natural and cultural 

resources. The BIA has preliminarily 

identified as a candidate for revision the 

regulations governing leases of Indian 

land for agricultural purposes, which 

are found at 25 CFR part 162 (1076– 

AF66). 

The BIA is also committed to 

improving regulations meant to protect 

sacred and cultural resources. The BIA 

is working with the National Park 

Service (NPS) to consult with Tribes on 

updates to regulations implementing the 

Native American Graves and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 43 CFR 10 

(1024–AE19). These regulations would 

provide a systematic process for the 

disposition and repatriation of Native 

American human remains, funerary 

objects, sacred objects, and objects of 

cultural patrimony. The updates are 

intended to simplify and improve the 

regulatory process for repatriation, 

rectify provisions in the current 

regulations that inhibit and effectively 

prevent respectful repatriation, and 

remove the burden on Indian Tribes and 

Native Hawaiian organizations to 

initiate the process and add a 

requirement for museums and Federal 

agencies to complete the process. 

Advancing Equity and Supporting 

Underserved Communities 

The Biden-Harris administration and 

Secretary Haaland recognize and 

support the goals of advancing equity 

and addressing the needs of 

underserved communities. In January 

2021, the President signed Executive 

Order 13985 entitled, ‘‘Advancing 

Racial Equity and Support for 

Underserved Communities Through the 

Federal Government.’’ This Executive 

order directs all Federal agencies to 

pursue a comprehensive approach to 

advancing equity for all, including 

people of color and others who have 

been historically underserved, 

marginalized, and adversely affected by 

persistent poverty and inequality. In FY 

2022, the Department will undertake a 

number of regulatory actions that will 

assist people who reside in underserved 

communities. 

The BLM (1004–AE60), FWS (1018– 

BD78), and NPS (1024–AE75), are 

proposing right-of-way (ROW) rules that 

would improve efficiencies in the 

communications programs, including 

plans and agreements for electric 

transmission, distribution facilities and 

broadband facilities. These rules are 

intended to increase services, such as 

broadband connectivity, with resulting 

benefits to underserved communities 

and visitors to Departmental lands and 

promote good governance. 

Investing in Healthy Lands, Waters and 

Local Economies and Strengthening 

Conservation, and Protecting 

Endangered Species and Their Habitat 

The Department’s FY 2022 regulatory 

agenda will continue to advance the 

goals of investing in healthy lands, 

waters, and local economies across the 

country. These regulatory efforts, which 

are consistent with the Biden-Harris 

administration’s ‘‘America the 

Beautiful’’ Initiative, include expanding 

opportunities for outdoor recreation, 

including hunting and fishing, for all 

Americans; enhancing conservation 

stewardship; and improving the 

management of species and their 

habitat. 

For example, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) opened, for the 

first time, seven national wildlife 

refuges (NWRs), totaling 2.1 million 

acres of public lands, that were 

previously closed to hunting and sport 

fishing. Hunters and anglers are among 

the most ardent conservationists. The 

FWS opened or expanded hunting and 

sport fishing at 81 other NWRs and 

added pertinent station-specific 

regulations for other NWRs that pertain 

to migratory game bird hunting, upland 

game hunting, big game hunting, and 

sport fishing for the 2021–2022 season. 

The FWS also opened hunting or sport 

fishing on one unit of the National Fish 

Hatchery System (NFH), adding 

pertinent station-specific regulations for 

migratory game bird hunting, upland 

game hunting, big game hunting, and 

sport fishing at this NFH for the 2021– 

2022 season. Finally, FWS made 

regulatory changes to existing stationspecific regulations to reduce the 

regulatory burden on the public, 

increase access for hunters and anglers 

on FWS lands and waters, and comply 

with a Presidential mandate for plain 

language standards. By responsibly 

expanding these opportunities, the 

Department is enhancing the lives of 

millions of Americans, promoting 

conservation stewardship, and 

stimulating the national economy (86 

FR 48822, August 31, 2021). 

The NPS is also pursuing several 

regulatory actions under the 

Department’s direction and in 

accordance with these goals. These 

regulatory actions would authorize 

recreational activities, such as off-road 

vehicle use, snowmobiling, the use of 

motorized and non-motorized vessels, 

personal watercraft, and bicycling, 

within appropriate, designated areas of 

certain National Park System units. 

These regulations would benefit local 

economies as well as promote healthy 

lands and waters. 

The Biden-Harris administration and 

Secretary Haaland are strongly 

committed to strengthening 

conservation and improving 

conservation partnerships. Through this 

regulatory plan, the Department affirms 

the importance of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) in providing a broad 

and flexible framework to facilitate 

conservation with a variety of 

stakeholders. The Department, through 

FWS, is committed to working with 

diverse Federal, Tribal, state, and 

industry partners to not only protect 

and recover America’s imperiled 

wildlife but to ensure the ESA is 

helping meet 21st century challenges. 

In FY 2022, FWS will continue its 

reviews of several ESA rules that were 

finalized prior to January 20, 2021, to 

continue improving the implementation 

of the ESA so that it is clearly and 

consistently applied, helps recover 

listed species, and provides the 

maximum degree of certainty possible to 

all parties. For example, FWS and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) are reviewing the final rule that 

became effective on January 15, 2021, 

entitled, ‘‘Regulations for Listing 

Endangered and Threatened Species 

and Designating Critical Habitat,’’ that 

established a regulatory definition of 

‘‘habitat.’’ FWS is also reviewing the 

final rule entitled, ‘‘Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Regulations for Designating Critical 

Habitat,’’ that became effective on 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5100 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

January 19, 2021. That rule set forth a 

process for excluding areas of critical 

habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA, 

which mandates our consideration of 

the impacts of designating critical 

habitat and permits exclusions of 

particular areas following a 

discretionary exclusion analysis. 

Finally, FWS and NMFS are reviewing 

the final rule entitled, ‘‘Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Regulations for Interagency 

Cooperation’’ to determine whether and 

how the rule should be revised or 

rescinded. 

Bureaus and Offices Within the 

Department of the Interior 

The following is an overview of some 

of the major regulatory and deregulatory 

priorities of the Department’s Bureaus 

and Offices. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

The BIA enhances the quality of life, 

promotes economic opportunity, and 

protects and improves the trust assets of 

approximately 1.9 million American 

Indians, Indian Tribes, and Alaska 

Natives. The BIA maintains a 

government- to-government relationship 

with the 574 Federally-Recognized 

Indian Tribes. The BIA also administers 

and manages 55 million acres of surface 

land and 57 million acres of subsurface 

minerals held in trust by the United 

States for American Indians and Indian 

Tribes. 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

In FY 2021, BIA finalized a rule that 

removed several required items from 

TERA applications and offers a new 

economic development option for 

TEDOs (86 FR 40147, July 27, 2021). 

The BIA also published a final rule 

that modernizes the manner in which 

the BIA LTRO maintains title to Indian 

trust land and streamlines the process 

for adjudicating probates of estates 

containing trust property to reduce 

delays (86 FR 45631, August 16, 2021). 

The BIA intends to prioritize the 

following rulemakings in FY 2022: 

Tribal Transportation Program: 

Allowable Lengths of Access Roads 

(1076–AF48) 

This rule would change the allowable 

length of access roads in the National 

Tribal Transportation Facilities 

Inventory, as determined by 25 CFR 

170.447, to increase the 15-mile limits 

on the length of access roads and create 

parity among all Tribes, regardless of 

land base or remoteness of location. 

Trust Fund Accounts for Tribes and 

Individual Indians—Supervised 

Accounts (1076–AF57) 

This rule would update the 

qualifications required for Indian Affairs 

personnel who conduct reviews of 

supervised individual Indian Money 

(IIM) accounts to ensure that personnel 

have appropriate accounting skills and 

make other changes to reflect the 

transition of duties from social services 

providers to IIM account specialists in 

the newly established Bureau of Trust 

Funds Administration (BTFA). 

Leasing of Osage Reservation Lands for 

Oil and Gas Mining (1076–AF59) 

The regulations in 25 CFR part 226 

would be revised because they are 

outdated; do not reflect current oil and 

gas operations within the Osage Mineral 

Estate or the industry at large; and are 

inconsistent with Departmental 

regulations governing oil and gas 

exploration and development 

throughout the rest of Indian country. 

The last substantive revision to the 

regulations in 25 CFR part 226 occurred 

in 1974, with many provisions 

remaining unchanged since well before 

then. 

105(l) Leases Under the Indian SelfDetermination and Education 

Assistance Act (ISDEAA) (1076–AF60) 

The current regulations governing 

105(l) leases at 25 CFR 900, subpart H, 

allow Tribes to be compensated for a 

broad range of expenses ranging from 

rent to depreciation and ‘‘other 

reasonable expenses.’’ The revisions 

would establish sideboards on what 

costs the Department will pay Tribes for 

105(l) leases including, for examples, 

more specific direction on the timing 

and scope of future 105(l) leases. 

Self-Governance PROGRESS Act 

Regulations (1076–AF62) 

This rule would implement the 

requirements of the PROGRESS Act 

requiring updates to BIA’s regulations 

governing Tribal Self-Governance. The 

PROGRESS Act amends subchapter I of 

the Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), 25 

U.S.C. 5301 et seq., which addresses 

Indian Self-Determination, and 

subchapter IV of the ISDEAA which 

addresses the Department’s Tribal SelfGovernance Program. The PROGRESS 

Act calls for a negotiated rulemaking 

committee to be established under 5 

U.S.C. 565, with membership consisting 

only of representatives of Federal and 

Tribal governments, with the Office of 

Self-Governance serving as the lead 

agency for the Department. The 

PROGRESS Act also authorizes the 

Secretary to adapt negotiated 

rulemaking procedures to the unique 

context of self-governance and the 

government-to-government relationship 

between the United States and Indian 

Tribes. 

Indian Business Incubators Program 

(1076–AF63) 

This rule would establish the 

structure for the Office of Indian Energy 

and Economic Development (IEED) to 

implement the Native American 

Business Incubators Program, which 

was established by statute in October 

2020. The rule will establish how IEED 

will provide competitive grants to 

eligible applicants to establish and 

operate business incubators that serve 

Tribal reservation communities. The 

business incubators will provide 

tailored business incubation services to 

Native businesses and Native 

entrepreneurs to overcome the unique 

obstacles they confront in offering 

products and services to reservation 

communities. 

Agricultural Leasing of Indian Land 

(1076–AF66) 

This rule would update provisions 

addressing leasing of trust or restricted 

land (Indian land) for agricultural 

purposes to reflect updates that have 

been made to business and residential 

leasing provisions and address outdated 

provisions. 

Federal Recognition of Tribes Under 

Alaska IRA (1076–AF51) 

This rule will establish criteria and 

procedures for groups seeking 

recognition as Tribes under the Alaska 

Indian Reorganization Act (Alaska IRA), 

which is separate and distinct from the 

Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 

which has its own set of regulations for 

seeking recognition as Tribes. The 

Alaska IRA provides that groups of 

Indians in Alaska having a common 

bond of occupation, or association, or 

residence within a well-defined 

neighborhood, community, or rural 

district may organize to adopt 

constitutions and bylaws and receive 

charters of incorporation and Federal 

loans. This rule will also establish what 

documents are required to apply. To 

date, there has been no regulatory 

process or criteria established for 

seeking recognition under the Alaska 

IRA. 

Elections of Osage Minerals Council 

(1076–AF58) 

Current BIA regulations address how 

BIA conducts elections of offices of the 

Osage Tribe, including provisions 

addressing nominating conventions and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5101 

petitions, election notices, opening and 

closing of polls, ballots, and contesting 

elections. This rule will remove 

outdated and unnecessary provisions. . 

Statutory changes and the Osage Nation 

Constitution have significantly pared 

down the role of BIA in the Tribe’s 

elections. The only remaining portion 

that will be included in this rule states 

that BIA will provide, at the Osage 

Nation’s request, a list of voters and 

their headright interests to the Osage 

Minerals Council Election Board. 

Bureau of Indian Education 

The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) 

mission is to provide students at BIEfunded schools with a culturally 

relevant, high-quality education that 

prepares students with the knowledge, 

skills, and behaviors needed to flourish 

in the opportunities of tomorrow, 

become healthy and successful 

individuals, and lead their communities 

and sovereign nations to a thriving 

future that preserves their unique 

cultural identities. The BIE is the 

preeminent provider of culturally 

relevant educational services and 

supports provided by highly effective 

educators to students at BIE-funded 

schools to foster lifelong learning. 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

As BIE continues its work to fulfill its 

mission while keeping students and 

school staff safe and healthy, BIE 

finalized a new regulation in FY 2021 

that will allow individual BIE-operated 

schools to retain the funding received 

through leasing their lands and facilities 

to third-parties, and direct that funding 

back into the school (86 FR 34943, July 

1, 2021). The new regulation will also 

allow individual BIE-operated schools 

to retain fundraising proceeds and use 

those proceeds for the benefit of the 

school. 

Appeals From Administrative Actions 

(1076–AF64) 

This rule would clarify the processes 

for appeals of actions taken by officials 

in the Office of the Assistant Secretary 

Indian Affairs, BIA, BIE, and BTFA 

(collectively, Indian Affairs). 

Bureau of Land Management 

The BLM manages more than 245 

million acres of public land, known as 

the National System of Public Lands, 

primarily located in 12 Western states, 

including Alaska. The BLM also 

administers 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate throughout the 

Nation. The agency’s mission is to 

sustain the health, diversity, and 

productivity of America’s public lands 

for the use and enjoyment of present 

and future generations. 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

The BLM has identified the following 

priority rulemaking actions for FY 2022: 

Livestock Grazing (1004–AE82) 

This proposed rule would revise 

BLM’s grazing regulations to improve 

resource management and increase 

efficiency by streamlining and clarifying 

grazing processes and improving 

coordination among Federal, State, and 

local government entities. The proposed 

rule would revise the regulations at 43 

CFR parts 4100, 1600, and 1500. These 

revisions and additions would help to 

provide the public and land managers 

with accurate and reliable information 

regarding grazing administration on 

public lands. 

Update of the Communications Uses 

Program, Right-of-Way Cost Recovery 

Fee Schedules, and Section 512 of 

FLPMA for Rights-of-Way (1004–AE60) 

The BLM is proposing amendments to 

its existing ROW regulations to 

streamline and improve efficiencies in 

the communications uses program, 

update the cost recovery fee schedules 

for ROW work activities, and include 

provisions governing the development 

and approval of operating plans and 

agreements for ROWs for electric 

transmission and distribution facilities. 

Communications uses, such as 

broadband, are a subset of ROW 

activities authorized under the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 (FLPMA), as amended. Cost 

recovery fees apply to most ROW 

activities authorized under either 

FLPMA or the Mineral Leasing Act of 

1920, as amended. This proposed rule 

would also implement vegetation 

management requirements included in 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2018 (codified at 43 U.S.C. 1772) to 

address fire risk from and to power-line 

ROWs on public lands and national 

forests. The regulatory amendments 

would also codify legislated agency 

requirements regarding review and 

approval of utilities maintenance plans, 

liability limitations, and definitions of 

hazard trees and emergency conditions. 

Bonding (1004–AE68) 

This proposed rule would update the 

bonding procedures for ROWs on BLMmanaged public land. The proposed rule 

would revise the bonding portion of the 

BLM’s ROW regulations to make them 

clearer and easier to understand, which 

would facilitate efficient bond 

calculations. 

Rights-of-Way, Leasing and Operations 

For Renewable Energy and 

Transmission Lines 43 CFR Parts 2800, 

2880, 3200 (1004–AE78) 

This proposed rule would revise 

BLM’s regulations for ROWs, leasing, 

and operations related to all activities 

associated with renewable energy and 

transmission lines. The Energy Act of 

2020 and E.O. 14008 prioritize the 

Department’s need to improve 

permitting activities and processes to 

facilitate increased renewable energy 

production on public lands. 

Waste Prevention, Production Subject to 

Royalties, and Resource Conservation 43 

CFR Parts 3160 and 3170 (1004–AE79) 

This proposed rule would update 

BLM’s regulations governing the waste 

of natural gas through venting, flaring, 

and leaks on onshore Federal and 

Indian oil and gas leases. The proposed 

rule would address the priorities 

associated with Executive Order 14008. 

In addition, in accordance with 

Executive Order 13990, this proposed 

rule would reduce methane emissions 

in the oil and gas sector and mitigate 

impacts of climate change. 

Revision of Existing Regulations 

Pertaining to Fossil Fuel Leases and 

Leasing Process 43 CFR Parts 3100 and 

3400 (1004–AE80) 

This proposed rule would revise 

BLM’s fossil fuel regulations to update 

the fees, rents, royalties, and bonding 

requirements related to oil and gas 

leasing, development, and production. 

The proposed rule would also update 

BLM’s process for leasing to ensure the 

protection and proper stewardship of 

the public lands, including potential 

climate and other impacts associated 

with fossil fuel activities. 

Revision of Existing Regulations 

Retaining to Leasing and Operations of 

Geothermal 43 CFR Part 3200 (1004– 

AE84) 

This proposed rule would update and 

codify BLM’s Geothermal Resource 

Orders into regulation, including 

common geothermal standard practices, 

and inspection requirements and 

procedures. 

Protection, Management, and Control of 

Wild Horses and Burros 43 CFR Part 

4700 (1004–AE83) 

This proposed rule would address 

wild horse and burro management 

challenges by adding regulatory tools 

that better reflect BLM’s current 

statutory authorities. For example, the 

existing regulations do not address 

certain management authorities that 

Congress has provided since 1986 to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5102 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

control wild horse and burro 

populations, such as the BLM’s 

authority to sell excess wild horses and 

burros. Updating the regulations would 

also facilitate management strategies 

and priorities that were not utilized 

when the regulations were originally 

promulgated, such as the application of 

fertility control vaccines, managing for 

nonreproducing herds, and feeding and 

caring for unsold and unadopted 

animals at off-range corrals and 

pastures. The proposed rule would also 

clarify ambiguities and management 

limitations in the existing regulations. 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

The mission of BOEM is to manage 

development of U.S. OCS energy and 

mineral resources in an environmentally 

and economically responsible way. The 

BOEM is responsible for stewardship of 

U.S. OCS energy and mineral resources, 

as well as protecting the environment 

that the development of those resources 

may impact. The resources we manage 

belong to the American people and 

future generations of Americans; wise 

use of and fair return for these resources 

are foremost in our management efforts. 

In accordance with its statutory 

mandate under OCSLA, BOEM is 

committed to implementing its dual 

mission of promoting the expeditious 

and orderly development of the Nation’s 

energy resources while simultaneously 

protecting the marine, human, and 

coastal environment of the OCS State 

submerged lands and the coastal 

communities. Consistent with the policy 

outlined by the administration in E.O. 

14008, BOEM is reevaluating all of its 

programs related to the offshore 

development of energy and mineral 

resources offshore. The BOEM is 

working with the Department as a whole 

to review options for expanding 

renewable energy production while 

evaluating alternatives to better protect 

the lands, waters, and biodiversity of 

species located within the U.S. 

exclusive economic zone. 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

In FY 2022, the BOEM plans to 

prioritize the following rulemaking 

actions: 

Renewable Energy Modernization Rule 

(1010–AE04) 

The BOEM’s most important 

regulatory initiative is focused on 

expanding offshore wind energy’s role 

in strengthening U.S. energy security 

and independence, create jobs, provide 

benefits to local communities, and 

further develop the U.S. economy. The 

BOEM’s renewable energy program has 

matured over the past 10 years, a time 

in which BOEM has conducted 

numerous auctions and issued and 

managed multiple commercial leases. 

Based on this experience, BOEM has 

identified multiple opportunities to 

update its regulations to better facilitate 

the development of renewable energy 

resources and to promote U.S. energy 

independence. 

The BOEM is proposing a rule that 

would update the existing renewable 

energy regulations to help facilitate the 

timely and responsible development of 

renewable energy resources on the OCS 

and promote U.S. energy independence. 

This proposed rule contains reforms 

identified by BOEM and recommended 

by industry, including proposals for 

incremental funding of 

decommissioning accounts; more 

flexible geophysical and geotechnical 

survey submission requirements; 

streamlined approval of meteorological 

buoys; revised project verification 

procedures; and greater clarity regarding 

safety requirements. This rule advances 

the administration’s energy policies in a 

safe and environmentally sound manner 

that provides a fair return to the 

American taxpayer while, at the same 

time, significantly reducing industry 

development. 

Air Quality Rule (1010–AE09) 

In accordance with the 

administration’s renewed commitment 

to ensure the robust protection for the 

lands, waters, and biodiversity of the 

United States, BOEM is reevaluating the 

entirety of its air quality regulatory 

program and will propose further 

enhancements. The BOEM and the 

Department are proposing a new 

offshore air quality rule to tighten 

pollution standards for offshore 

operations and require improved 

pollution control technology. The 

proposed rule would amend regulations 

for air quality measurement, evaluation, 

and control for offshore oil and gas 

operations. The goal of this new 

proposed rule would be to improve the 

ambient air quality of the coastal States 

and their corresponding State 

submerged lands by addressing a 

number of issues that were not 

addressed by BOEM’s prior final air 

quality rule. The BOEM expects to 

revisit a number of the topics that were 

originally reviewed in 2016. 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement 

The Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement’s (BSEE) 

mission is to promote safety, protect the 

environment, and conserve resources 

offshore through vigorous regulatory 

oversight and enforcement. The BSEE is 

the lead Federal agency charged with 

improving safety and ensuring 

environmental protection related to 

conventional and renewable energy 

activities on the U.S. OCS. 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

The BSEE has identified the following 

rulemaking priorities for FY 2022: 

Oil-Spill Response Requirements for 

Facilities Located Seaward of the Coast 

Line Proposed Rule (1014–AA44) 

The Oil Spill Response Requirements 

regulations in 30 CFR part 254 were last 

updated over 20 years ago (62 FR 13996, 

Mar. 25, 1997). This proposed rule 

would update the existing regulations in 

order to incorporate the latest 

advancements in spill response and 

preparedness policies and technologies, 

as well as lessons learned and 

recommendations from reports related 

to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and 

subsequent oil spill. 

Revisions to Subpart J—Pipelines and 

Pipeline Rights-of-Way Proposed Rule 

(1014–AA45) 

This proposed rule would revise 

specific provisions of the current 

Pipelines and Pipeline ROW regulations 

under 30 CFR 250 subpart J in order to 

bring those regulations up to date with 

current technology and state-of-the-art 

safety equipment and procedures, 

primarily through the incorporation of 

industry standards. 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; 

Operating in High-Pressure and/or HighTemperature (HPHT) Environments 

(1014–AA49) 

Currently, BSEE has no regulations 

specific to high pressure and/or high 

temperature (HPHT) projects, requiring 

BSEE to issue multiple guidance 

documents clarifying the specific HPHT 

information prospective operators 

should submit to BSEE to support the 

Bureau’s programmatic reviews and 

approvals of such projects. This 

proposed rule would formally codify 

BSEE’s existing process for reviewing 

and approving projects in HPHT 

environments. 

Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in 

the Outer Continental Shelf-Blowout 

Preventer Systems and Well Control 

Revisions (1014–AA52) 

The BSEE is revising existing 

regulations for well control and blowout 

preventer systems. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5103 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

and Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement Renewable Energy Split 

Final Rule (1082–AA03) 

The BOEM currently has authority 

over all renewable energy activities on 

the OCS under regulations at 30 CFR 

part 585. The BOEM and BSEE are in 

the process of amending the 

Department’s Manual chapters to 

transfer the safety, environmental 

enforcement, and compliance functions 

relevant to renewable energy activities 

from BOEM to BSEE. Consistent with 

that effort, BSEE and BOEM would 

amend their respective regulations to 

reflect the split of functions between the 

two Bureaus. 

Office of the Chief Information Officer 

The Office of the Chief Information 

Officer (OCIO) provides leadership to 

the Department and its Bureaus in all 

areas of information management and 

technology. To successfully serve the 

Department’s multiple missions, the 

OCIO applies modern Information 

Technology tools, approaches, systems, 

and products. Effective and innovative 

use of technology and information 

resources enables transparency and 

accessibility of information and services 

to the public. 

For FY 2022, OCIO is working on 

these priority rules: 

Network Security System of Records 

(1090–AB14) 

This rule would revise the 

Department’s Privacy Act regulations at 

43 CFR 2.254 to claim Privacy Act 

exemptions for certain records in the 

DOI–49, Network Security, system of 

records from one or more provisions of 

the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C 

552a(j) and (k), because of criminal, 

civil, and administrative law 

enforcement requirements. 

Insider Threat Program System of 

Records (1090–AB15) 

This rule would revise the 

Department’s Privacy Act regulations at 

43 CFR 2.254 to claim Privacy Act 

exemptions for certain records in the 

DOI–50, Insider Threat Program, system 

of records from one or more provisions 

of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(j) and (k), because of criminal, 

civil, and administrative law 

enforcement requirements. 

Personnel Security Files System of 

Records (1090–AB16) 

This rule would revise the 

Department’s Privacy Act regulations at 

43 CFR 2.254 to claim Privacy Act 

exemptions for certain records in the 

DOI–45, Personnel Security Files, 

system of records from one or more 

provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k), because of criminal, 

civil, and administrative law 

enforcement requirements. 

Social Security Number Fraud 

Prevention Act of 2017 Implementation 

(1090–AB24) 

This direct final rule will amend 43 

CFR part 2 to add subpart M to 

implement the Social Security Number 

Fraud Prevention Act of 2017, which 

directs Federal agencies to issue 

regulations that prohibit the inclusion of 

an individual’s Social Security number 

(SSN) on any document sent through 

the mail unless the Secretary deems it 

necessary. The regulations also include 

requirements for protecting documents 

with SSNs sent through postal mail. 

Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance 

The Office of Environmental Policy 

and Compliance (OEPC) serves as a 

leader in conservation stewardship and 

the sustainable development and use of 

Department-managed resources for the 

benefit of the public. The office fosters 

partnerships to enhance resource use 

and protection, as well as to expand 

public access to safe and clean lands 

under the Department’s jurisdiction. 

The office also strives to continually 

streamline environmental policies and 

procedures to increase management 

effectiveness and efficiency, reduce 

duplicative practices, and realize cost 

savings. 

For FY 2022, OEPC will publish in 

the Federal Register: 

Implementation of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969 (1090–AB18) 

This rule would develop regulations 

to streamline OEPC’s NEPA process and 

comply with E.O. 13990 and SO 3399. 

Office of Grants Management 

The Office of Grants Management is 

responsible for providing executive 

leadership, oversight, and policy for the 

financial assistance across the 

Department. 

Financial Assistance Interior Regulation 

(1090–AB23) 

This rule will align the Department’s 

regulations with new regulatory 

citations and requirements adopted by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). On August 13, 2020, OMB 

published a revision to sections of Title 

2 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

Guidance for Grants and Agreements. 

The revision was an administrative 

simplification and did not make any 

substantive changes to 2 CFR part 200 

policies and procedures. This rule will 

codify these changes in the 

Department’s financial assistance 

regulations located in 2 CFR part 1402. 

(86 FR 57529, October 18, 2021). 

Office of Hearings and Appeals 

The Office of Hearings and Appeals 

(OHA) exercises the delegated authority 

of the Secretary to conduct hearings and 

decide appeals from decisions of the 

Bureaus and Offices of the Department. 

The OHA provides an impartial forum 

for parties who are affected by the 

decisions of the Department’s Bureaus 

and Offices to obtain independent 

review of those decisions. The OHA also 

handles the probating of Indian trust 

estates, ensuring that individual Indian 

interests in allotted lands, their 

proceeds, and other trust assets are 

conveyed to the decedents’ rightful 

heirs and beneficiaries. 

Updates to American Indian Probate 

Regulations (1094–AA55) 

This final rule will make regulatory 

changes relating to efficiency and 

streamlining of probate processes, 

ensuring that the Department meets its 

trust obligations, and helping achieve 

the American Indian Probate Reform 

Act/statutory goal of reducing 

fractionalization of trust property 

interests. 

Practices Before the Department of 

Interior (1094–AA56) 

This direct final rule will amend 

existing regulations to keep up to date 

office addresses for hearings and 

appeals purposes, to allow for the OHA 

Director to issue interim orders in 

emergency circumstances, and to allow 

for the OHA Director to issue standing 

orders that will improve OHA’s service 

to the public and the parties by 

modernizing its processes. 

Office of Natural Resources Revenue 

The Office of Natural Resources 

Revenue (ONRR) continues to collect, 

account for, and disburse revenues from 

Federal offshore energy and mineral 

leases and from onshore mineral leases 

on Federal and Indian lands. The ONRR 

operates nationwide and is primarily 

responsible for the timely and accurate 

collection, distribution, and accounting 

of revenues associated with mineral and 

energy production. 

ONRR 2020 Valuation Reform and Civil 

Penalty Rule: Final Withdrawal Rule 

(1012–AA27) 

The ONRR is withdrawing the ONRR 

2020 Valuation Reform and Civil 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5104 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Penalty Rule (86 FR 54045, September 

30, 2021). 

Amendments to ONRR’s Mail Addresses 

Listed in Tiltle30 CFR, Chapter XII 

(1012–AA28) 

This rule will amend mailing 

addresses listed in parts of Title 30 CFR, 

Chapter XII due to ONRR’s main 

building renovation, which changed the 

organizations mailing addresses. 

Civil Monetary Penalty Rates Inflation 

Adjustments for Calendar Year 2022 

(1012–AA31) 

This rule will adjust the maximum 

civil monetary penalty rates for inflation 

and announces the rates applicable to 

calendar year 2022. 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged 

Business Utilization 

The Office of Small and 

Disadvantaged Business Utilization 

advises the Secretary on small business 

issues and collaborates with leadership 

to maximize small business 

opportunities. The office implements 

policies, procedures, and training 

programs for the Department to 

emphasize its commitment to 

contracting with small businesses. The 

mission also includes outreach to small 

and disadvantaged business 

communities, including Indian 

economic enterprises, small 

disadvantaged, women-owned, veteranowned, service-disabled veteran owned, 

small businesses located in historically 

underutilized business zones areas, and 

the Ability One Program. 

Department of the Interior Acquisition 

Regulations, Buy Indian Act Acquisition 

Regulations (1090–AB21) 

This rule would revise regulations 

implementing the Buy Indian Act, 

which provides the Department with 

authority to set aside procurement 

contracts for Indian-owned and 

controlled businesses. These revisions 

would eliminate barriers to Indian 

Economic Enterprises from competing 

on certain construction contracts, 

expand Indian Economic Enterprises’ 

ability to subcontract construction work 

consistent with other socio-economic 

set-aside programs, and give greater 

preference to Indian Economic 

Enterprises when a deviation from the 

Buy Indian Act is necessary, among 

other updates (86 FR 59338, October 27, 

2021). 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

The Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) 

was created by the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA). The OSMRE works with 

States and Tribes to ensure that citizens 

and the environment are protected 

during coal mining and that the land is 

restored to beneficial use when mining 

is finished. The OSMRE and its partners 

are also responsible for reclaiming and 

restoring lands and water degraded by 

mining operations before 1977. The 

OSMRE focuses on overseeing the state 

programs and developing new tools to 

help the states and tribes get the job 

done. 

The OSMRE also works with colleges 

and universities and other State and 

Federal agencies to further the science 

of reclaiming mined lands and 

protecting the environment, including 

initiatives to promote planting more 

trees and establishing much-needed 

wildlife habitat. 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

The OSMRE does not currently expect 

to finalize any significant regulatory 

actions during FY 2022. The OSMRE 

does anticipate publishing: 

Ten Day Notices (1029–AC81) 

This rule would reexamine OSMRE’s 

regulations on the ten-day notices rule 

that went into effect on December 24, 

2020. 

Emergency Preparedness for 

Impoundments (1029–AC82) 

This rule would incorporate certain 

aspects of the Federal Guidelines for 

Dam Safety (FGDS) into OSMRE’s 

existing regulations. These regulations 

relate to emergency preparedness for 

impoundments and propose to 

incorporate the FGDS Emergency Action 

Plans (EAP) and After-Action Reports 

(AAR). The proposed rule may result in 

revisions to OSMRE’s regulations at 30 

CFR 701.5, 780.25, 784.16, 816.49, 

817.49, 816.84, and 817.84. Also, 

OSMRE may add new provisions to the 

regulations to explain the EAP and AAR 

requirements and align the classification 

of impoundments with industry and 

other Government agency standards. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The mission of FWS is to work with 

others to conserve, protect, and enhance 

fish, wildlife, and plants and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people. The FWS also 

provides opportunities for Americans to 

enjoy the outdoors and our shared 

natural heritage. The FWS also 

promotes and encourages the pursuit of 

recreational activities such as hunting 

and fishing and wildlife observation. 

The FWS manages a network of 567 

NWRs, with at least one refuge in each 

U.S. State and territory, and with more 

than 100 refuges close to major urban 

centers. The Refuge System plays an 

essential role in providing outdoor 

recreation opportunities to the 

American public. In 2019, more than 59 

million visitors went to refuges to hunt, 

fish, observe or photograph wildlife, or 

participate in environmental education 

or interpretation. 

The FWS fulfills its responsibilities 

through a diverse array of programs that: 

• Protect and recover endangered and 

threatened species; 

• Monitor and manage migratory 

birds; 

• Restore nationally significant 

fisheries; 

• Enforce Federal wildlife laws and 

regulate international trade; 

• Conserve and restore wildlife 

habitat such as wetlands; 

• Manage and distribute over a billion 

dollars each year to States, territories, 

and Tribes for fish and wildlife 

conservation; 

• Help foreign governments conserve 

wildlife through international 

conservation efforts; and 

• Fulfill our Federal Tribal trust 

responsibility. 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

The FWS has identified the following 

priority rulemaking actions for FY 2022: 

Regulations Under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA): 

The FWS will promulgate multiple 

regulatory actions under the ESA to 

prevent the extinction of and facilitate 

the recovery of both domestic and 

foreign animal and plant species. 

Accordingly, FWS will add species to, 

remove species from, and reclassify 

species on the Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants and 

designate critical habitat for certain 

listed species, in accordance with the 

National Listing Workplan. The 

Workplan enables FWS to prioritize 

workloads based on the needs of 

candidate and petitioned species, while 

providing greater clarity and 

predictability about the timing of listing 

determinations to State wildlife 

agencies, nonprofit organizations, and 

other stakeholders and partners. The 

Workplan represents the conservation 

priorities of FWS based on its review of 

scientific information. The goal is to 

encourage proactive conservation so 

that Federal protections are not needed 

in the first place. The FWS also plans 

to promulgate several species-specific 

rules to protect threatened species 

under section 4(d) of the ESA. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5105 

The Unified Agenda includes 

rulemaking actions pertaining to these 

issues: 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revised Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted 

Owl (1018–BF01) 

This rule revised the designated 

critical habitat for the northern spotted 

owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) under 

the ESA. After a review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, FWS withdrew the January 

15, 2021, final rule that would have 

excluded approximately 3.4 million 

acres of designated critical habitat for 

the northern spotted owl. Instead, FWS 

revised the species’ designated critical 

habitat by excluding approximately 

204,294 acres (82,675 hectares) in 

Benton, Clackamas, Coos, Curry, 

Douglas, Jackson, Josephine, Klamath, 

Lane, Lincoln, Multnomah, Polk, 

Tillamook, Washington, and Yamhill 

Counties, Oregon, under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act (86 FR 62606, November 10, 

2021). 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Listing Determination and 

Critical Habitat Designation for the 

Monarch Butterfly (1018–BE30) 

This rule would list the monarch 

butterfly under the ESA in FY 2024, if 

listing is still warranted at that time. 

FWS would also propose to designate 

critical habitat for the species, if 

prudent and determinable. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revision of the Regulations 

for Listing Endangered and Threatened 

Species and Designation of Critical 

Habitat (1018–BE69) 

The FWS and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service propose to rescind the 

final rule titled ‘‘Regulations for Listing 

Endangered and Threatened Species 

and Designating Critical Habitat’’ that 

was published on December 16, 2020, 

and became effective on January 15, 

2021. The proposed rescission, if 

finalized, would remove the regulatory 

definition of ‘‘habitat’’ established by 

that rule. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plan; Revision of the Regulations 

for Designating Critical Habitat (1018– 

BD84) 

The FWS proposes to rescind the final 

rule titled ‘‘Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for 

Designating Critical Habitat’’ that 

published on December 18, 2020, and 

became effective January 19, 2021. The 

proposed rescission, if finalized, would 

remove the regulations established by 

that rule. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Regulations for Listing 

Endangered and Threatened Species 

and Designating Critical Habitat (1018– 

BF95) 

This joint Departments of Commerce 

and the Interior (the Departments) rule 

would review the previous rulemaking 

action with the title ‘‘Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Regulations for Listing Species and 

Designating Critical Habitat,’’ (84 FR 

45020; August 27, 2019), in which we 

revised the regulations for adding and 

removing species from the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants and clarified procedures for 

designation of critical habitat. The 

Departments’ review will determine 

whether and how that rule should be 

revised. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revisiting the Interagency 

Cooperation Final Rule (1018–BF96) 

This joint rule by the Departments of 

Commerce and the Interior would 

review Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for 

Interagency Cooperation (84 FR 44976; 

August 27, 2019) to determine whether 

and how the rule should be revised or 

rescinded. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Compensatory Mitigation 

Mechanisms Under the Endangered 

Species Act (1018–BF63): 

This rulemaking action would address 

section 329 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, 

Objectives, Performance Standards, and 

Criteria for Use of Wildlife Conservation 

Banking Programs. This law requires 

FWS to publish an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) by 

January 1, 2022. The purpose of the 

ANPRM is to inform FWS’s 

development of regulations related to 

wildlife conservation banking to ensure 

opportunities for Department of Defense 

participation in wildlife conservation 

banking programs pursuant to section 

2694c of title 10, United States Code. 

Regulations Governing Take of 

Migratory Birds (1018–BD76): 

On January 7, 2021, the FWS 

published a final rule defining the scope 

of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA) as it applies to conduct 

resulting in the injury or death of 

migratory birds protected by the MBTA. 

We are now revoking that rule. The 

effect of this rule is a return to 

implementing the MBTA as prohibiting 

incidental take and applying 

enforcement discretion, consistent with 

judicial precedent. 

Protection of Migratory Birds; 

Definitions and Authorizations (1018– 

BF71) 

This rule would amend FWS 

regulations by providing definitions to 

terms used in the MBTA. This proposed 

rule would clarify that the MBTA’s 

prohibitions on taking and killing 

migratory birds includes foreseeable, 

direct taking and killing that is 

incidental to other activities. The rule 

would also propose to establish 

authorizations for compliance with 

MBTA prohibitions. 

Eagle Permits; Incidental Take (1018– 

BE70) 

This rule would provide potential 

approaches for further expediting and 

simplifying the permit process 

authorizing incidental take of eagles. 

The new process would improve and 

make more efficient the permitting 

process for incidental take of eagles in 

a manner that is compatible with the 

preservation of bald and golden eagles. 

Possession of Eagle Specimens for 

Religious Purposes (1018–BB88) 

This rule would propose extending 

legal access to bald and golden eagle 

parts and feathers for religious use to 

persons other than enrolled members of 

federally recognized Tribes. 

2021–2022 Station-Specific Hunting and 

Sport Fishing Regulations (1018–BF09) 

The FWS opens, for the first time, 

seven National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) 

that are currently closed to hunting and 

sport fishing. In addition, the Service 

opens or expands hunting and sport 

fishing at 81 other NWRs and adds 

pertinent station-specific regulations for 

other NWRs that pertain to migratory 

game bird hunting, upland game 

hunting, big game hunting, and sport 

fishing for the 2021–2022 season. The 

Service also opens hunting or sport 

fishing on one unit of the National Fish 

Hatchery System (NFH). We add 

pertinent station-specific regulations 

that pertain to migratory game bird 

hunting, upland game hunting, big game 

hunting, and sport fishing at this NFH 

for the 2021–2022 season. Finally, we 

make regulatory changes to existing 

station-specific regulations in order to 

reduce the regulatory burden on the 

public, increase access for hunters and 

anglers on Service lands and waters, 

and comply with a Presidential mandate 

for plain language standards (86 FR 

48822, August 31, 2021). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5106 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Revision of Regulations Implementing 

the Convention on International Trade 

in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora (CITES); Updates Following 

the Eighteenth Meeting of the 

Conference of the Parties (CoP18) to 

CITES (1018–BF14) 

The FWS is taking direct final action 

to revise regulations that implement the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES or Treaty) by incorporating 

certain non-controversial provisions 

adopted at the sixteenth through 

eighteenth meetings of the Conference 

of the Parties (CoP16–CoP18) to CITES 

and clarifying and updating certain 

other provisions. These changes will 

bring U.S. regulations in line with 

certain revisions adopted at the three 

most recent meetings of the CoP, which 

took place in March 2013 (CoP16), 

September–October 2016 (CoP17), and 

August 2019 (CoP18). The revised 

regulations will help FWS more 

effectively promote species 

conservation, help us continue to fulfill 

our responsibilities under the Treaty, 

and help those affected by CITES to 

understand how to conduct lawful 

international trade. 

National Park Service 

The National Park Service (NPS) 

preserves the natural and cultural 

resources and values within 423 units of 

the National Park System encompassing 

more than 85 million acres of lands and 

waters for the enjoyment, education, 

and inspiration of this and future 

generations. The NPS also cooperates 

with partners to extend the benefits of 

resource conservation and outdoor 

recreation throughout the United States 

and the world. 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

The following are the NPS’s 

rulemaking priorities during FY 2022 

year: 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act Regulations (1024– 

AE19) 

This rule would revise the NAGPRA 

implementing regulations. The rule 

would eliminate ambiguities, correct 

inaccuracies, simplify excessively 

burdensome and complicated 

requirements, clarify timelines, and 

remove offensive terminology in the 

existing regulations that have inhibited 

the respectful repatriation of most 

Native American human remains. This 

rule would simplify and improve the 

regulatory process for repatriation and 

thereby advance the goals of racial 

justice, equity, and inclusion. 

Colonial National Historical Park; 

Vessels and Commercial PassengerCarrying Motor Vehicles (1024–AE39) 

This final rule will amend the special 

regulations for Colonial National 

Historical Park. This rule will remove a 

regulation that prevents the 

Superintendent from designating sites 

within the park for launching and 

landing private vessels. The rule will 

also remove outdated permit and fee 

requirements for commercial passengercarrying vehicles. 

Visitor Experience Improvements 

Authority Contracts (1024–AE47) 

This proposed rule would implement 

the Visitor Experience Improvements 

Authority (VEIA) given to NPS by 

Congress in title VII of the National Park 

Service Centennial Act. This authority 

allows the NPS to award and administer 

commercial services contracts for the 

operation and expansion of commercial 

visitor facilities and visitor services 

programs in units of the National Park 

System. The VEIA supplements but 

does not replace the existing authority 

granted to the NPS in the Concessions 

Management Improvement Act of 1988 

to enter into concession contracts. 

Whiskeytown National Recreation Area; 

Bicycling (1024–AE52) 

This rule would allow bicycles on 

approximately 75 miles of trails 

throughout Whiskeytown National 

Recreation Area; 17 miles of trail will be 

newly constructed. Bicycling is an 

established use at the recreation area 

that has never been properly authorized 

under NPS bicycle regulations. 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore; 

Snowmobiles (1024–AE53) 

This final rule will clarify where 

snowmobiles may be used within the 

boundaries of the Lakeshore by 

replacing general language allowing 

snowmobiles on unplowed roads and 

the shoulders of plowed roads with a 

comprehensive list of designated 

snowmobile routes. 

Gulf Islands National Seashore; Personal 

Watercraft (1024–AE55) 

This final rule will amend special 

regulations for Gulf Island National 

Seashore that govern the use of personal 

watercraft (PWC) within the National 

Seashore in Mississippi and Florida. 

NPS regulations only allow for the 

operation of PWCs in park areas were 

authorized by special regulation. 

Commercial Visitor Services; 

Concession Contracts (1024–AE57) 

This final rule will revise regulations 

that govern the solicitation, award, and 

administration of concessions contracts 

to provide commercial visitor services at 

National Park System units under the 

Concessions Management Improvement 

Act of 1998. This rule would reduce 

administrative burdens and expand 

sustainable, high quality, and 

contemporary concessioner-provided 

visitor services in national parks. 

Curation of Federally-Owned and 

Administered Archeological Collections 

(1024–AE58) 

This final rule will amend the 

regulations for the curation of federallyowned and administered archeological 

collections to establish definitions, 

standards, and procedures to dispose of 

particular material remains that are 

determined to be of insufficient 

archaeological interest. This rule will 

promote more efficient and effective 

curation of these archeological 

collections. 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways; 

Motorized Vessels (1024–AE62) 

This rule would amend special 

regulations for Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways. The rule would modify 

regulations governing the use of 

motorized vessels within the Riverways 

to help accommodate a variety of 

desired river conditions and 

recreational uses, promote high quality 

visitor experiences, promote visitor 

safety, and minimize conflicts among 

different user groups. The rule would 

implement a management action that 

represents a compromise between user 

groups and was the result of a long 

planning process with robust 

community engagement. 

Mount Rainier National Park; Fishing 

(1024–AE66) 

This rule would revise special 

regulations for Mount Rainier National 

Park to remove all fishing closures and 

restrictions from 36 CFR 7.5. Instead, 

the NPS would manage fishing though 

administrative orders in the 

Superintendent’s Compendium. This 

action would help implement a 2018 

Fish Management Plan that aims to 

conserve native fish populations and 

restore aquatic ecosystems by reducing 

or eliminating nonnative fish. 

Bureau of Reclamation 

The Bureau of Reclamation’s 

Reclamation mission is to manage, 

develop, and protect water and related 

resources in an environmentally and 

economically sound manner in the 

interest of the American public. To 

accomplish this mission, Reclamation 

employs management, engineering, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5107 

science to achieve effective and 

environmentally sensitive solutions. 

Reclamation’s projects provide: 

Irrigation water service; municipal and 

industrial water supply; hydroelectric 

power generation; water quality 

improvement; groundwater 

management; fish and wildlife 

enhancement; outdoor recreation; flood 

control; navigation; river regulation and 

control; system optimization; and 

related uses. In addition, Reclamation 

continues to provide increased security 

at its facilities. 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

Reclamation’s rulemaking priorities 

for FY 2022 include the following: 

Public Conduct on Bureau of 

Reclamation Facilities, Lands and 

Waterbodies (1006–AA58) 

This proposed update to an existing 

rule would revise existing definitions 

for the use of aircraft, the possession of 

firearms, camping, swimming, and 

winter recreation for the wide range of 

circumstances found across Reclamation 

and would clarify the permitting of 

memorials and correct inconsistencies 

found within this part. 

Departmental 

For FY 2022, the Department intends 

to publish in the Federal Register: 

Paleontological Resources Preservation. 

(1093–AA25) 

This rule addresses the management, 

collection, and curation of 

paleontological resources on or from 

Federal lands administered by the 

Department using scientific principles 

and expertise, including collection in 

accordance with permits; curation in an 

approved repository; and maintenance 

of confidentiality of specific locality 

data. 

BILLING CODE 4334–63–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)— 

FALL 2021 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

The mission of the Department of 

Justice is to uphold the rule of law, to 

protect the public against foreign and 

domestic threats, to provide Federal 

leadership in preventing and controlling 

crime, and to ensure equal justice under 

the law for all. In carrying out this 

mission, the Department is guided by 

the core values of integrity, fairness, and 

commitment to promoting the impartial 

administration of justice—including for 

those in historically underserved, 

vulnerable, or marginalized 

communities. Consistent with its 

mission and values, the Department is 

prioritizing activities that strengthen 

enforcement of civil rights laws, defend 

against domestic and international 

terrorism, combat gun violence, and 

reform criminal justice systems. Because 

the Department of Justice is primarily a 

law enforcement agency, not a 

regulatory agency, it carries out its 

principal investigative, prosecutorial, 

and other enforcement activities 

through means other than the regulatory 

process. 

The regulatory priorities of the 

Department include initiatives in the 

areas of immigration, criminal justice 

reform, and gun violence reduction. 

Those initiatives, as well as regulatory 

initiatives by several other components 

carrying out key law enforcement 

priorities, are summarized below. 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives (ATF) 

ATF issues regulations to enforce the 

Federal laws relating to the 

manufacture, importation, sale, and 

other commerce in firearms and 

explosives. ATF’s mission and 

regulations are designed to, among other 

objectives: (1) Curb illegal traffic in, and 

criminal use of, firearms and explosives; 

and (2) assist State, local, and other 

Federal law enforcement agencies in 

reducing violent crime. ATF will 

continue, as a priority during fiscal year 

2021, to seek modifications to its 

regulations governing commerce in 

firearms and explosives in furtherance 

of these important goals. 

ATF plans to finalize regulations 

regarding definitions of firearm, firearm 

frame or receiver, gunsmith, complete 

weapon, complete muffler or silencer 

device, privately made firearm, and 

readily, and finalize regulations on 

marking and recordkeeping that are 

necessary to implement these new or 

amended definitions (RIN 1140–AA54). 

The intent of this rulemaking is to 

consider technological developments 

and modern terminology in the firearms 

industry, and to enhance public safety 

by helping to stem the proliferation of 

unmarked, privately made firearms that 

have increasingly been recovered at 

crime scenes. Further, ATF plans to 

finalize regulations to implement 

certain provisions of Public Law 105– 

277, Omnibus Consolidated and 

Emergency Supplemental 

Appropriations Act, 1999 (RIN 1140– 

AA10), and to set forth factors 

considered when evaluating firearms 

with an attached stabilizing brace to 

determine whether they are considered 

firearms under the National Firearms 

Act and/or the Gun Control Act (RIN 

1140–AA55). This second rule would 

make clear that all weapons that fall 

under the National Firearms Act, 

however they are made, are subject to its 

heightened regulations—including 

registration and background check 

requirements. ATF also has begun a 

rulemaking process that amends 27 CFR 

part 447 to update the terminology in 

ATF’s import control regulations based 

on similar terminology amendments 

made by the Department of State on the 

U.S. Munitions List in the International 

Traffic in Arms Regulations, and the 

Department of Commerce on the 

Commerce Control List in the Export 

Administration Regulations (RIN 1140– 

AA49). 

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 

BOP issues regulations to enforce the 

Federal laws relating to its mission: To 

protect public safety by ensuring that 

federal offenders serve their sentences 

of imprisonment in facilities that are 

safe, humane, cost-efficient, and 

appropriately secure, and to provide 

reentry programming to ensure their 

successful return to the community. 

Over the past year, the Bureau has 

successfully implemented its Incident 

Action Plan, developed in response to 

2020 pandemic conditions to facilitate 

continuity of operations, supplies, 

inmate movement, visitation, staff 

training, and official staff travel. As 

pandemic conditions continue to 

evolve, BOP plans to continue to 

employ and improve its Incident Action 

Plan, currently comprised of BOP’s 

approved Pandemic Influenza Plan; its 

Incident Command System (ICS) 

framework; and guidance and directives 

from the World Health Organization 

(WHO), the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC), the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM), DOJ, and 

the Office of the Vice President. 

In the near future, BOP plans to 

finalize procedures for eligible inmates 

to earn FSA Time Credits, as authorized 

by the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA), 

Public Law 115–391, 132 Stat. 5194 

(2018). The FSA provides that eligible 

inmates earn FSA Time Credits towards 

prerelease custody or early transfer to 

supervised release for successfully 

completing approved Evidence-Based 

Recidivism Reduction (EBRR) Programs 

or Productive Activities (PAs) assigned 

to each inmate based on the inmate’s 

risk and needs assessment. 

BOP will also finalize regulations 

implementing additional legislative 

changes enacted in the FSA to broaden 

the Good Conduct Time Credit system, 

revise inmate disciplinary regulations, 

and provide effective literacy 

programming which serves both general 

and specialized inmate needs. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5108 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Civil Rights Division (CRT) 

CRT works to uphold the civil and 

constitutional rights of all Americans, 

particularly some of the most vulnerable 

members of our society. Consistent with 

this mission, CRT plans to engage in 

three separate rulemakings under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

First, CRT plans to amend its current 

regulations under section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which 

prohibits discrimination based on 

disability in programs and activities 

conducted by an Executive agency, to 

bring them up to date. Second, the 

Department plans to publish a new 

ANPRM seeking public input on 

possible revisions to its ADA 

regulations to ensure the accessibility of 

equipment and furniture in public 

entities and public accommodations 

programs and services. Third, the 

Department of Justice intends to 

propose requirements for the 

construction and alteration of 

pedestrian facilities covered by subtitle 

A of title II of the ADA that are 

consistent with the Access Board’s 

minimum ‘‘Accessibility Guidelines for 

Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Rightof-Way.’’ These requirements would 

ensure that sidewalks and other 

pedestrian facilities in the public rightof-way are accessible to and usable by 

individuals with disabilities. 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA) 

DEA is the primary agency 

responsible for coordinating the drug 

law enforcement activities of the United 

States and assists in the implementation 

of the President’s National Drug Control 

Strategy. DEA implements and enforces 

titles II and III of the Comprehensive 

Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act 

of 1970 and the Controlled Substances 

Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 801– 

971), as amended, collectively referred 

to as the Controlled Substances Act 

(CSA). DEA’s mission is to enforce the 

CSA and its regulations and bring to the 

criminal and civil justice system those 

organizations and individuals involved 

in the growing, manufacture, or 

distribution of controlled substances 

and listed chemicals appearing in or 

destined for illicit traffic in the United 

States. The CSA and its implementing 

regulations are designed to prevent, 

detect, and eliminate the diversion of 

controlled substances and listed 

chemicals into the illicit market while 

providing for the legitimate medical, 

scientific, research, and industrial needs 

of the United States. 

Pursuant to its statutory authority, 

DEA intends to propose a regulation 

that allows practitioners, subject to 

certain limitations, to supply up to a 

three-day supply of buprenorphine or 

other medications for maintenance and 

detoxification treatment of opioid use 

disorder, as instructed by Congress in 

Public Law 116–215 (RIN–1117–AB73). 

The intent of this rulemaking is to 

ensure patients with opioid use disorder 

have access to needed medications 

while longer-term treatment is being 

coordinated. DEA also anticipates 

finalizing a rulemaking action clarifying 

the procedures a registrant must follow 

in the event a suspicious order for 

controlled substances is received (RIN 

1117–AB47). 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review (EOIR) 

EOIR’s primary mission is to 

adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, 

expeditiously, and uniformly 

interpreting and administering the 

Nation’s immigration laws. Under 

delegated authority from the Attorney 

General, EOIR conducts immigration 

court proceedings, appellate reviews, 

and administrative hearings. 

Immigration judges in EOIR’s Office of 

the Chief Immigration Judge adjudicate 

cases to determine whether noncitizens 

should be ordered removed from the 

United States or should be granted some 

form of protection or relief from 

removal. The Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA) has jurisdiction over 

appeals from the decisions of 

immigration judges, as well as other 

matters. Accordingly, the Department of 

Justice has a significant role in the 

administration of the Nation’s 

immigration laws. The Attorney General 

also is responsible for civil litigation 

and criminal prosecutions relating to 

the immigration laws. 

Consistent with Executive Order 

14010, EOIR is developing numerous 

regulations related to the asylum 

system. Specifically, EOIR is working 

with the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) to finalize a recently 

proposed rule to amend the procedures 

for the processing of asylum claims in 

expedited removal proceedings (RIN 

1125–AB20). In addition, EOIR and DHS 

intend to propose a rule to address the 

circumstances in which an individual 

would be considered a member of a 

‘‘particular social group’’ (RIN 1125– 

AB13). Similarly, EOIR and DHS intend 

to propose a rule to rescind bars to 

asylum implemented by three prior 

rules: RIN 1125–AA87 related to an 

applicant’s criminal activity, RIN 1125– 

AA91 related to an applicant’s transit 

through third countries, and RIN 1125– 

AB08 related to public health concerns. 

Moreover, EOIR intends to issue a rule 

to rescind or revise previous regulatory 

amendments regarding the time allowed 

for filing applications for asylum and 

withholding of removal by individuals 

in proceedings before EOIR (RIN 1125– 

AB15). EOIR is developing a proposed 

rule that would require immigration 

judges to conduct a hearing in which 

the applicant may provide testimony on 

his or her application for asylum and 

withholding of removal before the judge 

could deny the application (RIN 1125– 

AB22). 

Finally, EOIR is also working to revise 

and update the regulations relating to 

immigration proceedings to increase 

efficiencies and productivity, while also 

safeguarding due process. EOIR is in the 

process of publishing a final rule 

regarding its new EOIR Case and 

Appeals System, which provides for 

greatly expanded electronic filing and 

calendaring for cases before EOIR’s 

immigration courts and the BIA (RIN 

1125–AA81). In addition, EOIR is 

drafting a proposed rule that would 

codify administrative closure 

procedures before the immigration 

courts and the BIA and make other 

revisions to ensure that BIA 

adjudications appropriately balance due 

process and efficiency considerations 

(RIN 1125–AB18). Further, EOIR is 

planning to finalize a rule that would 

establish procedures for practitioners to 

provide individual document assistance 

without triggering the full obligations 

required of practitioners engaging in full 

representation of a noncitizen in EOIR 

proceedings (RIN 1125–AA83) 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is 

responsible for protecting and defending 

the United States against terrorist and 

foreign intelligence threats, upholding 

and enforcing the criminal laws of the 

United States, and providing leadership 

and criminal justice services to Federal, 

State, municipal, and international 

agencies and partners. Only in limited 

contexts does the FBI rely on 

rulemaking. For example, the FBI is 

currently drafting a rule that establishes 

the criteria for use by a designated 

entity in deciding fitness as described 

under the Child Protection 

Improvements Act (CPIA), 34 U.S.C. 

40102, Public Law 115–141, div. S. title 

I, section 101(a)(1), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 

Stat. 1123. 

The CPIA requires that the Attorney 

General shall, by rule, establish the 

criteria for use by designated entities in 

making a determination of fitness 

described in subsection (b)(4) of the Act 

concerning whether the provider has 

been convicted of, or is under pending 

indictment for, a crime that bears upon 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5109 

the provider’s fitness to have 

responsibility for the safety and 

wellbeing of children, the elderly, or 

individuals with disabilities and shall 

convey that determination to the 

qualified entity. Such criteria shall be 

based on the criteria established 

pursuant to section 108(a)(3)(G)(i) of the 

Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools 

to end the Exploitation of Children 

Today Act of 2003 (34 U.S.C. 40102 

note) and section 658H of the Child Care 

and Development Block Grant Act of 

1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858f). 

Office of Justice Programs (OJP) 

OJP provides innovative leadership to 

Federal, State, local, and tribal justice 

systems by disseminating state-of-the-art 

knowledge and practices and providing 

financial assistance for the 

implementation of crime fighting 

strategies. 

OJP published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking for the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

(OJJDP) Formula Grant Program on 

August 8, 2016, and in early 2017 

published a final rule addressing some 

of those provisions. For other provisions 

included in the proposed rule, OJJDP 

received many comments that require 

additional time for OJJDP to consider. 

OJP published an additional final rule 

removing certain provisions of the 

regulations that are no longer legally 

supported, and to make technical 

corrections, in June 2021. OJJDP now 

plans to publish a second notice of 

proposed rulemaking addressing 

amendments to the Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention Act included in 

the Juvenile Justice Reform Act signed 

into law on December 21, 2018, and the 

remaining changes that OJJDP intends to 

make to the formula grant program 

regulation. 

DOJ—CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION (CRT) 

Prerule Stage 

101. • Nondiscrimination on the Basis 

of Disability by State and Local 

Governments and Places of Public 

Accommodation; Equipment and 

Furniture 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101 et 

seq. 

CFR Citation: 28 CFR 35; 28 CFR 36. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The ADA requires State and 

local governments and public 

accommodations to provide programs, 

activities, and services in a manner that 

is accessible to people with disabilities, 

including non-fixed equipment and 

furniture that is used in the delivery of 

programs, activities, and services. The 

ADA also requires that covered entities 

communicate effectively with people 

with disabilities and provide 

appropriate auxiliary aids and services. 

While some types of fixed equipment 

and furniture are explicitly covered by 

the 2010 Standards for Accessible 

Design, there are no specific provisions 

in the ADA regulations that include 

standards for the accessibility of 

equipment and furniture that are not 

fixed. See, e.g., 28 CFR 36.406(b) (the 

1991 and 2010 Standards apply to fixed 

or built-in elements of buildings and 

structures). Because the 2010 ADA 

Standards include accessibility 

requirements for some types of fixed 

equipment (e.g., ATMs, washing 

machines, dryers, tables, benches, and 

vending machines), the Department 

plans to look to these standards for 

guidance, where applicable, when it 

proposes accessibility standards for 

equipment and furniture that is not 

fixed. 

The Department plans to publish an 

ANPRM seeking public input on 

possible revisions to its ADA 

regulations to ensure the accessibility of 

equipment and furniture in public 

entities’ and public accommodations’ 

programs and services. 

Statement of Need: The Department’s 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

regulations contain the ADA Standards 

for Accessible Design (the ADA 

Standards) which provide accessibility 

standards for some types of fixed or 

built-in equipment and furniture. 

However, there are no specific 

provisions in the ADA Standards or the 

ADA regulations governing the 

accessibility of equipment and furniture 

that are not fixed or built in. Changes 

in technology have resulted in the 

development and improved availability 

of accessible equipment and furniture 

that benefit individuals with disabilities, 

and accessible equipment and furniture 

is often critical to an entity’s ability to 

provide an individual with a disability 

equal access to its services. This rule is 

necessary to ensure that inaccessible 

equipment and furniture do not prevent 

people with disabilities from accessing 

State and local governments and public 

accommodations’ programs and 

services. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

summary of the legal basis for this 

regulation is set forth in the above 

abstract. 

Alternatives: There are no appropriate 

alternatives to issuing this ANPRM. The 

Architectural and Transportation 

Barriers Compliance Board (Access 

Board) may issue minimum standards 

on equipment and furniture, but these 

standards only become binding when 

the Department adopts the Access 

Board’s standards through a rulemaking. 

Alternatively, the Department may 

create its own technical standards and 

implement them through a rulemaking. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Department anticipates costs to covered 

entities, including State and local 

governments and places of public 

accommodation. Entities may need to 

acquire new equipment or furniture or 

retrofit existing equipment and furniture 

to meet technical standards that the 

Department includes in its regulations. 

Risks: Failure to implement technical 

standards to ensure that people with 

disabilities have access to equipment 

and furniture in public entities’ and 

public accommodations’ programs and 

services will make some of these 

programs and services inaccessible to 

people with disabilities. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 09/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Rebecca Bond, Chief, 

Disability Rights Section, Department of 

Justice, Civil Rights Division, 4 

Constitution Square, 150 M Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20002, Phone: 202 305– 

2952. 

RIN: 1190–AA76 

DOJ—CRT 

Proposed Rule Stage 

102. Implementation of the ADA 

AMendments Act of 2008: Federally 

Conducted (Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110–325; 29 

U.S.C. 794 (sec. 504 of the Rehab. Act 

of 1973); E.O. 12250 (45 FR 72855) 

CFR Citation: 28 CFR 39. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

(29 U.S.C. 794), prohibits discrimination 

on the basis of disability in programs 

and activities conducted by an 

Executive agency. The Department 

plans to revise its 504 Federally 

conducted regulation at 28 CFR part 39 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5110 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

to incorporate amendments to the 

statute, including the changes in the 

meaning and interpretation of the 

applicable definition of disability 

required by the ADA Amendments Act 

of 2008, Public Law 110–325, 122 Stat. 

3553 (Sep. 25, 2008); incorporate 

requirements and defenses stemming 

from judicial decisions; and make other 

non-substantive clarifying edits, 

including updating outdated 

terminology and references. 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

necessary to bring the Department’s 

prior section 504 Federally conducted 

regulation, which has not been updated 

in three decades, into compliance with 

judicial decisions establishing rights 

and defenses under section 504, as well 

as statutory amendments to the 

Rehabilitation Act, including the new 

definition of disability provided by the 

ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which 

became effective on January 1, 2009. 

Additionally, following the passage of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA), amendments to the 

Rehabilitation Act sought to ensure that 

the same precepts and values embedded 

in the ADA were also reflected in the 

Rehabilitation Act. To ensure the 

intended parity between the two laws, 

it also necessary to update the Federally 

conducted regulation to align it with the 

relevant provisions of Title II of the 

ADA. An updated Federally conducted 

regulation would consolidate the 

existing Section 504 requirements in 

one place for easy reference. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

summary of the legal basis of authority 

for this regulation is set forth above in 

the abstract. 

Alternatives: There are no appropriate 

alternatives to issuing this NPRM since 

it implements requirements and 

defenses arising from the statute and 

judicial decisions. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Because the NPRM would incorporate 

existing legal requirements and defenses 

in the Department’s section 504 

Federally conducted regulation, the 

Department does not anticipate any 

costs from this rule. 

Risks: Failure to update the 

Department’s section 504 Federally 

conducted regulation to conform to legal 

requirements and defenses provided 

under statute and judicial decisions will 

interfere with the Department’s ability 

to meet its non-discrimination 

requirements under section 504. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/22 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Additional Information: Transferred 

from RIN 1190–AA60. 

Agency Contact: Rebecca Bond, Chief, 

Disability Rights Section, Department of 

Justice, Civil Rights Division, 4 

Constitution Square, 150 M Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20002, Phone: 202 305– 

2952. 

RIN: 1190–AA73 

DOJ—CRT 

103. • Nondiscrimination on the Basis 

of Disability by State and Local 

Governments; Public Right-of-Way 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12134(a); 

42 U.S.C. 12134(c) 

CFR Citation: 28 CFR 35. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Justice 

anticipates issuing a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking that would establish 

accessibility requirements to ensure that 

sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities 

in the public right-of-way are accessible 

to and usable by individuals with 

disabilities. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA) directs the Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board (Access Board) to issue minimum 

guidelines to ensure that buildings, 

facilities, rail passenger cars, and 

vehicles are accessible, in terms of 

architecture and design, transportation, 

and communication, to individuals with 

disabilities. The Access Board intends 

to issue minimum accessibility 

guidelines for pedestrian facilities in the 

public right-of-way, called the 

Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian 

Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way. 

The ADA directs the Department of 

Justice to promulgate regulations 

implementing subtitle A of title II of the 

ADA. The ADA further directs that the 

Department of Justice’s regulations 

include standards that are consistent 

with the minimum ADA guidelines 

issued by the Access Board. 

Accordingly, the Department of Justice 

intends to propose requirements for the 

construction and alteration of 

pedestrian facilities covered by subtitle 

A of Title II of the ADA that are 

consistent with the Access Board’s 

minimum Accessibility Guidelines for 

Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Rightof-Way. 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

necessary to ensure that pedestrian 

facilities in the public right-of-way are 

accessible to and usable by individuals 

with disabilities. The Access Board 

intends to issue minimum accessibility 

guidelines for pedestrian facilities in the 

public right-of-way, and the ADA 

requires the Department of Justice to 

include standards in its regulations 

implementing subtitle A of title II of the 

ADA that are consistent with the 

minimum ADA guidelines issued by the 

Access Board. Accordingly, the 

Department of Justice intends to 

propose requirements for the 

construction and alteration of 

pedestrian facilities covered by subtitle 

A of title II of the ADA that are 

consistent with the Access Board’s 

minimum Accessibility Guidelines for 

Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Rightof-Way. These requirements would 

ensure that people with disabilities have 

access to sidewalks, curb ramps, 

pedestrian street crossings, and other 

pedestrian facilities in the public rightof-way. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

summary of the legal basis for this 

regulation is set forth in the above 

abstract. 

Alternatives: There are no appropriate 

alternatives to issuing this NPRM 

because the ADA requires the 

Department of Justice to include 

standards in its regulations 

implementing subtitle A of title II of the 

ADA that are consistent with the 

minimum ADA guidelines issued by the 

Access Board. The Access Board’s 

accessibility guidelines will only 

become binding when the Department 

of Justice adopts them as legally 

enforceable requirements through 

rulemaking. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Department anticipates costs to state 

and local governments given that this 

rule would require that the construction 

and alteration of pedestrian facilities in 

the public right-of-way comply with the 

Department’s accessibility requirements 

under subtitle A of title II of the ADA. 

Risks: Failure to adopt requirements 

for the construction and alteration of 

pedestrian facilities covered by subtitle 

A of title II of the ADA that are 

consistent with the Access Board’s 

minimum Accessibility Guidelines for 

Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Rightof-Way would mean that such Access 

Board guidelines would remain 

nonbinding and unenforceable. It would 

also mean that the Department would 

not be complying with its obligation to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5111 

ensure that the standards in its 

regulations are consistent with the 

minimum ADA guidelines issued by the 

Access Board. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 09/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Small Entities Affected: Governmental 

Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Rebecca Bond, Chief, 

Disability Rights Section, Department of 

Justice, Civil Rights Division, 4 

Constitution Square, 150 M Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20002, Phone: 202 305– 

2952. 

RIN: 1190–AA77 

DOJ—BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, 

TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND 

EXPLOSIVES (ATF) 

Final Rule Stage 

104. Definition of ‘‘Frame or Receiver’’ 

and Identification of Firearms 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 18 U.S.C. 921 to 931; 

22 U.S.C. 2778; 26 U.S.C. 5812; 26 

U.S.C. 5822; 26 U.S.C. 7801 and 7805 

CFR Citation: 27 CFR 447; 27 CFR 

478; 27 CFR 479. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Justice 

proposes amending Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 

regulations to provide new regulatory 

definitions of firearm frame or receiver 

and frame or receiver because they are 

outdated. The Department also proposes 

amending ATF’s definitions of firearm 

and gunsmith to clarify the meaning of 

those terms, and to add new regulatory 

terms such as complete weapon, 

complete muffler or silencer device, 

privately made firearm, and readily for 

purposes of clarity given advancements 

in firearms technology. Further, the 

Department proposes amendments to 

ATF’s regulations on marking and 

recordkeeping that are necessary to 

implement these new or amended 

definitions. 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

intended to clarify the definition of 

firearm and to provide a more 

comprehensive definition of frame or 

receiver so that those definitions more 

accurately reflect firearm configurations 

not explicitly captured under the 

existing definitions in 27 CFR 478.11 

and 479.11. Further, this NPRM 

proposes new terms and definitions to 

take into account technological 

developments and modern terminology 

in the firearms industry, as well as 

amendments to the marking and 

recordkeeping requirements that would 

be necessary to implement these 

definitions. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Attorney 

General has express authority pursuant 

to 18 U.S.C. 926 to prescribe rules and 

regulations necessary to carry out the 

provisions of chapter 44, title 18, United 

States Code. The detailed legal analysis 

supporting the amendments in this rule 

are expressed in the abstract for the rule 

itself. 

Alternatives: There are no feasible 

alternatives to the proposed rule that 

would allow ATF to maximize benefits. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

rule will not be economically 

significant; however, it is a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f)(4) of 

Executive Order 12866 because this rule 

raises novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates. ATF 

estimates that the costs for this 

proposed rule is minimal. The total 10- 

year undiscounted cost of this proposed 

rule is estimated to be $1.3 million. The 

total 10-year discounted cost of the rule 

is $1.0 million and $1.2 million at 7 

percent and 3 percent respectively. The 

annualized cost of this proposed rule 

would be $147,048 and $135,750, also at 

7 percent and 3 percent, respectively. 

This rule provides for updated 

definitions to account for technological 

advances, ensures traceability regardless 

of age of firearm, and makes consistent 

marking requirements 

Risks: Without this rule, public safety 

will continue to be threatened by the 

lack of traceability of firearms. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/21/21 86 FR 27720 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

08/19/21 

Final Action ......... 06/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Vivian Chu, 

Department of Justice, Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives, 99 New York Avenue NE, 

Washington, DC 20226, Phone: 202 648– 

7070. 

RIN: 1140–AA54 

DOJ—ATF 

105. Factoring Criteria for Firearms 

With an Attached Stabilizing Brace 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 18 U.S.C 921 to 931; 

26 U.S.C 5812; 26 U.S.C 5822; 26 U.S.C. 

7801; 26 U.S.C. 7805 

CFR Citation: 27 CFR 478; 27 CFR 

479. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Justice is 

planning to propose to amend the 

regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to set 

forth factors considered when 

evaluating firearms with an attached 

stabilizing brace to determine whether 

they are considered firearms under the 

National Firearms Act and/or the Gun 

Control Act. 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

intended to clarify when a rifle is 

intended to be fired from the shoulder 

and to set forth factors that ATF 

considers when evaluating firearms 

with an attached purported stabilizing 

brace to determine whether these are 

rifles under the GCA or NFA, and 

therefore whether they are firearms 

subject to the NFA. It amends the 

definition of rifle in 27 CFR 478.11 and 

479.11, respectively, by adding a 

sentence at the end of each definition. 

The new sentence would clarify that the 

term rifle includes any weapon with a 

rifled barrel and equipped with an 

attached stabilizing brace that has 

objective design features and 

characteristics that indicate that the 

firearm is designed to be fired from the 

shoulder, as indicated on ATF 

Worksheet 4999. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Attorney 

General has express authority pursuant 

to 18 U.S.C. 926 to prescribe rules and 

regulations necessary to carry out the 

provisions of chapter 44, title 18, United 

States Code. The detailed legal analysis 

supporting the amendments in this rule 

are expressed in the abstract for the rule 

itself. 

Alternatives: There are no feasible 

alternatives to the proposed rule that 

would allow ATF to maximize benefits. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

rule is a significant regulatory action 

that is economically significant under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

because the rule will have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more. The annualized cost of this 

proposed rule would be $114.7 million 

and $125.7 million, at 3 percent and 7 

percent, respectively. This proposed 

rule would affect attempts by 

manufacturers and individuals to 

circumvent the requirements of the NFA 

and would affect the criminal use of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5112 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

weapons with a purported stabilizing 

brace. 

Risks: Without this rule, public safety 

will continue to be threatened by the 

criminal use of such firearms, which are 

easily concealable from the public and 

first responders. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/10/21 86 FR 30826 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

09/08/21 

Final Action ......... 08/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Agency Contact: Denise Brown, 

Regulations Writer, Department of 

Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York 

Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20226, 

Phone: 202 648–7070. 

RIN: 1140–AA55 

DOJ—EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR 

IMMIGRATION REVIEW (EOIR) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

106. Bars to Asylum Eligibility and 

Procedures 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Homeland Security 

Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 

2135, sec. 1102, as amended; 8 U.S.C. 

1103(a)(1), (a)(3), (g); 8 U.S.C. 1225(b); 8 

U.S.C. 1231(b)(3) and 1231 note; 8 

U.S.C. 1158; E. O. 14010, 86 FR 8267 

(Feb. 2, 2021) 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 235; 

8 CFR 1208; 8 CFR 1235; 8 CFR 1003. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: In 2020, the Department of 

Homeland Security and Department of 

Justice (collectively, the Departments) 

published final rules amending their 

respective regulations governing bars to 

asylum eligibility and procedures, 

including the Procedures for Asylum 

and Bars to Asylum Eligibility, (RINs 

1125–AA87 and 1116–AC41), 85 FR 

67202 (Oct. 21, 2020), Asylum 

Eligibility and Procedural 

Modifications, (RINs 1125–AA91 and 

1615–AC44), 85 FR 82260 (Dec. 17, 

2020), and Security Bars and Processing, 

(RINs 1125–AB08 and 1615–AC57), 85 

FR 84160 (Dec. 23, 2020), final rules. 

The Departments propose to modify or 

rescind the regulatory changes 

promulgated in these three final rules, 

consistent with Executive Order 14010 

(Feb. 2, 2021). 

Statement of Need: The Departments 

are reviewing these regulations in light 

of the issuance of Executive Order 

14010 and Executive Order 14012. This 

rule is needed to restore and strengthen 

the asylum system and to address 

inconsistencies with the goals and 

principles outlined in the Executive 

Order 14010 and Executive Order 

14012. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Attorney 

General has general authority under 8 

U.S.C. 1103(g) to establish regulations 

related to the immigration and 

naturalization of noncitizens. More 

specifically, under 8 U.S.C. 

1158(b)(2)(C) and (d)(5)(B), the Attorney 

General has authority to provide by 

regulation additional conditions and 

limitations consistent with the INA for 

asylum eligibility. Thus, this proposed 

rule utilizes such authority to propose 

revisions to the regulations related to 

processing procedures for asylum and 

withholding of removal claims. 

Alternatives: Unless the Departments 

rely on the pending litigation to enjoin 

Asylum and Bars to Asylum Eligibility, 

85 FR 67202, and Asylum Eligibility 

and Procedural Modifications, 85 FR 

82260, there are no other alternatives to 

revise those two rules. As for Security 

Bars and Processing, 85 FR 84160 (Dec. 

23, 2020), because it relies on the 

framework for applying bars to asylum 

during credible fear processing that was 

established in an enjoined rule titled 

Procedures for Asylum and Withholding 

of Removal; Credible Fear and 

Reasonable Fear Review, 85 FR 80274, 

the only alternative is to wait for the 

outcome of that litigation before making 

changes to the regulation. Relying on 

litigation to address these rules could be 

extremely time-burdensome and may 

introduce confusion as to effectiveness 

of the regulations. Thus, the 

Departments consider this alternative to 

be a burdensome and inadvisable course 

of action and therefore not feasible. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOJ 

and DHS are currently considering the 

specific cost and benefit impacts of the 

proposed provisions. 

Risks: Without this rulemaking, 

regulations related to Procedures for 

Asylum and Bars to Asylum Eligibility, 

85 FR 67202, and Asylum Eligibility 

and Procedural Modifications, 85 FR 

82260, will remain enjoined pending 

litigation. This is inadvisable, as 

litigation typically takes much time to 

resolve. Moreover, the implementation 

of Security Bars and Processing, 85 FR 

80274, will not be viable (as described 

in the Alternatives section). Thus, the 

Department strongly prefers proactively 

addressing the regulations through this 

proposed rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Lauren Alder Reid, 

Assistant Director, Office of Policy, 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, Department of Justice, 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1800, 

Falls Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703 

305–0289, Email: pao.eoir@usdoj.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1615–AC69, 

Related to 1125–AB08. 

RIN: 1125–AB12 

DOJ—EOIR 

107. Asylum and Withholding 

Definitions 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42); 

8 U.S.C. 1158; 8 U.S.C. 1225; 8 U.S.C. 

1231 and 1231 note; Executive Order 

14010, 86 FR 8267 (Feb. 2, 2021) 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 2; 8 CFR 208; 8 

CFR 1208. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule proposes to amend 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) 

regulations that govern eligibility for 

asylum and withholding of removal. 

The amendments focus on portions of 

the regulations that deal with the 

definitions of membership in a 

particular social group, the 

requirements for failure of State 

protection, and determinations about 

whether persecution is on account of a 

protected ground. 

This rule is consistent with Executive 

Order 14010 of February 2, 2021, which 

directs the Departments to, within 270 

days, promulgate joint regulations, 

consistent with applicable law, 

addressing the circumstances in which 

a person should be considered a 

member of a particular social group. 

Statement of Need: This rule provides 

guidance on a number of key 

interpretive issues of the refugee 

definition used by adjudicators deciding 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5113 

asylum and withholding of removal 

(withholding) claims. The interpretive 

issues include whether persecution is 

inflicted on account of a protected 

ground, the requirements for 

establishing the failure of State 

protection, and the parameters for 

defining membership in a particular 

social group. This rule will aid in the 

adjudication of claims made by 

applicants whose claims fall outside of 

the rubric of the protected grounds of 

race, religion, nationality, or political 

opinion. One example of such claims 

which often fall within the particular 

social group ground concerns people 

who have suffered or fear domestic 

violence. This rule is expected to 

consolidate issues raised in a proposed 

rule in 2000 and to address issues that 

have developed since the publication of 

the proposed rule. This rule should 

provide greater stability and clarity in 

this important area of the law. This rule 

will also provide guidance to the 

following adjudicators: USCIS asylum 

officers, Department of Justice Executive 

Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) 

immigration judges, and members of the 

EOIR Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA). 

Furthermore, on February 2, 2021, 

President Biden issued Executive Order 

14010 that directs DOJ and DHS within 

270 days of the date of this order, [to] 

promulgate joint regulations, consistent 

with applicable law, addressing the 

circumstances in which a person should 

be considered a member of a ‘‘particular 

social group,’’ as that term is used in 8 

U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A), as derived from 

the 1951 Convention relating to the 

Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The purpose 

of this rule is to provide guidance on 

certain issues that have arisen in the 

context of asylum and withholding 

adjudications. The 1951 Geneva 

Convention relating to the Status of 

Refugees contains the internationally 

accepted definition of a refugee. United 

States immigration law incorporates an 

almost identical definition of a refugee 

as a person outside his or her country 

of origin ‘‘who is unable or unwilling to 

return to, and is unable or unwilling to 

avail himself or herself of the protection 

of, that country because of persecution 

or a well-founded fear of persecution on 

account of race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, 

or political opinion.’’ Section 101(a)(42) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Alternatives: Because this rulemaking 

is mandated by executive order to be 

completed within a short timeframe, 

there are no feasible alternatives at this 

time. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOJ 

and DHS are currently considering the 

specific cost and benefit impacts of the 

proposed provisions. 

Risks: Without this rulemaking, the 

circumstances by which a person is 

considered a member of a particular 

social group will continue to be subject 

to judicial and agency interpretation, 

which may differ by circuit and changes 

in administration. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

URL For More Information: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Lauren Alder Reid, 

Assistant Director, Office of Policy, 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, Department of Justice, 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1800, 

Falls Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703 

305–0289, Email: pao.eoir@usdoj.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1125–AA94, 

Related to 1615–AC65, Related to 1615– 

AC42. 

RIN: 1125–AB13 

DOJ—EOIR 

108. Procedures for Asylum and 

Withholding of Removal 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103(g); 8 

U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4)(B); 8 U.S.C. 

1158(d)(5)(B) 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1003.10; 8 CFR 

1208; 8 CFR 1235; 8 CFR 1240. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On December 16, 2020, by 

the rule titled Procedures for Asylum 

and Withholding of Removal (RIN 

1125–AA93) the Department of Justice 

(Department) amended the regulations 

governing asylum and withholding of 

removal, including changes to what 

must be included with an application 

for it to be considered complete and the 

consequences of filing an incomplete 

application, and changes related to the 

180-day asylum adjudications clock. To 

revise the regulations related to 

adjudicatory procedures for asylum and 

withholding of removal, the Department 

is planning to rescind or modify the 

regulatory revisions made by that rule 

under this RIN. 

Statement of Need: This proposed 

rule will revise the regulations related to 

adjudicatory procedures for asylum and 

withholding of removal. On December 

16, 2020, the Department of Justice 

(Department) amended the regulations 

governing asylum and withholding of 

removal, including changes to what 

must be included with an application 

for it to be considered complete and the 

consequences of filing an incomplete 

application, and changes related to the 

180-day asylum adjudications clock. 

Procedures for Asylum and Withholding 

of Removal, 85 FR 81698 (RIN 1125– 

AA93). In light of Executive Orders 

14010 and 14012, 86 FR 8267 (Feb. 2, 

2021) and 86 FR 8277 (Feb. 2, 2021), the 

Department reconsidered its position on 

those matters and now issues this 

proposed rule to revise the regulations 

accordingly. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Attorney 

General has general authority under 8 

U.S.C. 1103(g) to establish regulations 

related to the immigration and 

naturalization of noncitizens. More 

specifically, under 8 U.S.C. 

1158(d)(5)(B), the Attorney General has 

authority to provide by regulation 

additional conditions and limitations 

consistent with the INA for the 

consideration of asylum applications. 

Thus, this proposed rule utilizes such 

authority to propose revisions to the 

regulations related to adjudicatory 

procedures for asylum and withholding 

of removal pursuant, in part, to 8 U.S.C. 

1229a(c)(4)(B). 

Alternatives: Unless the Department 

relies on litigation to permanently 

enjoin the December 2020 rule, 85 FR 

81698 (Dec. 16, 2020), there are no other 

alternatives to revise the regulations. 

Relying on litigation could be extremely 

time-burdensome and may introduce 

confusion as to effectiveness of the 

regulations. Thus, the Department 

considers this alternative to be an 

inadequate and inadvisable course of 

action. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Department believes this proposed rule 

will not be economically significant. 

The Department believes the costs to the 

public will be negligible, if any, given 

that costs will revert to those 

established prior to the December 2020 

rule. This proposed rule imposes no 

new additional costs to the Department 

or to respondents: Respondents have 

always been required to submit 

complete asylum applications in order 

to have them adjudicated, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5114 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

immigration judges have always 

maintained the authority to set 

deadlines. In addition, this proposed 

rule proposes no new fees. The 

Department believes that this proposed 

rule would impose only minimal, if any, 

direct costs on the public. Any new 

minimal cost would be limited to the 

cost of the public familiarizing itself 

with proposed rule, although, as 

previously stated, the proposed rule 

reinstates most of the regulatory 

language to that which was in effect 

before the December 2020 rule. Further, 

an immigration judge’s ability to set 

filing deadlines is already established 

by regulation, and filing deadlines for 

both applications and supporting 

documents are already well-established 

aspects of immigration court 

proceedings guided by regulations and 

the OCIJ Practice Manual. Thus, the 

Department expects little in the 

proposed rule to require extensive 

familiarization. 

Risks: Without this rulemaking, the 

regulations will remain enjoined 

pending litigation (as described in the 

Alternatives section). This is 

inadvisable, as litigation typically takes 

an inordinate time to resolve. The 

Department highly prefers proactively 

addressing the regulations through this 

proposed rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: Related to 

EOIR Docket No. 19–0010. 

URL For More Information: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Lauren Alder Reid, 

Assistant Director, Office of Policy, 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, Department of Justice, 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1800, 

Falls Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703 

305–0289, Email: pao.eoir@usdoj.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1125–AA93. 

RIN: 1125–AB15 

DOJ—EOIR 

109. Appellate Procedures and 

Decisional Finality in Immigration 

Proceedings; Administrative Closure 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 

521; 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 

U.S.C. 1154–1155; 8 U.S.C. 1158; 8 

U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 1226; 8 U.S.C. 

1229; 8 U.S.C. 1229a; 8 U.S.C. 1229b; 8 

U.S.C. 1229c; 8 U.S.C. 1231; 8 U.S.C. 

1254a; 8 U.S.C. 1255; 8 U.S.C. 1324d; 8 

U.S.C. 1330; 8 U.S.C. 1361–1362; 28 

U.S.C. 509–510; 28 U.S.C. 1746; sec. 2 

Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1950, 3 CFR 1949– 

1953, Comp. p. 1002; sec. 203 of Pub. 

L. 105–100, 111 Stat. 2196–200; secs. 

1506 and 1510 of Pub. L. 106–386, 114 

Stat. 1527–29, 1531–32; sec. 1505 of 

Pub. L. 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763A–326 to 

–328 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1003.1; 8 CFR 

1003.2; 8 CFR 1003.3; 8 CFR 1003.10. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On December 16, 2020, by a 

rule titled Appellate Procedures and 

Decisional Finality in Immigration 

Proceedings; Administrative Closure 

(RIN 1125–AA96) the Department of 

Justice (Department) amended its 

regulations regarding appellate 

procedures to ensure that immigration 

proceeding appeals are adjudicated in 

an efficient manner and to eliminate 

unnecessary remands by the Board of 

Immigration Appeals. The Department 

also amended its regulations to promote 

the final disposition of cases at both the 

immigration court and appellate levels. 

The Department is planning to modify 

or rescind those regulations under this 

RIN. 

Statement of Need: On December 16, 

2020, the Department of Justice 

(Department) amended the regulations 

related to processing of appeals and 

administrative closure. Appellate 

Procedures and Decisional Finality in 

Immigration Proceedings; 

Administrative Closure, 85 FR 81588 

(RIN 1125–AA96). In light of Executive 

Orders 14010 and 14012, 86 FR 8267 

(Feb. 2, 2021) and 86 FR 8277 (Feb. 2, 

2021), the Department reconsidered its 

position on those matters and now 

issues this proposed rule to revise the 

regulations accordingly and make other 

related amendments. This proposed rule 

clarifies immigration judge and Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) authority, 

including providing general 

administrative closure authority and the 

ability to sua sponte reopen and 

reconsider cases. The proposed rule also 

revises BIA standards involving 

adjudication timelines, briefing 

schedules, self-certification, remands, 

background checks, administrative 

notice, and voluntary departure. Lastly, 

the proposed rule removes the EOIR 

Director’s authority to issue decisions in 

certain cases, removes the ability of 

immigration judges to certify cases for 

quality assurance, and revises 

procedures for the forwarding of the 

record on appeal, as well as other minor 

revisions. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Attorney 

General has general authority under 8 

U.S.C. 1103(g) to establish regulations 

related to the immigration and 

naturalization of noncitizens. Thus, this 

proposed rule utilizes such authority to 

propose revisions to the regulations 

regarding immigration appeals 

processing and administrative closure. 

Alternatives: Unless the Department 

relies on litigation to permanently 

enjoin the December 2020 rule, 85 FR 

81588 (Dec. 16, 2020), there are no other 

alternatives to revise the regulations. 

Relying on litigation could be extremely 

time-burdensome and may introduce 

confusion as to effectiveness of the 

regulations. Thus, the Department 

considers this alternative to be an 

inadequate and inadvisable course of 

action. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Department is largely reinstating the 

briefing schedules that the December 

2020 rule revised. As stated in the 

December 2020 rule, 85 FR at 81650, the 

basic briefing procedures have remained 

across rules; thus, the Department 

believes the costs to the public will be 

negligible, if any, given that costs will 

revert back to those established for 

decades prior to the December 2020 

rule. The proposed rule imposes no new 

additional costs, as much of the 

proposed rule involves internal case 

processing. For those provisions that 

constitute more than simple internal 

case processing measures, such as the 

amendments to the BIA’s administrative 

closure authority, they likewise would 

not impose significant costs to the 

public. Indeed, such measures would 

generally reduce costs, as they facilitate 

and reintroduce various mechanisms for 

fair, efficient case processing. 

Risks: Without this rulemaking, the 

regulations will remain enjoined 

pending litigation (as described in the 

Alternatives section). This is 

inadvisable, as litigation typically takes 

an inordinate time to resolve. The 

Department highly prefers proactively 

addressing the regulations through this 

proposed rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: Related to 

EOIR Docket No. 19–0022. 

URL For More Information: http://

www.regulations.gov. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5115 

URL For Public Comments: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Lauren Alder Reid, 

Assistant Director, Office of Policy, 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, Department of Justice, 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1800, 

Falls Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703 

305–0289, Email: pao.eoir@usdoj.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1125–AA96. 

RIN: 1125–AB18 

DOJ—EOIR 

Final Rule Stage 

110. Professional Conduct for 

Practitioners—Rules and Procedures, 

and Representation and Appearances 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 

U.S.C. 1326 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1003. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule amends 

Department of Justice regulations 

addressing the assistance of individuals 

with the writing or filing of documents 

in proceedings before the Executive 

Office for Immigration Review. The rule 

also proposes to make minor technical 

revisions and to amend outdated 

references to the former Immigration 

and Naturalization Service. 

Statement of Need: This rule would 

establish procedures for practitioners to 

provide individual document assistance 

without triggering the full obligations 

required of practitioners engaging in full 

representation of a noncitizen in EOIR 

proceedings. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Attorney 

General has general authority under 8 

U.S.C. 1103(g) to establish regulations 

related to the immigration and 

naturalization of noncitizens. Thus, this 

proposed rule utilizes such authority to 

propose revisions to the regulations 

regarding the procedures for 

practitioners to assist noncitizens in 

removal proceedings. 

Alternatives: There are no feasible 

alternatives that will make the necessary 

changes to the representation 

requirement. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: EOIR 

expects the costs resulting from this rule 

to be de minimis, as it does not impose 

new or additional costs on EOIR, 

practitioners, or noncitizens. 

Additionally, the number of 

practitioners impacted by this rule 

would be insignificant because most 

practitioners do not solely provide 

preparation of a filing and are already 

required to file a Notice of Entry of 

Appearance as an Attorney or 

Representative with EOIR. 

Risks: Without this rulemaking, 

noncitizens may be at risk of being 

defrauded by unqualified individuals 

offering assistance with immigration 

documents. Additionally, without 

assistance from a practitioner, 

noncitizens may be at risk of failing to 

obtain benefits for which they are 

otherwise eligible. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 03/27/19 84 FR 11446 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

04/26/19 

NPRM .................. 09/30/20 85 FR 61640 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

10/30/20 

Final Action ......... 11/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Lauren Alder Reid, 

Assistant Director, Office of Policy, 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, Department of Justice, 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1800, 

Falls Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703 

305–0289, Email: pao.eoir@usdoj.gov. 

RIN: 1125–AA83 

DOJ—EOIR 

111. Procedures for Credible Fear 

Screening and Consideration of 

Asylum, Withholding of Removal and 

CAT Protection Claims by Asylum 

Officers 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103(g); 8 

U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(C); 8 U.S.C. 

1158(d)(5)(B); 8 U.S.C. 1225; 8 U.S.C. 

1231(b)(3) 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 235; 

8 CFR 1003; 8 CFR 1208; 8 CFR 1235. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Justice 

and the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) propose to amend the 

regulations so that individuals found to 

have a credible fear can have their 

claims for asylum, withholding of 

removal under section 241(b)(3) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act 

(statutory withholding of removal), or 

protection under the regulations issued 

pursuant to the legislation 

implementing the Convention Against 

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 

Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 

initially adjudicated by an asylum 

officer within DHS with administrative 

review of the decision by the Executive 

Office for Immigration Review. 

Statement of Need: There is wide 

agreement that the system for dealing 

with asylum and related protection 

claims at the southwest border has long 

been overwhelmed and in desperate 

need of repair. As the number of such 

claims has skyrocketed over the years, 

the system has proven unable to keep 

pace, resulting in large backlogs and 

lengthy adjudication delays. A system 

that takes years to reach a result delays 

justice and certainty for those who need 

protection, and it encourages abuse by 

those who will not qualify for protection 

and smugglers who exploit the delay for 

profit. The aim of this rule is to begin 

replacing the current system, within the 

confines of the law, with a better and 

more efficient one that will adjudicate 

protection claims fairly and 

expeditiously. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Attorney 

General has general authority under 8 

U.S.C. 1103(g) to establish regulations 

related to the immigration and 

naturalization of noncitizens. More 

specifically, under 8 U.S.C. 

1158(b)(2)(C) and (d)(5)(B), the Attorney 

General has authority to provide by 

regulation additional conditions and 

limitations consistent with the INA for 

the consideration of asylum 

applications. Thus, this proposed rule 

utilizes such authority to propose 

revisions to the regulations related to 

processing procedures for asylum and 

withholding of removal claims pursuant 

to 8 U.S.C. 1225 and 1231. 

Alternatives: There are no feasible 

alternatives that make similarly 

impactful changes to the system without 

a more widespread overhaul of the 

entire system in one rulemaking. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS 

estimated the resource cost needed to 

implement and operationalize the rule 

along a range of possible future credible 

fear volumes. The average annualized 

costs could range from $179.5 million to 

$995.8 million at a 7 percent discount 

rate. At a 7 percent discount factor, the 

total ten-year costs could range from 

$1.3 billion to $7.0 billion, with a 

midrange of $3.2 billion. 

There could also be cost-savings 

related to Forms I–589 and I–765 filing 

volume changes. In addition, some 

asylum applicants may realize potential 

early labor earnings, which could 

constitute a transfer from workers in the 

U.S. labor force to certain asylum 

applicants, as well as tax impacts. 

Qualitative benefits include, but may 

not be limited to: (i) Beneficiaries of 

new parole standards may not have to 

wait lengthy times for a decision on 

whether their asylum claims will 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5116 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

receive further consideration; (ii) some 

individuals could benefit from de novo 

review by an IJ of the asylum officer’s 

denial of their asylum; (iii) DOJ–EOIR 

may focus efforts on other priority work 

and reduce its substantial current 

backlog; (iv) as some applicants may be 

able to earn income earlier than they 

otherwise could currently, burdens to 

the support network of the applicant 

may be lessened. 

Risks: Without this rulemaking, the 

current system will remain status quo. 

The backlogs and delays will continue 

to grow, and potential for abuse will 

remain. Most importantly, noncitizens 

in need of protection will continue to 

experience delays in the adjudication of 

their claims. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/20/21 86 FR 46906 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

10/19/21 

Final Action ......... 03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Additional Information: Joint rule 

with DHS 1616–AC67. 

URL For More Information: http://

regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: http://

regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Lauren Alder Reid, 

Assistant Director, Office of Policy, 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, Department of Justice, 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1800, 

Falls Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703 

305–0289, Email: pao.eoir@usdoj.gov. 

RIN: 1125–AB20 

BILLING CODE 4410–BP–P 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Fall 2021 Statement of Regulatory 

Priorities 

Introduction 

The Department’s Fall 2021 

Regulatory Agenda continues to 

advance the Department’s mission to 

foster, promote, and develop the welfare 

of wage earners, job seekers, and 

retirees; improve working conditions; 

advance opportunities for profitable 

employment; and assure work-related 

benefits and rights. These rules will 

strengthen protections for some of the 

Nation’s most vulnerable workers, 

empower and support opportunities for 

advancement, secure our safety nets and 

advance equity and economic security. 

In just the first months of the Biden 

Administration, the Department of 

Labor has begun historic rulemakings on 

issues central to workers in the United 

States and their families, including 

worker safety, protections from 

discrimination, fair wages, and 

retirement security and health care. 

These include the following 

rulemakings: 

• We issued an Emergency 

Temporary Standard to help protect 

millions of frontline healthcare workers 

from exposure and spread of COVID–19, 

a virus that has already claimed the 

lives of over 750,000 people in the U.S. 

We also issued an Emergency 

Temporary Standard on Vaccination 

and Testing to protect more than 84 

million additional workers from the 

consequences of COVID–19 exposure on 

the job. These science-based standards 

outline workplace safety protocols and 

will help save thousands of lives and 

prevents hundreds of thousands of 

hospitalizations. 

• We finalized Interim Final Rules 

with the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, the U.S. Department of 

Treasury, and the Office of Personnel 

Management to implement the No 

Surprises Act and protect people from 

unexpected medical expenses. Surprise 

billing can cause economic devastation 

for patients. This rule puts patients first 

by providing safeguards to keep families 

from financial ruin when they need 

medical care. 

• We have also expeditiously 

withdrawn or rescinded rules as 

necessary to protect and strengthen 

workers’ economic security, including 

withdrawing the Independent 

Contractor Rule and rescinding the Joint 

Employer Rule. 

The 2021 Regulatory Plan highlights 

the Labor Department’s most 

noteworthy and significant rulemaking 

efforts, with each addressing the top 

priorities of its regulatory agencies: 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration (EBSA), Employment 

and Training Administration (ETA), 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

(MSHA), Office of Federal Contract 

Compliance Programs (OFCCP), 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs 

(OWCP), and Wage and Hour Division 

(WHD). These regulatory priorities 

exemplify the Secretary’s agenda to 

empower all workers morning, noon, 

and night, including: 

• Investing in and valuing the 

nation’s care economy; 

• Building a safe, modern, inclusive 

workforce; and 

• Supporting a lifetime of worker 

empowerment. 

Under Secretary Walsh’s leadership, 

the Department is committed to 

ensuring that equity, a strong 

foundation of evidence, and extensive 

stakeholder outreach are integral to all 

of our regulatory efforts. Our Regulatory 

Agenda additionally reflects our 

ongoing commitment to the Biden 

Administration’s prioritization of 

economic relief, raising wages, and 

addressing the threat of climate change, 

while embedding equity across the 

department’s agencies, policies, and 

programs. 

Investing In and Valuing the Nation’s 

Care Economy 

The Department’s regulatory priorities 

reflect the Secretary’s focus on care 

infrastructure to ensure workers have 

the opportunity and support to thrive in 

their jobs. That means ensuring workers 

can care for their families without 

risking their jobs, stay home when 

they’re sick or when they need to care 

for a sick family member, and have 

access to the resources they need to 

manage their mental health. 

• EBSA’s rulemaking implementing 

the Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act (MHPAEA) will strengthen 

health enforcement by clarifying plan 

and issuer obligations, promote 

compliance and address amendments to 

the Act from the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2021. 

In addition, OSHA will supplement 

its outreach and enforcement with 

rulemaking that protects employees in 

the care economy. Enhancing our care 

infrastructure starts with making sure 

our frontline care providers are safe on 

the job. 

• OSHA will propose an Infectious 

Diseases rulemaking to protect 

employees in healthcare and other high 

risk environments from exposure to and 

transmission of persistent and new 

infectious diseases, ranging from 

ancient scourges such as tuberculosis to 

newer threats such as Severe Acute 

Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), the 2019 

Novel Coronavirus (COVID–19), and 

other diseases. 

• OSHA will initiate small business 

consultations as its first step in 

developing a Workplace Violence 

rulemaking, to provide protections for 

healthcare and other care economy 

workers, who are the most frequent 

victims of violence on the job. 

Building a Safe, Modern, Inclusive 

Workforce 

The Department’s regulatory priorities 

reflect the Secretary’s focus on ensuring 

people can have a good job and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5117 

opportunity for advancement. That 

means people can have a job that is safe, 

a job that pays a fair wage, a job that 

does not discriminate and that has 

opportunities for advancement. And 

that means a job where workers have a 

seat at the table and have a say in their 

work. 

The Department’s health and safety 

regulatory proposals are aimed at 

eliminating preventable workplace 

injuries, illnesses and fatalities. 

Workplace safety also protects workers’ 

economic security, ensuring that illness 

and injury do not force families into 

poverty. Our efforts will prevent 

workers from having to choose between 

their lives and their livelihood. 

• OSHA will propose a rulemaking 

on heat illness prevention. Increased 

temperatures are posing a serious threat 

to workers laboring outdoors and in 

non-climate controlled indoor settings. 

Exposure to excessive heat is not only 

a hazard in itself, causing heat illness 

and even death; it is also an indirect 

hazard linked to the loss of cognitive 

skills which can also lead to workplace 

injuries and worker deaths. OSHA will 

develop a standard to protect workers 

from these heat hazards in the 

workplace, helping to save lives while 

we confront the growing threat of 

climate change. 

• MSHA will propose a new silica 

standard to effectively assess health 

concerns with a goal of ensuring that all 

miners are safe at their work places. 

• MSHA will promulgate a rule 

establishing that mine operators must 

develop and implement a written safety 

program for surface mobile equipment 

used at surface mines and surface areas 

of underground mines, in order to 

provide safe environments for miners. 

The Department’s regulatory agenda 

prioritizes workers’ economic security; 

ensures they receive a fair day’s pay for 

a fair day’s work, and do not face 

discrimination in hiring, employment, 

or benefits on the basis of race, gender, 

religion, disability, national origin, 

veteran’s status, sexual orientation, or 

gender identity. ETA, OFCCP and WHD 

will focus on regulatory changes that 

will have significant impact on workers 

of color, immigrant workers, and 

workers with disabilities. 

• OFCCP is proposing to rescind 

certain provisions related to the 

religious exemption for federal 

contractors and subcontractors, ensuring 

that the religious exemption contained 

in Executive Order 11246 is applied 

consistently with nondiscrimination 

principles of Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, as amended. 

• OFCCP will issue a proposal to 

modify the procedures for resolving 

potential employment discrimination, 

which is creating hurdles to effective 

enforcement. 

• WHD issued regulations to 

implement President Biden’s executive 

order requiring federal contractors to 

pay a $15 minimum wage to hundreds 

of thousands of workers who are 

working on federal contracts. This will 

eliminate subminimum wages paid to 

some tipped workers and workers with 

disabilities, improve the economic 

security of families and make progress 

toward reversing decades of income 

inequality. 

• WHD is proposing to update and 

modernize the regulations 

implementing the Davis Bacon and 

Related Acts to provide greater clarity 

and ensure workers are truly paid local 

prevailing wages on federal construction 

contracts. 

• WHD will propose updates to the 

overtime regulations to ensure that 

middle class jobs pay middle class 

wages, extending important overtime 

pay protections to millions of workers 

and raising their pay. 

• WHD engaged in rulemaking to 

ensure the economic security of tipped 

workers. 

• ETA will ensure fair wages and 

strengthen protections for foreign and 

U.S. workers under the H–1B/H–2A visa 

programs through regulatory changes. 

The Department is committed to 

ensuring workers have opportunities for 

employment and training and 

advancement in their jobs. 

• ETA will ensure job-seekers can 

more easily get the support they need by 

proposing changes to the Wagner-Peyser 

Employment Service regulations. 

• ETA is focused on ensuring highquality apprenticeship programs, and as 

part of this, has proposed rescinding 

Industry Recognized Apprenticeship 

Programs (IRAP) rules and suspending 

further application review efforts for 

new IRAP Standard Recognition Entities 

in order to renew focus on Registered 

Apprenticeship. 

The Department is committed to 

ensuring workers have a seat at the table 

and furthering this Administration’s 

support for unions and workers who are 

organizing unions, which are critical to 

achieving economic fairness and racial 

and gender justice. 

Supporting a Lifetime of Worker 

Empowerment 

We are focused on making sure 

people do not have to worry that the 

loss of a job or need for medical care 

will destroy their financial well-being. 

People should be able to save for 

retirement, access health care, and have 

the support they need to get through a 

personal or family crisis or when they 

become injured or ill on the job. 

• EBSA will support the 

administration’s agenda to address the 

threat of climate change by 

implementing two executive orders that 

increase transparency in climate-related 

financial investment options. To carry 

out Executive Order 13990 ‘‘Protecting 

Public Health and the Environment and 

Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate 

Crisis,’’ and Executive Order 14030, 

‘‘Climate-Related Financial Risks,’’ 

EBSA is proposing to remove provisions 

of the current regulation that 

inappropriately discourage 

consideration of environmental, social, 

and governance issues by fiduciaries in 

making investment and proxy voting 

decisions, and provide further clarity 

that would help safeguard the interests 

of participants and beneficiaries in the 

plan benefits. 

DOL—OFFICE OF FEDERAL 

CONTRACT COMPLIANCE 

PROGRAMS (OFCCP) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

112. Proposal To Rescind Implementing 

Legal Requirements Regarding the 

Equal Opportunity Clause’s Religious 

Exemption 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: E.O. 11246 

CFR Citation: 41 CFR 60–1. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Office of Federal 

Contract Compliance Programs is 

proposing to rescind the December 8, 

2020, final rule, ‘‘Implementing Legal 

Requirements Regarding the Equal 

Opportunity Clause’s Religious 

Exemption’’ (85 FR 79324), which 

would include the removal of certain 

definitions at 41 CFR 60–1.3 related to 

the religious exemption and 41 CFR 60– 

1.5(e) and (f). The rescission would 

ensure that the religious exemption 

contained in section 204(c) of Executive 

Order 11246 is consistent with 

nondiscrimination principles of Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 

amended. The notice of proposed 

rescission was published on November 

9, 2021. 

Statement of Need: The Office of 

Federal Contract Compliance Programs 

issued a proposal to rescind the 

regulations established in the final rule 

titled Implementing Legal Requirements 

Regarding the Equal Opportunity 

Clause’s Religious Exemption and 

returning to the agency’s traditional 

approach, which applies Title VII 

principles and applicable case law and 

thus will promote clarity and 

consistency in the application of the 

religious exemption. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5118 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Summary of Legal Basis: Executive 

Order 11246 (as amended). 

Alternatives: OFCCP considered the 

alternative of engaging in affirmative 

rulemaking to replace the 2020 rule 

rather than rescinding it. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Department prepared estimates of the 

anticipated costs and discussed benefits 

associated with the proposed rule. 

Risks: To be determined. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/15/19 84 FR 41677 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

09/16/19 

Final Rule ............ 12/09/20 85 FR 79324 

Final Rule Effective.01/08/21 

Notification of 

Proposed Rescission.

11/09/21 86 FR 62115 

Notification of 

Proposed Rescission Comment Period 

End.

12/09/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

URL For Public Comments: https://

www.regulations.gov/document/OFCCP2021-0001-0001. 

Agency Contact: Tina Williams, 

Director, Division of Policy and Program 

Development, Department of Labor, 

Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Room C–3325, Washington, DC 20210, 

Phone: 202 693–0104, Email: 

williams.tina.t@dol.gov. 

RIN: 1250–AA09 

DOL—OFCCP 

113. Modification of Procedures To 

Resolve Potential Employment 

Discrimination 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: E.O. 11246; 29 U.S.C. 

793; 38 U.S.C. 4216 

CFR Citation: 41 CFR 60–1, 60–2, 60– 

4, 60–20, 60–30; 41 CFR 60–40, 60–50, 

60–300, 60–741. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposal would modify 

certain provisions set forth in the 

November 10, 2020 final rule, 

Nondiscrimination Obligations of 

Federal Contractors and Subcontractors: 

Procedures To Resolve Potential 

Employment Discrimination (85 FR 

71553) and make other related changes 

to the pre-enforcement notice and 

conciliation process. The proposal will 

promote effective enforcement through 

OFCCP’s regulatory procedures. 

Statement of Need: The Office of 

Federal Contract Compliance Programs 

intends to issue a Proposed Rule to 

modify regulations that delineate 

procedures and standards the agency 

follows when issuing pre-enforcement 

notices and securing compliance 

through conciliation. This proposal 

would support OFCCP in fulfilling its 

mission to ensure equal employment 

opportunity. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Executive 

Order 11246 (as amended), section 503 

of the Rehabilitation Act (as amended), 

and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ 

Readjustment Assistance Act (as 

amended). 

Alternatives: To be determined. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Department will prepare estimates of 

the anticipated costs and discuss 

benefits associated with the proposed 

rule. 

Risks: To be determined. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Tina Williams, 

Director, Division of Policy and Program 

Development, Department of Labor, 

Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Room C–3325, Washington, DC 20210, 

Phone: 202 693–0104, Email: 

williams.tina.t@dol.gov. 

RIN: 1250–AA14 

DOL—WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION 

(WHD) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

114. Defining and Delimiting the 

Exemptions for Executive, 

Administrative, Professional, Outside 

Sales and Computer Employees 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.; 

29 U.S.C. 213 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 541. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: WHD is reviewing the 

regulations at 29 CFR 541, which 

implement the exemption of bona fide 

executive, administrative, and 

professional employees from the Fair 

Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage 

and overtime requirements. 

Statement of Need: One of the 

primary goals of this rulemaking would 

be to update the salary level 

requirement of the section 13(a)(1) 

exemption. A salary level test has been 

part of the regulations since 1938 and it 

has been long recognized that the best 

single test of the employer’s good faith 

in attributing to the employee’s services 

is the amount he pays for them. In prior 

rulemakings, the Department explained 

its commitment to update the standard 

salary level and Highly Compensated 

Employees (HCE) total compensation 

levels more frequently. Regular updates 

promote greater stability, avoid 

disruptive salary level increases that can 

result from lengthy gaps between 

updates and provide appropriate wage 

protection. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

13(a)(1) of the FLSA, codified at 29 

U.S.C. 213(a)(1), exempts any employee 

employed in a bona fide executive, 

administrative, or professional capacity 

or in the capacity of outside salesman 

(as such terms are defined and 

delimited from time to time by 

regulations of the Secretary, subject to 

the provisions of the [Administrative 

Procedure Act.]) The FLSA does not 

define the terms executive, 

administrative, professional, or outside 

salesman. However, pursuant to 

Congress’ grant of rulemaking authority, 

the Department issued regulations at 29 

CFR part 541, defining the scope of the 

section 13(a)(1) exemptions. Congress 

explicitly delegated to the Secretary of 

Labor the power to define and delimit 

the specific terms of the exemptions 

through notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. 

Alternatives: Alternatives will be 

developed in considering proposed 

revisions to the current regulations. The 

public will be invited to provide 

comments on the proposed revisions 

and possible alternatives. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Department will prepare estimates of 

the anticipated costs and benefits 

associated with the proposed rule. 

Risks: This action does not affect 

public health, safety, or the 

environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5119 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Amy DeBisschop, 

Director of the Division of Regulations, 

Legislation, and Interpretation, 

Department of Labor, Wage and Hour 

Division, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, 

FP Building, Room S–3502, 

Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693– 

0406. 

RIN: 1235–AA39 

DOL—WHD 

115. Modernizing the Davis-Bacon and 

Related Acts Regulations 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3141 et 

seq.; 40 U.S.C. 3145 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1; 29 CFR 3; 29 

CFR 5; 29 CFR 6; 29 CFR 7. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) 

was enacted in 1931 and amended in 

1935 and 1964. The DBA requires the 

payment of locally prevailing wages and 

fringe benefits to laborers and 

mechanics as determined by the 

Department of Labor. The DBA applies 

to direct Federal contracts and District 

of Columbia contracts in excess of 

$2,000 for the construction, alteration, 

or repair of public buildings or public 

works. Congress has included DBA 

prevailing wage requirements in 

numerous statutes (referred to as 

Related Acts) under which Federal 

agencies assist construction projects 

through grants, loans, guarantees, 

insurance, and other methods. Covered 

contractors and subcontractors must pay 

their laborers and mechanics employed 

under the contract no less than the 

locally prevailing wage rates and fringe 

benefits as required by the applicable 

wage determination. The Department 

proposes to update and modernize the 

regulations implementing the DavisBacon and Related Acts to provide 

greater clarity and enhance their 

usefulness in the modern economy. 

Statement of Need: The Department 

proposes to update and modernize the 

regulations implementing the DavisBacon and Related Acts to provide 

greater clarity and enhance their 

usefulness in the modern economy. 

Summary of Legal Basis: These 

regulations are authorized by Title 40, 

sections 3141–3148. Minimum wages 

are defined as those determined by the 

Secretary to be (a) prevailing; (b) in the 

locality of the project; (c) for similar 

craft and skills; (d) on comparable 

construction work. See section 3142. 

Alternatives: Alternatives will be 

developed in considering proposed 

revisions to the current regulations. The 

public will be invited to provide 

comments on the proposed revisions 

and possible alternatives. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Department will prepare estimates of 

the anticipated costs and benefits 

associated with the proposed rule. 

Risks: This action does not affect 

public health, safety, or the 

environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Amy DeBisschop, 

Director of the Division of Regulations, 

Legislation, and Interpretation, 

Department of Labor, Wage and Hour 

Division, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, 

FP Building, Room S–3502, 

Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693– 

0406. 

RIN: 1235–AA40 

DOL—WHD 

Final Rule Stage 

116. Tip Regulations Under the Fair 

Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under Public 

Law 104–4. 

Legal Authority: Fair Labor Standards 

Act; 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.; 29 U.S.C. 

203(m); Pub. L. 115–141 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 531; 29 CFR 10; 

29 CFR 516; 29 CFR 578; 29 CFR 579; 

29 CFR 580. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: In the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2018 (‘‘CAA’’), 

Congress amended section 3(m) of the 

Fair Labor Standards Act (‘‘FLSA’’) to 

prohibit employers from keeping tips 

received by their employees, regardless 

of whether the employers take a tip 

credit under section 3(m). Congress also 

amended section 16(e) of the FLSA to 

allow the Department to impose civil 

money penalties (‘‘CMPs’’) when 

employers unlawfully keep employees’ 

tips. On December 30, 2020, the Wage 

and Hour Division (‘‘WHD’’) published 

Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (the ‘‘2020 Tip final 

rule’’) in the Federal Register to address 

these amendments and to codify 

guidance regarding the FLSA tip credit’s 

application to employees who perform 

tipped and non-tipped duties. The 

effective date of the 2020 Tip final rule 

was March 1, 2021, but the Department 

extended that date until April 30, 2021, 

in accordance with the Presidential 

directive as expressed in the 

memorandum of January 20, 2021, from 

the Assistant to the President and Chief 

of Staff. The Department further delayed 

three portions of the 2020 Tip final rule 

until December 31, 2021: Two portions 

addressing the assessment of CMPs and 

the portion addressing the application 

of the FLSA tip credit to tipped 

employees who perform tipped and 

non-tipped duties. The Department 

proposed to withdraw these three 

portions of the 2020 Tip final rule and 

proposed new language addressing 

these three issues. On September 24, 

2021, a Department final rule (CMP final 

rule) was published in the Federal 

Register, which among other things, 

adopted language upholding the 

Department’s statutorily-granted 

discretion with regard to section 

3(m)(2)(B) CMPs, and aligned the 

Department’s regulations with the 

FLSA’s statutory text. On June 23, 2021, 

the Department published an NPRM 

(Dual Jobs NPRM) in the Federal 

Register, 86 FR 32818, proposing to 

withdraw and repropose the portion of 

the 2020 Tip final rule addressing when 

a tipped employee performs both tipped 

and non-tipped duties under the FLSA. 

The comment period closed on August 

23, 2021. The Department published a 

final rule on October 29, 2021 to finalize 

its proposal to withdraw one portion of 

the Tip Regulations Under the FLSA 

(2020 Tip final rule) and finalize its 

proposed revisions related to the 

determination of when a tipped 

employee is employed in dual jobs. 

Specifically, the Department amended 

its regulations to clarify that an 

employer may only take a tip credit 

when its tipped employees perform 

work that is part of the employee’s 

tipped occupation. 

Statement of Need: Upon review of 

the portion of the 2020 Tip final rule 

addressing when a tipped employee 

performs both tipped and non-tipped 

duties under the FLSA, the Department 

was concerned that the lack of clear 

guidelines in the rule regarding when a 

tipped employee who is performing 

non-tipped duties is still engaged in a 

tipped occupation, such that an 

employer can continue to take a tip 

credit for the time the tipped employee 

spends on such non-tipped work failed 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5120 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

to achieve its goal of providing certainty 

for employers and created the potential 

for the misuse of the FLSA tip credit. 

Among other things, the 2020 Tip final 

rule would have permitted an employer 

to take a tip credit for time that an 

employee in a tipped occupation spends 

performing related, non-tipped duties 

contemporaneously with tipped duties, 

or for a reasonable time immediately 

before or after performing the tipped 

duties. The Department believes that 

because the 2020 Tip final rule did not 

define these key terms, the 2020 Tip 

final rule will invite rather than limit 

litigation in this area, and thus may not 

support one of the rule’s stated 

justifications for departing from 

established guidance. The Dual Jobs 

final rule clarifies that an employer may 

only take a tip credit when its tipped 

employees perform work that is part of 

the employee’s tipped occupation. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Fair 

Labor Standards Act (FLSA or Act) 

generally requires covered employers to 

pay employees at least the federal 

minimum wage, which is currently 

$7.25 per hour. See 29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1). 

Section 3(m) of the FLSA allows an 

employer that meets certain 

requirements to take a credit toward its 

minimum wage obligations of a limited 

amount, currently up to $5.12 per hour, 

of the tips received by employees 

(known as a tip credit). See 29 U.S.C. 

203(m)(2)(A). Section 3(t) of the FLSA 

defines a tipped employee for whom an 

employer may take a tip credit under 

section 3(m) as any employee engaged 

in an occupation in which he 

customarily and regularly receives more 

than $30 a month in tips. See 29 U.S.C. 

203(t). The FLSA regulations addressing 

tipped employment are codified at 29 

CFR 531.50 through 531.60. See also 29 

CFR 10.28 (establishing a tip credit for 

federal contractor employees covered by 

Executive Order 13658 who are tipped 

employees under section 3(t) of the 

FLSA). 

Alternatives: The Department issued 

this final rule upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs; and that it is tailored to impose 

the least burden on society, consistent 

with obtaining the regulatory objectives; 

and that, in choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, the agency has 

selected those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. Executive Order 

13563 recognizes that some costs and 

benefits are difficult to quantify and 

provides that, when appropriate and 

permitted by law, agencies may 

consider and discuss qualitatively 

values that are difficult or impossible to 

quantify, including equity, human 

dignity, fairness, and distributive 

impacts. The analysis in the final rule 

outlines the impacts that the 

Department anticipates may result from 

this rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Department believes that the revisions 

to its regulations regarding when a 

tipped employee is employed in dual 

jobs provides increased clarity to 

employers and workers and ensures 

workers are paid the wages they are 

owed. In the Dual Jobs final rule, the 

Department estimated that these 

changes would lead to costs for Year 1 

that will consist of rule familiarization 

costs, adjustment costs, and 

management costs, and would be 

$224,882,399 ($23,827,236 + 

$23,827,236 + $177,227,926). For the 

following years, the Department 

estimates that costs will only consist of 

management costs and would be 

$177,227,926. Additionally, the 

Department estimated average 

annualized costs of this rule over 10 

years. Over 10 years, it will have an 

average annual cost of $183.6 million 

calculated at a 7 percent discount rate 

($151.1 million calculated at a 3 percent 

discount rate). All costs are in 2019 

dollars. 

Risks: This action does not affect 

public health, safety, or the 

environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/05/17 82 FR 57395 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

12/15/17 82 FR 59562 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

02/05/18 

NPRM; and Withdrawal of 

NPRM dated 

12/05/2017 (82 

FR 57395).

10/08/19 84 FR 53956 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

12/09/19 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extension.

12/11/19 84 FR 67681 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extension End.

12/11/19 

Final Rule (2020 

Tip final rule).

12/30/20 85 FR 86756 

Proposed Delay 

of Final Rule 

Effective Date 

(to 4/30/21).

02/05/21 86 FR 8325 

Proposed Delay 

of Final Rule 

Effective Date 

Comment Period End.

02/17/21 

Action Date FR Cite 

Final Rule Delay 

of Effective 

Date (to 4/30/ 

21).

02/26/21 86 FR 11632 

Final Rule Delay 

of Effective 

Date Effective.

04/30/21 

NPRM; Partial 

Withdrawal 

(CMP NPRM).

03/25/21 86 FR 15817 

NPRM; Partial 

Withdrawal 

(CMP NPRM) 

Comment Period End.

05/24/21 

NPRM; Proposed 

Delay of Effective Date (to 12/ 

31/2021).

03/25/21 86 FR 15811 

NPRM; Proposed 

Delay of Effective Date Comment Period 

End (to 12/31/ 

21).

04/14/21 

Final Rule; Delay 

of Effective 

Date (to 12/31/ 

21).

04/29/21 86 FR 22597 

Final Rule; Partial 

Withdrawal 

(CMP Final 

Rule).

09/24/21 86 FR 52973 

Final Rule; Partial 

Withdrawal 

(CMP Final 

Rule) Effective.

11/23/21 

NPRM; Partial 

Withdrawal 

(Dual Jobs 

NPRM).

06/23/21 86 FR 32818 

NPRM; Partial 

Withdrawal 

(Dual Jobs 

NPRM) Comment Period 

End.

08/23/21 

Final Rule; Partial 

Withdrawal 

(Dual Jobs 

Final Rule).

10/29/21 86 FR 60114 

Final Rule; Partial 

Withdrawal 

(Dual Jobs 

Final Rule) Effective.

12/28/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Amy DeBisschop, 

Director of the Division of Regulations, 

Legislation, and Interpretation, 

Department of Labor, Wage and Hour 

Division, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, 

FP Building, Room S–3502, 

Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693– 

0406. 

RIN: 1235–AA21 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5121 

DOL—WHD 

117. E.O. 14026, Increasing the 

Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under Public 

Law 104–4. 

Legal Authority: E.O. 14026 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 23; 29 CFR 10. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On April 27, 2021, President 

Joseph Biden issued E.O. 14026, 

Increasing the Minimum Wage for 

Federal Contractors to promote 

economy and efficiency in procurement 

by increasing the hourly minimum wage 

rate paid by parties that contract with 

the Federal Government to $15.00 for 

those employees working on or in 

connection with a Federal Government 

contract. These regulations will 

implement the Executive Order. 

Statement of Need: President Biden 

issued Executive Order 14026 pursuant 

to his authority under the Constitution 

and the laws of the United States, 

expressly including the Federal 

Property and Administrative Services 

Act (Procurement Act), 40 U.S.C. 101 et 

seq. 86 FR 22835. The Executive order 

directs the Secretary to issue regulations 

by November 24, 2021, consistent with 

applicable law, to implement the order’s 

requirements. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Procurement Act authorizes the 

President to prescribe policies and 

directives that the President considers 

necessary to carry out the statutory 

purposes of ensuring economical and 

efficient government procurement and 

administration of government property. 

40 U.S.C. 101, 121(a). Executive Order 

14026 delegates to the Secretary the 

authority to issue regulations to 

implement the requirements of this 

order. 86 FR 22836. The Secretary has 

delegated his authority to promulgate 

these regulations to the Administrator of 

the WHD and to the Deputy 

Administrator of the WHD if the 

Administrator position is vacant. 

Secretary’s Order 01–2014 (Dec. 19, 

2014), 79 FR 77527 (published Dec. 24, 

2014); Secretary’s Order 01–2017 (Jan. 

12, 2017), 82 FR 6653 (published Jan. 

19, 2017). 

Alternatives: The Department noted 

that due to the prescriptive nature of 

Executive Order 14026, the Department 

does not have the discretion to 

implement alternatives that would 

violate the text of the Executive order, 

such as the adoption of a higher or 

lower minimum wage rate, or continued 

exemption of recreational businesses. 

However, the Department considered 

several alternatives to discretionary 

proposals set forth in this final rule. In 

the final rule, the Department proposed 

to define the term United States, when 

used in a geographic sense, to mean the 

50 States, the District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Outer 

Continental Shelf lands as defined in 

the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 

American Samoa, Guam, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, Wake Island, and Johnston 

Island. 

The Department considered defining 

the term United States to exclude 

contracts performed in the territories 

listed above, consistent with the 

discretionary decision made in the 

Department’s prior rulemaking 

implementing Executive Order 13658. 

Such an alternative would result in 

fewer contracts covered by Executive 

Order 14026 and fewer workers entitled 

to an initial $15 hourly minimum wage 

for work performed on or in connection 

with such contracts. This alternative 

was rejected because the Department 

has further examined the issue since its 

prior rulemaking in 2014 and 

consequently determined that the 

Federal Government’s procurement 

interests in economy and efficiency 

would be promoted by extending the 

Executive Order 14026 minimum wage 

to workers performing on or in 

connection with covered contracts. 

A second alternative the Department 

considered in the final rule was raising 

(or eliminating) the 20 percent threshold 

for an exclusion for FLSA-covered 

workers performing in connection with 

covered contracts. If the Department 

were to omit this exclusion, more 

workers would be covered by the rule, 

and contractors would be required to 

pay more workers the applicable 

minimum wage rate (initially $15 per 

hour) for time spent performing in 

connection with covered contracts. This 

would result in greater income transfers 

to workers. Conversely, if the 

Department were to raise the 20 percent 

threshold, fewer workers would be 

covered by the rule, resulting in a 

smaller income transfer to workers. 

The Department rejected this 

regulatory alternative because having an 

exclusion for FLSA-covered workers 

performing in connection with covered 

contracts based on a 20 percent of hours 

worked in a week standard is a 

reasonable interpretation. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In the 

final rule, the Department estimated the 

number of employees who would, as a 

result of the Executive order and the 

proposed rule, see an increase in their 

hourly wage, i.e., affected employees. 

The Department estimates there will be 

327,300 affected employees in the first 

year of implementation (Table 1 of final 

rule). During the first 10 years the rule 

is in effect, average annualized direct 

employer costs are estimated to be $2.4 

million (Table 1 of final rule) assuming 

a 7 percent real discount rate (hereafter, 

unless otherwise specified, average 

annualized values will be presented 

using a 7 percent real discount rate). 

This estimated annualized cost includes 

$1.9 million for regulatory 

familiarization and $538,500 for 

implementation costs. Other potential 

costs are discussed qualitatively. 

The direct transfer payments 

associated with this rule are transfers of 

income from employers to employees in 

the form of higher wage rates. Estimated 

average annualized transfer payments 

are $1.75 billion per year over 10 years. 

The Department expects that 

increasing the minimum wage of 

Federal contract workers will generate 

several important benefits. However, 

due to data limitations, these benefits 

are not monetized. As noted in the 

Executive order, the NPRM will 

promote economy and efficiency. 

Specifically, the proposed rule 

discusses benefits from improved 

government services, increased morale 

and productivity, reduced turnover, 

reduced absenteeism, and reduced 

poverty and income inequality for 

Federal contract workers. 

Risks: This action does not affect 

public health, safety, or the 

environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/23/21 86 FR 38816 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extension.

08/04/21 86 FR 41907 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extension End.

08/27/21 

Final Rule ............ 11/24/21 86 FR 67126 

Final Rule Effective Date.01/30/22 

Final Rule Applicability Date.01/30/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Amy DeBisschop, 

Director of the Division of Regulations, 

Legislation, and Interpretation, 

Department of Labor, Wage and Hour 

Division, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, 

FP Building, Room S–3502, 

Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693– 

0406. 

RIN: 1235–AA41 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5122 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

DOL—EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING 

ADMINISTRATION (ETA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

118. Wagner–Peyser Act Staffing 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Wagner–Peyser Act 

CFR Citation: 20 CFR 651; 20 CFR 

652; 20 CFR 653; 20 CFR 658. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department proposes to 

revise the Wagner-Peyser Act 

regulations regarding Employment 

Services (ES) staffing to require that 

states use state merit staff to provide ES 

services, including Migrant and 

Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) services, 

and to improve service delivery for 

migrant and seasonal farmworkers 

(MSFW). 

Statement of Need: The Department 

has identified areas of the regulation 

that should be changed to create a 

uniform standard of ES services 

provision for all States. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Department is undertaking this 

rulemaking pursuant to its authority 

under the Wagner-Peyser Act. 

Alternatives: Two alternatives will be 

considered, and the public will have the 

opportunity to comment on these 

alternatives after publication of the 

NPRM. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed rule is expected to have onetime rule familiarization costs of $4,205 

in 2020 dollars, as well as unknown 

transition costs. The proposed rule is 

also expected to have annual transfer 

payments of $9.6 million for three of the 

five States that currently have non-State 

merit staff providing some labor 

exchange services. In the NPRM, the 

Department will solicit comments from 

stakeholders and the public on the 

unknown transition costs, plus transfer 

payments that would be incurred by the 

two additional States with some nonState merit staff providing labor 

exchange services. 

Risks: This action does not affect the 

public health, safety, or the 

environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: State. 

Agency Contact: Kimberly Vitelli, 

Administrator, Office of Workforce 

Investment, Department of Labor, 

Employment and Training 

Administration, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW, FP Building, Room C– 

4526, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 

202 693–3980, Email: vitelli.kimberly@

dol.gov. 

RIN: 1205–AC02 

DOL—ETA 

119. Apprenticeship Programs, Labor 

Standards for Registration, Amendment 

of Regulations 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: The National 

Apprenticeship Act, as amended (50 

Stat. 664) 29 U.S.C. 50 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 29. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On February 17, 2021, the 

President signed an Executive Order: (1) 

Revoking Executive Order 13801 (issued 

on June 15, 2017); and (2) directing 

federal departments and agencies to 

consider taking steps promptly to 

rescind any orders, rules, regulations, 

guidelines or policies implementing 

Executive Order 13801. The Department 

is considering amending its 

apprenticeship regulations to rescind 

subpart B of title 29 CFR part 29, Labor 

Standards for the Registration of 

Apprenticeship Programs, including the 

status of those Standards Recognition 

Entities and Industry Recognized 

Apprenticeship Programs (IRAPs) that 

previously received recognition under 

the provisions of 29 CFR part 29, 

subpart B, and to make additional 

conforming edits in subpart A as 

appropriate. 

Statement of Need: Executive Order 

14016 (86 FR 11089), issued by the 

President on February 17, 2021, directed 

Federal agencies to promptly consider 

taking steps to rescind any orders, rules, 

regulations, guidelines, or policies 

implementing E.O. 13801. In response 

to E.O. 14016, the Department has 

reviewed the IRAP system and has 

determined that, because the IRAP 

system has fewer quality training and 

worker protection standards than the 

Registered Apprenticeship system and 

results in a duplicative system of 

apprenticeship, it will issue a proposed 

regulation to rescind subpart B of title 

29 CFR part 29, Labor Standards for the 

Registration of Apprenticeship 

Programs. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The National 

Apprenticeship Act of 1937 (NAA), 29 

U.S.C. 50, authorizes the Secretary of 

Labor (Secretary) to: (1) Formulate and 

promote the use of labor standards 

necessary to safeguard the welfare of 

apprentices and to encourage their 

inclusion in apprenticeship contracts; 

(2) bring together employers and labor 

for the formulation of programs of 

apprenticeship; and (3) cooperate with 

State agencies engaged in the 

formulation and promotion of standards 

of apprenticeship. 

Alternatives: Alternatives were 

proposed in the NPRM that is open for 

public comment. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Department’s preliminary estimates is 

anticipated cost savings of $8.9 million 

over the first 10 years of the proposed 

rule (2022–2031). Details for costs and 

benefits will be prepared. 

Risks: This action does not affect the 

public health, safety, or the 

environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/15/21 86 FR 62966 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/14/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: John V. Ladd, 

Administrator, Office of 

Apprenticeship, Department of Labor, 

Employment and Training 

Administration, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW, FP Building, Room C– 

5311, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 

202 693–2796, Fax: 202 693–3799, 

Email: ladd.john@dol.gov. 

RIN: 1205–AC06 

DOL—EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (EBSA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

120. Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting 

Plan Investments and Exercising 

Shareholder Rights 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1104; 29 

U.S.C. 1135 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 2550. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking 

implements Executive Order 13990 of 

January 20, 2021, titled Protecting 

Public Health and the Environment and 

Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate 

Crisis, and Executive Order 14030 of 

May 20, 2021, titled Climate-Related 

Financial Risks. Among other things, 

these Executive Orders direct Federal 

agencies to review existing regulations 

promulgated, issued, or adopted 

between January 20, 2017, and January 

20, 2021, that are or may be inconsistent 

with, or present obstacles to, the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5123 

policies set forth in section 1 of the 

orders 86 FR 7037 (January 25, 2021); 86 

FR 27967 (May 25, 2021). Such policies 

include the promotion and protection of 

public health and the environment and 

ensuring that agency activities are 

guided by the best science and protected 

by processes that ensure the integrity of 

Federal decision-making, and to 

advance consistent, clear, intelligible, 

comparable, and accurate disclosure of 

climate-related financial risk, including 

both physical and transition risks. 

Section 2 of E.O. 13990 provides that for 

any such regulatory actions identified 

by the agencies, the heads of agencies 

shall, as appropriate and consistent with 

applicable law, consider suspending, 

revising, or rescinding the agency 

actions. Section 4 of E.O. 14030 directs 

the Secretary of Labor to consider 

publishing, by September 2021, for 

notice and comment a proposed rule to 

suspend, revise, or rescind ‘‘Financial 

Factors in Selecting Plan Investments,’’ 

85 FR 72846 (November 13, 2020), and 

‘‘Fiduciary Duties Regarding Proxy 

Voting and Shareholder Rights,’’ 85 FR 

81658 (December 16, 2020). The 

Department of Labor’s Employee 

Benefits Security Administration 

therefore will undertake a review of 

regulations under title I of the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act in 

accordance with these orders, including 

‘‘Financial Factors in Selecting Plan 

Investments,’’ 85 FR 72846 (November 

13, 2020), and ‘‘Fiduciary Duties 

Regarding Proxy Voting and 

Shareholder Rights,’’ 85 FR 81658 

(December 16, 2020). 

Statement of Need: The Department of 

Labor’s Employee Benefits Security 

Administration undertook a review of 

the ‘‘Financial Factors in Selecting Plan 

Investments’’ and the ‘‘Fiduciary Duties 

Regarding Proxy Voting and 

Shareholder Rights,’’ final rules in 

accordance with Executive Order 13990 

and Executive Order 14030. Those final 

rules were intended to provide clarity 

and certainty regarding the scope and 

application of ERISA fiduciary duties to 

plan investment decisions and to the 

exercise of shareholder rights, including 

proxy voting. Stakeholder reactions to 

the 2020 rules, however, suggest that the 

rules may have caused more confusion 

than clarity. Many interested 

stakeholders have expressed concerns 

that the terms and tone of the rules and 

related preambles have increased 

uncertainty about the extent to which 

plan fiduciaries may take into account 

environmental, social, or governance 

(ESG) considerations, including climaterelated financial risk, in their 

investment and proxy voting decisions, 

and that the final rules have and will 

continue to have chilling effects 

contrary to the financial interests of 

ERISA plans and their participants and 

beneficiaries. The NPRM is needed to 

address these concerns and negative 

impacts. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Department is proposing the 

amendments pursuant to ERISA 

sections 404 (29 U.S.C. 1104) and 505 

(29 U.S.C. 1135), and Executive Order 

14030 (86 FR 27967 (May 25, 2021)) and 

Executive Order 13990 (86 FR 7037 

(January 25, 2021)). 

Alternatives: The Department 

considered various alternatives, 

including leaving the current 

regulations in place without change, 

rescinding the Financial Factors in 

Selecting Plan Investments and 

Fiduciary Duties Regarding Proxy 

Voting and Shareholder Rights final 

rules, and revising the current 

regulation by, in effect, reverting it to its 

form before the 2020 final rules. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Anticipated Benefits—The primary 

benefit of the proposal is clarification of 

legal standards, which should empower 

fiduciaries to take proper account of 

ESG factors when making investment 

decisions and exercising proxy voting 

rights on behalf of plan participants. 

The Department has heard from 

stakeholders that the current regulation, 

and investor confusion about it, has 

already had a chilling effect on 

appropriate integration of ESG factors in 

investment decisions, and could deter 

plan fiduciaries from taking into 

account ESG factors even when they are 

material to a risk-return analysis. 

Stakeholders also indicated that 

confusion surrounding the current 

regulation could discourage proxy 

voting and other exercises of 

shareholder rights even when doing so 

is in the plan’s best interest. A 

significant benefit of this proposal 

would be to ensure that plans do not 

inappropriately avoid considering 

material ESG factors when selecting 

investments or exercising shareholder 

rights, as they might otherwise be 

inclined to do under the current 

regulation. Acting on material ESG 

factors in these contexts, and in a 

manner consistent with the proposal, 

will redound, in the first instance, to 

employee benefit plans covered by 

ERISA and their participants and 

beneficiaries, and secondarily and 

indirectly, to society more broadly but 

without any sacrifices by the 

participants and beneficiaries in ERISA 

plans. Further, by ensuring that plan 

fiduciaries would not sacrifice 

investment returns or take on additional 

investment risk to promote unrelated 

goals, this proposal would lead to 

increased investment returns over the 

long run. The proposal would also make 

certain that ERISA regulation would not 

chill or otherwise discourage proxy 

voting by plans governed by the 

economic interests of the plan and its 

participants. This would promote 

management accountability to 

shareholders, including the affected 

shareholder plans. These benefits, while 

difficult to quantify, are anticipated to 

outweigh the costs. 

Anticipated Costs—By reversing 

aspects of the current regulation, this 

proposal would facilitate certain 

activities among plan fiduciaries in their 

investment decisions, including 

potential changes in asset management 

strategies and proxy voting behavior, 

that these plan fiduciaries otherwise 

likely would not take under the current 

regulation. The precise impact of this 

proposal on such behavior is uncertain. 

Therefore, a precise quantification of all 

costs similarly is not possible. To the 

extent that the proposal changes 

investment-related behavior among 

ERISA plans, its benefits are expected to 

outweigh the costs. Overall, the costs of 

the proposal are expected to be 

relatively small, in part because the 

Department assumes most plan 

fiduciaries are complying with the pre2020 interpretive bulletins to the extent 

relevant to costs (specifically 

Interpretive Bulletin 2016–1 and 2015– 

1), and it is expected that the proposal 

would track that guidance to a very 

large extent. Known incremental costs 

of the proposal would be minimal on a 

per-plan basis. 

Risks: The risk of not pursuing this 

rulemaking is that, if the current 

regulation is not amended, it could have 

a) a negative impact on plans’ financial 

performance as they avoid materially 

sound ESG investments or integration of 

material ESG considerations in 

investment analysis, b) a negative 

impact on plans’ financial performance 

as they shy away from economically 

relevant considerations in proxy voting 

and from exercising shareholder rights 

on material issues, and c) broader 

negative economic/societal impacts 

(e.g., negative impacts on climate 

change and on corporate managers’ 

accountability to the shareholders who 

own the companies they serve). 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/14/21 86 FR 57272 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

12/13/21 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5124 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Action Date FR Cite 

Analyze Comments.03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Jeffrey J. Turner, 

Deputy Director, Office of Regulations 

and Interpretations, Department of 

Labor, Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW, FP Building, Room N– 

5655, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 

202 693–8500. 

RIN: 1210–AC03 

DOL—EBSA 

121. • Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act and the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 116–260, 

Division BB, Title II; Pub. L. 110–343, 

secs. 511–512 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule would propose 

amendments to the final rules 

implementing the Mental Health Parity 

and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). 

The amendments would clarify plans’ 

and issuers’ obligations under the law, 

promote compliance with MHPAEA, 

and update requirements to take into 

account experience with MHPAEA in 

the years since the rules were finalized 

as well as amendments to the law 

recently enacted as part of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. 

Statement of Need: There have been 

a number of legislative enactments 

related to MHPAEA since issuance of 

the 2014 final rules, including the 21st 

Century Cures Act, the Support Act, and 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2021. This rule would propose 

amendments to the final rules and 

incorporate examples and modifications 

to account for this legislation and 

previously issued guidance and to take 

into account experience with MHPAEA 

in the years since the rules were 

finalized. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Department of Labor regulations would 

be adopted pursuant to the authority 

contained in 29 U.S.C. 1002, 1135, 1182, 

1185d, 1191a, 1191b, and 1191c; 

Secretary of Labor’s Order 1–2011, 77 

FR 1088 (Jan. 9, 2012). 

Alternatives: Not yet determined. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet 

determined. 

Risks: Not yet determined. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: State. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

E.O. 13132. 

Agency Contact: Amber Rivers, 

Director, Office of Health Plan 

Standards and Compliance Assistance, 

Department of Labor, Employee Benefits 

Security Administration, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20210, Phone: 202 693–8335, Email: 

rivers.amber@dol.gov. 

RIN: 1210–AC11 

DOL—EBSA 

Final Rule Stage 

122. Requirements Related to Surprise 

Billing, Part 1 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 116–260, 

Division BB, Title I and Title II 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, July 

1, 2021, Statutory Deadline for 

Rulemaking. 

Abstract: This interim final rule with 

comment would implement certain 

protections against surprise medical 

bills under the No Surprises Act, 

including requirements on group health 

plans, issuers offering group or 

individual health insurance coverage, 

providers, facilities, and providers of air 

ambulance services. 

Statement of Need: Surprise bills can 

cause significant financial hardship and 

cause individuals to forgo care. The No 

Surprises Act provides federal 

protections against surprise billing and 

limits out-of-network cost sharing under 

many of the circumstances in which 

surprise medical bills arise most 

frequently. These interim final rules 

fulfill a rulemaking requirement under 

the No Surprises Act and protect 

individuals from surprise medical bills 

for emergency services, air ambulance 

services furnished by nonparticipating 

providers, and non-emergency services 

furnished by nonparticipating providers 

at participating facilities in certain 

circumstances. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Department of Labor regulations are 

adopted pursuant to the authority 

contained in 29 U.S.C. 1002, 1135, 1182, 

1185d, 1191a, 1191b, and 1191c; 

Secretary of Labor’s Order 1–2011, 77 

FR 1088 (Jan. 9, 2012). 

Alternatives: In developing the 

interim final rules, the Departments 

considered various alternative 

approaches, including whether costsharing should be based on the 

recognized amount in circumstances 

where the billed charge is lower, 

whether plans and issuer should take 

into account the number of claims paid 

at the contracted rate when calculating 

the qualifying payment amount, and 

many others. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

provisions in these interim final rules 

will ensure that participants, 

beneficiaries, and enrollees with health 

coverage are protected from surprise 

medical bills. Individuals with health 

coverage will gain peace of mind, 

experience a reduction in out-of-pocket 

expenses, be able to meet their 

deductible and out-of-pocket maximum 

limits sooner, and may experience 

increased access to care. Plans, issuers, 

health care providers, facilities, and 

providers of air ambulance services will 

incur costs to comply with the 

requirements in these interim final 

rules. 

Risks: The risk of not pursuing this 

rulemaking is that the Department 

would fail to meet its statutory 

obligations to issue regulations, group 

health plans would lack guidance 

needed to comply with the statutory 

requirements, and individuals would 

continue to be burdened by surprise 

medical bills. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 07/13/21 86 FR 36872 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

09/07/21 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective (Applicability Date 1/ 

1/2022).

09/13/21 

Analyze Comments.11/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

State. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

E.O. 13132. 

Agency Contact: Amber Rivers, 

Director, Office of Health Plan 

Standards and Compliance Assistance, 

Department of Labor, Employee Benefits 

Security Administration, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5125 

DC 20210, Phone: 202 693–8335, Email: 

rivers.amber@dol.gov. 

RIN: 1210–AB99 

DOL—EBSA 

123. Requirements Related to Surprise 

Billing, Part 2 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 116–260, 

Division I BB, Title I and Title II 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

October 1, 2021, Statutory Deadline for 

Rulemaking. 

Abstract: This interim final rule with 

comment would implement additional 

protections against surprise medical 

bills under the No Surprises Act, 

including provisions related to the 

independent dispute resolution 

processes. 

Statement of Need: Surprise bills can 

cause significant financial hardship and 

cause individuals to forgo care. The No 

Surprises Act provides federal 

protections against surprise billing and 

limits out-of-network cost sharing under 

many of the circumstances in which 

surprise medical bills arise most 

frequently. These interim final rules 

implement provisions of the No 

Surprises Act related to the independent 

dispute resolution process for settling 

payment disputes and protect 

individuals from surprise medical bills 

for emergency services, air ambulance 

services furnished by nonparticipating 

providers, and non-emergency services 

furnished by nonparticipating providers 

at participating facilities in certain 

circumstances. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Department of Labor regulations are 

adopted pursuant to the authority 

contained in 29 U.S.C. 1002, 1135, 1182, 

1185d, 1191a, 1191b, and 1191c; 

Secretary of Labor’s Order 1–2011, 77 

FR 1088 (Jan. 9, 2012). 

Alternatives: In developing the 

interim final rules, the Departments 

considered various alternative 

approaches, including how to select a 

certified independent dispute resolution 

(IDR) entity if the parties fail to do so. 

The Department considered alternative 

approaches, including whether the 

Department should consider the specific 

fee of the certified IDR entity, or look to 

other factors, such as how often the 

certified IDR entity chooses the amount 

closest to the qualifying payment 

amount. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These 

interim final rules will ensure that 

consumers are protected from out-ofnetwork medical costs by creating a 

process for plans and issuers and 

nonparticipating providers and facilities 

to resolve disputes on out-of-network 

rates. The Departments expect a 

significant reduction in the incidence of 

surprise billing, resulting in significant 

savings for consumers. There may be a 

potential transfer from providers, 

including air ambulance providers and 

facilities, to the participant, beneficiary, 

or enrollee if the out-of-network rate 

collected is lower than what would have 

been collected had the provider or 

facility balance billed the participant, 

beneficiary, or enrollee. Overall, these 

interim final rules provide a mechanism 

to effectively resolve disputes between 

issuers and providers, while protecting 

patients. 

Risks: The risk of not pursuing this 

rulemaking is that group health plans 

would lack guidance needed to comply 

with the statutory requirements, plans 

and health care providers would not be 

able to resolve payment disputes, and 

individuals would continue to be 

burdened by surprise medical bills. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 10/07/21 86 FR 55980 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

10/07/21 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

12/06/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

State. 

Agency Contact: Amber Rivers, 

Director, Office of Health Plan 

Standards and Compliance Assistance, 

Department of Labor, Employee Benefits 

Security Administration, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20210, Phone: 202 693–8335, Email: 

rivers.amber@dol.gov. 

RIN: 1210–AC00 

DOL—MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH 

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

124. Respirable Crystalline Silica 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811; 30 

U.S.C. 813(h); 30 U.S.C. 957 

CFR Citation: 30 CFR 56; 30 CFR 57; 

30 CFR 60; 30 CFR 70; 30 CFR 71; 30 

CFR 72; 30 CFR 75; 30 CFR 90. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Many miners are exposed to 

respirable crystalline silica (RCS) in 

respirable dust. These miners can 

develop lung diseases such as chronic 

obstructive pulmonary disease, and 

various forms of pneumoconiosis, such 

as silicosis, progressive massive fibrosis, 

and rapidly progressive 

pneumoconiosis. These diseases are 

irreversible and may ultimately be fatal. 

MSHA’s existing standards limit miners’ 

exposures to RCS. MSHA will publish a 

proposed rule to address the existing 

permissible exposure limit of RCS for all 

miners and to update the existing 

respiratory protection standards under 

30 CFR 56, 57, and 72. 

Statement of Need: Many miners are 

exposed to respirable crystalline silica 

(RCS) in respirable dust, which can 

result in the onset of diseases such as 

silicosis and rapidly progressive 

pneumoconiosis. These lung diseases 

are irreversible and may ultimately be 

fatal. MSHA is examining the existing 

limit on miners’ exposures to RCS to 

safeguard the health of America’s 

miners. Based on MSHA’s experience 

with existing standards and regulations, 

as well as OSHA’s RCS standards and 

NIOSH research, MSHA will develop a 

rule applicable to metal, nonmetal, and 

coal operations. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 

101(a), 103(h), and 508 of the Federal 

Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 

(Mine Act), as amended (30 U.S.C. 

811(a), 813(h), and 957). 

Alternatives: MSHA will examine one 

or two different levels of miners’ RCS 

exposure limit and assess the 

technological and economic feasibility 

of such option(s). 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be 

determined. 

Risks: Miners face impairment risk of 

health and functional capacity due to 

RCS exposures. MSHA will examine the 

existing RCS standard and determine 

ways to reduce the health risks associate 

with RCS exposure. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Request for Information (RFI).08/29/19 84 FR 45452 

RFI Comment Period End.10/28/19 

NPRM .................. 05/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Agency Contact: Jessica Senk, 

Director, Office of Standards, 

Regulations, and Variances, Department 

of Labor, Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, 201 12th Street S, Suite 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5126 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

401, Arlington, VA 22202, Phone: 202 

693–9440. 

RIN: 1219–AB36 

DOL—MSHA 

125. Safety Program for Surface Mobile 

Equipment 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811; 30 

U.S.C. 813(h); 30 U.S.C. 957 

CFR Citation: 30 CFR 56; 30 CFR 57; 

30 CFR 77. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: MSHA would require mine 

operators to establish a written safety 

program for mobile equipment and 

powered haulage equipment (except belt 

conveyors) used at surface mines and 

surface areas of underground mines. 

Under this proposal, mine operators 

would be required to assess hazards and 

risks and identify actions to reduce 

accidents related to surface mobile 

equipment. The operators would have 

flexibility to develop and implement a 

safety program that would work best for 

their mining conditions and operations. 

This proposed rule is to reduce fatal and 

nonfatal injuries involving surface 

mobile equipment used at mines and to 

improve miner safety and health. 

Statement of Need: Although mine 

accidents are declining, accidents 

involving mobile and powered haulage 

equipment are still a leading cause of 

fatalities in mining. To reduce fatal and 

nonfatal injuries involving surface 

mobile equipment used at mines, MSHA 

is proposing a regulation that would 

require mine operators employing six or 

more miners to develop a written safety 

program for mobile and powered 

haulage equipment (excluding belt 

conveyors) at surface mines and surface 

areas of underground mines. The 

written safety program would include 

actions mine operators would take to 

identify hazards and risks to reduce 

accidents, injuries, and fatalities related 

to surface mobile equipment. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 

101(a), 103(h), and 508 of the Federal 

Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 

(Mine Act), as amended (30 U.S.C. 

811(a), 813(h), and 957). 

Alternatives: MSHA considered 

requiring all mines, regardless of size, to 

develop and implement a written safety 

program for surface mobile equipment. 

Based on the Agency’s experience, 

MSHA concluded that a mine operator 

with five or fewer miners would 

generally have a limited inventory of 

surface mobile equipment. These 

operators would also have less complex 

mining operations, with fewer mobile 

equipment hazards that would 

necessitate a written safety program. 

Thus, these mine operators are not 

required to have a written safety 

program, although MSHA would 

encourage operators with five or fewer 

miners to have safety programs. MSHA 

will consider comments and suggestions 

received on alternatives or best practices 

that all mines might use to develop 

safety programs (whether written or not) 

for surface mobile equipment. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed rule would not be 

economically significant, and it would 

have some net benefits. 

Risks: Miners operating mobile and 

powered haulage equipment or working 

nearby face risks of workplace injuries, 

illnesses, or deaths. The proposed rule 

would allow a flexible approach to 

reducing hazards and risks specific to 

each mine so that mine operators would 

be able to develop and implement safety 

programs that work for their operation, 

mining conditions, and miners. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Request for Information (RFI).06/26/18 83 FR 29716 

Notice of Public 

Stakeholder 

Meetings.

07/25/18 83 FR 35157 

Stakeholder Meeting—Birmingham, AL.08/07/18 

Stakeholder Meeting—Dallas, TX.08/09/18 

Stakeholder Meeting (Webinar)— 

Arlington, VA.

08/16/18 

Stakeholder Meeting—Reno, NV.08/21/18 

Stakeholder Meeting—Beckley, 

WV.

09/11/18 

Stakeholder Meeting—Albany, 

NY.

09/20/18 

Stakeholder Meeting—Arlington, 

VA.

09/25/18 

RFI Comment Period End.12/24/18 

NPRM .................. 09/09/21 86 FR 50496 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

11/08/21 

Final Rule ............ 10/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Jessica Senk, 

Director, Office of Standards, 

Regulations, and Variances, Department 

of Labor, Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, 201 12th Street S, Suite 

401, Arlington, VA 22202, Phone: 202 

693–9440. 

RIN: 1219–AB91 

DOL—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND 

HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA) 

Prerule Stage 

126. Prevention of Workplace Violence 

in Health Care and Social Assistance 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 655(b); 5 

U.S.C. 609 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Request for Information 

(RFI) (published on December 7, 2016 

81 FR 88147)) provides OSHA’s history 

with the issue of workplace violence in 

health care and social assistance, 

including a discussion of the Guidelines 

that were initially published in 1996, a 

2014 update to the Guidelines, the 

agency’s use of 5(a)(1) in enforcement 

cases in health care. The RFI solicited 

information primarily from health care 

employers, workers and other subject 

matter experts on impacts of violence, 

prevention strategies, and other 

information that will be useful to the 

agency. OSHA was petitioned for a 

standard preventing workplace violence 

in health care by a broad coalition of 

labor unions, and in a separate petition 

by the National Nurses United. On 

January 10, 2017, OSHA granted the 

petitions. OSHA is preparing for 

SBREFA. 

Statement of Need: Workplace 

violence is a widespread problem, and 

there is growing recognition that 

workers in healthcare and social service 

occupations face unique risks and 

challenges. In 2018, the rate of serious 

workplace violence incidents (those 

requiring days off for an injured worker 

to recuperate) was more than five times 

greater in these occupations than in 

private industry on average, with both 

the number and share of incidents rising 

faster in these professions than among 

other workers. 

Healthcare and social services 

account for nearly as many serious 

violent injuries as all other industries 

combined. Workplace violence comes at 

a high cost. It harms workers often both 

physically and emotionally and makes it 

more difficult for them to do their jobs. 

Workers in some medical and social 

service settings are more at risk than 

others. According to the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, in 2018 workers at psychiatric 

and substance abuse hospitals 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5127 

experienced the highest rate of violent 

injuries that resulted in days away from 

work, at approximately 125 injuries per 

10,000 full-time employees (FTEs). This 

is about 6 times the rate for workers at 

nursing and residential care facilities 

(21.1/10,000). But even workers 

involved in ambulatory care, while less 

likely than other healthcare workers to 

experience violent injuries, were 1.5 

times as likely as workers outside of 

healthcare to do so. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 authorizes the Secretary of Labor 

to set mandatory occupational safety 

and health standards to assure safe and 

healthful working conditions for 

working men and women (29 U.S.C. 

651). 

Alternatives: One alternative to 

proposed rulemaking would be to take 

no regulatory action. As OSHA develops 

more information, it will also make 

decisions relating to the scope of the 

standard and the requirements it may 

impose. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

estimates of costs and benefits are still 

under development. 

Risks: Analysis of risks is still under 

development. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Request for Information (RFI).12/07/16 81 FR 88147 

RFI Comment Period End.04/06/17 

Initiate SBREFA .. 12/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Agency Contact: Andrew Levinson, 

Deputy Director, Directorate of 

Standards and Guidance, Department of 

Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW, FP Building, Room N– 

3718, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 

202 693–1950, Email: levinson.andrew@

dol.gov. 

RIN: 1218–AD08 

DOL—OSHA 

127. Heat Illness Prevention in Outdoor 

and Indoor Work Settings 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined 

CFR Citation: None. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Heat is the leading weatherrelated killer, and it is becoming more 

dangerous as 18 of the last 19 years were 

the hottest on record. Excessive heat can 

cause heat stroke and even death if not 

treated properly. It also exacerbates 

existing health problems like asthma, 

kidney failure, and heart disease. 

Workers in agriculture and construction 

are at highest risk, but the problem 

affects all workers exposed to heat, 

including indoor workers without 

climate-controlled environments. 

Essential jobs where employees are 

exposed to high levels of heat are 

disproportionately held by Black and 

Brown workers. 

Heat stress killed 815 US workers and 

seriously injured more than 70,000 

workers from 1992 through 2017, 

according to the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. However, this is likely a vast 

underestimate, given that injuries and 

illnesses are under reported in the US, 

especially in the sectors employing 

vulnerable and often undocumented 

workers. Further, heat is not always 

recognized as a cause of heat-induced 

injuries or deaths and can easily be 

misclassified, because man of the 

symptoms overlap with other more 

common diagnoses. 

To date, California, Washington, 

Minnesota, and the US military have 

issued heat protections. OSHA currently 

relies on the general duty clause (OSH 

Act Section 5(a))(1)) to protect workers 

from this hazard. Notably, from 2013 

through 2017, California used its heat 

standard to conduct 50 times more 

inspections resulting in a heat-related 

violation than OSHA did nationwide 

under its general duty clause. It is likely 

to become even more difficult to protect 

workers from heat stress under the 

general duty clause in light of the 2019 

Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission’s decision in Secretary of 

Labor v. A.H. Sturgill Roofing, Inc. 

OSHA was petitioned by Public 

Citizen for a heat stress standard in 

2011. The Agency denied this petition 

in 2012, but was once again petitioned 

by Public Citizen, on behalf of 

approximately 130 organizations, for a 

heat stress standard in 2018 and 2019. 

Most recently in 2021, Public Citizen 

petitioned OSHA to issue an emergency 

temporary standard on heat stress. 

OSHA is still considering these 

petitions and has neither granted nor 

denied to date. In 2019 and 2021, some 

members of the Senate also urged OSHA 

to initiate rulemaking to address heat 

stress. 

Given the potentially broad scope of 

regulatory efforts to protect workers 

from heat hazards, as well as a number 

of technical issues and considerations 

with regulating this hazard (e.g., heat 

stress thresholds, heat acclimatization 

planning, exposure monitoring, medical 

monitoring), a Request for Information 

would allow the agency to begin a 

dialogue and engage with stakeholders 

to explore the potential for rulemaking 

on this topic. 

Statement of Need: Heat stress killed 

more than 900 US workers, and caused 

serious heat illness in almost 100 times 

as many, from 1992 through 2019, 

according to the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. However, this is likely a vast 

underestimate, given that injuries and 

illnesses are underreported in the US, 

especially in the sectors employing 

vulnerable and often undocumented 

workers. Further, heat is not always 

recognized as a cause of heat-induced 

illnesses or deaths, which are often 

misclassified, because many of the 

symptoms overlap with other more 

common diagnoses. Moreover, climate 

change is increasing the heat hazard 

throughout the nation: 2020 was either 

the hottest or the second hottest year on 

record, with 2021 on track to be even 

hotter. Although official figures are not 

yet available, we already know that in 

many states heat related deaths are 

higher are far higher than normal this 

year. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 authorizes the Secretary of Labor 

to set mandatory occupational safety 

and health standards to assure safe and 

healthful working conditions for 

working men and women (29 U.S.C. 

651). 

Alternatives: One alternative to 

proposed rulemaking would be to take 

no regulatory action. As OSHA develops 

more information, it will also make 

decisions relating to the scope of the 

standard and the requirements it may 

impose. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

estimates of costs and benefits are still 

under development. 

Risks: Analysis of risks is still under 

development. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 10/27/21 86 FR 59309 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

12/27/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Andrew Levinson, 

Deputy Director, Directorate of 

Standards and Guidance, Department of 

Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5128 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Administration, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW, FP Building, Room N– 

3718, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 

202 693–1950, Email: levinson.andrew@

dol.gov. 

RIN: 1218–AD39 

DOL—OSHA 

Proposed Rule Stage 

128. Infectious Diseases 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 533; 29 

U.S.C. 657 and 658; 29 U.S.C. 660; 29 

U.S.C. 666; 29 U.S.C. 669; 29 U.S.C. 673 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Employees in health care 

and other high-risk environments face 

long-standing infectious disease hazards 

such as tuberculosis (TB), varicella 

disease (chickenpox, shingles), and 

measles, as well as new and emerging 

infectious disease threats, such as 

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 

(SARS), the 2019 Novel Coronavirus 

(COVID–19), and pandemic influenza. 

Health care workers and workers in 

related occupations, or who are exposed 

in other high-risk environments, are at 

increased risk of contracting TB, SARS, 

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus 

Aureus (MRSA), COVID–19, and other 

infectious diseases that can be 

transmitted through a variety of 

exposure routes. OSHA is examining 

regulatory alternatives for control 

measures to protect employees from 

infectious disease exposures to 

pathogens that can cause significant 

disease. Workplaces where such control 

measures might be necessary include: 

Health care, emergency response, 

correctional facilities, homeless shelters, 

drug treatment programs, and other 

occupational settings where employees 

can be at increased risk of exposure to 

potentially infectious people. A 

standard could also apply to 

laboratories, which handle materials 

that may be a source of pathogens, and 

to pathologists, coroners’ offices, 

medical examiners, and mortuaries. 

Statement of Need: Employees in 

health care and other high-risk 

environments face long-standing 

infectious disease hazards such as 

tuberculosis (TB), varicella disease 

(chickenpox, shingles), and measles, as 

well as new and emerging infectious 

disease threats, such as Severe Acute 

Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), the 2019 

Novel Coronavirus (COVID–19), and 

pandemic influenza. Health care 

workers and workers in related 

occupations, or who are exposed in 

other high-risk environments, are at 

increased risk of contracting TB, SARS, 

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus 

Aureus (MRSA), COVID–19, and other 

infectious diseases that can be 

transmitted through a variety of 

exposure routes. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 authorizes the Secretary of Labor 

to set mandatory occupational safety 

and health standards to assure safe and 

healthful working conditions for 

working men and women (29 U.S.C. 

651). 

Alternatives: One alternative is to take 

no regulatory action. OSHA is 

examining regulatory alternatives for 

control measures to protect employees 

from infectious disease exposures to 

pathogens that can cause significant 

disease. In addition to health care, 

workplaces where SERs suggested such 

control measures might be necessary 

include: Emergency response, 

correctional facilities, homeless shelters, 

drug treatment programs, and other 

occupational settings where employees 

can be at increased risk of exposure to 

potentially infectious people. 

A standard could also apply to 

laboratories, which handle materials 

that may be a source of pathogens, and 

to pathologists, coroners’ offices, 

medical examiners, and mortuaries. 

OSHA offered several alternatives to the 

SBREFA panel when presenting the 

proposed Infectious Disease (ID) rule. 

OSHA considered a specification 

oriented rule rather than a performance 

oriented rule, but has preliminarily 

determined that this type of rule would 

provide less flexibility and would likely 

fail to anticipate all of the potential 

hazards and necessary controls for every 

type and every size of facility and 

would under-protect workers. OSHA 

also considered changing the scope of 

the rule by restricting the ID rule to 

workers who have occupational 

exposure during the provision of direct 

patient care in institutional settings but 

based on the evidence thus far analyzed, 

workers performing other covered tasks 

in both institutional and noninstitutional settings also face a risk of 

infection because of their occupational 

exposure. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

estimates of costs and benefits are still 

under development. 

Risks: Analysis of risks is still under 

development. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Request for Information (RFI).05/06/10 75 FR 24835 

RFI Comment Period End.08/04/10 

Analyze Comments.12/30/10 

Stakeholder Meetings.07/05/11 76 FR 39041 

Initiate SBREFA .. 06/04/14 

Complete 

SBREFA.

12/22/14 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Andrew Levinson, 

Deputy Director, Directorate of 

Standards and Guidance, Department of 

Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW, FP Building, Room N– 

3718, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 

202 693–1950, Email: levinson.andrew@

dol.gov. 

RIN: 1218–AC46 

BILLING CODE 4510–HL–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(DOT) 

Introduction: Department Overview 

DOT has statutory responsibility for 

ensuring the United States has the safest 

and most efficient transportation system 

in the world. To accomplish this goal, 

DOT regulates safety in the aviation, 

motor carrier, railroad, motor vehicle, 

commercial space, transit, and pipeline 

transportation areas. The Department 

also regulates aviation consumer and 

economic issues and provides financial 

assistance and writes the necessary 

implementing rules for programs 

involving highways, airports, mass 

transit, the maritime industry, railroads, 

motor transportation and vehicle safety. 

DOT also has responsibility for 

developing policies that implement a 

wide range of regulations that govern 

Departmental programs such as 

acquisition and grants management, 

access for people with disabilities, 

environmental protection, energy 

conservation, information technology, 

occupational safety and health, property 

asset management, seismic safety, 

security, emergency response, and the 

use of aircraft and vehicles. In addition, 

DOT writes regulations to carry out a 

variety of statutes ranging from the Air 

Carrier Access Act and the Americans 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5129 

with Disabilities Act to Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act. The Department carries 

out its responsibilities through the 

Office of the Secretary (OST) and the 

following operating administrations 

(OAs): Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA); Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA); Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA); Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA); Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA); Maritime 

Administration (MARAD); National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA); Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA); and Great Lakes St. Lawrence 

Seaway Development Corporation 

(GLS). 

The Department’s Regulatory 

Philosophy and Initiatives 

The U.S. Department of 

Transportation (Department or DOT) 

issues regulations to ensure the United 

States transportation system is the safest 

in the world, and addresses other urgent 

challenges facing the Nation, including 

the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID– 

19) pandemic, job creation, equity, and 

climate change. These issues are 

addressed, in part, by encouraging 

innovation, thereby ensuring that the 

Department’s regulations keep pace 

with the latest developments and reflect 

its top priorities. 

The Department’s actions are also 

governed by several recent executive 

orders issued by the President, which 

direct agencies to utilize all available 

regulatory tools to address pressing 

national challenges. On January 20, 

2021, the President signed Executive 

Order 13992, Revocation of Certain 

Executive Orders Concerning Federal 

Regulation. This Executive Order directs 

Federal agencies to promptly take steps 

to rescind any orders, rules, regulations, 

guidelines, or policies that would 

hamper the agencies’ flexibility to use 

robust regulatory action to address 

national priorities. On January 20, the 

President also issued Executive Order 

13990, Protecting Public Health and the 

Environment and Restoring Science To 

Tackle the Climate Crisis. This 

Executive Order directs Federal 

agencies to review all regulatory actions 

issued in the previous Administration 

and revise or rescind any of those 

actions that do not adequately respond 

to climate change, protect the 

environment, advance environmental 

justice, or improve public health. 

Section 2(a)(ii) of Executive Order 

13990 specifically requires the 

Department of Transportation to review 

‘‘The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient 

(SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One 

National Program,’’ 84 FR 51310 

(September 27, 2019) (SAFE I Rule) and 

‘‘The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient 

(SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 

2021–2026 Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks,’’ 85 FR 24174 (April 30, 2020) 

(SAFE II Rule). The Secretary of 

Transportation directed NHTSA to 

review these fuel economy rules. 

On July 9, 2021, the President signed 

Executive Order 14036, Promoting 

Competition in the American Economy. 

Among other things, this Executive 

Order requires the Department to 

enhance consumer access to airline 

flight information and ensure that 

consumers are not exposed or subject to 

advertising, marketing, pricing, and 

charging of ancillary fees that may 

constitute an unfair or deceptive 

practice or an unfair method of 

competition. This Executive Order also 

requires the Department to: (1) Publish 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) requiring airlines to refund 

baggage fees when a passenger’s luggage 

is substantially delayed and other 

ancillary fees when passengers pay for 

a service that is not provided; and (2) 

consider initiating a rulemaking to 

ensure that consumers have ancillary 

fee information, including ‘‘baggage 

fees,’’ ‘‘change fees,’’ and ‘‘cancellation 

fees,’’ at the time of ticket purchase. 

On August 5, 2021, the President 

signed Executive Order 14037, 

Strengthening American Leadership in 

Clean Cars and Trucks. This Executive 

Order requires that the Department 

consider beginning work on a 

rulemaking to establish new fuel 

economy standards for passenger cars 

and light-duty trucks beginning with 

model year 2027 and extending through 

and including at least model year 2030. 

This Executive Order also requires the 

Department to consider beginning work 

on a rulemaking to establish new fuel 

efficiency standards for heavy-duty 

pickup trucks and vans beginning with 

model year 2028 and extending through 

and including at least model year 2030. 

Finally, this Executive Order requires 

the Department to consider beginning 

work on a rulemaking to establish new 

fuel efficiency standards for mediumand heavy-duty engines and vehicles to 

begin as soon as model year 2030. 

In response to Executive Order 13992, 

in April 2021, the Department issued a 

final rule revising the regulations 

governing its regulatory process to 

ensure that it has the maximum 

flexibility necessary to quickly respond 

to the urgent challenges facing our 

Nation. Following implementation of 

the final rule, in June 2021, the 

Secretary of Transportation signed a 

Departmental Order strengthening the 

Department’s internal rulemaking 

procedures and revitalizing the 

partnership between Operating 

Administrations and the Office of the 

Secretary in promulgating regulations to 

better achieve the Department’s goals 

and priorities. As part of this critical 

overhaul, a Regulatory Leadership 

Group was established, led by the 

Deputy Secretary of Transportation, 

which provides vital legal and policy 

guidance on the Department’s regulatory 

agenda. 

In response to Executive Order 13990, 

in May 2021, the Department issued an 

NPRM proposing to repeal the SAFE I 

Rule and associated guidance 

documents. In August 2021, the 

Department issued a Supplemental 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking inviting 

comments on the appropriate path 

forward regarding civil penalties 

imposed on violations of DOT’s vehicle 

emissions rules. Finally, in September 

2021, the Department issued an NPRM 

proposing more stringent vehicle 

emission limits than those set by the 

SAFE II Rule. 

In response to Executive Orders 14036 

and 14037, the Department is 

considering the following rulemakings: 

(1) Refunding Fees for Delayed Checked 

Bags and Ancillary Services That Are 

Not Provided; (2) Airline Ticket 

Refunds; (3) Amendments to 

Department’s Procedures in Regulating 

Unfair and Deceptive Practices; and (4) 

fuel economy standards for passenger 

cars, light-duty trucks, heavy-duty 

pickup trucks, and vans. 

The Department’s regulatory activities 

also remain directed toward protecting 

safety for all persons. Safety is a 

pressing national concern and our 

highest priority; the Department 

remains focused on managing safety 

risks and ensuring that the United States 

has the safest and most efficient 

transportation system in the world. This 

focus is as urgent as ever; after decades 

of declines in the number of fatalities on 

our roads, the United States has been 

seeing a recent increase in fatalities 

among pedestrians, bicyclists, and 

vehicle occupants that must be reversed. 

Similarly, we must address disparities 

in how the burden of these safety risks 

fall on different communities. 

The Department’s Regulatory Priorities 

The regulatory plan laid out below 

reflects a careful balance that 

emphasizes the Department’s priorities 

in responding to the urgent challenges 

facing our nation. 

Safety. Safety is our North Star. The 

DOT Regulatory Plan reflects this 

commitment to safety through a 

balanced regulatory approach grounded 

in reducing transportation-related 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5130 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

fatalities and injuries. Our goals are to 

manage safety risks, reverse recent 

trends negatively affecting safety, and 

build on the successes that have already 

been achieved to make our 

transportation system safer than it has 

ever been. Innovations should reduce 

deaths and serious injuries on our 

Nation’s transportation network, while 

committing to the highest standards of 

safety across technologies. For example, 

the Department is working on two 

rulemakings to require or standardize 

equipment performance for automatic 

emergency braking on heavy trucks and 

newly manufactured light vehicles. 

Responding to the COVID–19 

Pandemic. The Department is providing 

rapid response and emergency review of 

legal and operational challenges 

presented by COVID–19 and its 

associated burdens within the 

transportation network. Since the 

beginning of this Administration, our 

efforts have focused on ensuring 

compliance with the mask requirements 

issued by the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention and the 

Transportation Security Administration. 

These requirements help reduce the 

spread of the COVID–19 disease within 

the transportation sector and among the 

traveling public. DOT is also addressing 

regulatory compliance made 

impracticable by the COVID–19 public 

health emergency due to facility 

closures, personnel shortages, and other 

restrictions. 

Economic Growth. The safe and 

efficient movement of goods and 

passengers requires us not just to 

maintain, but to improve our national 

transportation infrastructure. But that 

cannot happen without changes to the 

way we plan, fund, and approve 

projects. Accordingly, our Regulatory 

Plan incorporates regulatory actions that 

increase competition and consumer 

protection, as well as streamline the 

approval process and facilitate more 

efficient investment in infrastructure, 

which is necessary to maintain global 

leadership and foster economic growth. 

Climate Change. Climate change is 

one of the most urgent challenges facing 

our nation. The Department has engaged 

in multiple regulatory activities to 

address this challenge. As discussed 

earlier, the Department is actively 

engaged in updating its regulations with 

the goal of reducing emissions. The 

Department is also engaged in 

rulemakings to measure and reduce 

emissions from transportation projects 

and improve safety related to movement 

of natural gas. 

Equity. Ensuring that the 

transportation system equitably benefits 

underserved communities is a top 

priority. As discussed earlier, the 

Department is urgently working to 

address the threat of climate change, 

which is a burden often 

disproportionately borne by 

underserved communities. This work is 

guided by the Departmental and 

interagency work being done pursuant 

to Executive Order 13985, Advancing 

Racial Equity and Support for 

Underserved Communities Through the 

Federal Government. The Department is 

also working on a rulemaking that 

would make it easier for members of 

underserved communities to apply to 

and be a part of the Disadvantaged 

Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport 

Concession DBE Program. In addition, 

the Department is working on multiple 

rulemakings to ensure access to 

transportation for people with 

disabilities. For example, the 

Department is working on a rulemaking 

to ensure that people with disabilities 

can access lavatories on single-aisle 

aircraft, and it has commenced a 

rulemaking to ensure that disabled 

persons have equitable access to transit 

facilities. 

All OAs are prioritizing their 

regulatory actions in accordance with 

Executive Orders 13985, 13990, and 

13992 to make sure they are providing 

the highest level of safety while 

responding to the urgent challenges 

facing our Nation. Since each OA has its 

own area of focus, we summarize the 

regulatory priorities of each below. 

More information about each of the 

rules discussed below can be found in 

the DOT Unified Agenda. 

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation 

OST oversees the regulatory processes 

for the Department. OST implements 

the Department’s regulatory policies and 

procedures and is responsible for 

ensuring the involvement of senior 

officials in regulatory decision making. 

Through the Office of the General 

Counsel, OST is also responsible for 

ensuring that the Department complies 

with the Administrative Procedure Act, 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, 

DOT’s Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures, and other legal and policy 

requirements affecting the Department’s 

rulemaking activities. In addition, OST 

has the lead role in matters concerning 

aviation consumer and economic rules, 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, and 

rules that affect multiple elements of the 

Department. 

OST provides guidance and training 

regarding compliance with regulatory 

requirements and processes for 

personnel throughout the Department. 

OST also plays an instrumental role in 

the Department’s efforts to improve our 

economic analyses; risk assessments; 

regulatory flexibility analyses; other 

related analyses; retrospective reviews 

of rules; and data quality, including 

peer reviews. The Office of the General 

Counsel (OGC) is the lead office that 

works with the Office of Management 

and Budget’s (OMB) Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) to comply with Executive Order 

12866 for significant rules, coordinates 

the Department’s response to OMB’s 

intergovernmental review of other 

agencies’ significant rulemaking 

documents, and other relevant 

Administration rulemaking directives. 

OGC also works closely with 

representatives of other agencies, the 

White House, and congressional staff to 

provide information on how various 

proposals would affect the ability of the 

Department to perform its safety, 

infrastructure, and other missions. 

In July 2021, the President issued 

Executive Order 14036, which directed 

the Department to take actions that 

would promote competition and deliver 

benefits to America’s consumers, 

including potentially initiating a 

rulemaking to ensure that air consumers 

have ancillary fee information, 

including ‘‘baggage fees,’’ ‘‘change fees,’’ 

and ‘‘cancellation fees,’’ at the time of 

ticket purchase. Among a number of 

steps to further the Administration’s 

goals in this area, the Department has 

initiated a rulemaking to enhance 

consumers’ ability to determine the true 

cost of travel, titled ‘‘Enhancing 

Transparency of Airline Ancillary 

Service Fees.’’ In addition, OST will 

further enhance its airline passenger 

protections through the rulemaking 

initiatives required by Executive Order 

14036. 

Advancing equity in air transportation 

for individuals with disabilities is also 

a priority for the Administration. To 

further this goal, the Department is 

developing a rulemaking to improve the 

accessibility of lavatories on single-aisle 

aircraft. In this rulemaking, the 

Department is considering options to 

significantly improve the ability of 

passengers with disabilities to travel 

with freedom and dignity by being able 

to access the lavatory. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FAA is charged with safely and 

efficiently operating and maintaining 

the most complex aviation system in the 

world. To enhance aviation safety, FAA 

is finalizing a rulemaking that would 

require certain airport certificate holders 

to develop, implement, maintain, and 

adhere to a safety management system. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5131 

FAA is also developing a proposal to 

reduce risks caused by latent defects in 

critical systems on transport category 

airplanes. 

The FAA will continue to advance 

rulemakings to ensure that the United 

States has the safest aviation, most 

efficient, and modern aviation system in 

the word, including proposing a 

rulemaking that would require certain 

aircraft, engine, and propeller 

manufacturers; certificate holders 

conducting common carriage 

operations; certain maintenance 

providers; and persons conducting 

certain, specific types of air tour 

operations to implement a Safety 

Management System. FAA will also 

manage rulemakings to further advance 

the integration of unmanned aircraft 

systems and commercial space 

operations into the national airspace 

system. In addition, the FAA will 

propose requirements for the 

certification of certain airplanes to 

enforce compliance with the emissions 

standards adopted by the Environmental 

Protection Agency under the Clean Air 

Act. 

Federal Highway Administration 

FHWA carries out the Federal 

highway program in partnership with 

State and local agencies to meet the 

Nation’s transportation needs. FHWA’s 

mission is to improve the quality and 

performance of our Nation’s highway 

system and its intermodal connectors. 

Consistent with this mission, FHWA 

is scheduled to update the Manual on 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices for 

Streets and Highways (MUTCD), 

conforming technical provisions of the 

2009 edition to reflect advances in 

technologies and operational practices 

that are not currently allowed in the 

MUTCD. This update will incorporate 

the latest human factors research to 

make road signage more accessible, 

thereby ensuring that both pedestrians 

and vehicles comply with that signage 

and reduce the risk of an accident. The 

Agency will also pursue a new 

regulation requiring safety integration 

across all Federal-aid programs and any 

necessary mitigation on Federal-aid 

projects. In addition, FHWA will work 

on a rulemaking to establish a method 

for the measurement and reporting of 

greenhouse gas emissions associated 

with transportation. 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

The mission of FMCSA is to reduce 

crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving 

commercial trucks and buses. A strong 

regulatory program is a cornerstone of 

FMCSA’s compliance and enforcement 

efforts to advance this safety mission. In 

addition to Agency-directed regulations, 

FMCSA develops regulations mandated 

by Congress, through legislation such as 

the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century (MAP–21) and the Fixing 

America’s Surface Transportation 

(FAST) Acts. FMCSA regulations 

establish minimum safety standards for 

motor carriers, commercial drivers, 

commercial motor vehicles, and State 

agencies receiving certain motor carrier 

safety grants and issuing commercial 

drivers’ licenses. 

FMCSA will continue to coordinate 

efforts on the development of 

autonomous vehicle technologies and 

review existing regulations to identify 

changes that might be needed to ensure 

that DOT regulations ensure safety and 

keep pace with innovations. 

Additionally, in support of the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s 

(NHTSA) automatic emergency braking 

(AEB) rulemaking for heavy trucks, 

FMCSA will seek information and 

comment concerning the maintenance 

and operation of AEB by motor carriers. 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

The mission of NHTSA is to save 

lives, prevent injuries, and reduce 

economic costs due to roadway crashes. 

The statutory responsibilities of NHTSA 

relating to motor vehicles include 

reducing the number, and mitigating the 

effects, of motor vehicle crashes and 

related fatalities and injuries; providing 

safety-relevant information to aid 

prospective purchasers of vehicles, 

child restraints, and tires; and 

improving light-, medium-, and heavyduty vehicle fuel efficiency 

requirements. NHTSA pursues policies 

that enable safety, climate and energy 

policy and conservation, equity, and 

mobility. NHTSA develops safety 

standards and regulations driven by 

data and research, including those 

mandated by Congress under the MAP– 

21 Act, the FAST Act, and the Energy 

Independence and Security Act, among 

others. NHTSA’s regulatory priorities 

for Fiscal Year 2022 focus on issues 

related to safety, climate, equity, and 

vulnerable road users. 

To enhance the safety of vulnerable 

road users and vehicle occupants, 

NHTSA plans to issue a proposal to 

require automatic emergency braking 

(AEB) on light vehicles, including 

Pedestrian AEB. For heavy trucks, 

NHTSA also plans to propose to require 

AEB. For climate and equity, NHTSA 

plans to complete a rulemaking to 

address corporate average fuel economy 

(CAFE) preemption, pursuant to 

Executive Order 13990. Improving fuel 

economy for light, medium and heavyduty vehicles can have significant 

public health impacts, especially for 

overburdened communities. NHTSA 

also plans to issue a final rule for Model 

Year 2024–2026 CAFE standards for 

passenger cars and light trucks. More 

information about these rules can be 

found in the DOT Unified Agenda. 

Federal Railroad Administration 

FRA exercises regulatory authority 

over all areas of railroad safety and, 

where feasible, incorporates flexible 

performance standards. The current 

FRA regulatory program continues to 

reflect a number of pending proceedings 

to satisfy mandates resulting from the 

Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 

(RSIA08), the Passenger Rail Investment 

and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), 

and the FAST Act. These actions 

support a safe, high-performing 

passenger rail network, address the safe 

and effective movement of energy 

products, and encourage innovation and 

the adoption of new technology in the 

rail industry to improve safety and 

efficiencies. FRA’s regulatory priority 

for Fiscal Year 2022 is to propose 

regulations addressing the issue of the 

requirements for safe minimum train 

crew size depending on the type of 

operation. 

Federal Transit Administration 

The mission of FTA is to improve 

public transportation for America’s 

communities. To further that end, FTA 

provides financial and technical 

assistance to local public transit 

systems, including buses, subways, light 

rail, commuter rail, trolleys, and ferries, 

oversees safety measures, and helps 

develop next-generation technology 

research. FTA’s regulatory activities 

implement the laws that apply to 

recipients’ uses of Federal funding and 

the terms and conditions of FTA grant 

awards. 

In furtherance of its mission and 

consistent with statutory changes, in 

Fiscal Year 2022, FTA will update its 

Buy America regulation to incorporate 

changes to the waiver process made by 

MAP–21 and the FAST Act and to make 

other conforming updates and 

amendments. FTA will also modify its 

Bus Testing regulation to improve 

testing procedures and to respond to 

technological advancements in vehicle 

testing. Finally, the Agency is 

considering a rulemaking that would 

address transit roadway worker 

protections and operator assaults. 

Maritime Administration 

MARAD administers Federal laws and 

programs to improve and strengthen the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5132 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

maritime transportation system to meet 

the economic, environmental, and 

security needs of the Nation. To that 

end, MARAD’s efforts are focused upon 

ensuring a strong American presence in 

the domestic and international trades 

and to expanding maritime 

opportunities for American businesses 

and workers. 

MARAD’s regulatory objectives and 

priorities reflect the Agency’s 

responsibility for ensuring the 

availability of water transportation 

services for American shippers and 

consumers and, in times of war or 

national emergency, for the U.S. armed 

forces. 

For Fiscal Year 2022, MARAD will 

continue its work increasing the 

efficiency of program operations by 

updating and clarifying implementing 

rules and program administrative 

procedures. 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

PHMSA has responsibility for 

rulemaking focused on hazardous 

materials transportation and pipeline 

safety. In addition, PHMSA administers 

programs under the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, as amended by 

the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 

In Fiscal Year 2022, PHMSA will 

focus on the Gas Pipeline Leak 

Detection and Repair rulemaking, which 

would amend the Pipeline Safety 

Regulations to enhance requirements for 

detecting and repairing leaks on new 

and existing natural gas distribution, gas 

transmission, and gas gathering 

pipelines. PHMSA anticipates that the 

amendments proposed in this 

rulemaking would reduce methane 

emissions arising from avoidance/ 

remediation of leaks and incidents from 

natural gas pipelines and address 

environmental justice concerns by 

improving the safety of natural gas 

pipelines near environmental justice 

communities and mitigating the risks for 

those communities arising from climate 

change. 

PHMSA will also focus on the 

Improving the Safety of Transporting 

Liquefied Natural Gas rulemaking. This 

rulemaking action would amend the 

Hazardous Materials Regulations 

governing transportation of liquefied 

natural gas (LNG) in rail tank cars. This 

rulemaking action would incorporate 

the results of ongoing research efforts 

and collaboration with other 

Department of Transportation Operating 

Administrations and external technical 

experts; respond to a directive in 

Executive Order 13990 for PHMSA to 

review recent actions that could be 

obstacles to Administration policies 

promoting public health and safety, the 

environment, and climate change 

mitigation; and provide an opportunity 

for stakeholders and the public to 

contribute their perspectives on rail 

transportation of LNG. 

DOT—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

(OST) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

129. +Processing Buy America and Buy 

American Waivers Based on 

Nonavailability 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 23 U.S.C. 313; 49 

U.S.C. 5323(j); 49 U.S.C. 24405(a); 49 

U.S.C. 50101; Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2018, div. L, title 

IV, sec. 410; 41 U.S.C. 8301 to 8305; 

E.O. 13788, Buy American and Hire 

American (April 18, 2017) 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule will establish the 

applicable regulatory standard for 

waivers from the Buy America 

requirement on the basis that a product 

or item is not manufactured in the 

United States meeting the applicable 

Buy America requirement. This 

standard will require the use of items 

and products with the maximum known 

amount of domestic content. The rule 

will also establish the required 

information, which is expected to be 

consistent across the Department, the 

applicants must provide in applying for 

such waivers. 

Statement of Need: Pursuant to 

Executive Order 13788, Buy American 

and Hire American, which establishes 

as a policy of the executive branch to 

‘‘maximize, consistent with law . . . the 

use of goods, products, and materials 

produced in the United States,’’ DOT 

will be requiring that applicants for 

non-availability waivers select products 

that maximize domestic content. In 

addition, this rule will streamline the 

Buy America non-availability waiver 

process, and improve coordination 

across the Department of 

Transportation. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 23 U.S.C. 

313; 49 U.S.C. 5323(j); 49 U.S.C. 

24405(a); 49 U.S.C. 50101; Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2018, div. L, tit. IV 

section 410; 41 U.S.C. 8301–8305; 

Executive Order 13788, Buy American 

and Hire American (Apr. 18, 2017). 

Alternatives: TBD. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD. 

Risks: TBD. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Michael A. Smith, 

Attorney Advisor, Department of 

Transportation, Office of the Secretary, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366– 

4000, Email: michael.a.smith@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2105–AE79 

DOT—OST 

130. +Accessible Lavatories on SingleAisle Aircraft: Part II 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: Air Carrier Access 

Act, 49 U.S.C. 41705 

CFR Citation: 14 CFR 382. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking proposes 

that airlines make lavatories on new 

single-aisle aircraft large enough, 

equivalent to that currently found on 

twin-aisle aircraft, to permit a passenger 

with a disability (with the help of an 

assistant, if necessary) to approach, 

enter, and maneuver within the aircraft 

lavatory as necessary to use all lavatory 

facilities and leave by means of the 

aircraft’s on-board wheelchair. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking 

proposes to improve accessibility of 

lavatories on single-aisle aircraft. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 

41705; 14 CFR part 382. 

Alternatives: N/A. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD. 

Risks: N/A. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Blane A. Workie, 

Assistant General Counsel, Department 

of Transportation, Office of the 

Secretary, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5133 

Washington, DC 20590. Phone: 202 366– 

9342, Fax: 202 366–7153, Email: 

blane.workie@ost.dot.gov. 

Related RIN: Split from 2105–AE32, 

Related to 2105–AE88. 

RIN: 2105–AE89 

DOT—OST 

131. • +Enhancing Transparency of 

Airline Ancillary Service Fees 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41712 

CFR Citation: 14 CFR 399. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

The Department of Transportation is 

proposing to amend its aviation 

consumer protection regulations to 

ensure that consumers have ancillary 

fee information, including ‘‘baggage 

fees,’’ ‘‘change fees,’’ and ‘‘cancellation 

fees’’ at the time of ticket purchase. This 

rulemaking would also examine 

whether fees for certain ancillary 

services should be disclosed at the first 

point in a search process where a fare 

is listed. This rulemaking implements 

section 5, paragraph (m)(i)(F) of 

Executive Order 14. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

amend DOT’s aviation consumer 

protection regulations to ensure that 

consumers have ancillary fee 

information, including ‘‘baggage fees,’’ 

‘‘change fees,’’ and ‘‘cancellation fees’’ 

at the time of ticket purchase. This 

rulemaking would also examine 

whether fees for certain ancillary 

services should be disclosed at the first 

point in a search process where a fare 

is listed. This rulemaking implements 

section 5, paragraph (m)(i)(F) of 

Executive Order 14036 on Promoting 

Competition in the American Economy, 

which directs the Department to better 

protect consumers and improve 

competition. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking 

proposes that consumers have ancillary 

fee information, including ‘‘baggage 

fees,’’ ‘‘change fees,’’ and ‘‘cancellation 

fees,’’ at the time of ticket purchase. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 

41712; 14 CFR part 399, Executive 

Order 14036. 

Alternatives: N/A. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD. 

Risks: N/A. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Blane A. Workie, 

Assistant General Counsel, Department 

of Transportation, Office of the 

Secretary, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366– 

9342, Fax: 202 366–7153, Email: 

blane.workie@ost.dot.gov. 

RIN: 2105–AF10 

DOT—FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION (FAA) 

Final Rule Stage 

132. +Registration and Marking 

Requirements for Small Unmanned 

Aircraft 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 49 

U.S.C. 41703, 44101 to 44106, 44110 to 

44113, and 44701 

CFR Citation: 14 CFR 1; 14 CFR 375; 

14 CFR 45; 14 CFR 47; 14 CFR 48; 14 

CFR 91. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

provide an alternative, streamlined and 

simple, web-based aircraft registration 

process for the registration of small 

unmanned aircraft, including small 

unmanned aircraft operated exclusively 

for limited recreational operations, to 

facilitate compliance with the statutory 

requirement that all aircraft register 

prior to operation. It would also provide 

a simpler method for marking small 

unmanned aircraft that is more 

appropriate for these aircraft. This 

action responds to public comments 

received regarding the proposed 

registration process in the Operation 

and Certification of Small Unmanned 

Aircraft notice of proposed rulemaking, 

the request for information regarding 

unmanned aircraft system registration, 

and the recommendations from the 

Unmanned Aircraft System Registration 

Task Force. 

Statement of Need: This interim final 

rule (IFR) provides an alternative 

process that small unmanned aircraft 

owners may use to comply with the 

statutory requirements for aircraft 

operations. As provided in the 

clarification of these statutory 

requirements and request for further 

information issued October 19, 2015, 49 

U.S.C. 44102 requires aircraft to be 

registered prior to operation. See 80 FR 

63912 (October 22, 2015). Currently, the 

only registration and aircraft 

identification process available to 

comply with the statutory aircraft 

registration requirement for all aircraft 

owners, including small unmanned 

aircraft, is the paper-based system set 

forth in 14 CFR parts 45 and 47. As the 

Secretary and the Administrator noted 

in the clarification issued October 19, 

2015 and further analyzed in the 

regulatory evaluation accompanying 

this rulemaking, the Department and the 

FAA have determined that this process 

is too onerous for small unmanned 

aircraft owners and the FAA. Thus, after 

considering public comments and the 

recommendations from the Unmanned 

Aircraft System (UAS) Registration Task 

Force, the Department and the FAA 

have developed an alternative process, 

provided by this IFR (14 CFR part 48), 

for registration and marking available 

only to small unmanned aircraft owners. 

Small unmanned aircraft owners may 

use this process to comply with the 

statutory requirement to register their 

aircraft prior to operating in the 

National Airspace System (NAS). 

Summary of Legal Basis: The FAA’s 

authority to issue rules on aviation 

safety is found in Title 49 of the United 

States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 

describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. This 

rulemaking is promulgated under the 

authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 

which establishes the authority of the 

Administrator to promulgate regulations 

and rules; and 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), 

which requires the Administrator to 

promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air 

commerce by prescribing regulations 

and setting minimum standards for 

other practices, methods, and 

procedures necessary for safety in air 

commerce and national security. This 

rule is also promulgated pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 44101–44106 and 44110–44113 

which require aircraft to be registered as 

a condition of operation and establish 

the requirements for registration and 

registration processes. Additionally, this 

rulemaking is promulgated pursuant to 

the Secretary’s authority in 49 U.S.C. 

41703 to permit the operation of foreign 

civil aircraft in the United States. 

Alternatives: Currently, the only 

registration and aircraft identification 

process available to comply with the 

statutory aircraft registration 

requirement for all aircraft owners, 

including small unmanned aircraft, is 

the paper-based system set forth in 14 

CFR parts 45 and 47. As the Secretary 

and the Administrator noted in the 

clarification issued October 19, 2015 

and further analyzed in the regulatory 

evaluation accompanying this 

rulemaking, the Department and the 

FAA have determined that this process 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5134 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

is too onerous for small unmanned 

aircraft owners and the FAA. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In 

order to implement the new 

streamlined, web-based system 

described in this interim final rule (IFR), 

the FAA will incur costs to develop, 

implement, and maintain the system. 

Small UAS owners will require time to 

register and mark their aircraft, and that 

time has a cost. The total of government 

and registrant resource cost for small 

unmanned aircraft registration and 

marking under this new system is $56 

million ($46 million present value at 7 

percent) through 2020. In evaluating the 

impact of this interim final rule, we 

compare the costs and benefits of the 

IFR to a baseline consistent with 

existing practices: For modelers, the 

exercise of discretion by FAA (not 

requiring registration) and continued 

broad public outreach and educational 

campaign, and for non-modelers, 

registration via part 47 in the paperbased system. Given the time to register 

aircraft under the paper-based system 

and the projected number of sUAS 

aircraft, the FAA estimates the cost to 

the government and non-modelers 

would be about $383 million. The 

resulting cost savings to society from 

this IFR equals the cost of this baseline 

policy ($383 million) minus the cost of 

this IFR ($56 million), or about $327 

million ($259 million in present value at 

a 7 percent discount rate). These cost 

savings are the net quantified benefits of 

this IFR. 

Risks: Many of the owners of these 

new sUAS may have no prior aviation 

experience and have little or no 

understanding of the NAS, let alone 

knowledge of the safe operating 

requirements and additional 

authorizations required to conduct 

certain operations. Aircraft registration 

provides an immediate and direct 

opportunity for the agency to engage 

and educate these new users prior to 

operating their unmanned aircraft and 

to hold them accountable for 

noncompliance with safe operating 

requirements, thereby mitigating the 

risk associated with the influx of 

operations. In light of the increasing 

reports and incidents of unsafe 

incidents, rapid proliferation of both 

commercial and model aircraft 

operators, and the resulting increased 

risk, the Department has determined it 

is contrary to the public interest to 

proceed with further notice and 

comment rulemaking regarding aircraft 

registration for small unmanned aircraft. 

To minimize risk to other users of the 

NAS and people and property on the 

ground, it is critical that the Department 

be able to link the expected number of 

new unmanned aircraft to their owners 

and educate these new owners prior to 

commencing operations. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 12/16/15 80 FR 78593 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

12/21/15 

OMB approval of 

information collection.

12/21/15 80 FR 79255 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

01/15/16 

Final Rule ............ 03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Bonnie Lefko, 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 6500 S 

MacArthur Boulevard, Registry Building 

26, Room 118, Oklahoma City, OK 

73169, Phone: 405 954–7461, Email: 

bonnie.lefko@faa.gov. 

RIN: 2120–AK82 

DOT—FEDERAL HIGHWAY 

ADMINISTRATION (FHWA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

133. +Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Measure 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 23 U.S.C. 150 

CFR Citation: 23 CFR 490. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

establish a method for the measurement 

and reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions associated with on-road 

transportation under title 23 of the 

United States Code (U.S.C.). It is 

proposed as an addition to existing 

FHWA regulations that establish a set of 

performance measures for State 

departments of transportation (State 

DOTs) and metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPOs) to use pursuant to 

23 U.S.C. 150(c) or other authorities. 

Statement of Need: The proposed 

national performance management 

measure responds to the climate crisis. 

Establishing a method for measuring 

and reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions associated with 

transportation under title 23, United 

States Code, is necessary because the 

environmental sustainability, including 

the carbon footprint, of the 

transportation system is an important 

attribute of the system that States can 

use to assess the performance of the 

Interstate and non-Interstate National 

Highway System (NHS). Consistent 

measurement and reporting of GHG 

emissions from on-road mobile source 

emissions under the proposed rule 

would assist all levels of government 

and the public in making more informed 

choices about GHG emissions trends. 

Summary of Legal Basis: FHWA has 

the legal authority to establish the 

proposed GHG emissions measure 

under 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3), which calls 

for performance measures that the States 

can use to assess performance of the 

Interstate and non-Interstate NHS for 

purposes of carrying out the National 

Highway Performance Program (NHPP) 

under 23 U.S.C. 119. Specifically, 

FHWA interprets the performance of the 

Interstate System and the NHS under 23 

U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(ii)(IV)–(V) to include 

environmental performance, consistent 

with the national goals established 

under 23 U.S.C. 150(b). Other statutory 

provisions also support the proposed 

measure, including 23 U.S.C. 119 

(NHPP) and 23 U.S.C. 101(b)(3)(G) 

(transportation policy), 134(a)(1) 

(transportation planning policy), 

134(c)(1) (metropolitan planning), and 

135(d)(1) and (d)(2) (statewide planning 

process and a performance-based 

approach). 

Alternatives: FHWA is developing a 

proposed rule and will consider all 

available alternatives in the 

development of its proposal. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FHWA 

is preparing a regulatory analysis of the 

costs and benefits associated with the 

proposed rule. In the analysis, FHWA 

anticipates quantifying estimates where 

possible and qualitatively discussing 

costs and benefits that cannot be 

quantified. 

Risks: FHWA is developing a 

proposed rule and will consider 

potential risks in the development of its 

proposal. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5135 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Michael Culp, 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590, Phone: 202 366–9229, Email: 

michael.culp@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2125–AF99 

DOT—FHWA 

Final Rule Stage 

134. +Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices for Streets and 

Highways 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 

109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a) 

CFR Citation: 23 CFR 655. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

update the Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices for Streets and 

Highways (MUTCD) incorporated by 

reference at 23 CFR part 655. The new 

edition would update the technical 

provisions of the 2009 edition to reflect 

advances in technologies and 

operational practices that are not 

currently allowed in the MUTCD. 

Statement of Need: Updates to the 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices for Streets and Highways 

(MUTCD) are needed to update the 

technical provisions to reflect advances 

in technologies and operational 

practices, incorporate recent trends and 

innovations, and set the stage for 

automated driving systems as those 

continue to take shape. The proposed 

changes to the MUTCD would promote 

uniformity and incorporate technology 

advances in the traffic control device 

application. They ultimately would 

improve and encourage the safe and 

efficient utilization of roads that are 

open to public travel. 

Summary of Legal Basis: FHWA 

proposed this rule under 23 U.S.C. 

109(d), 315, and 402(a), which give the 

Secretary of Transportation the 

authority to promulgate uniform 

provisions to promote the safe and 

efficient utilization of the highways. 

The Secretary has delegated this 

authority to FHWA under 49 CFR 1.85. 

Alternatives: FHWA continues to 

consider all available alternatives in this 

rulemaking as the Agency considers 

public comments received on the Notice 

of Proposed Amendments (NPA) to 

inform a final rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FHWA 

estimated the costs and potential 

benefits of the proposed changes to the 

MUTCD in an economic analysis. 

FHWA analyzed the expected 

compliance costs associated with 132 

proposed substantive revisions. As 

summarized in the NPA, FHWA found 

that 8 of those substantive revisions 

have quantifiable economic impacts. 

FHWA quantified the total estimated 

cost of 3 substantive revisions for which 

costs can be quantified as $541,978 

when discounted at 7 percent and 

$589,667 when discounted at 3 percent, 

measured in 2018 dollars. FHWA lacked 

information to estimate the cost of 5 

substantive revisions but expects they 

will have net benefits based on per-unit 

or per-mile costs and benefits of the 

proposed revisions. FHWA will update 

the economic analysis to reflect the final 

rule, to be designated as the 11th edition 

of the MUTCD. 

Risks: FHWA is continuing to 

consider potential risks as the Agency 

considers public comments received on 

the NPA to inform a final rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/14/20 85 FR 80898 

Publication Date 

for Extension of 

Comment Period.

02/02/21 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

05/14/21 

Final Rule ............ 09/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Kevin Sylvester, 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590, Phone: 202 366–2161, Email: 

kevin.sylvester@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2125–AF85 

DOT—NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

135. +Heavy Vehicle Automatic 

Emergency Braking 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111; 49 

U.S.C. 30115; 49 U.S.C. 30117; 49 U.S.C. 

30166; 49 U.S.C. 322; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.95 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 571. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This notice will seek 

comments on a proposal to require and/ 

or standardize equipment performance 

for automatic emergency braking on 

heavy trucks. The agency previously 

published a notice (80 FR 62487) on 

October 16, 2015, granting a petition for 

rulemaking submitted by the Truck 

Safety Coalition, the Center for Auto 

Safety, Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety, and Road Safe America (dated 

February 19, 2015), to establish a safety 

standard to require automatic forward 

collision avoidance and mitigation 

(FCAM) systems on certain heavy 

vehicles. For several years, NHTSA has 

researched forward collision avoidance 

and mitigation technology on heavy 

vehicles, including forward collision 

warning and automatic emergency 

braking systems. This rulemaking 

proposes test procedures for measuring 

performance of these systems. 

Statement of Need: This proposed 

rule would establish a safety standard to 

require and/or standardize performance 

of automatic forward collision 

avoidance and mitigation systems on 

heavy vehicles. NHTSA believes there is 

potential for AEB to improve safety by 

reducing the likelihood of rear-end 

crashes involving heavy vehicles and 

the severity of crashes. NHTSA is 

commencing the rulemaking process to 

potentially require new heavy vehicles 

to be equipped with automatic 

emergency braking systems, or to 

standardize AEB performance when the 

systems are optionally installed on 

vehicles. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 

322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95. 

Alternatives: NHTSA will present 

regulatory alternatives in the NPRM. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

NHTSA will present preliminary costs 

and benefits in the NPRM. 

Risks: The agency believes there are 

no substantial risks to this rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: David Hines, 

Director, Office of Crash Avoidance 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5136 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Standards, Department of 

Transportation, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590, Phone: 202–366–2720, Email: 

david.hines@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2127–AM36 

DOT—NHTSA 

136. +Light Vehicle Automatic 

Emergency Braking (AEB) With 

Pedestrian AEB 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111; 49 

U.S.C. 30115; 49 U.S.C. 30117; 49 U.S.C. 

30166; 49 U.S.C. 322; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.95 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 571. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This notice will seek 

comment on a proposal to require and/ 

or standardize performance for Light 

Vehicle Automatic Emergency Braking 

(AEB), including Pedestrian AEB 

(PAEB), on all newly manufactured light 

vehicles. A vehicle with AEB detects 

crash imminent situations in which the 

vehicle is moving forward towards 

another vehicle and/or a pedestrian, and 

automatically applies the brakes to 

prevent the crash from occurring, or to 

mitigate the severity of the crash. This 

rulemaking would set performance 

requirements and would specify a test 

procedure under which compliance 

with those requirements would be 

measured. 

Statement of Need: This proposed 

rule would reduce rear end vehicle-tovehicle crashes and could reduce motor 

vehicle impacts with pedestrians that 

often result in death and injury. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 

322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166; 

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95. 

Alternatives: NHTSA will present 

regulatory alternatives in the NPRM. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

NHTSA will present preliminary costs 

and benefits in the NPRM. 

Risks: The agency believes there are 

no substantial risks to this rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: David Hines, 

Director, Office of Crash Avoidance 

Standards, Department of 

Transportation, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590, Phone: 202–366–2720, Email: 

david.hines@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2127–AM37 

DOT—NHTSA 

Final Rule Stage 

137. +Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

(CAFE) Preemption 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.95 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 533. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This action would repeal of 

The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient 

(SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One 

National Program, 84 FR 51310 (Sept. 

27, 2019) (‘‘SAFE I Rule’’). 

Statement of Need: This action is 

directed under Executive Order 13990. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This 

rulemaking would respond to 

requirements of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA), Title 1, Subtitle A, Section 102, 

as it amends 49 U.S.C. 32902, which 

was signed into law December 19, 2007. 

The statute requires that corporate 

average fuel economy standards be 

prescribed separately for passenger 

automobiles and non-passenger 

automobiles. The law requires the 

standards be set at least 18 months prior 

to the start of the model year. 

Alternatives: NHTSA considered 

alternatives in its May 2021 NPRM. 

NHTSA will update the regulatory 

alternatives in the final rule as 

appropriate. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

NHTSA estimated costs and benefits in 

its May 2021 NPRM. NHTSA will 

update the costs and benefits in the final 

rule as appropriate. 

Risks: The agency believes there are 

no substantial risks to this rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/12/21 86 FR 25980 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

06/11/21 

Final Rule ............ 11/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Kerry Kolodziej, 

Trial Attorney, Department of 

Transportation, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, 

Phone: 202 366–2161, Email: 

kerry.kolodziej@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2127–AM33 

DOT—NHTSA 

138. +Passenger Car and Light Truck 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: Delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.95 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 533. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

reconsider Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy (CAFE) standards for 

passenger cars and light trucks that were 

established in the agency’s April 30, 

2020 final rule. This rulemaking would 

respond to requirements of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA), title 1, subtitle A, section 102, as 

it amends 49 U.S.C. 32902. The statute 

requires that corporate average fuel 

economy standards be prescribed 

separately for passenger automobiles 

and non-passenger automobiles. For 

model years 2021 to 2030, the average 

fuel economy required to be attained by 

each fleet of passenger and nonpassenger automobiles shall be the 

maximum feasible for each model year. 

The law requires the standards be set at 

least 18 months prior to the start of the 

model year. 

Statement of Need: This action is 

directed under Executive Order 13990. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This 

rulemaking would respond to 

requirements of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA), Title 1, Subtitle A, Section 102, 

as it amends 49 U.S.C. 32902, which 

was signed into law December 19, 2007. 

The statute requires that corporate 

average fuel economy standards be 

prescribed separately for passenger 

automobiles and non-passenger 

automobiles. The law requires the 

standards be set at least 18 months prior 

to the start of the model year. 

Alternatives: NHTSA considered 

alternatives in its September 2021 

NPRM. NHTSA will update the 

regulatory alternatives in the final rule 

as appropriate. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

NHTSA estimated costs and benefits in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5137 

its September 2021 NPRM. NHTSA will 

update the costs and benefits in the final 

rule as appropriate. 

Risks: The agency believes there are 

no substantial risks to this rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 09/03/21 86 FR 49602 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

10/26/21 

Final Action ......... 03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Gregory Powell, 

Program Analyst, Department of 

Transportation, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590, Phone: 202 366–5206, Email: 

gregory.powell@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2127–AM34 

DOT—FEDERAL RAILROAD 

ADMINISTRATION (FRA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

139. +Train Crew Staffing 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 49 CFR 1.89(a); 49 

U.S.C. 20103 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 218. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

address the potential safety impact of 

one-person train operations, including 

appropriate measures to mitigate an 

accident’s impact and severity, and the 

patchwork of State laws concerning 

minimum crew staffing requirements. 

This rulemaking would address the 

issue of minimum requirements for the 

size of different train crew staffs, 

depending on the type of operations. 

Statement of Need: To address the 

potential safety impact of one-person 

train operations, including appropriate 

measures to mitigate an accident’s 

impact and severity, and the patchwork 

of State laws concerning minimum crew 

staffing requirements, FRA is drafting an 

NPRM that would address the issue of 

minimum requirements for the size of 

different train crew staffs, depending on 

the type of operation. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 

20103; 49 CFR 1.89(a). 

Alternatives: FRA will analyze 

regulatory alternatives in the NPRM. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FRA is 

currently expecting the economic 

impact of this rule is expected to be less 

than $100 million; however, FRA has 

not yet quantified the costs or benefits 

associated with this proposed 

rulemaking. 

Risks: The NPRM is based off a risk 

assessment that individual railroads 

will have to perform. The risks should 

be negatively impacted. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Amanda Maizel, 

Attorney Adviser, Department of 

Transportation, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, 

Phone: 202 493–8014, Email: 

amanda.maizel@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2130–AC88 

DOT—PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS SAFETY 

ADMINISTRATION (PHMSA) 

Long-Term Actions 

140. +Pipeline Safety: Class Location 

Requirements 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et 

seq. 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 192. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking action 

would address class location 

requirements for natural gas 

transmission pipelines, specifically as 

they pertain to actions operators are 

required to take following class location 

changes due to population growth near 

the pipeline. Operators have suggested 

that performing integrity management 

measures on pipelines where class 

locations have changed due to 

population increases would be an 

equally safe but less costly alternative to 

the current requirements of either 

reducing pressure, pressure testing, or 

replacing pipe. 

Statement of Need: Section 5 of the 

Pipeline Safety Act of 2011 required the 

Secretary of Transportation to evaluate 

and issue a report on whether integrity 

management (IM) requirements should 

be expanded beyond high-consequence 

areas and whether such expansion 

would mitigate the need for class 

location requirements. PHMSA issued a 

report to Congress on its evaluation of 

this issue in April 2016, noting it would 

further evaluate the feasibility and 

appropriateness of alternatives to 

address pipe replacement requirements 

when class locations change due to 

population growth. PHMSA issued an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

on July 31, 2018, to obtain public 

comment on whether allowing IM 

measures on pipelines where class 

locations have changed due to 

population increases would be an 

equally safe but less costly alternative to 

the current class location change 

requirements. PHMSA is proposing 

revisions to the Federal Pipeline Safety 

Regulations to amend the requirements 

for pipelines that experience a change in 

class location. This proposed rule 

addresses a part of a congressional 

mandate from the Pipeline Safety Act of 

2011 and responds to public input 

received as part of the rulemaking 

process. The amendments in this 

proposed rule would add an alternative 

set of requirements operators could use, 

based on implementing integrity 

management principles and pipe 

eligibility criteria, to manage certain 

pipeline segments where the class 

location has changed from a Class 1 

location to a Class 3 location. PHMSA 

intends for this alternative to provide 

equivalent public safety in a more costeffective manner to the current natural 

gas pipeline safety rules, which require 

operators to either reduce the pressure 

of the pipeline, pressure test the 

pipeline segment to higher standards, or 

replace the pipeline segment. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Congress 

established the current framework for 

regulating the safety of natural gas 

pipelines in the Natural Gas Pipeline 

Safety Act of 1968 (NGPSA). The 

NGPSA provided the Secretary of 

Transportation the authority to 

prescribe minimum Federal safety 

standards for natural gas pipeline 

facilities. That authority, as amended in 

subsequent reauthorizations, is 

currently codified in the Pipeline Safety 

Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.). 

Alternatives: PHMSA is evaluating 

and considering additional regulatory 

alternatives to these proposed 

requirements, including a ‘‘no action’’ 

alternative. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Estimated annual cost savings are $149 

million. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5138 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Risks: The alternative conditions 

PHMSA is proposing to allow operators 

to manage class location changes 

through IM will provide an equivalent 

level of safety as the existing class 

location change regulations. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 07/31/18 83 FR 36861 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

10/01/18 

NPRM .................. 10/14/20 85 FR 65142 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

12/14/20 

Final Rule ............ 03/00/23 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Cameron H. 

Satterthwaite, Transportation 

Regulations Specialist, Department of 

Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590, Phone: 202–366–8553, Email: 

cameron.satterthwaite@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2137–AF29 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

The primary mission of the 

Department of the Treasury is to 

maintain a strong economy and create 

economic and job opportunities by 

promoting the conditions that enable 

economic growth and stability at home 

and abroad, strengthen national security 

by combatting threats and protecting the 

integrity of the financial system, and 

manage the U.S. Government’s finances 

and resources effectively. 

Consistent with this mission, 

regulations of the Department and its 

constituent bureaus are promulgated to 

interpret and implement the laws as 

enacted by Congress and signed by the 

President. It is the policy of the 

Department to comply with applicable 

requirements to issue a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and carefully 

consider public comments before 

adopting a final rule. Also, the 

Department invites interested parties to 

submit views on rulemaking projects 

while a proposed rule is being 

developed. 

To the extent permitted by law, it is 

the policy of the Department to adhere 

to the regulatory philosophy and 

principles set forth in Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 13609 and to develop 

regulations that maximize aggregate net 

benefits to society while minimizing the 

economic and paperwork burdens 

imposed on persons and businesses 

subject to those regulations. 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau (TTB) issues regulations 

to implement and enforce Federal laws 

relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, 

and ammunition excise taxes and 

certain non-tax laws relating to alcohol. 

TTB’s mission and regulations are 

designed to: 

(1) Collect the taxes on alcohol, 

tobacco products, firearms, and 

ammunition; 

(2) Protect the consumer by ensuring 

the integrity of alcohol products; 

(3) Ensure only qualified businesses 

enter the alcohol and tobacco industries; 

and 

(4) Prevent unfair and unlawful 

market activity for alcohol and tobacco 

products. 

In FY 2022, TTB will continue its 

multi-year Regulations Modernization 

effort by prioritizing projects that reduce 

regulatory burdens, streamline and 

simplify requirements, and improve 

service to regulated businesses. 

Specifically, TTB plans to publish 

deregulatory rules that will reduce the 

amount of information industry 

members must submit to TTB in 

connection with permit and similar 

applications to engage in regulated 

businesses, and reduce the types of 

operational activities that require prior 

approval. TTB expects these proposals 

to ultimately reduce the amount of 

operational information industry 

members must submit to TTB and 

provide for the piloting of a combined 

tax return and simplified operations 

report, reducing the overall number of 

reports industry members must submit. 

These measures are expected to reduce 

burden on industry member and 

provide them greater flexibility, and 

make starting new businesses easier and 

faster for new industry members. 

TTB will also prioritize rulemaking to 

amend its regulations to reflect statutory 

changes pursuant to the Taxpayer 

Certainty and Disaster Tax Act of 2020, 

which made permanent most of the 

Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax 

Reform provisions of the Tax Cuts and 

Jobs Act of 2017. These legislative 

changes include reduced tax rates for 

beer and distilled spirits and tax credits 

for wine, among other provisions that 

had previously been provided on a 

temporary basis, as well as new 

provisions on the types of activities that 

qualify for reduced tax rates for distilled 

spirits and on permissible transfers of 

bottled distilled spirits in bond. 

Additionally, as a result of this 

legislation, and as addressed in a June 

2021 Report to Congress on 

Administration of Craft Beverage 

Modernization Act Refund Claims for 

Imported Alcohol, TTB will also 

prioritize rulemaking to implement and 

administer refund claims for imported 

alcohol. 

Additional priority projects include 

rulemaking to authorize new container 

sizes (standards of fill) for wine and 

responding to industry member 

petitions to authorize new wine treating 

materials and processes, new grape 

varietal names for use on labels of wine, 

and new American Viticultural Areas 

(AVAs). 

This fiscal year TTB plans to 

prioritize the following measures: 

• Streamlining and Modernizing the 

Permit Application Process (RINs: 1513– 

AC46, 1513–AC47, and 1513–AC48, 

Modernization of Permit and 

Registration Application Requirements 

for Distilled Spirits Plants, Permit 

Applications for Wineries, and 

Qualification Requirements for Brewers, 

respectively. 

In FY 2017, TTB engaged in a review 

of its regulations to identify any 

regulatory requirements that could 

potentially be eliminated, modified, or 

streamlined to reduce burdens on 

industry related to application and 

qualification requirements. Since that 

time, TTB has removed a number of 

requirements, particularly with regard 

to the information that is required to be 

submitted on TTB permit-related forms. 

In FY 2022, TTB intends to propose 

amending its regulations to further 

streamline the qualification and 

application requirements for new and 

existing businesses, including distilled 

spirits plants, wineries, and breweries. 

• Streamlining of Tax Return and 

Report Requirements (RIN: 1513–AC68). 

In FY 2022, TTB intends to propose 

for notice and comment regulatory 

amendments to substantially streamline 

current requirements pertaining to tax 

returns and operational reports and 

reducing the amount of information and 

the number of reports submitted. This 

measure will also include updates to 

return and report requirements to 

improve overall tax oversight and 

enforcement. 

• Modernizing the Alcohol Beverage 

Labeling and Advertising Requirements 

(RIN: 1513–AC66, Modernization of the 

Labeling and Advertising Regulations 

for Distilled Spirits and Malt Beverage, 

and RIN: 1513–AC67, Modernization of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5139 

Wine Labeling and Advertising 

Regulations). 

The Federal Alcohol Administration 

Act requires that alcohol beverages 

introduced in interstate commerce have 

a label approved under regulations 

prescribed by the Secretary of the 

Treasury. TTB conducted an analysis of 

its alcohol beverage labeling regulations 

to identify any that might be outmoded, 

ineffective, insufficient, or excessively 

burdensome, and to modify, streamline, 

expand, or repeal them in accordance 

with that analysis. These regulations 

were also reviewed to assess their 

applicability to the modern alcohol 

beverage marketplace. As a result of this 

review, in FY 2019, TTB proposed 

revisions to the regulations concerning 

the labeling requirements for wine, 

distilled spirits, and malt beverages. 

TTB anticipated that these regulatory 

changes would assist industry in 

voluntary compliance, decrease 

industry burden, and result in the 

regulated industries being able to bring 

products to market without undue 

delay. TTB received over 1,100 

comments in response to the notice, 

which included suggestions for further 

revisions. In FY 2020, TTB published in 

the Federal Register (85 FR 18704) a 

final rule amending its regulations to 

make permanent certain of the proposed 

liberalizing and clarifying changes, and 

to provide certainty with regard to 

certain other proposals that commenters 

generally opposed and that TTB did not 

intend to adopt. In FY 2022, TTB 

intends to address remaining aspects of 

this rulemaking initiative, including 

incorporating a proposed reorganization 

of the regulatory provisions intended to 

make the regulations easier to read and 

understand, for which industry 

members expressed support. 

• Implementation of the Craft 

Beverage Modernization Act (RIN: 1513– 

AC87, Implementing the Craft Beverage 

Modernization Act Permanent 

Provisions, and RIN: 1513–AC89, 

Administering the Craft Beverage 

Modernization Act Refund Claims for 

Imported Alcohol). 

TTB is amending its regulations for 

beer, wine, and distilled spirits, 

including those related to 

administration of import claims, to 

implement changes made to the Internal 

Revenue Code by the Taxpayer 

Certainty and Disaster Act of 2020, 

which made permanent most of the 

Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax 

Reform (CBMA) provisions of the Tax 

Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The CBMA 

provisions reduced excise taxes on all 

beverage alcohol producers, large and 

small, foreign and domestic. In 2020, 

these tax cuts were made permanent. 

The 2020 provisions also transferred 

responsibility for administering certain 

CBMA provisions for imported alcohol 

from U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to the Treasury 

Department after December 31, 2022. 

Importers will be required to pay the 

full tax rate at entry and submit refund 

claims to Treasury. Treasury intends for 

TTB to administer these claims. 

• Authorizing the Use of Additional 

Wine Treating Materials and Soliciting 

Comments on Proposed Changes to the 

Limits on the Use of Wine Treating 

Materials to Reflect ‘‘Good 

Manufacturing Practice’’ (RIN: 1513– 

AB61 and 1513–AC75). 

In FY 2017, TTB proposed to amend 

its regulations pertaining to the 

production of wine to authorize 

additional treatments that may be 

applied to wine and to juice from which 

wine is made. These proposed 

amendments were made in response to 

requests from wine industry members to 

authorize certain wine treating materials 

and processes not currently authorized 

by TTB regulations. Although TTB may 

administratively approve such 

treatments, such administrative 

approval does not guarantee acceptance 

in foreign markets of any wine so 

treated. Under certain international 

agreements, wine made with wine 

treating materials is not subject to 

certain restrictions if the authorization 

to use the treating materials is 

implemented through public notice; 

thus, rulemaking facilitates the 

acceptance of exported wine made using 

those treatments in foreign markets. In 

FY 2018, TTB reopened the comment 

period for the notice in response to 

industry member requests and, after 

consideration of the comments, TTB 

intends in FY 2022 to issue a final rule 

on those proposals. In FY 2022, TTB 

also intends to propose for public 

comment additional changes to the 

regulations governing wine treating 

materials, in response to a petition to 

more broadly amend the regulations to 

allow more wine treating materials to be 

used within the limitations of ‘‘good 

manufacturing practice’’ rather than 

within specified numerical limits. 

• Addition of New Standards of Fill 

for Wine (RIN: 1513–AC86) 

TTB plans to publish a proposal to 

amend the regulations governing wine 

containers to add additional authorized 

standards of fill in response to requests 

it has received for such standards, and 

to be consistent with a Side Letter 

included as part of a U.S.–Japan Trade 

Agreement that addresses issues related 

to market access and, specifically, to 

alcohol beverage standards of fill. TTB 

will also propose a technical 

amendment to add equivalent standard 

United States measures to the wine 

labeling regulations for recently 

approved wine standards of fill and for 

the additional sizes proposed in this 

notice. 

• Addition of Singani to the 

Standards of Identity for Distilled 

Spirits (RIN: 1513–AC61). 

On August 25, 2021, TTB published a 

proposal (86 FR 47429) to amend the 

regulations that set forth the standards 

of identity for distilled spirits to include 

Singani as a type of brandy that is a 

distinctive product of Bolivia. This 

proposal follows a joint petition 

submitted by the Plurinational State of 

Bolivia and Singani 63, Inc., and 

subsequent discussions with the Office 

of the United States Trade 

Representative. TTB solicited comments 

on this proposal, including comments 

on its proposal to authorize a minimum 

bottling proof of 35 percent alcohol by 

volume (or 70° proof) for Singani. TTB 

expects to publish a final rule in FY22. 

• Proposal to Amend the Regulations 

to Add New Grape Variety Names for 

American Wines (RIN: 1513–AC24). 

In FY 2017, TTB proposed to amend 

its wine labeling regulations by adding 

a number of new names to the list of 

grape variety names approved for use in 

designating American wines. The 

proposed deregulatory amendments 

would allow wine bottlers to use these 

additional approved grape variety 

names on wine labels and in wine 

advertisements in the U.S. and 

international markets. In 2018, TTB 

reopened the comment period for the 

notice in response to requests. TTB was 

unable to complete this project in FY 

2020 because of redirected efforts to 

address COVID–19 guidance, and TTB 

now intends to issue a final rule in FY 

2022. 

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency 

The Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency (OCC) charters, regulates, and 

supervises all national banks and 

Federal savings associations (FSAs). The 

agency also supervises the Federal 

branches and agencies of foreign banks. 

The OCC’s mission is to ensure that 

national banks and FSAs operate in a 

safe and sound manner, provide fair 

access to financial services, treat 

customers fairly, and comply with 

applicable laws and regulations. 

Regulatory priorities for fiscal year 

2022 are described below. 

• Amendments to Bank Secrecy Act 

Compliance Program Rule (12 CFR part 

21). 

The OCC, the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System (FRB), and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5140 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (FDIC) plan to issue a 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

amending their respective Bank Secrecy 

Act Compliance Program Rules. 

• Basel III Revisions (12 CFR part 3). 

The OCC, the FRB, and the FDIC plan 

to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking 

that would comprehensively revise the 

agencies’ risk-based capital rules, 

including revisions to the current 

standardized and advanced approaches 

capital rules. 

• Capital Requirements for Market 

Risk; Fundamental Review of the 

Trading Book (12 CFR part 3). 

The OCC, the FRB, and the FDIC plan 

to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking 

to revise their respective capital 

requirements for market risk, which are 

generally applied to banking 

organizations with substantial trading 

activity. The banking agencies expect 

the proposal to be generally consistent 

with the standards set forth in the 

Fundamental Review of the Trading 

Book published by the Basel Committee 

on Bank Supervision. 

• Community Reinvestment Act 

Regulations (12 CFR parts 25 and 195). 

The OCC plans to issue a proposal to 

replace the current Community 

Reinvestment Act (CRA) rule with 

revised rules largely based on the 1995 

CRA regulations. 

• Community Reinvestment Act 

Regulations (12 CFR part 25). 

Along with the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Agency and the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve, the 

OCC plans to issue a joint rule to 

modernize the Community 

Reinvestment Act regulations. 

• Computer-Security Incident 

Notification (12 CFR part 53). 

The OCC, FRB, and FDIC plan to issue 

a final rule that would require a banking 

organization to notify its primary federal 

regulator of significant computersecurity incidents on a timely basis. The 

rule would also require a bank service 

provider to promptly notify banking 

organization customers of certain 

significant computer-security incidents. 

The notice of proposed rulemaking was 

published on January 12, 2021 (86 FR 

2299). 

• Exemptions to Suspicious Activity 

Report Requirements (12 CFR parts 21 

and 163). 

The OCC plans to issue a final rule to 

modify the requirements for national 

banks and Federal savings associations 

to file Suspicious Activity Reports. The 

rule would amend the OCC’s Suspicious 

Activity Report regulations to allow the 

OCC to issue exemptions from the 

requirements of those regulations. The 

rule would make it possible for the OCC 

to grant relief to national banks or 

federal savings associations that develop 

innovative solutions to meet Bank 

Secrecy Act requirements more 

efficiently and effectively. The notice of 

proposed rulemaking was published on 

January 22, 2021 (86 FR 6572). 

• Implementation of Emergency 

Capital Investment Program (12 CFR 

part 3). 

Section 104A of the Community 

Development Banking and Financial 

Institutions Act of 1994, which was 

added by the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021, authorizes 

the Secretary of the Treasury to 

establish the Emergency Capital 

Investment Program (ECIP) through 

which the Department of the Treasury 

(Treasury) can make capital investments 

in low- and moderate-income 

community financial institutions. The 

purpose of ECIP is to support the efforts 

of such financial institutions to, among 

other things, provide financial 

intermediary services for small 

businesses, minority-owned businesses, 

and consumers, especially in lowincome and underserved communities. 

In order to support and facilitate the 

timely implementation and acceptance 

of ECIP and promote its purpose, the 

OCC, FRB, and FDIC plan to issue a 

final rule that provides that preferred 

stock issued to Treasury under ECIP 

qualifies as additional tier 1 capital and 

that subordinated debt issued to 

Treasury under ECIP qualifies as tier 2 

capital under the agencies’ capital rule. 

The interim final rule was published on 

March 22, 2021 (86 FR 15076). 

• Rules of Practice and Procedure (12 

CFR part 19). 

The OCC, FRB, and FDIC plan to issue 

a proposed rule to amend their rules of 

practice and procedure to reflect 

modern filing and communication 

methods and improve or clarify other 

procedures. 

• Tax Allocation Agreements (12 CFR 

part 30). 

The OCC, FRB, and FDIC plan to issue 

a final rule requiring banks that file 

income taxes as part of a consolidated 

group to develop and maintain tax 

allocation agreements with other 

members of the consolidated group. The 

notice of proposed rulemaking was 

published on May 10, 2021 (86 FR 

24755). 

Customs Revenue Functions 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 

(the Act) provides that, although many 

functions of the former United States 

Customs Service were transferred to the 

Department of Homeland Security, the 

Secretary of the Treasury retains sole 

legal authority over customs revenue 

functions. The Act also authorizes the 

Secretary of the Treasury to delegate any 

of the retained authority over customs 

revenue functions to the Secretary of 

Homeland Security. By Treasury 

Department Order No. 100–16, the 

Secretary of the Treasury delegated to 

the Secretary of Homeland Security 

authority to prescribe regulations 

pertaining to the customs revenue 

functions subject to certain exceptions, 

but further provided that the Secretary 

of the Treasury retained the sole 

authority to approve such regulations. 

During fiscal year 2021, CBP and 

Treasury plan to give priority to 

regulatory matters involving the 

customs revenue functions which 

streamline CBP procedures, protect the 

public, or are required by either statute 

or Executive Order. Examples of these 

efforts are described below. 

• Investigation of Claims of Evasion 

of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties. 

Treasury and CBP plan to finalize 

interim regulations (81 FR 56477) which 

amended CBP regulations implementing 

section 421 of the Trade Facilitation and 

Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, which 

set forth procedures to investigate 

claims of evasion of antidumping and 

countervailing duty orders. 

• Enforcement of Copyrights and the 

Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 

Treasury and CBP plan to finalize 

proposed amendments to the CBP 

regulations pertaining to importations of 

merchandise that violate or are 

suspected of violating the copyright 

laws, including the Digital Millennium 

Copyright Act (DMCA), in accordance 

with Title III of the Trade Facilitation 

and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 

(TFTEA) and Executive Order 13785, 

‘‘Establishing Enhanced Collection and 

Enforcement of Anti-dumping and 

Countervailing Duties and Violations of 

Trade and Customs Laws.’’ The 

proposed amendments are intended to 

enhance CBP’s enforcement efforts 

against increasingly sophisticated 

piratical goods, clarify the definition of 

piracy, simplify the detention process 

relative to goods suspected of violating 

the copyright laws, and prescribe new 

regulations enforcing the DMCA. 

• Inter Partes Proceedings Concerning 

Exclusion Orders Based on Unfair 

Practices in Import Trade. 

Treasury and CBP plan to publish a 

proposal to amend its regulations with 

respect to administrative rulings related 

to the importation of articles in light of 

exclusion orders issued by the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) under section 337 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The 

proposed amendments seek to promote 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5141 

the speed, accuracy, and transparency of 

such rulings through the creation of an 

inter partes proceeding to replace the 

current ex parte process. 

• Merchandise Produced by Convict 

or Forced Labor or Indentured Labor 

under Penal Sanctions. 

Treasury and CBP plan to publish a 

proposed rule to update, modernize, 

and streamline the process for enforcing 

the prohibition in 19 U.S.C. 1307 

against the importation of merchandise 

that has been mined, produced, or 

manufactured, wholly or in part, in any 

foreign country by convict labor, forced 

labor, or indentured labor under penal 

sanctions. The proposed rule would 

generally bring the forced labor 

regulations and detention procedures 

into alignment with other statutes, 

regulations, and procedures that apply 

to the enforcement of restrictions 

against other types of prohibited 

merchandise. 

• Non-Preferential Origin 

Determinations for Merchandise 

Imported From Canada or Mexico for 

Implementation of the Agreement 

Between the United States of America, 

the United Mexican States, and Canada 

(USMCA). 

Treasury and CBP plan to finalize a 

proposed rule to harmonize nonpreferential origin determinations for 

merchandise imported from Canada or 

Mexico. Such determinations would be 

made using certain tariff-based rules of 

origin to determine when a good 

imported from Canada or Mexico has 

been substantially transformed resulting 

in an article with a new name, 

character, or use. Once finalized, the 

rule is intended to reduce 

administrative burdens and 

inconsistency for non-preferential origin 

determinations for merchandise 

imported from Canada or Mexico for 

purposes of the implementation of the 

USMCA. 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 

As administrator of the Bank Secrecy 

Act (BSA), the Financial Crimes 

Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is 

responsible for developing and 

implementing regulations that are the 

core of the Department’s anti-money 

laundering (AML) and countering the 

financing of terrorism (CFT) efforts. 

FinCEN’s responsibilities and objectives 

are linked to, and flow from, that role. 

In fulfilling this role, FinCEN seeks to 

enhance U.S. national security by 

making the financial system 

increasingly resistant to abuse by money 

launderers, terrorists and their financial 

supporters, and other perpetrators of 

crime. 

The Secretary of the Treasury, 

through FinCEN, is authorized by the 

BSA to issue regulations requiring 

financial institutions to file reports and 

keep records that are highly useful in 

criminal, tax, or regulatory 

investigations, risk assessments, or 

proceedings, or intelligence or counterintelligence activities, including 

analysis, to protect against terrorism. 

The BSA also authorizes FinCEN to 

require that designated financial 

institutions establish AML/CFT 

programs and compliance procedures. 

To implement and realize its mission, 

FinCEN has established regulatory 

objectives and priorities to safeguard the 

financial system from the abuses of 

financial crime, including terrorist 

financing, proliferation financing, 

money laundering, and other illicit 

activity. 

These objectives and priorities 

include: (1) Issuing, interpreting, and 

enforcing compliance with regulations 

implementing the BSA; (2) supporting, 

working with, and as appropriate 

overseeing compliance examination 

functions delegated by FinCEN to other 

Federal regulators; (3) managing the 

collection, processing, storage, and 

dissemination of data related to the 

BSA; (4) maintaining a governmentwide access service to that same data for 

authorized users with a range of 

interests; (5) conducting analysis in 

support of policymakers, law 

enforcement, regulatory and intelligence 

agencies, and (for compliance purposes) 

the financial sector; and (6) coordinating 

with and collaborating on AML/CFT 

initiatives with domestic law 

enforcement and intelligence agencies, 

as well as foreign financial intelligence 

units. 

FinCEN’s regulatory priorities for 

fiscal year 2022 include: 

• Section 6110. BSA Application to 

Dealers in Antiquities and Assessment 

of BSA Application to Dealers in Art. 

On September 24, 2021, FinCEN 

issued an Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) in order to 

implement Section 6110 of the AntiMoney Laundering Act of 2020 (the 

AML Act). This section amends the BSA 

(31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2)) to include as a 

financial institution a person engaged in 

the trade of antiquities, including an 

advisor, consultant, or any other person 

who engages as a business in the 

solicitation or the sale of antiquities, 

subject to regulations prescribed by the 

Secretary of the Treasury. The section 

further requires the Secretary of the 

Treasury to issue proposed rules to 

implement the amendment within 360 

days of enactment of the AML Act. 

• Reports of Foreign Financial 

Accounts Civil Penalties (Technical 

Change). 

FinCEN is amending 31 CFR 1010.820 

to withdraw the reports of foreign 

financial accounts (FBAR) civil 

monetary penalties language at 31 CFR 

1010.820(g), which was made obsolete 

with the enactment of the American 

Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The 

American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 

amended 31 U.S.C. 5321(a)(5) to allow 

for a greater maximum penalty for a 

willful violation of 31 U.S.C. 5314 than 

was previously authorized. 

• Clarification of the requirement to 

collect, retain, and transmit information 

on transactions involving convertible 

virtual currency and digital assets with 

legal tender status. 

The Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System and FinCEN 

(collectively, the ‘‘Agencies’’) intend to 

issue a revised proposal to clarify the 

meaning of ‘‘money’’ as used in the 

rules implementing the BSA requiring 

financial institutions to collect, retain, 

and transmit information on certain 

funds transfers and transmittals of 

funds. The Agencies intend that the 

revised proposal will ensure that the 

rules apply to domestic and crossborder transactions involving 

convertible virtual currency, which is a 

medium of exchange (such as 

cryptocurrency) that either has an 

equivalent value as currency, or acts as 

a substitute for currency, but lacks legal 

tender status. The Agencies further 

intend that the revised proposal will 

clarify that these rules apply to 

domestic and cross-border transactions 

involving digital assets that have legal 

tender status. 

• Real Estate Transaction Reports 

and Records. 

FinCEN will issue an Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPRM) to seek guidance on a future 

rulemaking that would require certain 

legal entities involved in real estate 

transactions to submit reports and keep 

records. Specifically, the ANPRM will 

seek comment to assist FinCEN in 

preparing a proposed rule that would 

potentially impose nationwide 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements on financial institutions 

and nonfinancial trades and businesses 

participating in purchases of real estate 

by certain legal entities that are not 

financed by a loan, mortgage, or other 

similar instrument. 

• Section 6212. Pilot Program on 

Sharing Information Related to 

Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) 

Within a Financial Group. 

FinCEN intends to issue a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in order 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5142 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

to implement Section 6212 the AML 

Act. This section amends the BSA (31 

U.S.C. 5318(g)) to establish a pilot 

program that permits financial 

institutions to SAR information with 

their foreign branches, subsidiaries, and 

affiliates for the purpose of combating 

illicit finance risks. The section further 

requires the Secretary of the Treasury to 

issue rules to implement the 

amendment within one year of 

enactment of the AML Act. 

• Section 6101. Establishment of 

National Exam and Supervision 

Priorities. 

FinCEN intends to issue a NPRM to 

implement Section 6101 the AML Act. 

That section, among other things, 

amends section 5318(h) to title 31 of the 

United States Code to: (1) Require 

financial institutions to establish CFT 

programs in addition to AML programs; 

(2) require FinCEN to establish national 

AML/CFT Priorities and, as appropriate, 

promulgate implementing regulations 

within 180 days of the issuance of those 

priorities; and (3) provide that the duty 

to establish, maintain, and enforce a 

BSA AML/CFT program remains the 

responsibility of, and must be 

performed by, persons in the United 

States who are accessible to, and subject 

to oversight and supervision by, the 

Secretary of the Treasury and the 

appropriate Federal functional 

regulator. Additionally, FinCEN intends 

to propose other changes, including 

regulatory amendments to establish that 

all financial institutions subject to an 

AML/CFT program requirement must 

maintain an effective and reasonably 

designed AML/CFT program, and that 

such a program must include a risk 

assessment process. 

• Sec. 6305. No Action Letter 

Program. 

FinCEN will issue an ANPRM 

following the implementation of Section 

6305 of the AML Act. This section 

required FinCEN to conduct an 

assessment on whether to issue noaction letters in response to specific 

conduct requests from third parties, and 

propose rulemaking if appropriate. The 

assessment concluded that FinCEN 

should issue no-action letters, subject to 

sufficient resources, and proposed 

rulemaking to follow the issuance of the 

report. The ANPRM will seek guidance 

on the contours of a FinCEN no-action 

letter process, and, if necessary and 

appropriate, may be followed by a 

NPRM establishing regulations to 

govern the process. The ANPRM will 

also solicits feedback on FinCEN’s 

current forms of regulatory guidance 

and relief. 

• Voluntary Information Sharing 

Among Financial Institutions Under 

Section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT 

Act. 

FinCEN is considering issuing this 

rule to strengthen the administration of 

the regulation implementing the 

statutory safe harbor that allows eligible 

financial institutions and associations of 

financial institutions to voluntarily 

share information regarding activities 

that may involve terrorist acts or money 

laundering. 

• Sec. 6314. Updating Whistleblower 

Incentives and Protection. 

FinCEN intends to issue a NPRM 

relating to Section 6314 of the AML Act. 

Section 6314 of AML Act amends 

Section 5323 of title 31, United States 

Code. Section 6314, enacted on January 

1, 2021, established a whistleblower 

program that requires FinCEN to pay an 

award, under regulations prescribed by 

FinCEN and subject to certain 

limitations, to eligible whistleblowers 

who voluntarily provide FinCEN or the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) with 

original information about a violation of 

the Bank Secrecy Act that leads to the 

successful enforcement of a covered 

judicial or administrative action, or 

related action, and requires that FinCEN 

preserve the confidentiality of a 

whistleblower. 

Additionally, section 6314 of the 

AML Act repealed 31 U.S.C. 5328, the 

previous whistleblower protection 

provision, and replaced it with a new 

subsection to 31 U.S.C. 5323: 

Subsection (g) ‘‘Protection of 

Whistleblowers.’’ The new subsection 

(g) prohibits retaliation by employers 

against individuals that provide FinCEN 

or the DOJ with information about 

potential Bank Secrecy Act violations; 

any individual alleging retaliation may 

seek relief by filing a complaint with the 

Department of Labor. 

• Section 6403. Corporate 

Transparency Act. 

On April 5, 2021, FinCEN issued an 

ANPRM entitled ‘‘Beneficial Ownership 

Information Reporting Requirements,’’ 

relating to the Corporate Transparency 

Act (Sections 6401–6403 of the AML 

Act), and intends to issue a NPRM. 

Section 6403 of the AML Act amends 

the BSA by adding new Section 5336 to 

title 31 of the United States Code. New 

Section 5336 requires FinCEN to issue 

rules requiring: (i) Reporting companies 

to submit certain information about the 

individuals who are beneficial owners 

of those entities and the individuals 

who formed or registered those entities; 

(ii) establishing a mechanism for issuing 

FinCEN identifiers to entities and 

individuals that request them; (iii) 

requiring FinCEN to maintain the 

information in a confidential, secure, 

non-public database; and (iv) 

authorizing FinCEN to disclose the 

information to certain government 

agencies and financial institutions for 

purposes specified in the legislation and 

subject to protocols to protect the 

confidentiality of the information. 

Section 5336 requires that the first of 

these requirements, notably the 

beneficial ownership information 

reporting regulation for legal entities 

(the ‘‘reporting regulation’’), be 

published in final form by January 1, 

2022. The ANPRM solicited comments 

on a wide range of questions having to 

do with the possible shape of the 

reporting regulation, as well as 

questions that concern the interaction of 

the requirements of this regulation and 

the shape and functionality of the 

database that will be populated with the 

information reported under Section 

5336. 

• Orders Imposing Additional 

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements (Technical Change). 

On November 15, 2021, FinCEN 

issued a final rule to update the 

regulation set forth at 31 CFR 1010.370 

to reflect amendments to the underlying 

statute, 31 U.S.C. 5326, concerning the 

authority of FinCEN to issue orders 

imposing additional reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements on financial 

institutions and nonfinancial trades or 

businesses in a geographic area. 

• Requirements for Certain 

Transactions Involving Convertible 

Virtual Currency or Digital Assets. 

FinCEN is proposing to amend the 

regulations implementing the BSA to 

require banks and money service 

businesses to submit reports, keep 

records, and verify the identity of 

customers in relation to transactions 

involving convertible virtual currency 

(CVC) or digital assets with legal tender 

status (‘‘legal tender digital assets’’ or 

‘‘LTDA’’) held in unhosted wallets, or 

held in wallets hosted in a jurisdiction 

identified by FinCEN. 

• Report of Foreign Bank and 

Financial Accounts. 

FinCEN is proposing to amend the 

regulations implementing the BSA 

regarding reports of foreign financial 

accounts (FBARs). The proposed 

changes are intended to clarify which 

persons will be required to file reports 

of foreign financial accounts and what 

information is reportable. The proposed 

changes are intended to amend two 

provisions of the FBAR regulation: (1) 

Signature or other authority; and (2) 

special rules. Treasury is considering 

whether the relevant statutory objectives 

can be achieved at a lower cost. 

• Withdraw Obsolete Civil Money 

Penalty Provisions for BSA Violations. 

(Technical Change) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5143 

FinCEN is amending 31 CFR 1010.820 

to withdraw the civil money penalty 

provisions for BSA violations that are 

obsolete. Statutory amendments have 

been made to specific civil BSA 

penalties since the regulation was last 

revised. In addition, the Federal Civil 

Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 

1990 as amended, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, 

requires agencies to issue regulations 

making annual adjustments reflecting 

the effect of inflation for civil penalties 

expressed in terms of a dollar amount. 

Those inflation adjustments are 

correctly captured in a separate 

regulation, and therefore the obsolete 

and inconsistent provisions will be 

withdrawn. 

• Amendments to the Definitions of 

Broker or Dealer in Securities. 

FinCEN is finalizing amendments to 

the regulatory definitions of ‘‘broker or 

dealer in securities’’ under the 

regulations implementing the BSA. The 

changes are intended to expand the 

current scope of the definitions to 

include funding portals. In addition, 

these amendments would require 

funding portals to implement policies 

and procedures reasonably designed to 

achieve compliance with all of the BSA 

requirements that are currently 

applicable to brokers or dealers in 

securities. The rule to require these 

organizations to comply with the BSA 

regulations is intended to help prevent 

money laundering, terrorist financing, 

and other financial crimes. 

• Other Requirements. 

FinCEN also will continue to issue 

proposed and final rules pursuant to 

section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, 

as appropriate. Finally, FinCEN expects 

that it may propose various technical 

and other regulatory amendments in 

conjunction with ongoing efforts with 

respect to a comprehensive review of 

existing regulations to enhance 

regulatory efficiency required by 

Section 6216 of the AML Act. 

Bureau of the Fiscal Service 

The Bureau of the Fiscal Service 

(Fiscal Service) administers regulations 

pertaining to the Government’s financial 

activities, including: (1) Implementing 

Treasury’s borrowing authority, 

including regulating the sale and issue 

of Treasury securities; (2) administering 

Government revenue and debt 

collection; (3) administering 

government-wide accounting programs; 

(4) managing certain Federal 

investments; (5) disbursing the majority 

of Government electronic and check 

payments; (6) assisting Federal agencies 

in reducing the number of improper 

payments; and (7) providing 

administrative and operational support 

to Federal agencies through franchise 

shared services. 

During fiscal year 2022, Fiscal Service 

will accord priority to the following 

regulatory projects: 

• Surety Companies Doing Business 

with the United States. 

Fiscal Service is proposing to amend 

its regulations governing surety 

companies doing business with the 

United States, found at 31 CFR part 223. 

When a federal law requires a person to 

post a bond through a surety, the person 

satisfies the requirement if the bond is 

underwritten by a company that is 

certified by Treasury to write federal 

bonds. Fiscal Service administers the 

regulations governing the issuance, 

renewal, and revocation of certificates of 

authority to surety companies to write 

or reinsure federal bonds. Fiscal Service 

proposes to amend its regulations 

governing how it values the assets and 

liabilities of sureties to keep pace with 

changes in regulation of the surety 

industry occurring at the state and 

international levels. 

• Government Participation in the 

Automated Clearing House. 

The Fiscal Service is proposing to 

amend its regulation at 31 CFR part 210 

governing the government’s 

participation in the Automated Clearing 

House (ACH). The proposed amendment 

would address changes to the National 

Automated Clearing House 

Association’s (Nacha) private-sector 

ACH rules that have been adopted since 

those rules were last incorporated by 

reference in part 210. Among other 

things, the amendment would address 

the increase in the Same-Day ACH 

transaction limit from $100,000 per 

transaction to $1,000,000 per 

transaction. 

• Re-Write of DCIA Offset Regulations 

in 31 CFR part 285 subpart A. 

The Fiscal Service is proposing to 

amend its offset regulations currently 

codified in 31 CFR part 285 subpart A. 

These regulations govern how Fiscal 

Service administers the offset of federal 

and state payments to collect federal 

and state debt through the Treasury 

Offset Program. Through the 

amendment, Fiscal Service will re-write 

and reorganize the current regulations. 

The main purpose of the amendment 

will be to improve the clarity of the 

regulations. A second purpose will be to 

restore flexibility where previouslyissued regulations may have 

unintentionally narrowed statutory 

authority. 

Internal Revenue Service 

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

working with the Office of Tax Policy, 

promulgates regulations that interpret 

and implement the Internal Revenue 

Code (Code), and other internal revenue 

laws of the United States. The purpose 

of these regulations is to carry out the 

tax policy determined by Congress in a 

fair, impartial, and reasonable manner, 

taking into account the intent of 

Congress, the realities of relevant 

transactions, the need for the 

Government to administer the rules and 

monitor compliance, and the overall 

integrity of the Federal tax system. The 

goal is to make the regulations practical 

and as clear and simple as possible, 

which reduces the burdens on taxpayers 

and the IRS. 

During fiscal year 2022, the IRS and 

Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy’s priority 

is to continue providing guidance 

regarding implementation of key 

provisions of the American Rescue Plan 

Act of 2021, Public Law 117–2, the 

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 

Security Act (CARES Act), Public Law 

116–136, Public Law 115–97, known as 

the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, as well as the 

Taxpayer First Act, Public Law 116–25, 

Division O of the Further Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2020, and Public 

Law 116–94, known as the Setting Every 

Community Up for Retirement 

Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE 

Act). 

Every year, Treasury and the IRS 

identify guidance projects that are 

priorities for allocation of the resources 

during the year in the Priority Guidance 

Plan (PGP) (available on irs.gov and 

regulations.gov). The plan represents 

projects that Treasury and the IRS 

intend to actively work on during the 

plan year. See, for example, the 2021– 

2022 Priority Guidance Plan (September 

9, 2021). To help facilitate and 

encourage suggestions, Treasury and the 

IRS have developed an annual process 

for soliciting public input for guidance 

projects. The annual solicitation is done 

through the issuance of a notice inviting 

recommendations from the public for 

items to be included on the PGP for the 

upcoming plan year. See, for example, 

Notice 2021–28 (April 14, 2021). We 

also invite the public to continue 

throughout the year to provide us with 

their comments and suggestions for 

guidance projects. 

BILLING CODE 4810–25–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS (VA) 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

The Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) administers services and benefit 

programs that recognize the important 

public obligations to those who served 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5144 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

this Nation. VA’s regulatory 

responsibility is almost solely confined 

to carrying out mandates of the laws 

enacted by Congress relating to 

programs for veterans and their families. 

VA’s major regulatory objective is to 

implement these laws with fairness, 

justice, and efficiency. 

Most of the regulations issued by VA 

involve at least one of three VA 

components: The Veterans Benefits 

Administration, the Veterans Health 

Administration, and the National 

Cemetery Administration. The primary 

mission of the Veterans Benefits 

Administration is to provide highquality and timely nonmedical benefits 

to eligible veterans and their 

dependents. The primary mission of the 

Veterans Health Administration is to 

provide high-quality health care on a 

timely basis to eligible veterans through 

its system of medical centers, nursing 

homes, domiciliaries, and outpatient 

medical and dental facilities. The 

primary mission of the National 

Cemetery Administration is to bury 

eligible veterans, members of the 

Reserve components, and their 

dependents in VA National Cemeteries 

and to maintain those cemeteries as 

national shrines in perpetuity as a final 

tribute of a grateful Nation to 

commemorate their service and sacrifice 

to our Nation. 

VA’s regulatory priority plan consists 

of three high priority regulations: 

(1) RIN 2900–AQ30 Proposed Rule— 

Modifying Copayments for Veterans at 

High Risk for Suicide. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) proposes to amend its medical 

regulations that govern copayments for 

outpatient medical care and 

medications for at-risk veterans. 

(2) RIN 2900–AR01 Proposed Rule— 

VA Pilot Program on Graduate Medical 

Education and Residency. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs 

proposes to revise its medical 

regulations to establish a new pilot 

program on graduate medical education 

and residency, as required by section 

403 of the John S. McCain III, Daniel K. 

Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson VA 

Maintaining Internal Systems and 

Strengthening Integrated Outside 

Network Act of 2018. 

(3) RIN 2900–AR16 Interim Final 

Rule—Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox 

Suicide Prevention Grant Program. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) is issuing this interim final rule to 

implement legislation authorizing VA 

initiate a three-year community-based 

grant program to award grants to eligible 

entities to provide or coordinate the 

provision of suicide prevention services 

to eligible individuals and their 

families. This rulemaking specifies grant 

eligibility criteria, application 

requirements, scoring criteria, 

constraints on the allocation and use of 

the funds, and other requirements 

necessary to implement this grant 

program. 

VA 

Proposed Rule Stage 

141. Modifying Copayments for 

Veterans at High Risk for Suicide 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1710(g); 38 

U.S.C. 1722A 

CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.108; 38 CFR 

17.110. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its 

medical regulations that govern 

copayments for outpatient medical care 

and medications for at-risk veterans. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is 

needed because a change in the current 

regulation is called for by the policy 

outlined in Executive Order 13822, 

which provides that our Government 

must improve mental healthcare and 

access to suicide prevention resources 

available to veterans. Healthcare 

research has provided extensive 

evidence that copayments can be 

barriers to healthcare for vulnerable 

patients, which places the proposed 

change in line with the goals of the 

Executive Order. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Executive 

Order 13822. 

Alternatives: The express intent of the 

rulemaking is to reduce barriers to 

mental health care for Veterans at high 

risk for suicide. To defer 

implementation of the regulation would 

be to undermine its purpose. However, 

alternative regulatory approaches were 

considered. It was considered whether 

VHA national or local policy changes 

could effectively meet the intent of the 

proposed regulation. It was found that 

policy change is not a viable alternative 

due to regulatory constraints that 

prevent changes to copayment 

requirements. The timing of rulemaking 

was considered. There were no potential 

cost savings or other net benefits 

identified that would lead to a more 

beneficial option. 

A phase-in period for the regulation 

was considered. There were no burdens, 

likely failures, or negative comments 

identified that a phase-in period would 

help mitigate. There were no potential 

cost savings or other net benefits 

identified that would make phasing in 

the regulation a more beneficial option. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Outpatient medical care and medication 

copayments will be reduced for 

Veterans determined to be at high risk 

for suicide. VA strongly believes, based 

on extensive empirical evidence, that 

the provisions of this rulemaking will 

decrease the likelihood of fatal or 

medically serious overdoses from VA 

prescribed medications among Veterans 

who are at a high risk of suicide. VA 

also strongly believes, based on the 

evidence, that the provisions of this 

rulemaking will significantly increase 

the engagement of Veterans who are at 

a high risk of suicide in outpatient 

health care, which is known to decrease 

the risk of suicide and other adverse 

outcomes. 

VA has determined that there are 

transfers associated with this 

rulemaking and a loss of revenue to VA 

from the reduction of specific veteran 

copayments. The transfers are estimated 

to be $9.43M in FY2022 and $54.35M 

over a 5-year period. The loss of revenue 

to VA is estimated to be $0.21M in 

FY2022 and $1.11M over a five-year 

period. The total budgetary impact of 

this rulemaking is estimated to be 

$9.63M in FY2022 and $55.47M over a 

five-year period. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Julie Wildman, 

Informatics Educator, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 795 Willow Road, 

Building 321, Room A124, Menlo Park, 

CA 94304, Phone: 650 493–5000, Email: 

julie.wildman@va.gov. 

RIN: 2900–AQ30 

VA 

142. VA Pilot Program on Graduate 

Medical Education and Residency 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 115–182, sec. 

403 

CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.243 to 

17.248. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs proposes to revise its medical 

regulations to establish a new pilot 

program on graduate medical education 

and residency, as required by section 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5145 

403 of the John S. McCain III, Daniel K. 

Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson VA 

Maintaining Internal Systems and 

Strengthening Integrated Outside 

Network Act of 2018. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is 

needed to implement section 403 of the 

John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and 

Samuel R. Johnson VA Maintaining 

Internal Systems and Strengthening 

Integrated Outside Network Act of 2018 

(hereafter referred to as the MISSION 

Act). Section 403 of the MISSION Act 

requires the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) create a pilot program to 

establish additional medical residency 

positions authorized under section 

301(b)(2) of Public Law 113–146 (note to 

section 7302 of title 38 United States 

Code (U.S.C.)) at certain covered 

facilities, to include non-VA facilities. 

Prior to section 403 of the MISSION Act, 

VA’s authority in 38 U.S.C. 7302 

permitted VA to establish medical 

residency programs in VA facilities and 

ensure that such programs have a 

sufficient number of residents, where 

VA’s graduate medical education (GME) 

programming was limited to funding 

resident salaries and benefits only if 

such residents were in VA facilities, 

caring for Veterans, and supervised by 

VA staff, with some additional support 

to the affiliated educational institutions 

for educational costs. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 403 

of the MISSION Act expanded on this 

authority by creating a pilot to allow VA 

to fund residents regardless of whether 

they are in VA facilities, and to pay for 

certain costs of new residency programs 

that might also not be in VA facilities. 

Alternatives: VA analyzed whether 

this pilot program could be 

implemented without regulations, 

because the administration of resident 

stipends and benefits, as well as the 

reimbursement of certain costs of new 

residency programs, would be 

controlled by contracts or agreements 

outside of regulations. However, 

regulations were thought necessary to: 

Better characterize selection criteria for 

the covered facilities in which residents 

will be placed, and to establish priority 

placement at certain covered facilities as 

required by section 403; establish 

criteria for defining new residency 

programs; qualify the resident activities 

that would be reimbursable; and qualify 

the reimbursable costs for new 

residency programs if VA places a 

resident in a new residency program. 

Regulations were also thought necessary 

to clarify that this pilot program, unlike 

many other VA pilot programs, is not a 

grant program or a cooperative 

agreement program through which 

entities may apply to be considered for 

resident funding or reimbursement of 

new residency program costs. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Increasing the number of residents and 

residency programs in underserved 

regions may improve the number of 

physicians practicing there after 

residency training and also will increase 

access to healthcare for veterans and 

possibly non-Veterans residing in those 

regions. 

VA estimates that costs of this 

program will be $4,160,259 in FY22 and 

13,691,052 over a 5-year period. 

Transfers will be zero in FY22 and 

$25,687,106 over a 5-year period. 

Combined, this results in a budget 

impact of $4,160,259 in FY 22 and 

$39,378,158 over a 5-year window. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Marjorie A. Bowman, 

Chief, Office of Academic Affiliations 

(10X1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 

810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20420, Phone: 202 461–9490, Email: 

marjorie.bowman@va.gov. 

RIN: 2900–AR01 

VA 

Final Rule Stage 

143. Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox 

Suicide Prevention Grant Program 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 116–171, sec. 

201; 38 U.S.C. 1720F; 38 U.S.C. 501 

CFR Citation: 38 CFR 62.2; 38 CFR 

50.1(d); 38 CFR 78.45. 

Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, 

December 31, 2025, Required 

consultation pursuant to section 201 of 

Pub. L. 116–171. Required consultation 

pursuant to section 201 of Pub. L. 116– 

171. This grant program is authorized by 

section 201 of Public Law 116–171. VA 

must publish regulations for matters 

related to grants as required by 38 

U.S.C. 501(d). 

Abstract: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is issuing this interim final 

rule to implement legislation 

authorizing VA to initiate a three-year 

community-based grant program to 

award grants to eligible entities to 

provide or coordinate the provision of 

suicide prevention services to eligible 

individuals and their families. This 

rulemaking specifies grant eligibility 

criteria, application requirements, 

scoring criteria, constraints on the 

allocation and use of the funds, and 

other requirements necessary to 

implement this grant program. 

Statement of Need: The Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA) is issuing 

regulations for the implementation of 

section 201 of Public Law 116–171, the 

Commander John Scott Hannon 

Veterans Mental Health Care 

Improvement Act of 2019 (the Act). 

Title 38 of United States Code (U.S.C.) 

section 501(d) requires VA to publish 

regulations for matters related grants, 

notwithstanding section 553(a)(2) of the 

Administration Procedure Act. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This grant 

program is authorized by section 201 of 

Public Law 116–171. VA must publish 

regulations for matters related to grants 

as required by 38 U.S.C. 501(d). 

Alternatives: VHA initially was 

planning to implement the pilot 

program without any collaboration or 

planning with our internal or external 

partners. As an alternative, VHA intends 

to collaborate with other grant programs 

to examine certain costs which may be 

shared such as FTE, IT systems, and 

utilizing internal VA offices and 

infrastructure for certain aspect of grants 

management. This will maximize the 

effectiveness of the program and 

minimize any inefficiencies which 

would have otherwise arisen. VA 

determined the best course of action 

was to work with internal and external 

partners to develop the best grant 

program possible for suicide prevention 

among our Veteran population. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: VA has 

estimated that there are both transfers 

and costs associated with the provisions 

of this rulemaking. The transfers are 

estimated to be $51.7M in FY2023 and 

$156 7M through FY2025. The costs are 

estimated to be $1.6M in FY2021 and 

$16.8M over five years (FY2021– 

FY2025). 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Request For Information (RFI).04/01/21 86 FR 17268 

RFI Comment Period End.04/22/21 

Interim Final Rule 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: https://

www.federalregister.gov 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5146 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Agency Contact: Juliana Hallows, 

Associate Director, VACO Suicide 

Prevention Program, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 406 

475–0624, Email: juliana.hallows@

va.gov. 

RIN: 2900–AR16 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY (EPA) 

Statement of Priorities 

Overview 

EPA works to ensure that all 

Americans are protected from 

significant risks to human health and 

the environment, including climate 

change, and that overburdened and 

underserved communities and 

vulnerable individuals—including lowincome communities and communities 

of color, children, the elderly, tribes, 

and indigenous people—are 

meaningfully engaged and benefit from 

focused efforts to protect their 

communities from pollution. EPA acts 

to ensure that all efforts to reduce 

environmental harms are based on the 

best available scientific information, 

that federal laws protecting human 

health and the environment are 

enforced equitably and effectively, and 

that the United States plays a leadership 

role in working with other nations to 

protect the global environment. EPA is 

committed to environmental protection 

that builds and supports more diverse, 

equitable, sustainable, resilient, and 

productive communities and 

ecosystems. 

By taking advantage of the latest 

science, the newest technologies and the 

most cost-effective and sustainable 

solutions, EPA and its federal, tribal, 

state, local, and community partners 

have made important progress in 

addressing pollution where people live, 

work, play, and learn. By cleaning up 

contaminated waste sites, reducing 

greenhouse gases, lowering emissions of 

mercury and other air pollutants, and 

investing in water and wastewater 

treatment, EPA’s efforts have resulted in 

tangible benefits to the American 

public. Efforts to reduce air pollution 

alone have produced hundreds of 

billions of dollars in benefits in the 

United States, and tremendous progress 

has been made in cleaning up our 

nation’s land and waterways. But much 

more needs to be done to implement the 

nation’s environmental statutes and 

ensure that all individuals and 

communities benefit from EPA’s efforts 

to protect human health and the 

environment and to address the climate 

crisis. 

EPA has initiated cross-Agency efforts 

to address our most complex 

environmental challenges including 

PFAS pollution. Per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a 

group of man-made chemicals, 

including PFOA and PFOS, that have 

been manufactured and used in a 

variety of industries around the globe, 

including in the United States, since the 

1940s. Both chemicals persist in the 

environment and in the human body. 

The EPA Administrator established a 

Council on PFAS, comprised of a group 

of senior agency leaders who are 

charged with accelerating the Agency’s 

progress on PFAS. EPA is committed to 

using all the Agency’s authorities to 

address PFAS pollution including Safe 

Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, 

and the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act. EPA also is expanding our existing 

data collection efforts to better 

understand the environmental and 

human health impacts of PFAS. 

Similarly, EPA has developed a crossAgency strategy to coordinate the 

Agency’s efforts to reduce lead exposure 

and protect children and families from 

the harmful effects of lead. 

EPA will use its regulatory 

authorities, along with grant- and 

incentive-based programs, technical and 

compliance assistance, and research and 

educational initiatives, to address the 

following priorities set forth in EPA’s 

upcoming Strategic Plan: 

• Tackle the Climate Crisis 

• Advance Environmental Justice and 

Civil Rights 

• Ensure Clean and Healthy Air for 

All Communities 

• Ensure Clean and Healthy Water for 

All Communities 

• Safeguard and Revitalize 

Communities 

• Ensure Safety of Chemicals for 

People and the Environment 

All this work will be undertaken with 

a strong commitment to scientific 

integrity, the rule of law and 

transparency, the health of children and 

other vulnerable populations, and with 

special focus on supporting and 

achieving environmental justice at 

federal, tribal, state, and local levels. 

Highlights of EPA’s Regulatory Plan 

This Regulatory Plan highlights our 

most important upcoming regulatory 

actions. As always, our Semiannual 

Regulatory Agenda contains information 

on a broader spectrum of EPA’s 

upcoming regulatory actions. 

Tackle the Climate Crisis 

EPA must take bold and decisive 

steps to respond to the severe and 

urgent threat of climate change, 

including taking appropriate regulatory 

action under existing statutory 

authorities to reduce emissions from our 

nation’s largest sources of greenhouse 

gases (GHG). The impacts of climate 

change are affecting people in every 

region of the country, threatening lives 

and livelihoods and damaging 

infrastructure, ecosystems, and social 

systems. Overburdened and 

underserved communities and 

individuals are particularly vulnerable 

to these impacts, including low-income 

communities and communities of color, 

children, the elderly, tribes, and 

indigenous people. Exercising its 

authority under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), EPA will address major sources 

of GHGs that are driving these impacts 

by taking regulatory action to minimize 

emissions of methane from new and 

existing sources in the oil and natural 

gas sector; reduce GHGs from new and 

existing fossil fuel-fired power plants; 

limit GHGs from new light-duty 

vehicles and heavy-duty trucks; and set 

requirements for the use of renewable 

fuel. EPA will also carry out the 

mandates of the recently enacted 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing (AIM) Act to implement, 

and where appropriate accelerate, a 

national phasedown in the production 

and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons 

(HFCs), which are highly potent GHGs. 

• Emission Guidelines for Oil and 

Natural Gas Sector. The oil and natural 

gas industry are the largest industrial 

source of U.S. emissions of methane, a 

GHG more than 25 times as potent as 

carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the 

atmosphere. Executive Order 13990, 

‘‘Protecting Public Health and the 

Environment and Restoring Science to 

Tackle the Climate Crisis,’’ states that 

the Administrator of EPA should 

consider proposing new regulations to 

establish emission guidelines for 

methane emissions from existing 

operations in the oil and gas sector, 

including the exploration and 

production, transmission, processing, 

and storage segments. The purpose of 

this action is to propose new emission 

guidelines for existing sources in the oil 

and gas sector by October 2021. 

• New Source Performance Standards 

for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities: 

Review of Policy and Technical Rules. 

Executive Order 13990 further directs 

EPA to review the new source 

performance standards (NSPS) issued in 

2020 for the oil and gas sector about 

methane and volatile organic compound 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5147 

(VOC) emissions and, as appropriate 

and consistent with applicable law, 

consider publishing for notice and 

comment a proposed rule suspending, 

revising, or rescinding the NSPS. The 

Executive Order also directs EPA to 

consider proposing new regulations to 

establish comprehensive NSPS for 

methane and VOC emissions from the 

exploration and production, 

transmission, processing, and storage 

segments. The purpose of this action is 

to review the existing NSPS and 

propose new standards as necessary. 

• Emission Guidelines for 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fossil 

Fuel-Fired Existing Electric Generating 

Units. On January 19, 2021, the D.C. 

Circuit Court vacated the Affordable 

Clean Energy Rule (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart UUUUa) and remanded the rule 

to EPA for further consideration 

consistent with its decision. On 

February 12, 2021, considering the 

court’s decision, the EPA published a 

memorandum on the status of the 

Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule and 

informed states not to continue the 

development or submittal of state plans 

in accordance with CAA section 111(d) 

guidelines for GHG emissions from 

power plants at this time. EPA 

continues to review the court’s vacatur 

and remand of these actions. The 

anticipated proposal date for this action 

is by July 2022, and promulgation by 

July 2023. 

• Amendments to the NSPS for GHG 

Emissions from New, Modified, & 

Reconstructed Stationary Sources: 

EGUs. Under CAA section 111(b), EPA 

sets New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) for GHG emissions from new, 

modified, and reconstructed fossil fuelfired power plants. In 2015, EPA 

finalized regulations to limit GHG 

emissions from new fossil-fuel fired 

utility boilers and from natural gas-fired 

stationary combustion turbines. In 2018, 

EPA proposed to revise the NSPS for 

coal fired EGUs. To date, that proposed 

action has not been finalized. The 2018 

proposed rule would have revised the 

2015 NSPS finalized in conjunction 

with the Clean Power Plan (80 FR 

64510). Litigation remains in abeyance 

for the 2015 final NSPS. The purpose of 

this action is to review the NSPS and, 

if appropriate, amend the standards for 

new fossil fuel fired EGUs. Anticipated 

timing of the proposed rule is by June 

2022 and promulgation by June 2023. 

• Restrictions on Certain Uses of 

Hydrofluorocarbons under Subsection 

(i) of the American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act. EPA intends to 

propose a rule that, in part, responds to 

petitions granted under subsection (i) of 

the AIM Act. Subsection (i) of the AIM 

Act provides that a person may petition 

EPA to promulgate a rule for the 

restriction on use of a regulated 

substance in a sector or subsector. EPA 

will consider a rule restricting, fully, 

partially, or on a graduated schedule, 

the use of HFCs in sectors or subsectors 

including the refrigeration, air 

conditioning, aerosol, and foam sectors 

informed by petitions received from 

environmental groups, trade 

associations, and individual companies. 

Additionally, EPA will consider 

establishing recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements and addressing 

other related elements of the AIM Act. 

• Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: 

Updates to the Allowance Allocation 

and Trading Program under the 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act for 2024 and Later 

Years. As noted above, the AIM Act 

directs EPA to sharply reduce 

production and consumption of HFCs, 

which are harmful and potent 

greenhouse gases, by using an allowance 

allocation and trading program. This 

phasedown will decrease the 

production and import of HFCs in the 

United States by 85% over the next 15 

years. The first regulation under the 

AIM Act established the allowance 

allocation and trading program for 2022 

and 2023. To continue phasing down 

the production and consumption of 

listed HFCs on the schedule listed in the 

AIM Act, this rulemaking will provide 

the framework for how the Agency will 

issue allowances in 2024 and beyond. 

• Revised 2023 and Later Model Year 

Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions Standards. Executive Order 

13990 directed EPA to review the Safer 

Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) 

Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021– 

2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks 

(April 30, 2020). In August 2021, EPA 

proposed to revise existing national 

GHG emissions standards for passenger 

cars and light trucks for Model Years 

2023–2026. The proposed standards 

would achieve significant GHG 

emissions reductions along with 

reductions in other criteria pollutants. 

The proposal would result in substantial 

public health and welfare benefits, 

while providing consumers with savings 

from lower fuel costs. 

• Volume Requirements for 2023 and 

Beyond under the Renewable Fuel 

Standard Program. CAA statutory 

provisions governing the Renewable 

Fuel Standard (RFS) program provide 

target volumes of renewable fuel for the 

RFS program only through 2022. For 

years 2023 and thereafter, the statute 

requires EPA to set those volumes based 

on an analysis of specified factors. If 

EPA does not set those volumes, there 

will be no applicable requirement to 

blend renewable fuel into gasoline and 

diesel. This rulemaking will establish 

volume requirements for 2023 and some 

years beyond. The proposal will provide 

the public with an opportunity to 

provide feedback on various alternative 

volume requirements. 

• Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) 

Program: RFS Annual Rules. CAA 

section 211 requires EPA to set 

renewable fuel percentage standards 

every year. This action establishes the 

annual percentage standards for 

cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, 

advanced biofuel, and total renewable 

fuel that apply to gasoline and diesel 

transportation fuel. 

Ensure Clean and Healthy Air for All 

Communities 

All people regardless of race, 

ethnicity, national origin, or income 

deserve to breathe clean air. EPA has the 

responsibility to protect the health of 

vulnerable and sensitive populations, 

such as children, the elderly, and 

persons overburdened by pollution or 

adversely affected by persistent poverty 

or inequality. Since enactment of the 

CAA, EPA has made significant progress 

in reducing harmful air pollution even 

as the U.S. population and economy 

have grown. Between 1970 and 2020, 

the combined emissions of six key 

pollutants dropped by 78%, while the 

U.S. economy remained strong growing 

272% over that time period. As required 

by the CAA, EPA will continue to build 

on this progress and work to ensure 

clean air for all Americans, including 

those in underserved and overburdened 

communities. Among other things, EPA 

will take regulatory action to review and 

implement health-based air quality 

standards for criteria pollutants such as 

particulate matter (PM); limit emissions 

of harmful air pollution from both 

stationary and mobile sources; address 

sources of hazardous air pollution 

(HAP), such as ethylene oxide, that 

disproportionately affect communities 

with environmental justice concerns; 

and protect downwind communities 

from sources of air pollution that cross 

state lines. Along with the full set of 

CAA actions listed in the regulatory 

agenda, the following high priority 

actions will allow EPA to continue its 

progress in reducing harmful air 

pollution. 

• Review of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Particulate 

Matter. Under the CAA Amendments of 

1977, EPA is required to review and if 

appropriate revise the air quality criteria 

for the primary (health-based) and 

secondary (welfare-based) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5148 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

every 5 years. In December 2020, EPA 

published its final decision in the 

review of the PM NAAQS, retaining the 

existing standard established in 2013. 

The review included the preparation of 

an Integrated Review Plan, an Integrated 

Science Assessment (ISA), and a Policy 

Assessment with opportunities for 

review by EPA’s Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the 

public. These documents informed the 

Administrator’s decision in the PM 

NAAQS review. On June 10, 2021, EPA 

notified the public that it will 

reconsider the 2020 decision to retain 

the PM NAAQS. As part of this 

reconsideration, EPA intends to develop 

a supplement to the ISA and a revised 

policy assessment to consider the most 

up-to-date science on public health and 

welfare impacts of PM and to engage 

with the CASAC and a newly 

constituted expert PM panel. 

Additionally, on July 7, 2020, EPA 

notified the public that it was initiating 

an update of the ISA for lead as part of 

the periodic review of the lead NAAQS. 

• NESHAP: Coal- and Oil-Fired 

Electric Utility Steam Generating 

Units—Revocation of the 2020 

Reconsideration, and Affirmation of the 

Appropriate and Necessary 

Supplemental Finding. Executive Order 

13990 directs EPA to take certain 

actions by August 2021, including 

considering publishing, as appropriate 

and consistent with applicable law, a 

proposed rule suspending, revising, or 

rescinding the ‘‘National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility 

Steam Generating Units— 

Reconsideration of Supplemental 

Finding and Residual Risk and 

Technology Review,’’ 85 FR 31286 (May 

22, 2020). The May 2020 final action is 

the latest amendment to the February 

16, 2012, National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coaland Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units (77 FR 9304). That 

2012 rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

UUUUU), commonly referred to as the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(MATS), includes standards to control 

HAP emissions from new and existing 

coal- and oil-fired steam EGUs located 

at both major and area sources of HAP 

emissions. In the May 22, 2020 action, 

EPA found that it is not appropriate and 

necessary to regulate coal- and oil-fired 

EGUs under CAA section 112. As 

directed by E.O. 13990, EPA will review 

the May 22, 2020, finding and, under 

this action, will take appropriate action 

resulting from its review of the May 

2020 finding that it is not appropriate 

and necessary to regulate coal- and oilfired EGUs under Clean Air Act section 

112. Results of EPA’s review of the May 

2020 RTR will be presented in a 

separate action. 

• Interstate Transport Rule for 2015 

Ozone NAAQS. This action would 

apply in certain states for which EPA 

has either disapproved a ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ state implementation plan 

(SIP) submission under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) or has made a finding 

of failure to submit such a SIP 

submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

This action would determine whether 

and to what extent upwind sources of 

ozone-precursor emissions need to 

reduce these emissions to prevent 

interference with downwind states’ 

maintenance or attainment of the 2015 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. For upwind 

states that EPA determines to be linked 

to a downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor, EPA would 

conduct further analysis to determine 

what (if any) additional emissions 

controls are required in such states and 

develop an enforceable program for 

implementation of such controls. 

• Control of Air Pollution from New 

Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and 

Vehicle Standards. Heavy-duty engines 

have been subject to emission standards 

for criteria pollutants, including PM, 

hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide 

(CO), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), for 

nearly half a century. Current data 

suggest that existing standards should 

be revised to ensure full, in-use 

emission control. NOX emissions are 

major precursors of ozone and 

significant contributors to secondary 

PM2.5 formation. Ozone and ambient 

PM2.5 concentrations continue to be a 

nationwide health and air quality issue. 

Reducing NOX emissions from onhighway, heavy-duty trucks and buses is 

an important component of improving 

air quality nationwide and reducing 

public health and welfare effects 

associated with these pollutants, 

especially for vulnerable populations 

and in highly impacted regions. 

Through this action, EPA will evaluate 

data on current NOX emissions from 

heavy-duty vehicles and engines and 

propose options to improve control of 

criteria pollutant emissions through 

revised emissions standards. 

Additionally, this action will propose 

updates to the existing greenhouse gas 

emissions standards for heavy-duty 

vehicles. 

• National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ethylene 

Oxide Commercial Sterilization and 

Fumigation Operations. In response to 

EPA’s most recent National Air Toxics 

Assessment (NATA), which identified 

several areas across the country as 

having the potential for elevated cancer 

risk due to emissions of ethylene oxide 

to the outdoor air, EPA has initiated a 

review of its existing air rules for source 

categories that emit this chemical. This 

includes reviewing the current National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) for Ethylene 

Oxide Commercial Sterilization and 

Fumigation Operations, which were 

finalized in December 1994 (59 FR 

62585). The standards require existing 

and new major sources to control 

emissions to the level achievable by the 

maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) and require existing 

and new area sources to control 

emissions using generally available 

control technology (GACT). In this 

action, EPA will conduct a statutorily 

required technology review for the 

NESHAP and will also consider the 

cancer risks of ethylene oxide emissions 

from this source category. To aid in this 

effort, EPA issued an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on 

December 12, 2019 (84 FR 67889) that 

solicited comment from stakeholders, 

developed important emissions-related 

data through data collection activities, 

and undertook a Small Business 

Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel, which 

is needed when there is the potential for 

significant economic impacts to small 

businesses from any regulatory actions 

being considered. 

• Review of Final Rule 

Reclassification of Major Sources as 

Area Sources Under Section 112 of the 

Clean Air Act. This rulemaking will 

address the review of the final rule, 

‘‘Reclassification of Major Sources as 

Area Sources Under Section 112 of the 

Clean Air Act’’ (Major MACT to Area, or 

MM2A final rule). See 85 FR 73854, 

November 19, 2020. Pursuant to 

Executive Order 13990, EPA has 

decided to review the MM2A final rule 

and, as appropriate and consistent with 

the CAA section 112, to publish for 

comment a notice of proposed 

rulemaking either suspending, revising, 

or rescinding the MM2A final rule. The 

MM2A final rule became effective on 

January 19, 2021 and provides that a 

major source can be reclassified to area 

source status at any time upon reducing 

its potential to emit (PTE) HAP to below 

the major source thresholds (MST) of 10 

tons per year (tpy) of any single HAP 

and 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. 

Major sources that reclassify to area 

source status will no longer be subject 

to CAA section 112 major source 

requirements and, instead, will be 

subject to any applicable area source 

requirements. The MM2A final rule also 

included an interim ministerial revision 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5149 

that removed the word ‘‘federally’’ from 

the phrase ‘‘federally enforceable’’ in 

the PTE definition in 40 CFR 63.2. 

Ensure Clean and Healthy Water for All 

Communities 

The Nation’s water resources are the 

lifeblood of our communities, 

supporting our health, economy, and 

way of life. Clean and safe water is a 

vital resource that is essential to the 

protection of human health. The EPA is 

committed to ensuring clean and safe 

water for all, including low-income 

communities and communities of color, 

children, the elderly, tribes, and 

indigenous people. Since the enactment 

of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA 

and its state and tribal partners have 

made significant progress toward 

improving the quality of our waters and 

ensuring a safe drinking water supply. 

Along with the full set of water actions 

listed in the regulatory agenda, the 

regulatory initiatives listed below will 

help ensure that this important progress 

continues. 

• Revised Definition of ‘‘Waters of the 

United States’’—Rule 1: In April 2020, 

the EPA, and the Department of the 

Army (‘‘the agencies’’) published the 

Navigable Waters Protection Rule 

(NWPR) that revised the previouslycodified definition of ‘‘waters of the 

United States’’ (85 FR 22250, April 21, 

2020). The agencies are now initiating 

this new rulemaking process that 

restores the regulations in place prior to 

the 2015 ‘‘Clean Water Rule: Definition 

of ‘Waters of the United States’ ’’ (80 FR 

37054, June 29, 2015), updated to be 

consistent with relevant Supreme Court 

decisions. The agencies intend to 

consider further revisions in a second 

rule in light of additional stakeholder 

engagement and implementation 

considerations, scientific developments, 

and environmental justice values. This 

effort will also be informed by the 

experience of implementing the pre2015 rule, the 2015 Clean Water Rule, 

and the 2020 Navigable Waters 

Protection Rule. 

• Revised Definition of ‘‘Waters of the 

United States’’—Rule 2: The EPA and 

the Department of the Army (‘‘the 

agencies’’) intend to pursue a second 

rule defining ‘‘Waters of the United 

States’’ to consider further revisions to 

the agencies’ first rule (RIN 2040–AG13) 

which proposes to restore the 

regulations in place prior to the 2015 

‘‘Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters 

of the United States’ ’’ (80 FR 37054, 

June 29, 2015), updated to be consistent 

with relevant Supreme Court Decisions. 

This second rule proposes to include 

revisions reflecting on additional 

stakeholder engagement and 

implementation considerations, 

scientific developments, and 

environmental justice values. This effort 

will also be informed by the experience 

of implementing the pre-2015 rule, the 

2015 Clean Water Rule, and the 2020 

Navigable Waters Protection Rule. 

• Clean Water Act Section 401: Water 

Quality Certification. In accordance 

with Executive Order 13990, EPA has 

completed its review of the 2020 Clean 

Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule 

(85 FR 42210, July 13, 2020) and has 

determined that it erodes state and tribal 

authority as it relates to protecting water 

quality. Through the new rulemaking, 

EPA intends to restore the balance of 

state, tribal, and federal authorities 

while retaining elements that support 

efficient and effective implementation 

of section 401. Congress provided 

authority to states and tribes under 

CWA section 401 to protect the quality 

of their waters from adverse impacts 

resulting from federally licensed or 

permitted projects. Under section 401, a 

federal agency may not issue a license 

or permit to conduct any activity that 

may result in any discharge into 

navigable waters unless the affected 

state or tribe certifies that the discharge 

is in compliance with the CWA and 

state law or waives certification. EPA 

intends to strengthen the authority of 

states and tribes to protect their vital 

water resources. 

• Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

Standards for the Steam Electric Power 

Generating Point Source Category. On 

July 26, 2021, EPA announced its 

decision to conduct a rulemaking to 

potentially strengthen the Steam 

Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines 

(ELGs) (40 CFR 423). This rulemaking 

process could result in more stringent 

ELGs for waste streams addressed in the 

2020 final rule, as well as waste streams 

not covered in the 2020 rule. The former 

could address petitioners’ claims in 

current litigation pending in the Fourth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Appalachian 

Voices v. EPA, No. 20–2187 (4th Cir.). 

EPA revised the Steam Electric ELGs in 

2015 and 2020. 

• Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances 

(PFAS): Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 

and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 

(PFOS) National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulation Rulemaking. On 

March 3, 2021, EPA published the 

Fourth Regulatory Determinations (86 

FR 12272), including a determination to 

regulate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 

and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 

(PFOS) in drinking water. With this 

action, EPA intends to develop a 

proposed national primary drinking 

water regulation for PFOA and PFOS, 

and, as appropriate, take final action. 

Additionally, EPA will continue to 

consider other PFAS as part of this 

action. 

• National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations for Lead and Copper: 

Regulatory Revisions. EPA promulgated 

the final Lead and Copper Rule Revision 

(LCRR) on January 15, 2021 (86 FR 

4198). Consistent with the directives of 

Executive Order 13990, EPA is currently 

considering revising this rulemaking. 

EPA will complete its review of the rule 

by December 2021 in accordance with 

those directives and informed by a 

robust stakeholder engagement process, 

including hearing from low-income 

people and communities of color who 

are disproportionately affected by lead 

contamination. EPA understands that 

the benefits of clean water are not 

shared equally by all communities, and 

this review of the LCRR will be 

consistent with the policy aims set forth 

in Executive Order 13985, ‘‘Advancing 

Racial Equity and Support for 

Underserved Communities through the 

Federal Government.’’ 

• Cybersecurity in Public Water 

Systems. EPA is evaluating regulatory 

approaches to ensure improved 

cybersecurity at public water systems. 

EPA plans to offer separate guidance, 

training, and technical assistance to 

states and public water systems on 

cybersecurity. This action is expected to 

provide regulatory clarity and certainty 

and promote the adoption of 

cybersecurity measures by public water 

systems. 

• Federal Baseline Water Quality 

Standards for Indian Reservations. EPA 

is developing a proposed rule to 

establish tribal baseline water quality 

standards (WQS) for waters on Indian 

reservations that do not have WQS 

under the CWA. The development of 

this rule will help advance President 

Biden’s commitment to strengthening 

the nation-to-nation relationships with 

Indian Country. Currently, less than 20 

percent of reservations have EPAapproved tribal WQS. Promulgating 

baseline WQS would address this 

longstanding gap and provide more 

scientific rigor and regulatory certainty 

to National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits for 

discharges to these waters. Consistent 

with EPA’s regulations, the baseline 

WQS would include designated uses, 

water quality criteria to protect those 

uses, and antidegradation policies to 

protect high quality waters. EPA has 

consulted with tribes and will continue 

to do so. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5150 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Safeguard and Revitalize Communities 

EPA works to improve the health and 

livelihood of all Americans by cleaning 

up and returning land to productive use, 

preventing contamination, and 

responding to emergencies. EPA 

collaborates with other federal agencies, 

industry, states, tribes, and local 

communities to enhance the livability 

and economic vitality of neighborhoods. 

Challenging and complex 

environmental problems persist at many 

contaminated properties, including 

contaminated soil, sediment, surface 

water, and groundwater that can cause 

human health concerns. EPA’s 

regulatory program works to incorporate 

new technologies and approaches to 

cleaning up land to provide for an 

environmentally sustainable future 

more efficiently and effectively, as well 

as to strengthen climate resilience and 

to integrate environmental justice and 

equitable development when returning 

sites to productive use. Along with the 

other land and emergency management 

actions in the regulatory agenda, EPA 

will take the following priority actions 

to address the contamination of soil, 

sediment, surface water, and 

groundwater. 

• Designation of Perfluorooctanoic 

and Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acids as 

Hazardous Substances. EPA issued a 

PFAS Action Plan on February 14, 2019, 

responding to extensive public interest 

and input. The plan announced that 

EPA will begin the steps necessary to 

propose designating PFOA and PFOS as 

hazardous substances through one of the 

available statutory mechanisms in 

section 102 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA). CERCLA, commonly known 

as Superfund, provides EPA with 

enforcement authority and establishes 

liability for releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances. 

Designating PFOA and PFOS as 

CERCLA hazardous substances will 

require reporting of releases of PFOA 

and PFOS that meet or exceed the 

reportable quantity assigned to these 

substances. This will enable federal, 

state, tribal and local authorities to 

collect information regarding the 

location and extent of release. Moreover, 

designating PFOS and PFOA as 

hazardous substances under CERCLA 

would expand EPA’s authority to 

investigate or respond to a release, and, 

thereby, reduce harm or risk to human 

health, welfare, and the environment. 

• Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Management System: Disposal of Coal 

Combustion Residues from Electric 

Utilities. EPA is planning to amend the 

existing regulations in 40 CFR part 257 

on the disposal of Coal Combustion 

Residuals (CCR) under subtitle D of the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act, initially issued on April 17, 2015 

(80 FR 21302). By implementing the 

April 2015 final rule, EPA is working to 

ensure that CCR disposal units that do 

not meet rule requirements, including 

unlined surface impoundments, cease 

receipt of waste and close in a way that 

protects public health and the 

environment. In addition, the Water 

Infrastructure Improvements for the 

Nation Act of 2016 established new 

statutory provisions applicable to CCR 

disposal units and authorized EPA, if 

provided specific appropriations, to 

develop a federal permit program in 

nonparticipating states for CCR units. 

EPA plans to finalize regulatory 

amendments to provide a federal CCR 

permitting program. Finally, EPA plans 

to propose a rule to regulate inactive 

CCR surface impoundments at inactive 

utilities, or ‘‘legacy units.’’ 

Accidental Release Prevention 

Requirements: Risk Management 

Program (RMP) under the Clean Air Act; 

Retrospection. In accordance with 

Executive Order 13990, EPA is revising 

the RMP regulations, which implement 

the requirements of CAA section 

112(r)(7). RMP requires facilities that 

use extremely hazardous substances to 

develop a Risk Management Plan. In 

2019, EPA finalized a reconsideration of 

the RMP regulations that eliminated 

many of the major incident prevention 

initiatives that had been established in 

2017 amendments to the rule. To 

support the current revisions, EPA 

hosted listening sessions to provide 

interested stakeholders the opportunity 

to present information or comment on 

issues pertaining to these revisions. 

Ensure Safety of Chemicals for People 

and the Environment 

EPA is responsible for ensuring the 

safety of chemicals and pesticides for all 

people at all life stages. Chemicals and 

pesticides released into the environment 

as a result their manufacture, 

processing, distribution, use, or disposal 

can threaten human health and the 

environment. EPA gathers and assesses 

information about the risks associated 

with chemicals and pesticides and acts 

to minimize risks and prevent 

unreasonable risks to individuals, 

families, and the environment. EPA acts 

under several different statutory 

authorities, including the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA), the Federal Food, Drug and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA), the 

Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know-Act (EPCRA), and the 

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). Using 

best available science, the Agency will 

continue to satisfy its overall directives 

under these authorities and highlights 

the following rulemakings intended for 

release in FY2022: 

Chemical Specific Risk Management 

Rulemakings under TSCA section 6(a). 

As amended in 2016, TSCA requires 

EPA to evaluate the safety of existing 

chemicals via a three-stage process: 

Prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk 

management. EPA first prioritizes 

chemicals as either high- or low-priority 

for risk evaluation. EPA evaluates highpriority chemicals for unreasonable risk. 

If, at the end of the risk evaluation 

process, EPA determines that a chemical 

presents an unreasonable risk to health 

or the environment, the Agency must 

immediately move the chemical to risk 

management action under TSCA. EPA is 

required to implement, via regulation, 

regulatory restrictions on the 

manufacture, processing, distribution, 

use or disposal of the chemical to 

eliminate the unreasonable risk. TSCA 

gives EPA a range of risk management 

options, including labeling, 

recordkeeping or notice requirements, 

actions to reduce human exposure or 

environmental release, or a ban of the 

chemical or of certain uses. 

As announced on June 30, 2021, EPA 

reviewed the TSCA risk evaluations 

issued for the first 10 chemicals and as 

a result intends to implement policy 

changes to ensure the Agency is 

protecting human health and the 

environment under the requirements of 

TSCA. Upon review of the risk 

evaluations issued for Cyclic Aliphatic 

Bromide Cluster (HBCD) (RIN 2070– 

AK71), C.I. Pigment Violet 29 (PV29) 

(RIN 2070–AK87), and asbestos (part 1: 

Chrysotile asbestos) (RIN 2070–AK86), 

EPA currently believes these risk 

evaluations are likely sufficient to 

inform the risk management approaches 

being considered and that these 

approaches will be protective; therefore, 

the Agency does not think it needs to 

conduct any additional technical 

analysis that would amend the risk 

evaluation. However, EPA does intend 

to reissue individual chemical risk 

determinations that amend the approach 

to personal protective equipment (PPE) 

and include a whole chemical risk 

determination for HBCD (RIN 2070– 

AK71) and PV29 (RIN 2070–AK87) and, 

during part 2 of the risk evaluation for 

asbestos. The Agency is also working 

expeditiously on risk management and 

believes the proposed rules for HBCD 

(RIN 2070–AK71) and asbestos (part 1: 

Chrysotile asbestos) (RIN 2070–AK86) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5151 

will likely be the first of the 10 to be 

ready for release in FY2022. 

• Modification to the Minimum Risk 

Pesticide Listing Program. Under FIFRA 

section 25(b), EPA has determined that 

certain ‘‘minimum risk pesticides’’ pose 

little to no risk to human health or the 

environment and has exempted them 

from registration and other requirements 

under FIFRA. In 1996, EPA created a 

regulatory list of minimum risk active 

and inert ingredients in 40 CFR 152.25. 

Such exemption reduces the cost and 

regulatory burdens on businesses and 

the public for those pesticides deemed 

to pose little or no risk and allows EPA 

to focus our resources on pesticides that 

pose greater risk to humans and the 

environment. EPA is considering 

streamlining the petition process and 

revising how the Agency evaluates the 

potential minimum risk active and inert 

substances, factors used in classes of 

exemptions, state implementation of the 

minimum risk program, and the need 

for any future exemptions or 

modifications to current exemptions. On 

April 8, 2021 (86 FR 18232), EPA issued 

an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking to solicit public input that it 

is considering in developing a proposed 

rule that the Agency intends to issue in 

FY2022. 

Rules Expected To Affect Small Entities 

By better coordinating small business 

activities, EPA aims to improve its 

technical assistance and outreach 

efforts, minimize burdens to small 

businesses in its regulations, and 

simplify small businesses’ participation 

in its voluntary programs. Actions that 

may affect small entities can be tracked 

on EPA’s Regulatory Flexibility website 

(https://www.epa.gov/reg-flex) at any 

time. 

EPA—OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION 

(OAR) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

144. National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ethylene 

Oxide Commercial Sterilization and 

Fumigation Operations 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412 Clean 

Air Act; 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B) 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 63. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) for Ethylene Oxide 

Commercial Sterilization and 

Fumigation Operations were finalized in 

December 1994 (59 FR 62585). The 

standards require existing and new 

major sources to control emissions to 

the level achievable by the maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

and require existing and new area 

sources to control emissions using 

generally available control technology 

(GACT). EPA completed a residual risk 

and technology review for the NESHAP 

in 2006 and, at that time, concluded that 

no revisions to the standards were 

necessary. In this action, EPA will 

conduct the second technology review 

for the NESHAP and also assess 

potential updates to the rule. To aid in 

this effort, EPA issued an advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPRM) that solicited comment from 

stakeholders and undertook a Small 

Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) 

panel, which is needed when there is 

the potential for significant economic 

impacts to small businesses from any 

regulatory actions being considered. 

EPA is also planning to undertake 

community outreach as part of the 

development of this action. 

Statement of Need: The National Air 

Toxics Assessment (NATA) released in 

August 2018 identified ethylene oxide 

(EtO) emissions as a potential concern 

in several areas across the country. The 

latest NATA estimates that EtO 

significantly contributes to potential 

elevated cancer risks in some census 

tracts. These elevated risks are largely 

driven by an EPA risk value that was 

updated in December 2016. Further 

investigation on NATA inputs and 

results led to the EPA identifying 

commercial sterilization using EtO as a 

source category contributing to some of 

these risks. Over the past two years, the 

EPA has been gathering additional 

information to help evaluate 

opportunities to reduce EtO emissions 

in this source category through potential 

NESHAP revisions. In this rule, EPA 

will address EtO emissions from 

commercial sterilizers. 

Summary of Legal Basis: CAA section 

112, 42 U.S.C. 7412, provides the legal 

framework and basis for regulatory 

actions addressing emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants from stationary 

sources. CAA section 112(d)(6) requires 

EPA to review, and revise as necessary, 

emission standards promulgated under 

CAA section 112(d) at least every 8 

years, considering developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies. 

Alternatives: EPA is evaluating 

various options for reducing EtO 

emissions from commercial sterilizers 

under the NESHAP, such as pollution 

control equipment, reducing fugitive 

emissions, or monitoring. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based 

on conversations with regulated entities 

who have been working to reduce 

emissions, the potential costs of 

controlling some emissions sources 

could be substantial. 

Risks: As part of this rulemaking, EPA 

has been updating information 

regarding EtO emissions and the 

specific emission points within the 

source category. Preliminary analyses 

suggest that fugitive emissions from 

commercial sterilizers may substantially 

contribute to health risks associated 

with exposure to EtO. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 12/12/19 84 FR 67889 

NPRM .................. 06/00/22 

Final Rule ............ 10/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: 

Sectors Affected: 311423 Dried and 

Dehydrated Food Manufacturing; 33911 

Medical Equipment and Supplies 

Manufacturing; 561910 Packaging and 

Labeling Services; 325412 

Pharmaceutical Preparation 

Manufacturing; 311942 Spice and 

Extract Manufacturing. 

Agency Contact: Jonathan Witt, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Mail Code E143–05, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 

Phone: 919 541–5645, Email: witt.jon@

epa.gov. 

Steve Fruh, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 

E143–01, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

Phone: 919 541–2837, Email: 

fruh.steve@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2060–AU37 

EPA—OAR 

145. Control of Air Pollution From New 

Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and 

Vehicle Standards 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414 et seq. 

Clean Air Act 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 86. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Heavy-duty engines have 

been subject to emission standards for 

criteria pollutants, including particulate 

matter (PM), hydrocarbon (HC), carbon 

monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX), for nearly half a century; 

however, current data suggest that the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5152 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

existing standards do not ensure full, inuse emission control. In particular, inuse engine NOX emission levels from 

heavy-duty vehicles can be significantly 

higher than their certified values under 

certain conditions. NOX emissions are 

major precursors of ozone and 

significant contributors to secondary 

PM2.5 formation. Ozone and ambient 

PM2.5 concentrations continue to be a 

nationwide health and air quality issue. 

Reducing NOX emissions from onhighway, heavy-duty trucks and buses is 

an important component of improving 

air quality nationwide and reducing 

public health and welfare effects 

associated with these pollutants, 

especially for vulnerable populations 

and in highly impacted regions. This 

action will evaluate data on current 

NOX emissions from heavy-duty 

vehicles and engines, and options 

available to improve control of criteria 

pollutant emissions through revised 

emissions standards. Additionally, this 

action will contain targeted greenhouse 

gas (GHG) reductions and evaluate ways 

to streamline existing requirements. 

This rulemaking will address significant 

public health and environmental justice 

concerns caused by pollution from 

internal combustion engines while 

supporting early introduction of zero 

emission technologies. 

Statement of Need: This action 

follows petitions for a rulemaking on 

this issue from over 20 organizations 

including state and local air agencies 

from across the country. 

Summary of Legal Basis: CAA section 

202(a). 

Alternatives: EPA may request 

comment to address alternative options 

in the proposed rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Updating these standards will result in 

NOX reductions from mobile sources 

and could be one important way that 

allows areas across the U.S. to meet 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for ozone and particulate matter. 

Updating the standards will also offer 

opportunities to reduce regulatory 

burden through smarter program design. 

Risks: EPA will evaluate the risks of 

this rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 01/21/20 85 FR 3306 

NPRM .................. 01/00/22 

Final Rule ............ 12/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Additional Information: 

Sectors Affected: 11 Agriculture, 

Forestry, Fishing and Hunting; 211112 

Natural Gas Liquid Extraction; 324110 

Petroleum Refineries; 325110 

Petrochemical Manufacturing; 325193 

Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing; 325199 

All Other Basic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing; 333618 Other Engine 

Equipment Manufacturing; 335312 

Motor and Generator Manufacturing; 

336111 Automobile Manufacturing; 

336112 Light Truck and Utility Vehicle 

Manufacturing; 336120 Heavy Duty 

Truck Manufacturing; 336211 Motor 

Vehicle Body Manufacturing; 336213 

Motor Home Manufacturing; 336311 

Carburetor, Piston, Piston Ring, and 

Valve Manufacturing; 336312 Gasoline 

Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing; 

336999 All Other Transportation 

Equipment Manufacturing; 423110 

Automobile and Other Motor Vehicle 

Merchant Wholesalers; 424690 Other 

Chemical and Allied Products Merchant 

Wholesalers; 424710 Petroleum Bulk 

Stations and Terminals; 486910 Pipeline 

Transportation of Refined Petroleum 

Products; 493130 Farm Product 

Warehousing and Storage; 811111 

General Automotive Repair; 811112 

Automotive Exhaust System Repair; 

811198 All Other Automotive Repair 

and Maintenance. 

Agency Contact: Tuana Phillips, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, 1200 

Pennsylvania NW, Washington, DC 

20460, Phone: 410 267–5704, Email: 

phillips.tuana@epa.gov. 

Christy Parsons, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air and 

Radiation, USEPA National Vehicle and 

Fuel Emissions Laboratory, Ann Arbor, 

MI 48105, Phone: 734 214–4243, Email: 

parsons.christy@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2060–AU41 

EPA—OAR 

146. Amendments to the NSPS for GHG 

Emissions From New, Modified, 

Reconstructed Stationary Sources: 

EGUS 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411 Clean 

Air Act 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60 TTTT. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On October 23, 2015, the 

EPA finalized Standards of Performance 

for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From 

New, Modified, and Reconstructed 

Stationary Sources: Electric Generating 

Units, found at 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

TTTT. On December 20, 2018, the EPA 

proposed to revise the standards of 

performance in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

TTTT. The EPA proposed to amend the 

previous determination that the best 

system of emission reduction (BSER) for 

newly constructed coal-fired steam 

generating units (i.e., EGUs) is partial 

carbon capture and storage, and replace 

it with a determination that BSER for 

this source category is the most efficient 

demonstrated steam cycle (e.g., 

supercritical steam conditions for large 

units and subcritical steam conditions 

for small units) in combination with the 

best operating practices. The EPA is 

undertaking a comprehensive review of 

the NSPS for greenhouse gas emissions 

from EGUs, including a review of all 

aspects of the 2018 proposed 

amendments and requirements in the 

2015 Rule that the Agency did not 

propose to amend in the 2018 proposal. 

Statement of Need: New EGUs are a 

significant source of GHG emissions. 

This action will evaluate options to 

reduce those emissions. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Air 

Act section 111(b) provides the legal 

framework for establishing greenhouse 

gas emission standards for new electric 

generating units. 

Alternatives: EPA evaluated several 

options for reducing GHG emissions 

from new EGUs 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Undetermined. 

Risks: Undetermined. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/00/22 

Final Rule ............ 06/00/23 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Additional Information: 

Agency Contact: Christian Fellner, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Mail Code D243–01, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

Phone: 919 541–4003, Fax: 919 541– 

4991, Email: fellner.christian@epa.gov. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5153 

Nick Hutson, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air and 

Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive. 

Mail Code D243–01, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541–2968, 

Fax: 919 541–4991, Email: hutson.nick@

epa.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 2060–AT56. 

RIN: 2060–AV09 

EPA—OAR 

147. Emission Guidelines for 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Fossil 

Fuel-Fired Existing Electric Generating 

Units 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411 Clean 

Air Act 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60 UUUU. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On January 19, 2021, the 

D.C. Circuit Court issued an opinion 

vacating the Affordable Clean Energy 

Rule (found at 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

UUUUa)—the previously applicable 

emission guidelines for greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions from existing electric 

generating units (i.e. EGUs). The EPA is 

working on a new set of emission 

guidelines for states to follow in 

submitting state plans to establish and 

implement standards of performance for 

greenhouse gas emissions from existing 

fossil fuel-fired EGUs. 

Statement of Need: There are no EPA 

regulations on the books for greenhouse 

gases from existing fossil-fuel fired 

electric generating units. Previous 

regulations of this nature have either 

been vacated or repealed prior to 

implementation. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Air 

Act section 111(d) provides the legal 

framework for establishing greenhouse 

gas emission standards for existing 

electric generating units. 

Alternatives: There are no alternatives 

at this time. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: EPA is 

still evaluating the scope and associated 

costs, benefits and reductions with a 

prospective rule. 

Risks: EPA is still evaluating the 

scope and risks with a prospective rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/00/22 

Final Rule ............ 07/00/23 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

State, Tribal. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Energy Effects: Statement of Energy 

Effects planned as required by Executive 

Order 13211. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Additional Information: 

Agency Contact: Nicholas Swanson, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, E143–03, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

Phone: 919 541–4080, Email: 

swanson.nicholas@epa.gov. 

Nick Hutson, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air and 

Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, 

Mail Code D243–01, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541–2968, 

Fax: 919 541–4991, Email: hutson.nick@

epa.gov. 

RIN: 2060–AV10 

EPA—OAR 

148. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) 

Program: RFS Annual Rules 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414 et seq. 

Clean Air Act 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 80. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

November 30, 2021, The Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007) requires the RFS volumes 

be finalized by November 30th of the 

year preceding the compliance year. 

Abstract: Under section 211 of the 

Clean Air Act, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is required to 

set renewable fuel percentage standards 

every year. This action establishes the 

annual percentage standards for 

cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, 

advanced biofuel, and total renewable 

fuel that apply to gasoline and diesel 

transportation fuel. 

Statement of Need: The Clean Air Act 

requires EPA to promulgate regulations 

that specify the annual volume 

requirements for renewable fuels under 

the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) 

program. The RFS program was created 

under the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 to ‘‘move the 

United States toward greater energy 

independence and security, to increase 

the production of clean renewable fuels, 

to protect consumers, to increase the 

efficiency of products, buildings, and 

vehicles, to promote research on and 

deploy greenhouse gas capture and 

storage options, and to improve the 

energy performance of the Federal 

Government.’’ 

Summary of Legal Basis: CAA section 

211(o). 

Alternatives: EPA is considering 

alternative volume standards in the 

development of the proposal, including 

a response to the D.C. Circuit remand of 

the rule establishing the RFS volumes 

for 2016. We intend to continue to 

consider alternatives as we develop the 

proposed rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Anticipated costs will be developed for 

the proposed rule. Costs and benefits of 

this rulemaking account for the nature 

of the program and the nested structure 

of the volume requirements. An updated 

estimate of the costs, based on a number 

of illustrative assumptions, will be 

provided in the proposed rule. 

Risks: Environmental and resource 

impacts of the RFS program are 

primarily addressed under another 

section of the CAA (Section 204). EPA 

released an updated report to congress 

on June 29, 2018. More information on 

this report can be found at: https://

cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_

Report.cfm?dirEntryId=341491. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/00/21 

Final Rule ............ 02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Additional Information: 

Sectors Affected: 325199 All Other 

Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing; 

325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing; 

221210 Natural Gas Distribution; 

111120 Oilseed (except Soybean) 

Farming; 424710 Petroleum Bulk 

Stations and Terminals; 324110 

Petroleum Refineries; 424720 Petroleum 

and Petroleum Products Merchant 

Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and 

Terminals). 

Agency Contact: Dallas Burkholder, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, N26, 2565 

Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, 

Phone: 734 214–4766, Email: 

burkholder.dallas@epa.gov. 

Nick Parsons, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air and 

Radiation, NVFEL, 2565 Plymouth 

Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 

214–4479, Email: parsons.nick@epa.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 2060–AU82. 

RIN: 2060–AV11 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5154 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

EPA—OAR 

149. NESHAP: Coal- and Oil-Fired 

Electric Utility Steam Generating 

Units—Revocation of the 2020 

Reconsideration, and Affirmation of the 

Appropriate and Necessary 

Supplemental Finding 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412 Clean 

Air Act; 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B) 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 63. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On February 16, 2012, EPA 

promulgated National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility 

Steam Generating Units (77 FR 9304). 

The rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

UUUUU), commonly referred to as the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(MATS), includes standards to control 

hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions 

from new and existing coal- and oilfired electric utility steam generating 

units (EGUs) located at both major and 

area sources of HAP emissions. There 

have been several regulatory actions 

regarding MATS since February 2012, 

including a May 22, 2020, action that 

completed a reconsideration of the 

appropriate and necessary finding for 

MATS and finalized the residual risk 

and technology review (RTR) conducted 

for the Coal- and Oil-Fired EGU source 

category regulated under MATS (85 FR 

31286). The Biden Administration’s 

Executive Order 13990, Protecting 

Public Health and the Environment and 

Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate 

Crisis, ‘‘directs all executive 

departments and agencies (agencies) to 

immediately review and, as appropriate 

and consistent with applicable law, take 

action to address the promulgation of 

Federal regulations and other actions 

during the last 4 years that conflict with 

these important national objectives, and 

to immediately commence work to 

confront the climate crisis.’’ Section 

2(a)(iv) of the Executive Order 

specifically directs that the 

Administrator consider publishing, as 

appropriate and consistent with 

applicable law, a proposed rule 

suspending, revising, or rescinding the 

‘‘National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and OilFired Electric Utility Steam Generating 

Units—Reconsideration of 

Supplemental Finding and Residual 

Risk and Technology Review,’’ 85 FR 

31286 (May 22, 2020), As directed by 

Executive Order 13990, EPA will review 

the May 22, 2020 final action and, under 

this action, will take appropriate action 

resulting from its review of the May 

2020 finding that it is not appropriate 

and necessary to regulate coal- and oilfired EGUs under Clean Air Act section 

112. Results of EPA’s review of the May 

2020 RTR will be presented in a 

separate action (RIN 2060–AV53). 

Statement of Need: As directed by 

Executive Order 13990, EPA has 

completed its review of the May 2020 

finding that it is not appropriate and 

necessary to regulate coal- and oil-fired 

EGUs under Clean Air Act section 112. 

EPA will issue the results of the review 

in a notice of proposed rulemaking and 

will solicit comment on the resulting 

finding. 

Summary of Legal Basis: CAA section 

112, 42 U.S.C. 7412, provides the legal 

framework and basis for regulatory 

actions addressing emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants from stationary 

sources. 

Alternatives: Two bases for the 

appropriate and necessary 

determination, one preferred and one 

alternative, are put forth in the proposed 

rulemaking. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There 

are no anticipated costs or benefits 

because there are no regulatory 

amendments or impacts associated with 

review of the appropriate and necessary 

finding. 

Risks: There are no anticipated risks 

because there are no regulatory 

amendments or impacts associated with 

review of the appropriate and necessary 

finding. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/00/21 

Final Rule ............ 09/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2018–0794. 

Sectors Affected: 921150 American 

Indian and Alaska Native Tribal 

Governments; 221122 Electric Power 

Distribution; 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric 

Power Generation. 

URL For More Information: ttps://

www.epa.gov/mats/regulatory-actionsfinal-mercury-and-air-toxics-standardsmats-power-plants. 

Agency Contact: Nick Hutson, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Mail Code D243–01, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

Phone: 919 541–2968, Fax: 919 541– 

4991, Email: hutson.nick@epa.gov. 

Melanie King, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air and 

Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, 

Mail Code D243–01, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541–2469, 

Email: king.melanie@epa.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 2060–AT99. 

RIN: 2060–AV12 

EPA—OAR 

150. Standards of Performance for New, 

Reconstructed, and Modified Sources 

and Emissions Guidelines for Existing 

Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector 

Climate Review 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60; 40 CFR 60 

subpart OOOOa. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On January 20, 2021, 

President Joe Biden issued an Executive 

Order titled ‘‘Protecting Public Health 

and the Environment and Restoring 

Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,’’ 

which directs the EPA to take certain 

actions by September 2021 to reduce 

methane and volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions in the oil and natural 

gas sector. Specifically, the Executive 

Order directs the EPA to review the new 

source performance standards (NSPS) 

issued in 2020 for the oil and gas sector 

and, as appropriate and consistent with 

applicable law, consider publishing for 

notice and comment a proposed rule 

suspending, revising, or rescinding the 

NSPS. The Executive Order further 

directs the EPA to consider proposing 

(1) new regulations to establish 

comprehensive NSPS for methane and 

VOC emissions and (2) new regulations 

to establish emission guidelines for 

methane emissions from existing 

operations in the oil and gas sector, 

including from the exploration and 

production, transmission, processing, 

and storage segments. The purpose of 

this action is to review the existing 

NSPS and propose new standards as 

necessary to meet the directives set forth 

in the Executive Order, as well as to 

propose new emission guidelines for 

existing sources in the oil and gas 

sector. 

Statement of Need: Executive Order 

13990, ‘‘Protecting Public Health and 

the Environment and Restoring Science 

to Tackle the Climate Crisis’’. The 

Executive Order directs the EPA to 

consider proposing, by September 2021, 

a rulemaking to reduce methane 

emissions in the Oil and Natural Gas 

source category by suspending, revising, 

or rescinding previously issued new 

source performance standards. It also 

instructs the EPA to consider proposing 

new regulations to establish 

comprehensive standards of 

performance and emission guidelines 

for methane and volatile organic 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5155 

compound (VOC) emissions from 

existing operations in the oil and 

natural gas sector, including the 

exploration and production, processing, 

transmission and storage segments. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Air 

Act section 111(b) provides the legal 

framework for establishing greenhouse 

gas emission standards (in the form of 

limitations on methane) and volatile 

organic compounds for new oil and 

natural gas sources. Clean Air Act 

section 111(d) provides the legal 

framework for establishing greenhouse 

gas emission standards (in the form of 

limitations on methane) for existing oil 

and natural gas sources. 

Alternatives: The EPA has evaluated 

several options for new and existing 

sources and will propose and solicit 

comment on those options. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: EPA is 

still evaluating the scope and associated 

costs, benefits and reductions associated 

with the forthcoming proposed rules. 

Risks: EPA is still evaluating the 

scope and risks associated with the 

forthcoming proposed rules. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/15/21 86 FR 63110 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/14/22 

Final Rule ............ 10/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Energy Effects: Statement of Energy 

Effects planned as required by Executive 

Order 13211. 

Additional Information: 

Agency Contact: Karen Marsh, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Mail Code E143–01, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

Phone: 919 541–1065, Email: 

marsh.karen@epa.gov. 

Steve Fruh, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 109 

T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code E143– 

01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

Phone: 919 541–2837, Email: 

fruh.steve@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2060–AV16 

EPA—OAR 

151. Review of Final Rule 

Reclassification of Major Sources as 

Area Sources Under Section 112 of the 

Clean Air Act 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 63.1. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The final rule, 

Reclassification of Major Sources as 

Area Sources Under section 112 of the 

Clean Air Act (Major MACT to AreaMM2A final rule), was promulgated on 

November 19, 2020. (See 85 FR 73854) 

The MM2A final rule became effective 

on January 19, 2021. On January 20, 

2021, President Biden issued Executive 

Order 13990 Protecting Public Health 

and the Environment and Restoring 

Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis. 

The EPA has identified the MM2A final 

rule as an action being considered 

pursuant section (2)(a) of Executive 

Order 13990. Under this review, EPA, as 

appropriate and consistent with the 

Clean Air Act section 112, will publish 

for comment a notice of proposed 

rulemaking either suspending, revising, 

or rescinding the MM2A final rule. 

Statement of Need: The EPA will 

issue a notice of proposed rulemaking of 

EPA’s review of the final rule 

Reclassification of Major Sources as 

Area Sources Under section 112 of the 

Clean Air Act (Major MACT to AreaMM2A final rule) pursuant Executive 

Order 13990. Pursuant section (2)(a) of 

Executive Order 13990 Protecting Public 

Health and the Environment and 

Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate 

Crisis, the EPA is to review the MM2A 

final rule and as appropriate and 

consistent with the Clean Air Act 

section 112, to publish for comment a 

notice of proposed rulemaking either 

suspending, revising, or rescinding the 

MM2A final rule. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The EPA 

issued a final rulemaking on November 

19, 2020. The final MM2A rule provides 

that a major source can be reclassified 

to area source status at any time upon 

reducing its potential to emit (PTE) 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) to below 

the major source thresholds (MST) of 10 

tons per year (tpy) of any single HAP 

and 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. 

Pursuant section (2)(a) of Executive 

Order 13990 Protecting Public Health 

and the Environment and Restoring 

Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, the 

EPA is to review the MM2A final rule 

and as appropriate and consistent with 

the Clean Air Act section 112, to 

publish for comment a notice of 

proposed rulemaking either suspending, 

revising, or rescinding the MM2A final 

rule. 

Alternatives: EPA will take comments 

on the review of the final MM2A and 

EPA’s proposed rulemaking either 

suspending, revising, or rescinding the 

MM2A final rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

anticipated costs and benefits of this 

action are to be determined. 

Risks: The risks of this action are to 

be determined. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/00/22 

Final Rule ............ 06/00/23 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Additional Information: 

Agency Contact: Elineth Torres, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Mail Code D205–02, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 

Phone: 919 541–4347, Email: 

torres.elineth@epa.gov. 

Jodi Howard, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air and 

Radiation, E143–01, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541–4991, 

Fax: 919 541–0246, Email: 

howard.jodi@epa.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 2060–AM75. 

RIN: 2060–AV20 

EPA—OAR 

152. • Restrictions on Certain Uses of 

Hydrofluorocarbons Under Subsection 

(i) of the American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 610. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: EPA is considering a rule 

that will in part respond to petitions 

granted under subsection (i) of the 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing (AIM) Act of 2020, 

enacted on December 27, 2020. 

Specifically, EPA is considering a rule 

restricting, fully, partially, or on a 

graduated schedule, the use of HFCs in 

sectors or subsectors including the 

refrigeration, air conditioning, aerosol, 

and foam sectors, and establishing 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements, and addressing other 

related elements of the AIM Act. 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

required to meet the statutory 

provisions of subsection (i) of the 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing (AIM) Act of 2020. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

American Innovation and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5156 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Manufacturing (AIM) Act, enacted on 

December 27, 2020, provides EPA new 

authorities to address 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in three 

main areas: Phasing down the 

production and consumption of listed 

HFCs, maximizing reclamation and 

minimizing releases of these HFCs and 

their substitutes in equipment (e.g., 

refrigerators and air conditioners), and 

facilitating the transition to nextgeneration technologies by restricting 

the use of HFCs in particular sectors or 

subsectors. Subsection (i) of the AIM 

Act provides that a person may petition 

EPA to promulgate a rule for the 

restriction on use of a regulated 

substance in a sector or subsector. The 

statute requires EPA to grant or deny a 

petition under not later than 180 days 

after the date of receipt of the petition. 

If EPA grants a petition under 

subsection (i), then the statute requires 

EPA to promulgate a final rule not later 

than two years after the date on which 

the EPA grants the petition. In carrying 

out a rulemaking or making a 

determination to grant or deny a 

petition, the statute requires EPA, to the 

extent practicable, to take into account 

specified factors. 

Alternatives: The alternatives for 

establishing a subsection (i) rule are 

whether to restrict, fully, partially, or on 

a graduated schedule, the use of HFCs 

in sectors or subsectors. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Agency will prepare a Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (RIA) to provide the 

public with estimated potential costs 

and benefits of this action. 

Risks: EPA is still evaluating the 

scope and risks associated with a 

prospective rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/00/22 

Final Rule ............ 04/00/23 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Additional Information: 

Agency Contact: Joshua Shodeinde, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460, Phone: 202 564–7037, Email: 

shodeinde.joshua@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2060–AV46 

EPA—OAR 

153. • Review of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Particulate 

Matter 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414 et seq. 

Clean Air Act 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 50. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Under the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1977, EPA is required 

to review and if appropriate revise the 

air quality criteria for the primary 

(health-based) and secondary (welfarebased) national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) every 5 years. On 

December 18, 2020, the EPA published 

a final decision retaining the NAAQS 

for particulate matter (PM), which was 

the subject of several petitions for 

reconsideration as well as petitions for 

judicial review. As directed in 

Executive Order 13990, ‘‘Protecting 

Public Health and the Environment and 

Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate 

Crisis,’’ signed by President Biden on 

January 20, 2021, EPA is undertaking a 

review of the decision to retain the PM 

NAAQS. Based on that review, EPA is 

undertaking a rulemaking to reconsider 

the December 18, 2020 decision because 

the available scientific evidence and 

technical information indicate that the 

current standards may not be adequate 

to protect public health and welfare, as 

required by the Clean Air Act. As part 

of this reconsideration, EPA intends to 

develop an updated Integrated Science 

Assessment (ISA) and revised policy 

assessment to take into account the most 

up-to-date science on public health 

impacts of PM, and to engage with the 

Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee (CASAC) and a newly 

constituted expert PM panel. 

Statement of Need: Under the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1977, EPA is 

required to review and if appropriate 

revise the air quality criteria and 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) every 5 years. On December 

18, 2020, EPA published a final rule 

retaining the NAAQS for particulate 

matter, without revision. On June 10, 

2021, EPA announced that it is 

reconsidering the December 2020 

decision on the air quality standards for 

PM. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Under the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, 

EPA is required to review and if 

appropriate revise the air quality criteria 

and the primary (health-based) and 

secondary (welfare-based) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

every 5 years. 

Alternatives: The main alternative for 

the Administrator’s decision on the 

review of the national ambient air 

quality standards for particulate matter 

is whether to retain or revise the 

existing standards. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Clean Air Act makes clear that the 

economic and technical feasibility of 

attaining standards are not to be 

considered in setting or revising the 

NAAQS, although such factors may be 

considered in the development of state 

plans to implement the standards. 

Accordingly, when the Agency proposes 

revisions to the standards, the Agency 

prepares a Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA) to provide the public with 

illustrative estimates of the potential 

costs and health and welfare benefits of 

attaining the revised standards. 

Risks: The reconsideration will build 

on the review completed in 2020, which 

included the preparation by EPA of an 

Integrated Review Plan, an Integrated 

Science Assessment, and also a Policy 

Assessment, which includes a risk/ 

exposure assessment, with 

opportunities for review by the EPA’s 

Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee (CASAC) and the public. 

These documents informed the 

Administrator’s final decision to retain 

the PM standards in 2020. As a part of 

the reconsideration, EPA will prepare 

an updated Policy Assessment and a 

Supplement to the Integrated Science 

Assessment, which will be reviewed at 

a public meeting by the CASAC. These 

documents will inform the 

Administrator’s proposed decisions on 

whether to revise the PM NAAQS, and 

will take into consideration these 

documents, CASAC advice, and public 

comment on the proposed decision. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/00/22 

Final Rule ............ 03/00/23 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Additional Information: 

Agency Contact: Karen Wesson, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Mail Code C504–06, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

Phone: 919 541–3515, Email: 

wesson.karen@epa.gov. 

Nicole Hagan, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air and 

Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, 

Mail Code C504–06, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27709, Phone: 919 541–3153, 

Email: hagan.nicole@epa.gov. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5157 

RIN: 2060–AV52 

EPA—OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

(OCSPP) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

154. Pesticides; Modification to the 

Minimum Risk Pesticide Listing 

Program and Other Exemptions Under 

FIFRA Section 25(b) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136(w) 

Federal Insecticide Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 152. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Under section 25(b) of the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA has 

determined that certain ‘‘minimum risk 

pesticides’’ pose little to no risk to 

human health or the environment, and 

has exempted them from registration 

and other requirements under FIFRA. In 

1996, EPA created a regulatory list of 

minimum risk active and inert 

ingredients in 40 CFR 152.25. Such an 

exemption reduces the cost and 

regulatory burdens on businesses and 

the public for those pesticides deemed 

to pose little or no risk, and allows EPA 

to focus our resources on pesticides that 

pose greater risk to humans and the 

environment. In April 2021, EPA issued 

an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting public 

comments and suggestions about the 

petition process for exemptions 

regarding pesticides from registration 

and other requirements under the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), where the 

pesticides are determined to be of a 

character unnecessary to be subject to 

regulation under FIFRA. The Agency is 

considering streamlining the petition 

process and revisions to how the 

Agency evaluates the potential 

minimum risk active and inert 

substances, factors used in classes of 

exemptions, state implementation of the 

minimum risk program and the need for 

any future exemptions or modifications 

to current exemptions. EPA is also 

sought comment on whether the Agency 

should consider amending existing 

exemptions or adding new classes of 

pesticidal substances for exemption, 

such as peat when used in septic 

filtration systems. EPA is currently 

considering the public input received 

and development of a proposed rule. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking 

effort is intended to reduce regulatory 

burdens and focus EPA resources on 

pesticide products that have risks to 

public health or the environment by 

streamlining the petition process used 

to seek such exemptions; revising how 

the Agency evaluates the potential 

minimum risk active and inert 

substances, factors used in classes of 

exemptions and state implementation of 

the minimum risk program; and 

considering the need for any future 

exemptions or modifications to current 

exemptions. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Exemptions 

to the requirements of FIFRA are issued 

under the authority of FIFRA section 

25(b). Eligible products may be exempt 

from, among other things, registration 

requirements under FIFRA section 3. 

Alternatives: In considering a 

streamlined petition process and other 

improvements, EPA intends to identify 

and evaluate available alternatives that 

facilitate the effective and efficient 

identification of pesticides products that 

could be exempt from registration and 

other requirements under FIFRA. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: EPA 

intends to consider the costs and 

benefits of proposed improvements 

during the development of the proposed 

rule. 

Risks: This procedural rule is not 

intended to address identified risks, 

and, by definition, will only involve 

pesticides products identified as having 

minimal risk. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 04/08/21 86 FR 18232 

NPRM .................. 08/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: 

Sectors Affected: 624410 Child Day 

Care Services; 424210 Drugs and 

Druggists’ Sundries Merchant 

Wholesalers; 561710 Exterminating and 

Pest Control Services; 424910 Farm 

Supplies Merchant Wholesalers; 561730 

Landscaping Services; 423120 Motor 

Vehicle Supplies and New Parts 

Merchant Wholesalers; 444220 Nursery, 

Garden Center, and Farm Supply Stores; 

311119 Other Animal Food 

Manufacturing; 444210 Outdoor Power 

Equipment Stores; 325320 Pesticide and 

Other Agricultural Chemical 

Manufacturing; 926150 Regulation, 

Licensing, and Inspection of 

Miscellaneous Commercial Sectors; 

562991 Septic Tank and Related 

Services; 221320 Sewage Treatment 

Facilities; 238910 Site Preparation 

Contractors; 325611 Soap and Other 

Detergent Manufacturing; 611620 Sports 

and Recreation Instruction; 445110 

Supermarkets and Other Grocery 

(except Convenience) Stores. 

URL For More Information: https://

www.epa.gov/minimum-risk-pesticides. 

Agency Contact: Sara Kemme, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Mail Code 7101M, Washington, DC 

20460, Phone: 202 566–1217, Email: 

kemme.sara@epa.gov. 

Cameo Smoot, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 

7101M, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 

202 566–1207, Email: smoot.cameo@

epa.gov. 

RIN: 2070–AK55 

EPA—OCSPP 

155. Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster 

(HBCD); Rulemaking Under TSCA 

Section 6(a) 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605 Toxic 

Substances Control Act 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 751. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

September 15, 2021, TSCA section 6(c). 

Final, Statutory, September 15, 2022, 

TSCA section 6(c). 

Abstract: Section 6 of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires 

EPA to address unreasonable risks of 

injury to health or the environment that 

the Administrator has determined are 

presented by a chemical substance 

under the conditions of use. Following 

a risk evaluation for cyclic aliphatic 

bromide cluster (HBCD) carried out 

under the authority of the TSCA section 

6, EPA initiated rulemaking to address 

unreasonable risks of injury to health 

and the environment identified in the 

final risk evaluation. EPA’s risk 

evaluation for HBCD, describing the 

conditions of use and presenting EPA’s 

determinations of unreasonable risk, is 

in docket EPA–HQ–OPPT–2019–0237, 

with additional information in docket 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2016–0735. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is 

needed to address the unreasonable risk 

of the Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster 

(or, ‘‘HBCD’’) identified in a risk 

evaluation completed under TSCA 

section 6(b). EPA reviewed the 

exposures and hazards of HBCD uses, 

the magnitude of risk, exposed 

populations, severity of the hazard, 

uncertainties, and other factors. EPA 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5158 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

sought input from the public and peer 

reviewers as required by TSCA and 

associated regulations. 

Summary of Legal Basis: In 

accordance with TSCA section 6(a), if 

EPA determines in a final risk 

evaluation completed under TSCA 6(b) 

that the manufacture, processing, 

distribution in commerce, use, or 

disposal of a chemical substance or 

mixture, or that any combination of 

such activities, presents an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health or 

the environment, the Agency must issue 

regulations requiring one or more of the 

following actions to the extent necessary 

so that the chemical substance no longer 

presents an unreasonable risk: (1) 

Prohibit or otherwise restrict 

manufacture, processing, or distribution 

in commerce; (2) Prohibit or otherwise 

restrict for a particular use or above a set 

concentration; (3) Require minimum 

warnings and instructions with respect 

to use, distribution in commerce, or 

disposal; (4) Require recordkeeping or 

testing; (5) Prohibit or regulate any 

manner or method of commercial use; 

(6) Prohibit or regulate any manner or 

method of disposal; and/or (7) Direct 

manufacturers or processors to give 

notice of the unreasonable risk to 

distributors and replace or repurchase 

products if required. 

Alternatives: There are no nonregulatory alternatives to this 

rulemaking. TSCA section 6(a) requires 

EPA to address by rule chemical 

substances that the Agency determines 

present unreasonable risk upon 

completion of a final risk evaluation. As 

required under TSCA section 6(c), EPA 

will consider one or more primary 

alternative regulatory actions as part of 

the development of a proposed rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: EPA 

will prepare a regulatory impact 

analysis as the Agency develops the 

proposed rule. 

Risks: As EPA determined in the 

TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation, 

HBCD presents unreasonable risks to 

human health and the environment. 

EPA must issue regulations so that this 

chemical substance no longer presents 

an unreasonable risk. For more 

information, visit: https://www.epa.gov/ 

assessing-and-managing-chemicalsunder-tsca/risk-management-existingchemicals-under-tsca. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 09/00/22 

Final Rule ............ 04/00/24 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

E.O. 13132. 

Additional Information: EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0548. 

URL For More Information: https://

www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managingchemicals-under-tsca/risk-managementcyclic-aliphatic-bromide-cluster-hbcd. 

Agency Contact: Sue Slotnick, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Mail Code 7404T, Washington, DC 

20460, Phone: 202 566–1973, Email: 

slotnick.sue@epa.gov. 

Erik Winchester, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 

7404T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 

202 564–6450, Email: winchester.erik@

epa.gov. 

RIN: 2070–AK71 

EPA—OCSPP 

156. Asbestos (Part 1: Chrysotile 

Asbestos); Rulemaking Under TSCA 

Section 6(a) 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605 Toxic 

Substances Control Act 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 751. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

December 28, 2021, TSCA sec. 6(c). 

Final, Statutory, December 28, 2022, 

TSCA sec. 6(c). 

Abstract: Section 6 of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires 

EPA to address unreasonable risks of 

injury to health or the environment that 

the Administrator has determined are 

presented by a chemical substance 

under the conditions of use. Following 

a risk evaluation for chrysotile asbestos 

carried out under the authority of TSCA 

section 6, EPA initiated rulemaking to 

address unreasonable risks of injury to 

health identified in the final risk 

evaluation. EPA’s risk evaluation for 

chrysotile asbestos, describing the 

conditions of use and presenting EPA’s 

determinations of unreasonable risk, is 

in docket EPA–HQ–OPPT–2019–0501, 

with additional information in docket 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2016–0736. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is 

needed to address the unreasonable 

risks of chrysotile asbestos that were 

identified in a risk evaluation 

completed under TSCA section 6(b). 

EPA reviewed the exposures and 

hazards of chrysotile asbestos, the 

magnitude of risk, exposed populations, 

severity of the hazard, uncertainties, 

and other factors. EPA sought input 

from the public and peer reviewers as 

required by TSCA and associated 

regulations. 

Summary of Legal Basis: In 

accordance with TSCA section 6(a), if 

EPA determines in a final risk 

evaluation completed under TSCA 

section 6(b) that the manufacture, 

processing, distribution in commerce, 

use, or disposal of a chemical substance 

or mixture, or that any combination of 

such activities, presents an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health or 

the environment, the Agency must issue 

regulations requiring one or more of the 

following actions to the extent necessary 

so that the chemical substance no longer 

presents an unreasonable risk: (1) 

Prohibit or otherwise restrict 

manufacture, processing, or distribution 

in commerce; (2) Prohibit or otherwise 

restrict for a particular use or above a set 

concentration; (3) Require minimum 

warnings and instructions with respect 

to use, distribution in commerce, or 

disposal; (4) Require recordkeeping or 

testing; (5) Prohibit or regulate any 

manner or method of commercial use; 

(6) Prohibit or regulate any manner or 

method of disposal; and/or (7) Direct 

manufacturers or processors to give 

notice of the unreasonable risk to 

distributors and replace or repurchase 

products if required. 

Alternatives: There are no nonregulatory alternatives to this 

rulemaking. TSCA section 6(a) requires 

EPA to address by rule chemical 

substances that the Agency determines 

present unreasonable risk upon 

completion of a final risk evaluation. As 

required under TSCA section 6(c), EPA 

will consider one or more primary 

alternative regulatory actions as part of 

the development of a proposed rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: EPA 

will prepare a regulatory impact 

analysis as the Agency develops the 

proposed rule. 

Risks: As EPA determined in the 

TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation, 

chrysotile asbestos present unreasonable 

risks to human health. EPA must issue 

regulations so that this chemical 

substance no longer presents an 

unreasonable risk. For more 

information, visit: https://www.epa.gov/ 

assessing-and-managing-chemicalsunder-tsca/risk-management-existingchemicals-under-tsca. 

Timetable: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5159 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Final Rule ............ 11/00/23 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

E.O. 13132. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Additional Information: 

URL For More Information: https://

www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managingchemicals-under-tsca/risk-managementasbestos-part-1-chrysotile-asbestos. 

Agency Contact: Robert Courtnage, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Mail Code 7404T, Washington, DC 

20460, Phone: 202 566–1081, Email: 

courtnage.robert@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2070–AK86 

EPA—OFFICE OF LAND AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

157. Designating PFOA and PFOS as 

CERCLA Hazardous Substances 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 302. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On February 14, 2019, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

issued a PFAS Action Plan, which 

responded to extensive public interest 

and input the agency had received and 

represented the first time EPA has built 

a multi-media, multi-program, national 

communication and research plan to 

address an emerging environmental 

challenge like PFAS. This Plan was 

updated on February 26, 2020. EPA’s 

Action Plan identified both short-term 

solutions for addressing these chemicals 

and long-term strategies that may 

provide the tools and technologies 

states, tribes, and local communities 

requested to provide clean and safe 

drinking water to their residents and to 

address PFAS at the source before it gets 

into the water. The designation of PFOA 

and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous 

substances was one of several actions 

mentioned in the PFAS Action Plan. 

EPA is undertaking a rulemaking effort 

to designate PFOA and PFOS as 

CERCLA hazardous substances. 

Designating PFOA and PFOS as 

CERCLA hazardous substances will 

require reporting of releases of PFOA 

and PFOS that meet or exceed the 

reportable quantity assigned to these 

substances. This will enable Federal, 

State Tribal, and local authorities to 

collect information regarding the 

location and extent of releases. 

Statement of Need: Designating PFOA 

and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous 

substances will require reporting of 

releases of PFOA and PFOS that meet or 

exceed the reportable quantity assigned 

to these substances. This will enable 

Federal, State, Tribal and local 

authorities to collect information 

regarding the location and extent of 

releases. 

Summary of Legal Basis: No aspect of 

this action is required by statute or court 

order. 

Alternatives: The Agency identified 

through the 2019 PFAS Action Plan that 

one of the goals was to designate PFOA 

and PFOS as hazardous substances. EPA 

determined that we have enough 

information to propose this designation. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

EPA is analyzing the potential costs and 

benefits associated with this action with 

respect to the reporting of any release of 

the subject hazardous substances to the 

Federal, State, and local authorities. 

Currently EPA expects to estimate lower 

and upper-bound reporting cost 

scenarios. 

Risks: This is a reporting rule and will 

enable Federal, State, Tribal and local 

authorities to collect information 

regarding the location and extent of 

releases. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/22 

Final Rule ............ To Be Determined 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Additional Information: 

Sectors Affected: 325998 All Other 

Miscellaneous Chemical Product and 

Preparation Manufacturing; 811192 Car 

Washes; 314110 Carpet and Rug Mills; 

332813 Electroplating, Plating, 

Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring; 

922160 Fire Protection; 488119 Other 

Airport Operations; 325510 Paint and 

Coating Manufacturing; 322121 Paper 

(except Newsprint) Mills; 322130 

Paperboard Mills; 424710 Petroleum 

Bulk Stations and Terminals; 324110 

Petroleum Refineries; 325992 

Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and 

Chemical Manufacturing; 562212 Solid 

Waste Landfill. 

Agency Contact: Michelle Schutz, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Land and Emergency 

Management, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, 

Phone: 703 603–8708, Email: 

schutz.michelle@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2050–AH09 

EPA—OLEM 

158. Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Management System: Disposal of Coal 

Combustion Residuals From Electric 

Utilities; Legacy Surface Impoundments 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906; 42 

U.S.C. 6907; 42 U.S.C. 6912(a); 42 

U.S.C. 6944; 42 U.S.C. 6945(c) 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 257. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On April 17, 2015, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 

or the Agency) promulgated national 

minimum criteria for existing and new 

coal combustion residuals (CCR) 

landfills and existing and new CCR 

surface impoundments. On August 21, 

2018 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 

issued its opinion in the case of Utility 

Solid Waste Activities Group, et al v. 

EPA, which vacated and remanded the 

provision that exempted inactive 

impoundments at inactive facilities 

from the CCR rule. The EPA is 

developing regulations to implement 

this part of the court decision for 

inactive CCR surface impoundments at 

inactive utilities, or ‘‘legacy units’’. This 

proposal may include adding a new 

definition for legacy CCR surface 

impoundments. The EPA may also 

propose to require such legacy CCR 

surface impoundments to follow 

existing regulatory requirements for 

fugitive dust, groundwater monitoring, 

and closure, or other technical 

requirements. 

Statement of Need: On April 17, 2015, 

the EPA finalized national regulations to 

regulate the disposal of Coal 

Combustion Residuals (CCR) as solid 

waste under subtitle D of the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

(2015 CCR final rule). In response to the 

Utility Solid Waste Activities Group v. 

EPA decision, this proposed 

rulemaking, if finalized, would bring 

inactive surface impoundments at 

inactive facilities (legacy surface 

impoundments) into the regulated 

universe. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5160 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Summary of Legal Basis: No statutory 

or judicial deadlines apply to this rule. 

The EPA is taking this action in 

response to an August 21, 2018 court 

decision that vacated and remanded the 

provision that exempted inactive 

impoundments at inactive electric 

utilities from the 2015 CCR final rule. 

The proposed rule would be established 

under the authority of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the 

Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 (HWSA) and the 

Water Infrastructure Improvements for 

the Nation Act of 2016. 

Alternatives: The Agency issued an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPRM) on October 14, 2020 (85 FR 

65015), which included public notice 

and opportunity for comment on this 

effort. We have not identified at this 

time any significant alternatives for 

analysis. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Agency will determine anticipated costs 

and benefits later as it is currently too 

early in the process. 

Risks: The Agency will estimate the 

risk reductions and impacts later as it is 

currently too early in the process. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 10/14/20 85 FR 65015 

NPRM .................. 09/00/22 

Final Rule ............ 09/00/23 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

State. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

EPA–HQ–OLEM–2020–0107. 

Sectors Affected: 221112 Fossil Fuel 

Electric Power Generation. 

URL For More Information: https://

www.epa.gov/coalash. 

URL For Public Comments: https://

www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQOLEM-2020-0107. 

Agency Contact: Frank Behan, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Land and Emergency 

Management, Mail Code 5304T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460, Phone: 202 566–1730, Email: 

behan.frank@epa.gov. 

Michelle Lloyd, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Land and 

Emergency Management, Mail Code 

5304T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566– 

0560, Email: long.michelle@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2050–AH14 

EPA—OLEM 

159. Accidental Release Prevention 

Requirements: Risk Management 

Program Under the Clean Air Act; 

Retrospection 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412 Clean 

Air Act 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 68. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is considering 

revising the Risk Management Program 

(RMP) regulations, which implement 

the requirements of section 112(r)(7) of 

the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. 

The RMP requires facilities that use 

listed extremely hazardous substances 

above specified threshold quantities to 

develop a Risk Management Plan. The 

EPA is reviewing the RMP rule in 

accordance with Executive Order 13990: 

Protecting Public Health and the 

Environment and Restoring Science To 

Tackle the Climate Crisis, which directs 

federal agencies to review existing 

regulations and take action to address 

the Administration’s priorities, 

including bolstering resilience to the 

impacts of climate change and 

prioritizing environmental justice. 

Statement of Need: On January 13, 

2017, the EPA published a final RMP 

rule (2017 Amendments) to prevent and 

mitigate the effect of accidental releases 

of hazardous chemicals from facilities 

that use, manufacture, and store them. 

The 2017 Amendments were a result of 

Executive Order 13650, Improving 

Chemical Facility Safety and Security, 

which directed EPA (and several other 

federal agencies) to, among other things, 

modernize policies, regulations, and 

standards to enhance safety and security 

in chemical facilities. The 2017 

Amendments rule contained various 

new provisions applicable to RMPregulated facilities addressing 

prevention program elements, 

emergency coordination with local 

responders, and information availability 

to the public. EPA received three 

petitions for reconsideration of the 2017 

Amendments rule under CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B). On December 19, 2019, 

EPA promulgated a final RMP rule 

(2019 Revisions) that acts on the 

reconsideration. The 2019 Revisions 

rule repealed several major provisions 

of the 2017 Amendments and retained 

other provisions with modifications. 

On January 20, 2021, Executive Order 

13990, Protecting Public Health and the 

Environment and Restoring Science To 

Tackle the Climate Crisis (E.O. 13990), 

directed federal agencies to review 

existing regulations and take action to 

address priorities established by the 

new administration including bolstering 

resilience to the impact of climate 

change and prioritizing environmental 

justice. The EPA is considering 

developing a regulatory action to revise 

the current RMP regulations. The 

proposed rule would address the 

administration’s priorities and focus on 

regulatory revisions completed since 

2017. The proposed rule would also 

expect to contain a number of proposed 

modifications to the RMP regulations 

based in part on stakeholder feedback 

received from RMP public listening 

sessions held on June 16 and July 8, 

2021. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The CAA 

section 112(r)(7)(A) authorizes the EPA 

Administrator to promulgate accidental 

release prevention, detection, and 

correction requirements, which may 

include monitoring, record keeping, 

reporting, training, vapor recovery, 

secondary containment, and other 

design, equipment, work practice, and 

operational requirements. The CAA 

section 112(r)(7)(B) authorizes the 

Administrator to promulgate reasonable 

regulations and appropriate guidance to 

provide, to the greatest extent 

practicable, for the prevention and 

detection of accidental releases of 

regulated substances and for response to 

such releases by the owners or operators 

of the sources of such releases. 

Alternatives: The EPA currently plans 

to prepare a notice of proposed 

rulemaking that would provide the 

public an opportunity to comment on 

the proposal, and any regulatory 

alternatives that may be identified 

within the preamble to the proposed 

rulemaking. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs 

may include the burden on regulated 

entities associated with implementing 

new or revised requirements including 

program implementation, training, 

equipment purchases, and 

recordkeeping, as applicable. Some 

costs could also accrue to implementing 

agencies and local governments, due to 

new or revised provisions associated 

with emergency response. Benefits will 

result from avoiding the harmful 

accident consequences to communities 

and the environment, such as deaths, 

injuries, and property damage, 

environmental damage, and from 

mitigating the effects of releases that 

may occur. Similar benefits will accrue 

to regulated entities and their 

employees. 

Risks: The proposed action would 

address the risks associated with 

accidental releases of listed regulated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5161 

toxic and flammable substances to the 

air from stationary sources. Substances 

regulated under the RMP program 

include highly toxic and flammable 

substances that can cause deaths, 

injuries, property and environmental 

damage, and other on- and off-site 

consequences if accidentally released. 

The proposed action would reduce 

these risks by potentially making 

accidental releases less likely, and by 

mitigating the severity of releases that 

may occur. The proposed action would 

not address the risks of non-accidental 

chemical releases, accidental releases of 

non-regulated substances, chemicals 

released to other media, and air releases 

from mobile sources. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 09/00/22 

Final Rule ............ 08/00/23 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Additional Information: 

Sectors Affected: 42469 Other 

Chemical and Allied Products Merchant 

Wholesalers; 22131 Water Supply and 

Irrigation Systems; 49313 Farm Product 

Warehousing and Storage; 11511 

Support Activities for Crop Production; 

221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power 

Generation; 31152 Ice Cream and Frozen 

Dessert Manufacturing; 311612 Meat 

Processed from Carcasses; 311411 

Frozen Fruit, Juice, and Vegetable 

Manufacturing; 49311 General 

Warehousing and Storage; 42491 Farm 

Supplies Merchant Wholesalers; 49312 

Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage; 

32519 Other Basic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing; 211112 Natural Gas 

Liquid Extraction; 49319 Other 

Warehousing and Storage; 322 Paper 

Manufacturing; 22132 Sewage 

Treatment Facilities; 325 Chemical 

Manufacturing; 311511 Fluid Milk 

Manufacturing; 32411 Petroleum 

Refineries; 311615 Poultry Processing; 

42471 Petroleum Bulk Stations and 

Terminals; 311 Food Manufacturing. 

Agency Contact: Deanne Grant, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Land and Emergency 

Management, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, 

Phone: 202 564–1096, Email: 

grant.deanne@epa.gov. 

Veronica Southerland, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Land and 

Emergency Management, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 

5104A, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 

202 564–2333, Email: 

southerland.veronica@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2050–AH22 

EPA—OFFICE OF WATER (OW) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

160. Federal Baseline Water Quality 

Standards for Indian Reservations 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 

1313(c)(4)(B) 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 131. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: EPA is developing a 

proposed rule to establish tribal baseline 

water quality standards (WQS) for 

waters on Indian reservations that do 

not have WQS under the Clean Water 

Act (CWA). Less than 20 percent of 

reservations have EPA-approved tribal 

WQS. Promulgating baseline WQS 

would address this longstanding gap 

and provide more scientific rigor and 

regulatory certainty to National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits for discharges to these 

waters. Consistent with EPA 

regulations, the baseline WQS would 

include designated uses, water quality 

criteria to protect those uses, and 

antidegradation policies to protect high 

quality waters. EPA initiated tribal 

consultation on June 15th, 2021 and 

will be engaged in coordination and 

consultation with tribes throughout the 

consultation period, which ends 

September 13th, 2021. EPA welcomes 

consultation with tribes both during and 

after the consultation period. EPA plans 

to propose this rule by early 2022 and 

to finalize by early 2023. 

Statement of Need: The federal 

government has recognized 574 tribes. 

More than 300 of these tribes have 

reservation lands such as formal 

reservations, Pueblos, and informal 

reservations (i.e., lands held in trust by 

the United States for tribal governments 

that are not designated as formal 

reservations) and are eligible to apply to 

administer a WQS program. Only 75 

tribes, out of over 300 tribes with 

reservations, currently have such TAS 

authorization to administer a WQS 

program. Of these 75 tribes, only 46 

tribes to date have adopted WQS and 

submitted them to EPA for review and 

approval under the CWA. As a result, 50 

years after enactment of the CWA, over 

80% of Indian reservations do not have 

this foundational protection expected by 

Congress as laid out in the CWA for 

their waters. This lack of CWA-effective 

WQS for the waters of more than 250 

Indian reservations is a longstanding 

gap in human health and environmental 

protections, given that WQS are central 

to implementing the water quality 

framework of the CWA. Although it is 

EPA’s preference for tribes to obtain 

TAS and develop WQS tailored to the 

tribes’ individual environmental goals 

and reservation waters, EPA’s 

promulgation of baseline WQS would 

serve to safeguard water quality until 

tribes obtain TAS and adopt and 

administer CWA WQS themselves. 

Summary of Legal Basis: While CWA 

section 303 clearly contemplates WQS 

for all waters of the United States, it 

does not explicitly address WQS for 

Indian country waters where tribes lack 

CWA-effective WQS. Under CWA 

section 303(a) states were required to 

adopt WQS for all interstate and 

intrastate waters. Where a state does not 

establish such standards, Congress 

directed EPA to do so under the CWA 

section 303(b). These provisions are 

consistent with Congress’ design of the 

CWA as a general statute applying to all 

waters of the United States, including 

those within Indian country. Several 

provisions of the CWA provide EPA 

with the authority to propose this rule. 

Section 501(a) of the CWA provides that 

[t]he Administrator is authorized to 

prescribe such regulations as are 

necessary to carry out his functions 

under this chapter. In Indian country 

waters where tribes are not yet 

authorized to establish WQS and where 

states lack jurisdiction to do the same, 

EPA is responsible for implementing 

section 303(c) of the CWA. Section 

303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA provides that 

[t]he Administrator shall promptly 

prepare and publish proposed 

regulations setting forth a revised or 

new water quality standard for the 

navigable waters involved in any case 

where the Administrator determines 

that a revised or new standard is 

necessary to meet the requirements of 

[the Act]. In 2001 the EPA 

Administrator made an Administrator’s 

Determination that new or revised WQS 

are necessary for certain Indian country 

waters. 

Alternatives: To be determined. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be 

determined. 

Risks: To be determined. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 09/29/16 81 FR 66900 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Final Rule ............ 02/00/23 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

State, Tribal. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5162 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Additional Information: 

URL For More Information: https://

www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/advance-noticeproposed-rulemaking-federal-baselinewater-quality-standards-indian. 

Agency Contact: James Ray, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, Mail Code 4305T, 200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460, Phone: 202 566–1433, Email: 

ray.james@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2040–AF62 

EPA—OW 

161. Clean Water Act Section 401: 

Water Quality Certification 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1151 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 121.1. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Clean Water Act (CWA) 

section 401 provides States and Tribes 

with a powerful tool to protect the 

quality of their waters from adverse 

impacts resulting from federally 

licensed or permitted projects. Under 

section 401, a federal agency may not 

issue a license or permit to conduct any 

activity that may result in any discharge 

into navigable waters, unless the State 

or Tribe where the discharge would 

originate either issues a section 401 

water quality certification finding ‘‘that 

any such discharge will comply with 

the applicable provisions of sections 

301, 302, 303, 306, and 307’’ of the 

CWA, or certification is waived. EPA 

promulgated implementing regulations 

for water quality certification prior to 

the passage of the CWA in 1972, which 

created section 401. In June 2020, EPA 

revised these regulations, titled ‘‘Clean 

Water Act section 401 Certification 

Rule.’’ In accordance with Executive 

Order 13990, the EPA has completed its 

review of the June 2020 regulation and 

determined that it will propose 

revisions to the rule through a new 

rulemaking effort. 

Statement of Need: To be determined. 

Summary of Legal Basis: To be 

determined. 

Alternatives: To be determined. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be 

determined. 

Risks: To be determined. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice .................. 06/02/21 86 FR 29541 

NPRM .................. 03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Additional Information: 

Agency Contact: Lauren Kasparek, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, 

Phone: 202 564–3351, Email: 

kasparek.lauren@epa.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 2040–AF86. 

RIN: 2040–AG12 

EPA—OW 

162. Revised Definition of ‘‘Waters of 

the United States’’—Rule 1 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 120.1. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: In April 2020, the EPA and 

the Department of the Army (the 

agencies) published the Navigable 

Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) that 

revised the previously codified 

definition of ‘‘waters of the United 

States’’ (85 FR 22250, April 21, 2020). 

The agencies are now initiating this new 

rulemaking process that restores the 

regulations in place prior to the 2015 

‘‘Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters 

of the United States’ ’’ (80 FR 37054, 

June 29, 2015), updated to be consistent 

with relevant Supreme Court decisions. 

The agencies intend to consider further 

revisions in a second rule in light of 

additional stakeholder engagement and 

implementation considerations, 

scientific developments, and 

environmental justice values. This effort 

will also be informed by the experience 

of implementing the pre-2015 rule, the 

2015 Clean Water Rule, and the 2020 

Navigable Waters Protection Rule. 

Statement of Need: In 2015, the 

Environmental Protection Agency and 

the Department of the Army (‘‘the 

agencies’’) published the ‘‘Clean Water 

Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United 

States’ ’’ (80 FR 37054, June 29, 2015). 

In April 2020, the agencies published 

the Navigable Waters Protection Rule 

(85 FR 22250, April 21, 2020). The 

agencies conducted a substantive reevaluation of the definition of ‘‘waters 

of the United States’’ in accordance with 

the Executive Order 13990 and 

determined that they need to revise the 

definition to ensure the agencies listen 

to the science, protect the environment, 

ensure access to clean water, consider 

how climate change resiliency may be 

affected by the definition of waters of 

the United States, and to ensure 

environmental justice is prioritized in 

the rulemaking process. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Clean 

Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). 

Alternatives: To be determined. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be 

determined. 

Risks: To be determined. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Additional Information: 

Sectors Affected: 11 Agriculture, 

Forestry, Fishing and Hunting; 112990 

All Other Animal Production; 111998 

All Other Miscellaneous Crop Farming; 

111 Crop Production. 

Agency Contact: Whitney Beck, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, Mail Code 4504T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460, Phone: 202 566–2553, Email: 

beck.whitney@epa.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 2040–AF75. 

RIN: 2040–AG13 

EPA—OW 

163. • Revised Definition of ‘‘Waters of 

the United States’’—Rule 2 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 120.1. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The EPA and the 

Department of the Army (the agencies’’) 

intend to pursue a second rule defining 

’’Waters of the United States’’ to 

consider further revisions to the 

agencies’ first rule (RIN 2040–AG13) 

which proposes to restore the 

regulations in place prior to the 2015 

‘‘Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters 

of the United States’ ’’ (80 FR 37054, 

June 29, 2015), updated to be consistent 

with relevant Supreme Court Decisions. 

This second rule proposes to include 

revisions reflecting on additional 

stakeholder engagement and 

implementation considerations, 

scientific developments, and 

environmental justice values. This effort 

will also be informed by the experience 

of implementing the pre-2015 rule, the 

2015 Clean Water Rule, and the 2020 

Navigable Waters Protection Rule. 

Statement of Need: The agencies 

intend to pursue a second rule defining 

waters of the United States to consider 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5163 

further revisions to the agencies’ first 

rule which proposes to restore the 

regulations in place prior to the 2015 

WOTUS rule, updated to be consistent 

with relevant Supreme Court Decisions. 

This second rule proposes to include 

revisions reflecting on additional 

stakeholder engagement and 

implementation considerations, 

scientific developments, and 

environmental justice values. This effort 

will also be informed by the experience 

of implementing the pre-2015 rule, the 

2015 Clean Water Rule, and the 2020 

Navigable Waters Protection Rule. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Clean 

Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). 

Alternatives: To be determined. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be 

determined. 

Risks: To be determined. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Additional Information: 

Agency Contact: Whitney Beck, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, Mail Code 4504T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460, Phone: 202 566–2553, Email: 

beck.whitney@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2040–AG19 

EPA—OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION 

(OAR) 

Final Rule Stage 

164. Revised 2023 and Later Model 

Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions Standards 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411 Clean 

Air Act; 42 U.S.C. 7401 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 85.1401; 40 CFR 

86; 40 CFR 600.001. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Under Executive Order 

13990 on Protecting Public Health and 

the Environment and Restoring Science 

to Tackle the Climate Crisis (January 20, 

2021), EPA was directed to review the 

Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) 

Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021– 

2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks 

(April 30, 2020). Based on the Agency’s 

reevaluation, EPA will determine 

whether to revise the GHG standards for 

certain model years. 

Statement of Need: Under Executive 

Order 13990 on Protecting Public Health 

and the Environment and Restoring 

Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis 

(January 20, 2021), EPA was directed to 

review the Safer Affordable FuelEfficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for 

Model Years 2021–2026 Passenger Cars 

and Light Trucks (April 30, 2020). 

Summary of Legal Basis: CAA section 

202 (a). 

Alternatives: EPA requested comment 

to address alternative options in the 

proposed rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Compliance with the standards would 

impose reasonable costs on 

manufacturers. The proposed revised 

standards would result in significant 

benefits for public health and welfare, 

primarily through substantial reductions 

in both GHG emissions and fuel 

consumption and associated fuel costs 

paid by drivers. 

Risks: EPA will evaluate the risks of 

this rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/10/21 86 FR 43726 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

09/27/21 

Final Rule ............ 12/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Additional Information: EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0208. 

Sectors Affected: 335312 Motor and 

Generator Manufacturing; 336111 

Automobile Manufacturing; 811111 

General Automotive Repair; 811112 

Automotive Exhaust System Repair; 

811198 All Other Automotive Repair 

and Maintenance. 

Agency Contact: Tad Wysor, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, USEPA, 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214– 

4332, Fax: 734 214–4816, Email: 

wysor.tad@epa.gov. 

Jessica Mroz, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air and 

Radiation, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 

564–1094, Email: mroz.jessica@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2060–AV13 

EPA—OFFICE OF LAND AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM) 

Final Rule Stage 

165. Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Management System: Disposal of Coal 

Combustion Residuals From Electric 

Utilities; Federal CCR Permit Program 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6945 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 22; 40 CFR 124; 

40 CFR 257. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Water Infrastructure 

Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act 

established a new coal combustion 

residual (CCR) regulatory structure 

under which states may seek approval 

from the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to operate a permitting 

program that would regulate CCR 

facilities within their state; if approved, 

the state program would operate in lieu 

of the federal requirements. The WIIN 

Act requires that such state programs 

must ensure that facilities comply with 

either the federal regulations or with 

state requirements that the EPA has 

determined are ‘‘at least as protective 

as’’ the federal regulations. Furthermore, 

the WIIN Act established a requirement 

for the EPA to establish a federal permit 

program for the disposal of CCR in 

Indian Country and in 

‘‘nonparticipating’’ states, contingent 

upon Congressional appropriations. In 

March 2018 (Pub. L. 115–141) and 

March 2019 (Pub. L. 116–6), Congress 

appropriated funding for federal CCR 

permitting. The final rule would 

establish a new federal permitting 

program for disposal of CCR. The 

potentially regulated universe is limited 

to facilities with CCR disposal units 

subject to regulation under 40 CFR part 

257 subpart D, which are located in 

Indian Country and in nonparticipating 

states. Remaining CCR facilities would 

be regulated by an approved state 

program and would not be subject to 

federal permitting requirements. 

Statement of Need: The Water 

Infrastructure Improvements for the 

Nation (WIIN) Act established a new 

CCR regulatory structure under which 

states may seek approval from the EPA 

to operate a permitting program that 

would operate in lieu of the federal 

requirements. Furthermore, the WIIN 

Act established a requirement for the 

EPA to establish a federal permit 

program for the disposal of CCR in 

Indian Country and in nonparticipating 

states, contingent upon Congressional 

appropriations. In March 2018, Congress 

appropriated funding for federal CCR 

permitting. 

Summary of Legal Basis: No statutory 

or judicial deadlines apply to this rule. 

This rule would be established under 

the authority of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the 

Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 (HWSA) and the 

Water Infrastructure Improvements for 

the Nation Act of 2016. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5164 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Alternatives: The Agency provided 

public notice and opportunity for 

comment on the proposal to establish a 

federal permit program. The proposal 

included procedures for issuing permits. 

Substantive requirements are addressed 

in the existing CCR regulations (40 CFR 

part 257 subpart D). Alternatives 

considered in the proposal included 

approaches to tiering initial application 

deadlines (e.g., by risks presented due to 

unit stability or other factors, such as 

leaking units) and procedures for permit 

by rule or issuance of general permits as 

an alternative to individual permits. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs 

and benefits of the February 20, 2020 

proposal were presented in the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) 

supporting the proposed rule. The EPA 

estimated that the net effect of proposed 

revisions would result in an estimated 

annual cost of this proposal is a cost 

increase of approximately $136,312. 

This cost increase is composed of 

approximately $135,690 in annualized 

labor costs and $622 in capital or 

operation and maintenance costs. 

Risks: The proposal to establish a 

federal CCR permit program is not 

expected to impact the overall risk 

conclusions discussed in the 2015 CCR 

Rule. The proposal would establish 

procedural requirements for issuance of 

permits would generally not establish 

substantive requirements affecting 

environmental risk. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/20/20 85 FR 9940 

Final Rule ............ 10/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, Tribal. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

EPA–HQ–OLEM–2019–0361. 

Sectors Affected: 221112 Fossil Fuel 

Electric Power Generation. 

URL For More Information: https://

www.epa.gov/coalash. 

URL For Public Comments: https://

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPAHQ-OLEM-2019-0361. 

Agency Contact: Stacey Yonce, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Land and Emergency 

Management, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Mail Code 5304T, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566– 

0568, Email: yonce.stacey@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2050–AH07 

EPA—OLEM 

166. Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Management System: Disposal of CCR; 

a Holistic Approach to Closure Part B: 

Implementation of Closure 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906; 42 

U.S.C. 6907; 42 U.S.C. 6912(a); 42 

U.S.C. 6944; 42 U.S.C. 6945(c) 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 257. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On April 17, 2015, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

promulgated national minimum criteria 

for existing and new coal combustion 

residuals (CCR) landfills and existing 

and new CCR surface impoundments. 

On August 21, 2018, the D.C. Circuit 

Court of Appeals issued its opinion in 

the case of Utility Solid Waste Activities 

Group, et al v. EPA. On October 15, 

2018, the court issued its mandate, 

vacating certain provisions of the 2015 

final rule. On March 3, 2020, the EPA 

proposed a number of revisions and 

flexibilities to the CCR regulations. In 

particular, the EPA proposed the 

following revisions: (1) Procedures to 

allow facilities to request approval to 

use an alternate liner for CCR surface 

impoundments; (2) Two co-proposed 

options to allow the use of CCR during 

unit closure; (3) An additional closure 

option for CCR units being closed by 

removal of CCR; and (4) Requirements 

for annual closure progress reports. The 

EPA has since taken final action on one 

of the four proposed issues. Specifically, 

on November 12, 2020, the EPA issued 

a final rule that would allow a limited 

number of facilities to demonstrate to 

the EPA that based on groundwater data 

and the design of a particular surface 

impoundment, the unit has and will 

continue to have no probability of 

adverse effects on human health and the 

environment. (This final rule was 

covered under RIN 2050–AH11. See 

‘‘Additional Information’’ section.) The 

present rulemaking would consider 

taking final action on the remaining 

proposed issues. 

Statement of Need: On April 17, 2015, 

the EPA finalized national regulations to 

regulate the disposal of Coal 

Combustion Residuals (CCR) as solid 

waste under subtitle D of the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

(2015 CCR Rule). On March 3, 2020, the 

EPA proposed a number of revisions to 

the CCR regulations, the last in a set of 

four planned actions to implement the 

Water Infrastructure Improvements for 

the Nation (WIIN) Act, respond to 

petitions, address litigation and apply 

lessons learned to ensure smoother 

implementation of the regulations. 

Summary of Legal Basis: No statutory 

or judicial deadlines apply to this rule. 

This rule would be established under 

the authority of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the 

Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 (HWSA) and the 

Water Infrastructure Improvements for 

the Nation Act of 2016. 

Alternatives: The Agency provided 

public notice and opportunity for 

comment on these issues associated 

with the closure of CCR surface 

impoundments. Each of these issues is 

fairly narrow in scope and we have not 

identified any significant alternatives 

for analysis. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs 

and benefits of the March 3, 2020 

proposed targeted changes were 

presented in the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) supporting the proposed 

rule. EPA estimated that the net effect 

of proposed revisions (excluding the 

one issue that EPA finalized on 

November 12, 2020) to be an annualized 

cost savings of between $37 million and 

$129 million when discounting at 7%. 

The RIA also qualitatively describes the 

potential effects of the proposal on two 

categories of benefits from the 2015 CCR 

Rule. 

Risks: Key benefits of the 2015 CCR 

Rule included the prevention of future 

catastrophic failures of CCR surface 

impoundments, the protection of 

groundwater from contamination, the 

reduction of dust in communities near 

CCR disposal units and increases in the 

beneficial use of CCR. The average 

annual monetized benefits of the 2015 

CCR Rule were estimated to be $232 

million per year using a seven percent 

discount rate. For reasons discussed in 

the March 3, 2020 proposal, the EPA 

was unable to quantify or monetize the 

proposed rule’s incremental effect on 

human health and the environment 

using currently available data. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/03/20 85 FR 12456 

Final Rule ............ 09/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

EPA–HQ–OLEM–2019–0173. The action 

is split from 2050–AH11: Hazardous 

and Solid Waste Management System: 

Disposal of CCR; A Holistic Approach to 

Closure Part B: Alternate Demonstration 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5165 

for Unlined Surface Impoundments; 

Implementation of Closure. This action 

was split from 2050–AH11 after the 

March 3, 2020 NPRM (85 FR 12456) as 

two final rules would be developed 

based on the proposed rule. The 

November 12, 2020 final rule (85 FR 

72506) mentioned in this abstract was 

covered under 2050–AH11. 

Sectors Affected: 221112 Fossil Fuel 

Electric Power Generation. 

URL For More Information: https://

www.epa.gov/coalash. 

URL For Public Comments: https://

www.regulatons.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQOLEM-2019-0173. 

Agency Contact: Jesse Miller, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Land and Emergency 

Management, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Mail Code 5304T, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566– 

0562, Email: miller.jesse@epa.gov. 

Frank Behan, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Land and 

Emergency Management, Mail Code 

5304T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566– 

1730, Email: behan.frank@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2050–AH18 

EPA—OFFICE OF WATER (OW) 

Final Rule Stage 

167. • Cybersecurity in Public Water 

Systems 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 142.16; 40 CFR 

142.2. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: EPA is evaluating regulatory 

approaches to ensure improved 

cybersecurity at public water systems. 

EPA plans to offer separate guidance, 

training, and technical assistance to 

states and public water systems on 

cybersecurity. This action will provide 

regulatory clarity and certainty and 

promote the adoption of cybersecurity 

measures by public water systems. 

Statement of Need: A cyber-attack can 

degrade the ability of a public water 

system to produce and distribute safe 

drinking water. The risk of a cyberattack can be reduced through the 

adoption of cybersecurity best practices 

by public water systems. Sanitary 

surveys, which states, tribes, or the EPA 

typically conduct every 3 to 5 years on 

all public water systems, should include 

an evaluation of cybersecurity to 

identify significant deficiencies. EPA 

recognizes, however, that many states 

currently do not assess cybersecurity 

practices during public water system 

sanitary surveys. This action is 

necessary to convey to states that EPA 

interprets existing regulations for public 

water system sanitary surveys as 

including the possible identification of 

significant deficiencies in cybersecurity 

practices. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Administrative Procedure Act exempts 

interpretive rules from its notice and 

comment requirements. 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(A). The term is not defined in 

the APA, but the Attorney General’s 

Manual on the APA, often considered to 

be akin to legislative history, describes 

them as ‘‘rules or statements issued by 

an agency to advise the public of the 

agency’s construction of the statutes and 

rules which it administers.’’ 

Alternatives: Provide guidance to 

states, tribes, and EPA on evaluating 

cybersecurity practices during public 

water system sanitary surveys without 

issuing an interpretive rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

action is an interpretation of existing 

responsibilities under current 

regulations. It establishes no new 

regulatory requirements and, hence, has 

no regulatory costs or benefits. 

Risks: The purpose of this action is to 

reduce the risks associated with cyberattacks on public water systems. 

Because this action is not establishing 

new regulatory requirements, EPA has 

not quantified costs and benefits for it. 

Accordingly, EPA has not estimated the 

current level of risk or the possible 

reduction in risk due to this action. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Final Rule ............ 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Additional Information: 

Sectors Affected: 924110 

Administration of Air and Water 

Resource and Solid Waste Management 

Programs. 

Agency Contact: Stephanie Flaharty, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, 4601M, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460, Phone: 202 564–5072, Email: 

flaharty.stephanie@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2040–AG20 

EPA—OW 

Long-Term Actions 

168. National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations for Lead and Copper: 

Regulatory Revisions 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq. 

Safe Drinking Water Act 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 141; 40 CFR 

142. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) published the 

final Lead and Copper Rule Revision 

(LCRR) on January 15, 2021. EPA is 

currently considering revising this 

rulemaking. This action is consistent 

with presidential directives issued on 

January 20, 2021, to the heads of Federal 

agencies to review certain regulations, 

including the LCRR (E.O. 13990). EPA 

will complete its review of the rule in 

accordance with those directives and 

conduct important consultations with 

affected parties. This review of the 

LCRR will be consistent with the policy 

aims set forth in Executive Order 13985 

on Advancing Racial Equity and 

Support for Underserved Communities 

through the Federal Government. 

Statement of Need: The EPA 

promulgated the final Lead and Copper 

Rule Revision (LCRR) on January 15, 

2021 (86 FR 4198). Consistent with the 

directives of Executive Order 13990, the 

EPA is currently considering revising 

this rulemaking. The EPA will complete 

its review of the rule in accordance with 

those directives and conduct important 

consultations with affected parties. The 

EPA understands that the benefits of 

clean water are not shared equally by all 

communities and this review of the 

LCRR will be consistent with the policy 

aims set forth in Executive Order 13985, 

‘‘Advancing Racial Equity and Support 

for Underserved Communities through 

the Federal Government.’’ 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Safe 

Drinking Water Act, section 1412, 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations, authorizes EPA to initiate 

the development of a rulemaking if the 

agency has determined that the action 

maintains or improves the public 

health. 

Alternatives: To Be Determined. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To Be 

Determined. 

Risks: To Be Determined. 

Timetable: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5166 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. To Be Determined 

Final Action ......... To Be Determined 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Additional Information: 

Agency Contact: Stephanie Flaharty, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, 4601M, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460, Phone: 202 564–5072, Email: 

flaharty.stephanie@epa.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 2040–AF15, 

Related to 2040–AG15. 

RIN: 2040–AG16 

EPA—OW 

169. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl 

Substances (PFAS): Perfluorooctanoic 

Acid (PFOA) and 

Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulation Rulemaking 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq. 

Safe Drinking Water Act 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 141; 40 CFR 

142. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

March 3, 2023, Safe Drinking Water Act. 

Final, Statutory, September 3, 2024, 

Safe Drinking Water Act. 

Abstract: On March 3, 2021, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published the Fourth Regulatory 

Determinations in Federal Register, 

including a determination to regulate 

perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and 

perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) in 

drinking water. Per the Safe Drinking 

Water Act, following publication of the 

Regulatory Determination, the 

Administrator shall propose a maximum 

contaminant level goal (MCLG) and a 

national primary drinking water 

regulation (NPDWR) not later than 24 

months after determination and 

promulgate a NPDWR within 18 months 

after proposal (the statute authorizes a 

9-month extension of this promulgation 

date). With this action, EPA intends to 

develop a proposed national primary 

drinking water regulation for PFOA and 

PFOS, and as appropriate, take final 

action. Additionally, EPA will continue 

to consider other PFAS as part of this 

action. 

Statement of Need: EPA has 

determined that PFOA and PFOS may 

have adverse health effects; that PFOA 

and PFOS occur in public water systems 

with a frequency and at levels of public 

health concern; and that, in the sole 

judgment of the Administrator, 

regulation of PFOA and PFOS presents 

a meaningful opportunity for health risk 

reduction for persons served by public 

water systems. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The EPA is 

developing a PFAS NPDWR under the 

authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA), including sections 1412, 1413, 

1414, 1417, 1445, and 1450 of the 

SDWA. Section 1412 (b)(1)(A) of the 

SDWA requires that EPA shall publish 

a maximum contaminant level goal and 

promulgate a NPDWR if the 

Administrator determines that (1) the 

contaminant may have an adverse effect 

on the health of persons, (2) is known 

to occur or there is a substantial 

likelihood that the contaminant will 

occur in public water systems with a 

frequency and at a level of public health 

concern, and (3) in the sole judgement 

of the Administrator there is a 

meaningful opportunity for health risk 

reduction for persons served by public 

water systems. EPA published a final 

determination to regulate PFOA and 

PFOS on March 3, 2021 after 

considering public comment (86 FR 

12272). Section 1412 (b)(1)(E) of the 

SDWA requires that EPA publish a 

proposed Maximum Contaminant Level 

Goal and a NPDWR within 24 months 

of a final regulatory determination and 

that the Agency promulgate a NPDWR 

within 18 months of proposal. 

Alternatives: Undetermined. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Undetermined. 

Risks: Studies indicate that exposure 

to PFOA and/or PFOS above certain 

exposure levels may result in adverse 

health effects, including developmental 

effects to fetuses during pregnancy or to 

breast-fed infants (e.g., low birth weight, 

accelerated puberty, skeletal variations), 

cancer (e.g., testicular, kidney), liver 

effects (e.g., tissue damage), immune 

effects (e.g., antibody production and 

immunity), and other effects (e.g., 

cholesterol changes). Both PFOA and 

PFOS are known to be transmitted to the 

fetus via the placenta and to the 

newborn, infant, and child via breast 

milk. Both compounds were also 

associated with tumors in long-term 

animal studies. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/22 

Final Action ......... 12/00/23 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Energy Effects: Statement of Energy 

Effects planned as required by Executive 

Order 13211. 

Additional Information: 

Agency Contact: Stephanie Flaharty, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, 4601M, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460, Phone: 202 564–5072, Email: 

flaharty.stephanie@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2040–AG18 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION (GSA) 

Regulatory Plan—October 2021 

The U.S. General Services 

Administration (GSA) delivers value 

and savings in real estate, acquisition, 

technology, and other mission-support 

services across the Federal Government. 

GSA’s acquisition solutions supply 

Federal purchasers with cost-effective, 

high-quality products and services from 

commercial vendors. GSA provides 

workplaces for Federal employees and 

oversees the preservation of historic 

Federal properties. GSA helps keep the 

nation safe and efficient by providing 

tools, equipment, and non-tactical 

vehicles to the U.S. military, and 

providing State and local governments 

with law enforcement equipment, 

firefighting and rescue equipment, and 

disaster recovery products and services. 

GSA serves the public by delivering 

products and services directly to its 

Federal customers through the Federal 

Acquisition Service (FAS), the Public 

Buildings Service (PBS), and the Office 

of Government-wide Policy (OGP). GSA 

has a continuing commitment to its 

Federal customers and the U.S. 

taxpayers by providing those products 

and services in the most cost-effective 

manner possible. 

Federal Acquisition Service 

FAS is the lead organization for 

procurement of products and services 

(other than real property) for the Federal 

Government. The FAS organization 

leverages the buying power of the 

Government by consolidating Federal 

agencies’ requirements for common 

goods and services. FAS provides a 

range of high-quality and flexible 

acquisition services to increase overall 

Government effectiveness and efficiency 

by aligning resources around key 

functions. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5167 

Public Buildings Service 

PBS is the largest public real estate 

organization in the United States. As the 

landlord for the civilian Federal 

Government, PBS acquires space on 

behalf of the Federal Government 

through new construction and leasing, 

and acts as a manager for Federal 

properties across the country. PBS is 

responsible for over 370 million 

rentable square feet of workspace for 

Federal employees, has jurisdiction, 

custody, and control over more than 

1,600 federally owned assets totaling 

over 180 million rentable square feet, 

and contracts for more than 7,000 leased 

assets totaling over 180 million rentable 

square feet. 

Later in FY22, GSA expects to update 

the existing internal guidance and issue 

a new PBS Order following the release 

of an E.O. on Federal Sustainability 

which is likely to be issued in late 

October or early November. 

Office of Government-Wide Policy 

OGP sets Government-wide policy in 

the areas of personal and real property, 

mail, travel, relocation, transportation, 

information technology, regulatory 

information, and the use of Federal 

advisory committees. OGP also helps 

direct how all Federal supplies and 

services are acquired as well as GSA’s 

own acquisition programs. Pursuant to 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (September 30, 

1993) and Executive Order 13563, 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’ (January 18, 2011), the 

Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda 

provides notice regarding OGP’s 

regulatory and deregulatory actions 

within the Executive Branch. 

GSA prepared a list of 20 nonregulatory actions in the areas of 

Climate Risk Management, Resilience, 

and Adaptation; Environmental Justice; 

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction; 

Clean Energy; Energy Reduction; Water 

Reduction; Performance Contracting; 

Waste Reduction; Sustainable Buildings; 

and Electronics Stewardship & Data 

Centers. Detailed information on actions 

GSA is considering taking through 

December 31, 2025, to implement the 

Administration’s policy set by Executive 

Orders 13990 and Executive Order 

14008 were provided in GSA’s 

Executive Order 13990 90-day response; 

GSA Climate Change Risk Management 

Plan and GSA 2021 Sustainability Plan. 

More specifics will be known on the 

Sustainability Plan when feedback is 

obtained from the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) and Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB). 

OGP’s Office of Government wide 

Policy, Office of Asset and 

Transportation Management and Office 

of Acquisition Policy are prioritizing 

rulemaking focused on initiatives that: 

• Tackle the climate change 

emergency. 

• Promote the country’s economic 

resilience and improve the buying 

power of U.S. citizens. 

• Support underserved communities, 

promoting equity in the Federal 

government; and, 

• Support national security efforts, 

especially safeguarding Federal 

government information and 

information technology systems. 

Office of Asset and Transportation 

Management 

The Fall 2021 Unified Agenda 

consists of fourteen (14) active Office of 

Asset and Transportation Management 

(MA) agenda items, of which four (4) 

active actions are included in the 

Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) and ten 

(10) active actions are included in the 

Federal Management Regulation (FMR). 

The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) 

enumerates the travel and relocation 

policy for all title 5 Executive Agency 

employees. The Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) is available at https:// 

ecfr.federalregister.gov/. Each version is 

updated as official changes are 

published in the Federal Register (FR). 

The FTR is the regulation contained 

in title 41 of the CFR, chapters 300 

through 304, that implements statutory 

requirements and Executive branch 

policies for travel by Federal civilian 

employees and others authorized to 

travel at Government expense. The FTR 

presents policies in a clear manner to 

both agencies and employees to assure 

that official travel is performed 

responsibly. 

The Federal Management Regulation 

(FMR) establishes policy for Federal 

aircraft management, mail management, 

transportation, personal property, real 

property, and committee management. 

MA Rulemaking That Tackles Climate 

Change 

FTR Case 2020–301–1, Definition for 

‘‘Fuel’’, Rental Car Policy Updates and 

Clarifications, replaces the word 

‘‘gasoline’’ where appropriate and 

replaces it with the term ‘‘fuel’’ to 

acknowledge the use of alternative fuels, 

such as electricity. 

FTR Case 2021–301–1, Removal 

Reservation of part 300–90-Telework 

Travel Expenses Test Programs and 

appendix E to chapter 301-Suggested 

Guidance for Conference Planning, 

supports sustainability by reducing the 

number of paper pages required for 

publication in the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

MA Rulemaking That Supports Equity 

and Underserved Communities 

FTR Case 2020–302–01, Taxes on 

Relocation Expenses, Withholding Tax 

Allowance (WTA) and Relocation 

Income Tax Allowance (RITA) 

Eligibility, creates equity among all 

Federal Government employees by 

authorizing agencies to reimburse new 

hires and others previously not eligible 

for relocation benefits afforded to 

employees transferred in the interest of 

the Government. 

FMR Case 2021–01, Use of Federal 

Real Property to Assist the Homeless’’ 

will streamline the process by which 

excess Federal real property is screened 

for potential conveyance to homeless 

interests. 

MA Rulemaking That Supports 

National Security 

FMR Case 2021–102–1, ‘‘Real Estate 

Acquisition’’ will clarify the policies for 

entering into leasing agreements for 

high security space (i.e., space with a 

Facility Security Level (FSL) of III, IV, 

or V) in accordance with the Secure 

Federal LEASEs Act (Pub. L. 116–276). 

Office of Acquisition Policy 

The Fall 2021 Unified Agenda 

consists of nineteen (19) active Office of 

Acquisition Policy (MV) agenda items, 

all of which are for the General Services 

Administration Acquisition Regulation 

(GSAR). 

Office of Acquisition Policy—General 

Services Administration Acquisition 

Regulation 

The GSAR establishes agency 

acquisition regulations that affect GSA’s 

business partners (e.g., prospective 

offerors and contractors) and acquisition 

of leasehold interests in real property. 

The latter are established under the 

authority of 40 U.S.C. 585. The GSAR 

implements contract clauses, 

solicitation provisions, and standard 

forms that control the relationship 

between GSA and contractors and 

prospective contractors. 

MV Rulemaking That Promotes 

Economic Resilience 

GSAR Case 2021–G530, Extension of 

Federal Minimum Wage to Lease 

Acquisitions, will increase efficiency 

and cost savings in the work performed 

for leases with the Federal Government 

by increasing the hourly minimum wage 

paid to those contractors in accordance 

with Executive Order 14026, 

‘‘Increasing the Minimum Wage for 

Federal Contractors’’ dated April 27, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5168 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

2021, and Department of Labor 

regulations at 29 CFR part 23. 

MV Rulemaking That Supports Equity 

and Underserved Communities 

GSAR Case 2020–G511, Updated 

Guidance for Non-Federal Entities 

Access to Federal Supply Schedules, 

will clarify the requirements for use of 

Federal Supply Schedules by eligible 

Non-Federal Entities, such as state and 

local governments. The regulatory 

changes are intended to increase 

understanding of the existing guidance 

and expand access to GSA sources of 

supply by eligible Non-Federal Entities, 

as authorized by historic statutes 

including the Federal Supply Schedules 

Usage Act of 2010. 

GSAR Case 2021–G529, Updates to 

References to Individuals with 

Disabilities, will provide more inclusive 

acquisition guidance for underserved 

communities by updating references 

from ‘‘handicapped individuals’’ to 

‘‘individuals with disabilities’’, 

pursuant to Section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act. 

Rulemaking That Supports National 

Security 

GSAR Case 2016–G511, Contract 

Requirements for GSA Information 

Systems, will streamline and update 

requirements for contracts that involve 

GSA information systems. GSA’s 

policies on cybersecurity and other 

information technology requirements 

have been previously issued and 

communicated by the Office of the Chief 

Information Officer through the GSA 

public website. By incorporating these 

requirements into the GSAR, the GSAR 

will provide centralized guidance to 

ensure consistent application across the 

organization. 

GSAR Case 2020–G534, Extension of 

Certain Telecommunication 

Prohibitions to Lease Acquisitions, will 

protect national security by prohibiting 

procurement from certain covered 

entities using covered equipment and 

services in lease acquisitions pursuant 

to Section 889 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. 

The regulatory changes will implement 

the Section 889 requirements in lease 

acquisitions by requiring inclusion of 

the related Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) provisions and 

clauses. 

GSAR Case 2021–G522, Contract 

Requirements for High-Security Leased 

Space, will incorporate contractor 

disclosure requirements and access 

limitations for high-security leased 

space pursuant to the Secure Federal 

Leases Act. Covered entities are 

required to identify whether the 

beneficial owner of a high-security 

leased space, including an entity 

involved in the financing thereof, is a 

foreign person or entity when first 

submitting a proposal and annually 

thereafter. 

GSAR Case 2021–G527, Immediate 

and Highest-Level Owner for HighSecurity Leased Space, addresses the 

risks of foreign ownership of 

Government-leased real estate and 

requires the disclosure of immediate 

and highest-level ownership 

information for high-security space 

leased to accommodate a Federal 

agency. 

Dated: September 8, 2021. 

Name: Krystal J. Brumfield, 

Associate Administrator, Office of 

Government-wide Policy. 

BILLING CODE 6820–34–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA) 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

The National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration’s (NASA) aim is to 

increase human understanding of the 

solar system and the universe that 

contains it and to improve American 

aeronautics ability. NASA’s basic 

organization consists of the 

Headquarters, nine field Centers, the Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory (a federally 

funded research and development 

center), and several component 

installations which report to Center 

Directors. Responsibility for overall 

planning, coordination, and control of 

NASA programs is vested in NASA 

Headquarters, located in Washington, 

DC. 

NASA continues to implement 

programs according to its 2018 Strategic 

Plan. The Agency’s mission is to ‘‘Lead 

an innovative and sustainable program 

of exploration with commercial and 

international partners to enable human 

expansion across the solar system and 

bring new knowledge and opportunities 

back to Earth. Support growth of the 

Nation’s economy in space and 

aeronautics, increase understanding of 

the universe and our place in it, work 

with industry to improve America’s 

aerospace technologies, and advance 

American leadership.’’ The FY 2018 

Strategic Plan (available at https://

www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/ 

files/nasa_2018_strategic_plan.pdf) 

guides NASA’s program activities 

through a framework of the following 

four strategic goals: 

• Strategic Goal 1: Expand human 

knowledge through new scientific 

discoveries. 

• Strategic Goal 2: Extend human 

presence deeper into space and to the 

Moon for sustainable long-term 

exploration and utilization. 

• Strategic Goal 3: Address national 

challenges and catalyze economic 

growth. 

• Strategic Goal 4: Optimize 

capabilities and operations. 

NASA’s Regulatory Philosophy and 

Principles 

The Agency’s rulemaking program 

strives to be responsive, efficient, and 

transparent. NASA adheres to the 

general principles set forth in Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ NASA is a signatory to the 

Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) 

Council. The FAR at 48 CFR chapter 1 

contains procurement regulations that 

apply to NASA and other Federal 

agencies. Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1302 

and FAR 1.103(b), the FAR is jointly 

prepared, issued, and maintained by the 

Secretary of Defense, the Administrator 

of General Services, and the 

Administrator of NASA, under their 

several statutory authorities. 

NASA is also mindful of the 

importance of international regulatory 

cooperation, consistent with domestic 

law and U.S. trade policy, as noted in 

Executive Order 13609, ‘‘Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation’’ 

(May 1, 2012). NASA, along with the 

Departments of State, Commerce, and 

Defense, engage with other countries in 

the Wassenaar Arrangement, Nuclear 

Suppliers Group, Australia Group, and 

Missile Technology Control Regime 

through which the international 

community develops a common list of 

items that should be subject to export 

controls. NASA has also been a key 

participant in interagency efforts to 

overhaul and streamline the U.S. 

Munitions List and the Commerce 

Control List. These efforts help facilitate 

transfers of goods and technologies to 

allies and partners while helping 

prevent transfers to countries of national 

security and proliferation concerns. 

NASA Priority Regulatory Actions 

NASA is highlighting one priority in 

this agenda and a short summary is 

provided below. 

Procedures for Implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

NASA is revising its policy and 

procedures for implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) and the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations. These proposed 

amendments would update procedures 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5169 

contained in the Agency’s current 

regulation at 14 CFR subpart 1216.3, 

Procedures for Implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act, to 

incorporate updates based on the 

Agency’s review of its Categorical 

Exclusions and streamline the NEPA 

process to better support NASA’s 

evolving mission. 

BILLING CODE 7510–13–P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION (NARA) 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

The National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA) primarily issues 

regulations directed to other Federal 

agencies. These regulations include 

records management, information 

services, and information security. For 

example, records management 

regulations directed to Federal agencies 

concern the proper management and 

disposition of Federal records. Through 

the Information Security Oversight 

Office (ISOO), NARA also issues 

Government-wide regulations 

concerning information security 

classification, controlled unclassified 

information (CUI), and declassification 

programs; through the Office of 

Government Information Services, 

NARA issues Government-wide 

regulations concerning Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) dispute 

resolution services and FOIA 

ombudsman functions; and through the 

Office of the Federal Register, NARA 

issues regulations concerning 

publishing Federal documents in the 

Federal Register, Code of Federal 

Regulations, and other publications. 

NARA regulations directed to the 

public primarily address access to and 

use of our historically valuable 

holdings, including archives, donated 

historical materials, Nixon Presidential 

materials, and other Presidential 

records. NARA also issues regulations 

relating to the National Historical 

Publications and Records Commission 

(NHPRC) grant programs. 

NARA’s regulatory priority for fiscal 

year 2022 is included in The Regulatory 

Plan. This priority is a multi-year 

project to update our entire set of 

records management regulations (36 

CFR 1220–1239) to reflect an overall 

change for the Federal Government from 

paper to electronic records, account for 

updates in processes and technologies, 

and streamline these regulations. 

Changes to 44 U.S.C. 3302 require 

NARA to issue standards for digital 

reproductions of records with an eye 

toward allowing agencies to then 

dispose of the original source records. 

Changes to 44 U.S.C. 2904 require 

NARA to promulgate regulations 

requiring all Federal agencies to transfer 

records to the National Archives of the 

United States in digital or electronic 

form to the greatest extent possible. In 

addition, our Strategic Plan for 2018– 

2022 establishes that we will no longer 

accept paper records from agencies by 

the end of 2022. 

As a result of these deadlines, 

agencies have begun major digitization 

projects and will be doing more in the 

future so that they can meet deadlines 

and requirements for electronic records 

and reduce the storage and cost burdens 

involved with managing paper records. 

Under the statutory provisions in 44 

U.S.C. 3302, however, agencies may not 

dispose of original source records due to 

having digitized them (prior to the 

disposal authority date established in a 

records schedule), unless they have 

digitized the records according to 

standards established by NARA. So, the 

first priority for our overarching records 

management project was to initiate two 

rulemaking actions in FY 2019 and 

FY2020 to establish digitizing standards 

for Federal records. Both actions add 

new subparts to 36 CFR 1236, Electronic 

Records Management. The first 

regulatory action focused on digitizing 

temporary records (records of shortterm, temporary value that are not 

appropriate for preservation in the 

National Archives of the United States) 

and was issued as a final rule effective 

on May 10, 2019. We began developing 

the second action during FY 2019 as 

well, focused on digitizing permanent 

records (permanently valuable and 

appropriate for preservation in the 

National Archives of the United States), 

and we expect to publish it as a final 

rule in the winter of 2021, depending 

upon the scope and range of agency 

comments. 

We are also revising 36 CFR 1224, 

Records Disposition Programs, and 36 

CFR 1225, Scheduling Records, during 

FY 2022 to incorporate more regular 

review and assessment of records. These 

changes include a requirement for 

agencies to periodically review 

established records schedules to ensure 

they remain viable and up to date. This 

will help agencies as they manage 

records and set priorities for digitizing 

projects. 

We are also revising 36 CFR 1222, 

Creation and Maintenance of Federal 

Records, to incorporate requirements in 

the Electronic Messages Preservation 

Act (EMPA), passed in January 2021. 

Although our regulations at 36 CFR 

1236 already include requirements for 

preserving electronic messages that are 

records, these requirements are general 

requirements for all electronic records, 

so we are also adding them to 36 CFR 

1222 to comply with the new law. 

During FY 2021 we also worked on 

extensive revisions to all the records 

management regulations, which will 

continue during FY 2022 and FY 2023. 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

Statement of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Priorities Fall 2021 

Unified Agenda 

• Mission and Overview 

OPM works in several broad 

categories to recruit, retain and honor a 

world-class workforce for the American 

people. 

• We manage Federal job 

announcement postings at 

USAJOBS.gov, and set policy on 

governmentwide hiring procedures. 

• We uphold and defend the merit 

systems in Federal civil service, making 

sure that the Federal workforce uses fair 

practices in all aspects of personnel 

management. 

• We manage pension benefits for 

retired Federal employees and their 

families. We also administer health and 

other insurance programs for Federal 

employees and retirees. 

• We provide training and 

development programs and other 

management tools for Federal 

employees and agencies. 

• In many cases, we take the lead in 

developing, testing and implementing 

new governmentwide policies that 

relate to personnel issues. 

Altogether, we work to make the 

Federal government America’s model 

employer for the 21st century. 

• Statement of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Priorities Management 

Priorities 

OPM is required to amend the 

regulations to implement statutory and 

policy initiatives. OPM prioritization is 

focused on initiatives that: 

• Actions that advance equity and 

support underserved, vulnerable and 

marginalized communities; 

• Actions that counter the COVID–19 

public health emergency and expand 

access to healthcare;. 

• Actions that create and sustain good 

jobs with a free and fair choice to join 

a union and promote economic 

resilience in general. 

Rulemaking That Supports Equity 

• Elijah E. Cummings Federal 

Employee Anti-Discrimination Act of 

2020 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5170 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

3206–AO26 

The Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) is issuing proposed regulations 

governing implementation of the Elijah 

E. Cummings Federal Employee 

Discrimination Act of 2020, which 

became law on January 1, 2021. OPM is 

proposing to conform its regulations to 

the Act, which amends existing or adds 

new requirements to the Notification 

and Federal Employee AntiDiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 

2002. The proposed regulations, among 

other things, establish a new 

requirement to post findings of 

discrimination that have been made, 

establish new electronic format 

reporting requirements for Agencies, 

and establish new disciplinary action 

reporting requirements for Agencies. 

• The Fair Chance Act 

3206–AO00 

The Fair Chance Act prohibits 

agencies from making inquiries or 

soliciting information concerning job 

applicant’s criminal history record 

information prior to receipt of 

conditional offer. It requires OPM to 

publish regulations by December 20, 

2020, covering the entire Executive civil 

service. Regulations must include 

position specific exceptions and a 

process for receiving and investigating 

complaints against Federal employees 

by applicants and specifies adverse 

actions for founded violations. 

Rulemaking That Addresses Covid–19 

Related Issues and Expand Access to 

Healthcare 

• Requirements Related to Surprise 

Billing; Part I 

3206–AO30 

This interim final rule with comment 

would implement certain protections 

against surprise medical bills under the 

No Surprises Act. 

• Requirements Related to Surprise 

Billing; Part II 

3206–AO29 

This joint interim final rule with 

comment with the Departments of 

Health and Human Services, Labor, and 

Treasury would implement additional 

protections against surprise medical 

bills under the No Surprises Act, 

including provisions related to the 

independent dispute resolution 

processes. 

• FEDVIP: Extension of Eligibility to 

Certain Employees on Temporary 

Appointments and Certain Employees 

on Seasonal and Intermittent Schedules; 

Enrollment Clarifications and 

Qualifying Life Events 

3206–AN91 

The U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) is issuing a 

proposed rule to expand eligibility for 

enrollment in the Federal Employees 

Dental and Vision Insurance Program 

(FEDVIP) to additional categories of 

Federal employees. This proposed rule 

expands eligibility for FEDVIP to certain 

Federal employees on temporary 

appointments and certain employees on 

seasonal and intermittent schedules that 

became eligible for Federal Employees 

Health Benefits (FEHB) enrollment 

beginning in 2015.This rule also 

expands access to FEDVIP benefits to 

certain firefighters on temporary 

appointments and intermittent 

emergency response personnel who 

became eligible for FEHB coverage in 

2012. These additions will align FEDVIP 

with FEHB Program eligibility 

requirements. This proposed rule also 

updates the provisions on enrollment 

for active duty service members who 

become eligible for FEDVIP as 

uniformed service retirees pursuant to 

the National Defense Authorization Act 

of 2017 (FY17 NDAA), Public Law 108– 

496. In addition, this rule proposes to 

add qualifying life events (QLEs) for 

enrollees who may become eligible for 

and enroll in dental and/or vision 

services from the Department of 

Veterans Affairs, since this issue may 

impact TRICARE-eligible individuals 

(TEIs) and other enrollees. 

Rulemaking That Creates and Sustains 

Good Jobs With a Free and Fair Choice 

To Join a Union and Promote Economic 

Resilience in General 

• Probation on Initial Appointment to 

a Competitive Position, PerformanceBased Reduction in Grade and Removal 

Actions and Adverse Actions 

3206–AO23 

The Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) is issuing regulations governing 

probation on initial appointment to a 

competitive position, performancebased reduction in grade and removal 

actions, and adverse actions. The rule 

rescinds certain regulatory changes 

made in an OPM final rule published at 

85 FR 65940 on November 16, 2020 per 

E.O. 14003 on Protecting the Federal 

Workforce. This rule also proposes new 

requirements for procedural and appeal 

rights for dual status National Guard 

technicians for certain adverse actions. 

Elements of the November 16, 2020, rule 

due to statutory changes will remain in 

effect, such as procedures for 

disciplinary action against supervisors 

who retaliate against whistleblowers 

and the inclusion of appeals rights 

information in proposal notices for 

adverse actions. 

• Hiring Authority for College 

Graduates 

3206–AO23 

The U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) is issuing an 

interim rule to amend its career and 

career-conditional employment 

regulations. The revision is necessary to 

implement section 1108 of Public Law 

115–232, John S. McCain National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, which requires 

OPM to issue regulations establishing 

hiring authorities for certain college 

graduates to positions in the 

competitive service under 5 U.S.C. 

3115. The intended effect of the 

authority is to provide additional 

flexibility in recruiting and hiring 

eligible and qualified individuals from 

all segments of society. This authority 

may also be a useful tool in helping 

agencies implement Agency Diversity, 

Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility 

Strategic Plans as required by E.O. 

14035. 

• Pathways Programs 

3206–AO25 

The U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) is issuing proposed 

regulations to modify the Pathways 

Internship program (IP) to allow 

agencies greater flexibility when making 

appointments. OPM is proposing these 

changes to improve and enhance the 

effectiveness of the IP consistent with 

E.O. 13562, which requires OPM to 

support agency internship needs, and 

E.O 14035, which requires OPM to 

support and promote agency use of paid 

internships. 

BILLING CODE 3280–F5–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION (PBGC) 

Statement of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Priorities 

The Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation (PBGC or Corporation) is a 

federal corporation created under title 

IV of the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to 

guarantee the payment of pension 

benefits earned by over 33 million 

workers and retirees in private-sector 

defined benefit plans. PBGC administers 

two insurance programs—one for singleemployer defined benefit pension plans 

and a second for multiemployer defined 

benefit pension plans. 

• Single-Employer Program. Under 

the single-employer program, when a 

plan terminates with insufficient assets 

to cover all plan benefits (distress and 

involuntary terminations), PBGC pays 

plan benefits that are guaranteed under 

title IV. PBGC also pays nonguaranteed 

plan benefits to the extent funded by 

plan assets or recoveries from 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5171 

employers. In fiscal year (FY) 2021, 

PBGC paid over $6.4 billion in benefits 

to nearly 970,000 retirees. Operations 

under the single-employer program are 

financed by insurance premiums, 

investment income, assets from pension 

plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries 

from the companies formerly 

responsible for the trusteed plans. 

• Multiemployer Program. The 

multiemployer program covers 

collectively bargained plans involving 

more than one unrelated employer. 

PBGC provides financial assistance 

(technically in the form of a loan, 

though almost never repaid) to the plan 

if the plan is insolvent and thus unable 

to pay benefits at the guaranteed level. 

The guarantee is structured differently 

from, and is generally significantly 

lower than, the single-employer 

guarantee. In FY 2021, PBGC paid $230 

million in financial assistance to 109 

multiemployer plans. Operations under 

the multiemployer program generally 

are financed by insurance premiums 

and investment income. In addition, the 

American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 

(ARP) added section 4262 of ERISA, 

which requires PBGC to provide special 

financial assistance (SFA) to certain 

financially troubled multiemployer 

plans upon application for assistance, 

which is funded by general tax 

revenues. 

While risks remain, the financial 

status of the single-employer program 

improved to a positive net financial 

position of $30.9 billion at the end of FY 

2021. Due to enactment of ARP, the net 

financial position of the multiemployer 

program improved dramatically during 

FY 2021 from a negative net position of 

$63.7 billion at the end of FY 2020 to 

a positive net position of $481 million 

at the end of FY 2021. ARP substantially 

improves the financial condition and 

the outlook for PBGC’s multiemployer 

program. By forestalling the near-term 

insolvency of the most troubled 

multiemployer plans, the 

multiemployer program is no longer 

expected to go insolvent in FY 2026 and 

can accumulate a greater level of reserve 

assets in its insurance fund in the nearterm. 

To carry out its statutory functions, 

PBGC issues regulations on such matters 

as how to pay premiums, when reports 

are due, what benefits are covered by 

the insurance program, how to 

terminate a plan, the liability for 

underfunding, and how withdrawal 

liability works for multiemployer plans. 

PBGC follows a regulatory approach that 

seeks to encourage the continuation and 

maintenance of securely-funded defined 

benefit plans. In developing new 

regulations and reviewing existing 

regulations, PBGC seeks to reduce 

burdens on plans, employers, and 

participants, and to ease and simplify 

employer compliance wherever 

possible. PBGC particularly strives to 

meet the needs of small businesses that 

sponsor defined benefit plans. In all 

such efforts, PBGC’s mission is to 

protect the retirement incomes of plan 

participants. 

Regulatory/Deregulatory Objectives and 

Priorities 

PBGC’s regulatory/deregulatory 

objectives and priorities are developed 

in the context of the Corporation’s 

statutory purposes, priorities, and 

strategic goals. 

Pension plans and the statutory 

framework in which they are 

maintained and terminated are complex. 

Despite this complexity, PBGC is 

committed to issuing simple, 

understandable, flexible, and timely 

regulations to help affected parties. 

PBGC’s regulatory/deregulatory 

objectives and priorities are: 

• To enhance the retirement security 

of workers and retirees; 

• To implement regulatory actions 

that ease compliance burdens and 

achieve maximum net benefits while 

protecting retirement security; and 

• To simplify existing regulations and 

reduce burden. 

PBGC endeavors in all its regulatory 

and deregulatory actions to promote 

clarity and reduce burden with the goal 

that net cost impact on the public is 

zero or less overall. 

American Rescue Plan 

The American Rescue Plan Act of 

2021 (ARP) added a new section 4262 

of ERISA to create a program to enhance 

retirement security for more than 3 

million Americans by providing special 

financial assistance (SFA) to certain 

financially troubled multiemployer 

plans. In turn, the SFA program 

improves the financial condition of 

PBGC’s multiemployer insurance 

program. For plans that adopted a 

benefit suspension under the 

Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 

2014 (MPRA), and for certain insolvent 

plans that suspended benefits upon 

insolvency, the SFA includes make-up 

payments of suspended benefits for 

participants and beneficiaries who are 

in pay status at the time SFA is paid, 

and prospective reinstatement of 

suspended benefits for all participants 

and beneficiaries. 

Under new section 4262 of ERISA, 

PBGC was required within 120 days to 

prescribe in regulations or other 

guidance the requirements for SFA 

applications. To implement the 

program, on July 9, 2021, PBGC released 

an interim final rule adding a new part 

4262 to its regulations, ‘‘Special 

Financial Assistance by PBGC,’’ which 

was published in the Federal Register 

on July 12, 2021. Part 4262 provides 

guidance to multiemployer pension 

plan sponsors on eligibility, 

determining the amount of SFA, content 

of an application for SFA, the process of 

applying, PBGC’s review of 

applications, and restrictions and 

conditions on plans that receive SFA. 

PBGC also released instructions and 

guidance on assumptions used for 

determining eligibility and the amount 

of SFA. PBGC held two webinars related 

to the interim final rule on the SFA 

application and review process; 

restrictions, conditions, and reporting; 

agency guidance; and program 

resources. The public comment period 

on the interim final rule ended on 

August 12, 2021, and PBGC expects to 

publish a final rule in January 2022. 

Multiemployer Plans 

In other multiemployer plan 

rulemakings, PBGC plans to publish a 

proposed rule prescribing actuarial 

assumptions which may be used by a 

multiemployer plan actuary in 

determining an employer’s withdrawal 

liability (RIN 1212–AB54). Section 

4213(a) of ERISA permits PBGC to 

prescribe by regulation such 

assumptions. 

PBGC also plans to propose a 

rulemaking that would add a new part 

4022A to PBGC’s regulations to provide 

guidance on determining the monthly 

amount of multiemployer plan benefits 

guaranteed by PBGC (‘‘Multiemployer 

Plan Guaranteed Benefits,’’ RIN 1212– 

AB37). For example, the proposed rule 

would explain what multiemployer plan 

benefits are eligible for PBGC’s 

guarantee, how to determine credited 

service, how to determine a benefit’s 

accrual rate, and how to calculate the 

guaranteed monthly benefit amount. 

Rethinking Existing Regulations 

Most of PBGC’s regulatory/ 

deregulatory actions are the result of its 

ongoing retrospective review to identify 

and correct unintended effects, 

inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and 

requirements made irrelevant over time. 

For example, PBGC’s regulatory review 

identified a need to improve PBGC’s 

recoupment of benefit overpayment 

rules (‘‘Improvements to Rules on 

Recoupment of Benefit Overpayments,’’ 

RIN 1212–AB47). The ‘‘Benefit 

Payments’’ rulemaking (RIN 1212– 

AB27) would make clarifications and 

codify policies in PBGC’s benefit 

payments and valuation regulations 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5172 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

involving payment of lump sums, 

changes to benefit form, partial benefit 

distributions, and valuation of plan 

assets. Other rulemakings would 

modernize PBGC’s regulations and 

policies by adopting up-to-date 

assumptions and methods that are more 

consistent with best practices within the 

pension community. For example, 

PBGC is considering modernizing the 

interest, mortality, and expense load 

assumptions used to determine the 

present value of benefits under the asset 

allocation regulation (for singleemployer plans) and for determining 

mass withdrawal liability payments (for 

multiemployer plans) (RIN 1212–AA55). 

Small Businesses 

PBGC considers very seriously the 

impact of its regulations and policies on 

small entities. PBGC attempts to 

minimize administrative burdens on 

plans and participants, improve 

transparency, simplify filing, and assist 

plans to comply with applicable 

requirements. PBGC particularly strives 

to meet the needs of small businesses 

that sponsor defined benefit plans. In all 

such efforts, PBGC’s mission is to 

protect the retirement incomes of plan 

participants. 

Open Government and Increased Public 

Participation 

PBGC encourages public participation 

in the regulatory process. For example, 

PBGC’s ‘‘Federal Register Notices Open 

for Comment’’ web page highlights 

when there are opportunities to 

comment on proposed rules, 

information collections, and other 

Federal Register notices. PBGC also 

encourages comments on an ongoing 

basis as it continues to look for ways to 

further improve the agency’s 

regulations. Efforts to reduce regulatory 

burden in the projects discussed above 

are in substantial part a response to 

public comments. 

PBGC 

Final Rule Stage 

170. Special Financial Assistance by 

PBGC 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1432; 29 

U.S.C. 1302(b)(3) 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 4262. 

Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, July 

9, 2021, 120 days after date of 

enactment (March 11, 2021). 

Section 4262(c) as added to the 

Employee Retirement Income Security 

Act of 1974 (ERISA) by section 9704 of 

Subtitle H of the American Rescue Plan 

Act of 2021, requires that within 120 

days of the date of enactment of this 

section, PBGC shall issue regulations or 

guidance setting forth requirements for 

special financial assistance (SFA) 

applications under this section. 

Abstract: This final rule implements 

section 9704 of the American Rescue 

Plan Act by setting forth the 

requirements for plan sponsors of 

financially troubled multiemployer 

defined benefit pension plans to apply 

for special financial assistance from the 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 

and related requirements. 

Statement of Need: This final rule is 

needed to implement section 9704 of 

the American Rescue Plan Act and set 

forth the requirements for plan sponsors 

of financially troubled multiemployer 

defined benefit pension plans to apply 

for special financial assistance from the 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 

and related requirements. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In its 

fiscal year (FY) 2020 Projections Report, 

published in September 2021, PBGC 

estimated a range of possible outcomes 

for the total amount of SFA payments 

under the provisions of the interim final 

rule. PBGC used the mean value in that 

range—$97.2 billion—to estimate the 

transfer impacts of the SFA program, 

and estimated the average annual 

information collection, including 

application, cost of the SFA program 

will be about $2 million. The SFA 

program is expected to assist plans 

covering more than 3 million 

participants and beneficiaries, including 

the provision of funds to reinstate 

suspended benefits of participants and 

beneficiaries. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 07/12/21 86 FR 36598 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

07/12/21 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

08/11/21 

Final Action ......... 01/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Hilary Duke, 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street 

NW, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202 

229–3839, Email: duke.hilary@pbgc.gov. 

RIN: 1212–AB53 

BILLING CODE 7709–02–P 

U.S. SMALL BUSINESS 

ADMINISTRATION 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

Overview 

The mission of the U.S. Small 

Business Administration (SBA) is to 

maintain and strengthen the Nation’s 

economy by enabling the establishment 

and viability of small businesses, and by 

assisting in the physical and economic 

recovery of communities after disasters. 

In accomplishing this mission, SBA 

strives to improve the economic 

environment for small businesses, 

including: those in rural areas, in areas 

that have significantly higher 

unemployment and lower income levels 

than the Nation’s averages, and those in 

traditionally underserved markets. 

SBA has several financial, 

procurement, and technical assistance 

programs that provide a crucial 

foundation for those starting or growing 

a small business. For example, the 

Agency serves as a guarantor of loans 

made to small businesses by lenders 

that participate in SBA’s programs. The 

Agency also licenses small business 

investment companies that make equity 

and debt investments in qualifying 

small businesses using a combination of 

privately raised capital and SBA 

guaranteed leverage. SBA also funds 

various training and mentoring 

programs to help small businesses, 

particularly businesses owned by 

women, veterans, minorities, and other 

historically underrepresented groups, 

gain access to Federal government 

contracting opportunities. The Agency 

also provides management and 

technical assistance to existing or 

potential small business owners through 

various grants, cooperative agreements, 

or contracts. Finally, as a vital part of its 

purpose, SBA also provides direct 

financial assistance to homeowners, 

renters, and businesses to repair or 

replace their property in the aftermath 

of a disaster. 

Reducing Burden on Small Businesses 

SBA’s regulatory policy reflects a 

commitment to developing regulations 

that reduce or eliminate the burden on 

the public, in particular the Agency’s 

core constituents—small businesses. 

SBA’s regulatory process generally 

includes an assessment of the costs and 

benefits of the regulations as required by 

Executive Order No. 12866, 1993, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’; 

Executive Order No. 13563, 2011, 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’; and the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. SBA’s program offices are 

particularly invested in finding ways to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5173 

reduce the burden imposed by the 

Agency’s core activities in its loan, 

grant, innovation, and procurement 

programs. 

Openness and Transparency 

SBA promotes transparency, 

collaboration, and public participation 

in its rulemaking process. To that end, 

SBA routinely solicits comments on its 

regulations, even those that are not 

subject to the public notice and 

comment requirement under the 

Administrative Procedure Act. Where 

appropriate, SBA also conducts 

hearings, webinars, and other public 

events as part of its regulatory process. 

Regulatory Framework 

The SBA Strategic Plan serves as the 

foundation for the regulations that the 

Agency will develop during the next 

twelve months. This Strategic Plan 

provides a framework for strengthening, 

streamlining, and simplifying SBA’s 

programs; and leverages collaborative 

relationships with other agencies and 

the private sector to maximize the tools 

small business owners and 

entrepreneurs need to drive American 

innovation and strengthen the economy. 

The plan sets out four Strategic Goals: 

(1) Support small business revenue and 

job growth; (2) build healthy 

entrepreneurial ecosystems and create 

business friendly environments; (3) 

restore small businesses and 

communities after disasters; and (4) 

strengthen SBA’s ability to serve small 

businesses. The regulations reported in 

SBA’s semi-annual Regulatory Agenda 

and Plan are intended to facilitate 

achievement of these goals and 

objectives. 

Over the past 18 months, SBA’s 

regulatory activities focused primarily 

on rulemakings that were necessary to 

implement the Paycheck Protection 

Program and the Economic Injury 

Disaster Loan program, which made it 

possible for millions of businesses, sole 

proprietors, independent contractors, 

certain non-profits, and veterans’ 

organizations, among other entities, to 

receive financial assistance to alleviate 

the economic crisis caused by the 

COVID–19 pandemic. Over the next 12 

months, SBA will take further 

regulatory action if necessary to tweak 

requirements for the programs to further 

advance the country’s economic 

recovery. 

Administration’s Priorities 

To the extent possible and consistent 

with the Agency’s statutory purpose, 

SBA will also take steps to support the 

Administration’s priorities highlighted 

in Fall 2021 Data Call for the Unified 

Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Action (08/16/2021), 

namely: (1) Actions that advance the 

country’s economic recovery and 

continue to address any additional 

necessary COVID-related issues; (2) 

actions that tackle the climate change 

emergency; (3) actions that advance 

equity and support underserved, 

vulnerable and marginalized 

communities; and (4) actions that create 

and sustain good jobs with a free and 

fair choice to join a union and promote 

economic resilience in general. 

Advancing the Country’s Economic 

Recovery and Addressing Additional 

COVID-Related Issues 

As small businesses across multiple 

industries continue to face economic 

uncertainties, SBA will continue to 

provide financial assistance consistent 

with existing statutory authorities to 

help alleviate the financial burdens still 

facing small businesses. SBA will take 

steps, including regulatory action where 

necessary, to modify requirements for 

its various COVID-related assistance 

programs to alleviate burdens on 

eligible program recipients and further 

advance the country’s economic 

recovery. For example, the interim final 

rule (RIN: 3245–AH80) included in 

SBA’s Fall Regulatory Agenda expands 

the number of small businesses, 

nonprofit organizations, qualified 

agricultural businesses, and 

independent contractors within various 

sectors of the economy that are eligible 

for a loan under the COVID–EIDL 

program and also expands the eligible 

uses of loan proceeds. These and other 

program amendments made by the rule 

will increase the flow of funds to the 

businesses and put them in a better 

position to recover from the economic 

losses caused by the pandemic, sustain 

their operations and retain or hire 

employees. SBA’s other currently 

available COVID financial assistance 

programs do not require regulations; 

however, the Agency is committed to 

ensuring that they are executed in a 

manner that are as impactful as the loan 

program. 

Advancing Equity and Supporting 

Underserved, Vulnerable, and 

Marginalized Communities 

As evidenced by SBA’s equity 

assessment report, the Agency has made 

great strides in identifying potential 

barriers facing underserved and 

marginalized communities and ways in 

which SBA can help to overcome those 

barriers. The responsive actions 

identified to date do not require 

regulations for implementation and 

include the following: Promoting greater 

access for small businesses to all our 

programs including addressing language 

and cultural differences and social 

economic factors; targeting lending 

groups that work with underserved 

communities; improving outreach 

through technology and addressing 

digital/technological divide. To help 

identify gaps and develop a more 

targeted outreach effort, SBA will 

continue to revise information 

collection instruments and enter into 

agreements with federal statistical 

agencies to gather demographic data on 

recipients of its programs and services. 

Tackling the Climate Change Emergency 

and Promoting Economic Resilience 

To help combat the climate change 

crisis, SBA is implementing a multi-year 

priority goal to help prepare and rebuild 

resilient communities by enhancing 

communication efforts for mitigation. 

SBA’s regulations in 13 CFR part 123 

contain the legal framework for 

financing projects specifically targeted 

for pre-disaster and post-disaster 

mitigation projects. Proceeds from other 

SBA financing programs can also be 

used for mitigating measures. At this 

point no regulations are necessary to 

implement any of these options; 

therefore, SBA will focus its efforts on 

educating the public on the benefits of 

investing in mitigation and resilience 

projects and also on increasing 

awareness of SBA loan programs that 

can be used for renovating, retrofitting, 

or purchasing buildings and equipment 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; 

improving energy efficiency; or enabling 

the development of innovative solutions 

that support the green economy. 

Regulatory Plan Rule 

In the context of its Regulatory 

Agenda, SBA plans to prioritize the 

regulations that are necessary to 

implement new authority for SBA to 

take over responsibility from the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for 

certifying veteran-owned small 

businesses (VOSBs) and servicedisabled veteran-owned small 

businesses (SDVOSBs) for sole source 

and set-asides contracts. Section 862 of 

the NDAA FY 2021 requires transfer of 

the program to SBA on January 1, 2023. 

SBA is prioritizing development of the 

required rulemaking to ensure that the 

affected public is aware of the 

regulatory requirements that will govern 

the VOSB and SDVOSB certification 

process at SBA and that the Agency is 

positioned to begin certifications on the 

transfer date. This statutorily mandated 

program is consistent with SBA’s 

ongoing efforts to support businesses in 

underserved markets, including veteranVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Jan 28, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31JAP2.SGM 31JAP2

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5174 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

owned small businesses. And as 

businesses struggle to overcome the 

financial effects of the COVID 

pandemic, promulgating the rule before 

the transfer date will also ensure there 

is no gap in the certification process. 

Any delay in certification could 

adversely impact those VOSBs and 

SDVOSBs seeking access to the billions 

of dollars in federal government 

procurement opportunities and could 

impact their economic recovery. 

Title: Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned 

Small Business Certification (RIN 3245– 

AH69) 

The Veteran-Owned Small Business 

(VOSB) and Service-Disabled VeteranOwned Small Business (SDVOSB) 

Programs, as managed by the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 

compliance with 38 U.S.C. 8127, 

authorize Federal contracting officers to 

restrict competition to eligible VOSBs 

and SDVOSBs for VA contracts. There is 

currently no government wide VOSB 

set-aside program, and firms seeking to 

be awarded SDVOSB set-aside contracts 

with Federal agencies other than the VA 

are required only to self-certify their 

SDVOSB status. Section 862 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act, 

Fiscal Year 2021, Public Law 116–283, 

128 Stat. 3292 (January 1, 2021), 

amended the VA certification authority 

and transferred the responsibility for 

certification of VOSBs and SDVOSBs to 

SBA and created a government-wide 

certification requirement for SDVOSBs 

seeking sole source and set-aside 

contracts. 

Before SBA officially takes over 

responsibility for the certification on 

January 1, 2023, the Agency must put in 

place the regulations and other guidance 

that will govern the certification 

program at SBA. As a first step in this 

process, SBA will publish an Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPRM) to solicit public input on how 

to implement a program that would best 

serve the needs of America’s veterans 

who aspire to start or grow their 

businesses and access the billions of 

dollars in contracts that Federal 

agencies award annually. SBA will seek 

comments on how the certification 

processes are currently working, how 

they can be improved, and how best to 

incorporate those improvements into 

any new certification program at SBA. 

Shortly after evaluating the comments 

received on the ANPRM, SBA will issue 

a proposed rule to set out how the 

Agency plans to structure the 

certification program and to solicit final 

public comments. 

SBA 

Prerule Stage 

171. Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned 

Small Business Certification 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6); 

15 U.S.C. 657f 

CFR Citation: 13 CFR 125. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Section 862 of the Fiscal 

Year 2021 National Defense 

Authorization Act, Public Law 116–283, 

expands Service-Disabled VeteranOwned Small Businesses verification 

government-wide and transfers 

certification authority from the VA to 

the SBA. This legislation requires SBA 

to amend 13 CFR 125 to eliminate selfcertification and create a governmentwide certification program for Veteranowned Small Businesses (VOSBs) and 

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small 

Businesses (SDVOSBs). The certification 

requirement applies only to participants 

wishing to compete for set-aside or solesource contracts. When the program is 

established (target date January 2023), 

SDVOSBs that are not certified will not 

be eligible to compete on set-asides or 

receive sole-source contracts in the 

SDVOSB Program. NDAA also created a 

one-year grace period for SDVOSB firms 

currently self-certified to apply to SBA 

for certification. 

Statement of Need: Section 862 

requires the Administrator to establish 

procedures necessary to implement the 

amendments. The Advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) is 

intended to gather feedback from the 

public, particularly those VOSBs and 

SDVOSBS that would seek certification 

from SBA on how to implement the 

transferred authority and establish a 

government-wide certification program 

for SDVOSBs. In addition to the 

statutory requirement to establish 

regulations and procedures to 

implement the NDAA 2021 

amendments, SBA’s current regulations 

are also in conflict with said changes. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal 

basis is the mandate in section 862 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA 2021) (Pub. 

L. 116–283) for SBA to amend its 

regulations to implement a statutory 

requirement to certify VOSBs and 

SDVOSBs and establish a government 

wide certification program for 

SDVOSBs. 

Alternatives: There are no viable 

alternatives to implementing 

regulations. In addition to the statutory 

requirement to establish regulations and 

procedures to implement the NDAA 

2021 amendments, SBA’s current 

regulations are also in conflict with said 

changes. Therefore, revised regulations 

are necessary not only to incorporate the 

new authority, but also to amend any 

inconsistencies. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: SBA’s 

SDVOSB/VOSB certification program 

ensures that only eligible small 

businesses receive set-aside contracts 

from agencies throughout the federal 

government. Since agencies cannot 

award to small businesses unless they 

are certified by SBA, this regulation may 

reduce an agency’s time and costs 

associated with contract award, protest, 

and appeal. The statutory requirement 

for SBA to establish a government-wide 

certification program for SDVOSBs and 

certify VOSBs and SDVOSBs imposes a 

significant program cost burden for the 

agency that is currently unfunded. 

There are no financial costs to the 

applicant other than the time spent 

preparing and submitting the 

application. 

Risks: There is a risk that SBA’s 

certification program would fail to 

identify an ineligible entity that would 

subsequently receive a set-aside 

contract. This risk is reduced by existing 

SDVOSB/VOSB protest procedures and 

periodic eligibility examinations of 

participant firms. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 12/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Edmund Bender, 

Small Business Administration, 409 3rd 

Street SW, Washington, DC 20416, 

Phone: 202 205–6455. 

RIN: 3245–AH69 

BILLING CODE 8026–03–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

(SSA) 

I. Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

We administer the Retirement, 

Survivors, and Disability Insurance 

programs under title II of the Social 

Security Act (Act), the Supplemental 

Security Income (SSI) program under 

title XVI of the Act, and the Special 

Veterans Benefits program under title 

VIII of the Act. As directed by Congress, 

we also assist in administering portions 

of the Medicare program under title 

XVIII of the Act. Our regulations codify 

the requirements for eligibility and 

entitlement to benefits and our 

procedures for administering these 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5175 

programs. Generally, our regulations do 

not impose burdens on the private 

sector or on State or local governments, 

except for the States’ Disability 

Determination Services and 

representatives of claimants. However, 

our regulations can impose burdens on 

the private sector in the course of 

evaluating a claimant’s initial or 

continued eligibility. We fully fund the 

Disability Determination Services in 

advance or via reimbursement for 

necessary costs in making disability 

determinations. 

The entries in our regulatory plan 

represent issues of major importance to 

the Agency. Through our regulatory 

plan, we intend to: 

A. Simplify a specific policy within 

the SSI program by no longer 

considering food expenses as a source of 

In-Kind Support and Maintenance (RIN 

0960–AI60); 

B. Revise our regulations to confirm 

that we will allow a $20 tolerance that 

prevents us from assessing In-Kind 

Support and Maintenance if an SSI 

claimant is close to meeting his or her 

fair share of expenses (RIN 0960–AI68); 

and 

C. Simplify policies and business 

processes while assisting vulnerable 

populations who may need assistance 

providing their intent to file and 

recording their protective filing. We 

would also allow third parties who are 

assisting the potential claimants to 

submit a written statement regardless of 

whether the written inquiry is signed, 

which will protect claimants who are 

unable to provide the information by 

themselves (RIN 0960–AI69). 

II. Regulations in the Proposed Rule 

Stage 

Two of our regulations target changes 

to the In-Kind Support and Maintenance 

policy in our SSI program. They would 

simplify a specific policy within the SSI 

program by no longer considering food 

expenses as a source of ISM (RIN 0960– 

AI60) and would revise our regulations 

to confirm that we will allow a $20 

tolerance that prevents us from 

assessing In-Kind Support and 

Maintenance if an SSI claimant is close 

to meeting his or her fair share of 

expenses (RIN 0960–AI68). 

In addition, our proposed regulations 

would simplify policies and business 

processes while assisting vulnerable 

populations who may need assistance 

providing their intent to file and 

recording their protective filing. The 

proposed regulation would allow third 

parties who are assisting the potential 

claimants to submit a written statement 

regardless of whether the written 

inquiry is signed, which will protect 

claimants who are unable to provide the 

information by themselves (RIN 0960– 

AI69). 

III. Regulations in the Final Rule Stage 

We are not including any of our 

regulations in the final rule stage in this 

statement of regulatory priorities. 

Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review’’ (January 18, 

2011), SSA regularly engages in 

retrospective review and analysis for 

multiple existing regulatory initiatives. 

These initiatives may be proposed or 

completed actions, and they do not 

necessarily appear in The Regulatory 

Plan. You can find more information on 

these completed rulemakings in past 

publications of the Unified Agenda at 

www.reginfo.gov in the ‘‘Completed 

Actions’’ section for the Social Security 

Administration. 

SSA 

Proposed Rule Stage 

172. Omitting Food From In-Kind 

Support and Maintenance Calculations 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 

42 U.S.C. 1381a; 42 U.S.C.1382; 42 

U.S.C. 1382a; 42 U.S.C. 1382b; 42 U.S.C. 

1382c(f); 42 U.S.C. 1382j; 42 U.S.C. 

1383; 42 U.S.C. 1382 note 

CFR Citation: 20 CFR 416.1102; 20 

CFR 416.1130; 20 CFR 416.1131. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: We propose to change the 

definition of In-Kind Support and 

Maintenance (ISM) to no longer 

consider food expenses as a source of 

ISM. Instead, ISM would only be 

derived from shelter expenses (i.e. costs 

associated with room, rent, mortgage 

payments, real property taxes, heating 

fuel, gas, electricity, water, sewerage, 

and garbage collection services). The 

present definition of ISM is used across 

several regulations and this regulatory 

change would necessitate minor 

changes to other related regulations. 

Statement of Need: This change 

would remove food cost when we 

determine ISM. By doing so, it 

streamlines the ISM policy and resulting 

SSI program complexity. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be 

provided with publication of the 

proposed rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Scott Logan, Social 

Insurance Specialist, Social Security 

Administration, Office of Income 

Security Programs, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

Phone: 410 966–5927, Email: 

scott.logan@ssa.gov. 

RIN: 0960–AI60 

SSA 

173. • $20 Tolerance Rule To Establish 

That the Individual Meets the Pro-Rata 

Share of Household Expenses When 

Living in the Household of Another 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 

42 U.S.C. 1381a; 42 U.S.C. 1382; 42 

U.S.C. 1382a; 42 U.S.C. 1382b; 42 U.S.C. 

1382c(f); 42 U.S.C. 1382j; 42 U.S.C. 

1383; 42 U.S.C. 1382 note 

CFR Citation: 20 CFR 416.1133. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: When SSI claimants live in 

another person’s household, their 

benefits may be reduced because they 

could receive in-kind support and 

maintenance from that household. 

However, their benefits will not be 

reduced if they demonstrate that they 

are paying their pro-rata share of the 

household’s expenses. If SSI claimants 

do not contribute their pro-rata share of 

household expenses, but they do 

contribute an amount that is within $20 

of their share of household expenses, we 

treat the situation as if the claimants pay 

their pro-rata share under our tolerance 

policy. In this situation, we would not 

reduce a claimant’s benefit because of 

in-kind support and maintenance. This 

proposed rule seeks to codify this 

policy. 

Statement of Need: This change 

would reinforce a tolerance that 

prevents SSA from assessing ISM if a 

claimant is within a specific dollar 

amount of meeting their fair share when 

living in the home on another. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This is 

a new draft regulation proposal and we 

have not completed the regulation 

specifications. We are unable to 

formally project costs and benefits. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/00/22 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5176 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Scott Logan, Social 

Insurance Specialist, Social Security 

Administration, Office of Income 

Security Programs, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

Phone: 410 966–5927, Email: 

scott.logan@ssa.gov. 

RIN: 0960–AI68 

SSA 

174. • Inquiry About SSI Eligibility at 

Application Filing Date Which Will 

Remove the Requirement for a Signed 

Written Statement and Will Expand 

Protective Filing 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 902 (a)(5) 

CFR Citation: 20 CFR 416.340; 20 CFR 

416.345. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Under current regulations, a 

protective filing may be established only 

if the claimant, the claimant’s spouse, or 

a person who may sign an application 

on the claimant’s behalf (20 CFR 

416.340(b), 416.345(b)) submits a signed 

written statement expressing intent to 

file, or makes an oral inquiry. Under our 

regulations, people who may sign such 

an application include parents or 

caregivers of claimants who are minor 

children or mentally incompetent (20 

CFR 416.315). However, the regulations 

do not authorize other third parties to 

sign an application or otherwise 

establish a protective filing date, unless 

the situation meets the regulatory 

exception. The exception only allows 

considering a protective filing from a 

third party if it prevents a loss of 

benefits due to a delay in filing when 

there is a good reason why the claimant 

cannot sign an application. 

Revising the regulations and 

combining them to provide one set of 

rules for both situations will simplify 

policies and business processes while 

assisting vulnerable populations who 

may need assistance providing their 

intent to file and recording their 

protective filing. 

Amending both regulations to allow 

third parties who are assisting the 

potential claimants to submit a written 

statement regardless of whether the 

written inquiry is signed will protect 

claimants who are unable to provide the 

information by themselves. 

Statement of Need: We need these 

revisions in order to simplify policies 

and business processes while assisting 

vulnerable populations who may need 

assistance providing their intent to file 

and recording their protective filing. 

Amending both regulations to allow 

third parties who are assisting the 

potential claimants to submit a written 

statement regardless of whether the 

written inquiry is signed will protect 

claimants who are unable to provide the 

information by themselves. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We 

cannot quantify costs and benefits at 

this time, but this change would allow 

SSA technicians to schedule 

appointments from the information 

submitted by the third party without 

first having to contact the potential 

claimant to confirm their intent to file 

nor developing for a good reason why 

the third party is providing us with the 

claimant’s intent to file. We see benefits 

here in terms of work hours for SSA 

employees and in terms of protective 

filings established for vulnerable 

populations requiring assistance. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Crystal Ors, Policy 

Analyst, Social Security Administration, 

ORDP/OISP/OAESP, 6401 Social 

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 866 931–7110, 

Email: crystal.ors@ssa.gov. 

RIN: 0960–AI69 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION 

(FAR) 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) was established to codify uniform 

policies for acquisition of supplies and 

services by executive agencies. It is 

issued and maintained jointly under the 

statutory authorities granted to the 

Secretary of Defense, Administrator of 

General Services, and the 

Administrator, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration, known as 

the Federal Acquisition Regulatory 

Council (FAR Council). Overall 

statutory authority is found at chapters 

11 and 13 of title 41 of the United States 

Code. 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ 

(September 30, 1993) and Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review’’ (January 18, 

2011), the Regulatory Plan and Unified 

Agenda provide notice about the FAR 

Council’s proposed regulatory and 

deregulatory actions within the 

Executive Branch. The Fall 2021 

Unified Agenda consists of forty-seven 

(48) active agenda items. 

Rulemaking Priorities 

The FAR Council is required to 

amend the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation to implement statutory and 

policy initiatives. The FAR Council 

prioritization is focused on initiatives 

that: 

• Promote the country’s economic 

resilience, including addressing COVIDrelated issues. 

• Tackle the climate change 

emergency. 

• Support equity and underserved 

communities; and 

• Support national security efforts, 

especially safeguarding Federal 

Government information and 

information technology systems. 

Rulemaking That Promotes Economic 

Resilience 

FAR Case 2021–021, ‘‘Ensuring 

Adequate COVID–19 Safety Protocols 

for Federal Contractors,’’ will promote 

economy and efficiency in procurement 

by implementing the safeguard 

requirements of Executive Order 14042, 

‘‘Ensuring Adequate COVID–19 Safety 

Protocols for Federal Contractors’’ dated 

September 9, 2021, and the guidance 

published by the Safer Federal 

Workforce Task Force. Contracting with 

sources that provide adequate 

safeguards to their workers will 

decrease worker absence, reduce labor 

costs and therefore, improve the 

efficiency of contractors and 

subcontractors performing on Federal 

procurements. 

FAR Case 2021–014, ‘‘Increasing the 

Minimum Wage for Contractors,’’ will 

increase efficiency and cost savings in 

the work performed by parties who 

contract with the Federal Government 

by increasing the hourly minimum wage 

paid to those contractors in accordance 

with Executive Order 14026, 

‘‘Increasing the Minimum Wage for 

Federal Contractors’’ dated April 27, 

2021, and Department of Labor 

regulations at 29 CFR part 23. 

FAR Case 2021–008, Amendments to 

the FAR Buy American Act 

Requirements, will strengthen the 

impact of the Buy American Act 

through amendments, such as 

increasing the domestic content 

threshold and enhancing price 

preference for critical domestic 

products, in accordance with section 8 

of Executive Order 14005, ‘‘Ensuring the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5177 

3See AMG Capital Mgmt., LLC v. FTC, 141 S. Ct. 

1341, 1352 (2021). The Commission has called on 

Congress to restore its ability to seek disgorgement 

and restitution. The Consumer Protection and 

Recovery Act, which would fix the adverse court 

Continued 

Future is Made in All of America by All 

of America’s Workers.’’ 

Rulemaking That Tackles Climate 

Change 

FAR Case 2021–015, ‘‘Disclosure of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and ClimateRelated Financial Risk,’’ will consider 

requiring major Federal suppliers to 

publicly disclose greenhouse gas 

emissions and climate-related financial 

risk, and to set science-based reductions 

targets per section 5(b)(i) of Executive 

Order 14030, ‘‘Climate-Related 

Financial Risk.’’ 

FAR Case 2021–016, ‘‘Minimizing the 

Risk of Climate Change in Federal 

Acquisitions,’’ will consider 

amendments to ensure major agency 

procurements minimize the risk of 

climate change and require 

consideration of the social cost of 

greenhouse gas emissions in 

procurement decisions per section 

5(b)(ii) of Executive Order 14030, 

‘‘Climate-Related Financial Risk.’’ 

Rulemaking That Supports Equity and 

Underserved Communities 

FAR Case 2021–010, ‘‘Subcontracting 

to Puerto Rican and Other Small 

Businesses,’’ will provide contracting 

incentives to mentors that subcontract 

to protege firms that are Puerto Rican 

businesses in accordance with section 

861 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2019 as 

implemented in the Small Business 

Administration final rule published 

October 16, 2020. 

FAR Case 2021–012, 8(a) Program, 

will implement regulatory changes 

made to the 8(a) Business Development 

Program by the Small Business 

Administration, in its final rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 16, 2020, which provided 

clarifications on offer and acceptance, 

certificate of competency and follow-on 

requirements. 

FAR Case 2020–013, ‘‘Certification of 

Women-Owned Small Businesses,’’ will 

implement the statutory requirement for 

certification of women-owned and 

economically disadvantaged womenowned small businesses participating in 

the Women-Owned Small Business 

Program, as implemented by the Small 

Business Administration in its final rule 

published May 11, 2020. 

FAR Case 2019–007, ‘‘Update of 

Historically Underutilized Business 

Zone Program,’’ will implement SBA’s 

regulatory changes issued in its final 

rule published on November 26, 2019. 

The regulatory changes are intended to 

reduce the regulatory burden associated 

with the Historically Underutilized 

Business Zone (HUBZone) Program. 

Rulemakings That Support National 

Security 

FAR Case 2021–017, ‘‘Cyber Threat 

and Incident Reporting and Information 

Sharing,’’ will increase the sharing of 

information about cyber threats and 

incident information and require certain 

contractors to report cyber incidents to 

the Federal Government to facilitate 

effective cyber incident response and 

remediation per sections 2(b), (c), and 

(g)(i) of Executive Order 14028, 

‘‘Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity.’’ 

FAR Case 2021–019, ‘‘Standardizing 

Cybersecurity Requirements for 

Unclassified Information Systems,’’ will 

standardize cybersecurity contractual 

requirements across Federal agencies for 

unclassified information systems per 

sections 2(i) and 8(b) of Executive Order 

14028, Improving the Nation’s 

Cybersecurity. 

FAR Case 2020–011, ‘‘Implementation 

of Issued Exclusion and Removal 

Orders,’’ will implement authorities 

authorized by section 2020 of the 

SECURE Technology Act for the Federal 

Acquisition Security Council (FASC), 

the Secretary of Homeland Security, the 

Secretary of Defense and the Director of 

National Intelligence to issue exclusion 

and removal orders. These exclusions 

and removal orders are issued to protect 

national security by excluding certain 

covered products, services, or sources 

from the Federal supply chain. 

Dated: September 8, 2021. 

Name: William F. Clark, Director, 

Office of Government-wide Acquisition 

Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, 

Office of Government-wide Policy. 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION (CPSC) 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission is charged with protecting 

the public from unreasonable risks of 

death and injury associated with 

consumer products. To achieve this 

goal, CPSC, among other things: 

• Develops mandatory product safety 

standards or bans when other efforts are 

inadequate to address a safety hazard, or 

where required by statute; 

• obtains repairs, replacements, or 

refunds for defective products that 

present a substantial product hazard; 

• develops information and education 

campaigns about the safety of consumer 

products; 

• participates in the development or 

revision of voluntary product safety 

standards; and 

• follows statutory mandates. 

Unless otherwise directed by 

congressional mandate, when deciding 

which of these approaches to take in 

any specific case, CPSC gathers and 

analyzes data about the nature and 

extent of the risk presented by the 

product. The Commission’s rules at 16 

CFR 1009.8 require the Commission to 

consider the following criteria, among 

other factors, when deciding the level of 

priority for any particular project: 

• The frequency and severity of 

injuries; 

• the causality of injuries; 

• chronic illness and future injuries; 

• costs and benefits of Commission 

action; 

• the unforeseen nature of the risk; 

• the vulnerability of the population 

at risk; 

• the probability of exposure to the 

hazard; and 

• additional criteria that warrant 

Commission attention. 

Significant Regulatory Actions 

Currently, the Commission is 

considering taking action in the next 12 

months on one rule, table saws (RIN 

3041–AC31), which would constitute a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the definition of that term in Executive 

Order 12866. 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC) 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

The Federal Trade Commission is an 

independent agency charged with 

rooting out unfair methods of 

competition and unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices. This mission is vital to our 

national interest because, when markets 

are fair and competitive, honest 

businesses and consumers alike reap the 

rewards. The Commission is committed 

to deploying all its tools to realize this 

mission. 

I. New Circumstances Facing the 

Commission 

In 2021, a number of changed 

circumstances caused the Commission 

to consider deploying new tools to 

advance its mission. First, the Supreme 

Court decided that the Commission 

cannot invoke its authority under 

Section 13(b) of the FTC Act to seek 

restitution or disgorgement in federal 

court.3 Second, the Commission, after 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5178 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

ruling and restore the Commission’s powers, passed 

the U.S. House of Representatives on July 20, 2021. 

See Congress.gov, H.R. 2668—Consumer Protection 

and Recovery Act, https://www.congress.gov/bill/ 

117th-congress/house-bill/2668/actions. 

4See Fed. Trade Comm’n, Statement of the 

Commission Regarding the Adoption of Revised 

Section 18 Rulemaking Procedures (July 9, 2021), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/ 

public_statements/1591786/ 

p210100commnstmtsec18rulesofpractice.pdf. 

5See AMG Capital, 141 S. Ct. at 1352. 

6See Fed. Trade Comm’n, Made in USA Labeling 

Rule, 86 FR 37022, 37032–33 (July 14, 2021) 

(codified at 16 CFR 323.2). 

7See Office of the President of the United States, 

Executive Order or Promoting Competition in the 

American Economy, section 5(g), (h)(i)–(vii) (July 9, 

2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/ 

presidential-actions/2021/07/09/executive-orderon-promoting-competition-in-the-americaneconomy/. 

8See Regulations.gov, Request for Public 

Comment Regarding Contract Terms that May Harm 

Fair Competition, No. FTC–2021–0036, https://

www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2021-0036. 

9 58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993). 

10 5 U.S.C. 610. 

11 86 FR 35239 (July 2, 2021). 

careful study, streamlined its own Rules 

of Practice, eliminating extra 

bureaucratic steps and unnecessary 

formalities by returning to the statutory 

text Congress enacted in section 18 of 

the FTC Act, which will make new 

consumer-protection rulemakings more 

feasible and efficient while still 

preserving robust public participation.4

As the Supreme Court noted in its 

decision, consumer redress remains 

available for cases that involve a 

consumer-protection rule violation.5

Third, the case-by-case approach to 

promoting competition, while 

necessary, has proved insufficient, 

leaving behind a hyper-concentrated 

economy whose harms to American 

workers, consumers, and small 

businesses demand new approaches. 

Accordingly, the Commission in the 

coming year will consider developing 

both unfair-methods-of-competition 

rulemakings as well as rulemakings to 

define with specificity unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices. 

The Commission is particularly 

focused on developing rules that allow 

the agency to recover redress for 

consumers who have been defrauded 

and seek penalties for firms that engage 

in data abuses. The Commission’s recent 

action to prohibit Made in USA labeling 

fraud offers a model for how the agency 

can deter the worst abuses without 

imposing burdens on honest 

businesses.6

Among the many pressing issues 

consumers confront in the modern 

economy, the abuses stemming from 

surveillance-based business models are 

particularly alarming. The Commission 

is considering whether rulemaking in 

this area would be effective in curbing 

lax security practices, limiting intrusive 

surveillance, and ensuring that 

algorithmic decision-making does not 

result in unlawful discrimination. 

Importantly, it is not only consumers 

that are threatened by surveillancebased business models but also 

competition. 

Over the coming year, the 

Commission will also explore whether 

rules defining certain ‘‘unfair methods 

of competition’’ prohibited by section 5 

of the FTC Act would promote 

competition and provide greater clarity 

to the market. A recent Executive Order 

encouraged the Commission to consider 

competition rulemakings relating to 

non-compete clauses, surveillance, the 

right to repair, pay-for-delay 

pharmaceutical agreements, unfair 

competition in online marketplaces, 

occupational licensing, real-estate 

listing and brokerage, and industryspecific practices that substantially 

inhibit competition.7 The Commission 

will explore the benefits and costs of 

these and other competition rulemaking 

ideas. 

Recently, the Commission published 

in the Federal Register a ‘‘Request for 

Public Comment Regarding Contract 

Terms that May Harm Fair 

Competition,’’ which included for 

reference two public petitions for 

competition rulemaking the 

Commission has received.8 One of those 

petitions was to curtail the use of noncompete clauses, and the other was to 

limit exclusionary contracting by 

dominant firms, but the Commission 

also solicited additional examples of 

unfair terms. Members of the public 

filed thousands of comments, which the 

Commission’s staff are carefully 

reviewing. 

II. Updates on Ongoing Rulemakings 

a. Periodic Regulatory Review Program 

In 1992, the Commission 

implemented a program to review its 

rules and guides on a regular basis. The 

Commission’s review program is 

patterned after provisions in the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612, and complies with the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. The Commission’s 

review program is also consistent with 

section 5(a) of Executive Order 12866, 

which directs executive branch agencies 

to reevaluate periodically all their 

significant regulations.9 Under the 

Commission’s program, rules and guides 

are reviewed on a 10-year schedule that 

results in more frequent reviews than 

are generally required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. The public can obtain 

information on rules and guides under 

review and the Commission’s regulatory 

review program generally at https://

www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/ 

retrospective-review-ftc-rules-guides. 

The program provides an ongoing, 

systematic approach for obtaining 

information about the costs and benefits 

of rules and guides and whether there 

are changes that could minimize any 

adverse economic effects, not just a 

‘‘significant economic impact upon a 

substantial number of small entities.’’ 10

As part of each review, the Commission 

requests public comment on, among 

other things, the economic impact and 

benefits of the rule; possible conflict 

between the rule and state, local, or 

other federal laws or regulations; and 

the effect on the rule of any 

technological, economic, or other 

industry changes. Reviews may lead to 

the revision or rescission of rules and 

guides to ensure that the Commission’s 

consumer protection and competition 

goals are achieved efficiently. Pursuant 

to this program, the Commission has 

rescinded 40 rules and guides 

promulgated under the FTC’s general 

authority and updated dozens of other 

rules and guides since the program’s 

inception. 

(1) Newly Initiated and Upcoming 

Periodic Reviews of Rules and Guides 

On July 2, 2021, the Commission 

issued an updated ten-year review 

schedule.11 Since the publication of the 

2020 Regulatory Plan, the Commission 

has initiated or announced plans to 

initiate periodic reviews of the 

following rules and guides: 

Business Opportunity Rule, 16 CFR 

437. During the latter part of 2021, the 

Commission plans to initiate periodic 

review of the Business Opportunity 

Rule as part of the Commission’s 

systematic review of all current 

Commission rules and guides. The 

Commission plans to seek comments on, 

among other things, the economic 

impact, and benefits of this rule; 

possible conflict between the rule and 

State, local, or other Federal laws or 

regulations; and the effect on the rule of 

any technological, economic, or other 

industry changes. Effective in 2012, the 

Rule requires business-opportunity 

sellers to furnish prospective purchasers 

a disclosure document that provides 

information regarding the seller, the 

seller’s business, and the nature of the 

proposed business opportunity, as well 

as additional information to substantiate 

any claims about actual or potential 

sales, income, or profits for a 

prospective business-opportunity 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5179 

12 85 FR 82391 (Dec. 18, 2020). 

13 85 FR 77042 (Dec. 1, 2020). 

14 84 FR 35842 (July 25, 2019). 

15 84 FR 56391 (Oct. 22, 2019). 

16 85 FR 10104 (Feb. 21, 2020). 

17 85 FR 19709 (Apr. 8, 2020). 

18 84 FR 9051 (Mar. 13, 2019). 

19 85 FR 55850 (Sept. 10, 2020). 

20 85 FR 8490 (Feb. 14, 2020). 

21 85 FR 20453 (Apr. 13, 2020). 

22 85 FR 31085 (May 22, 2020). 

purchaser. The seller must also preserve 

information that forms a reasonable 

basis for such claims. 

Power Output Claims for Amplifiers 

Utilized in Home Entertainment 

Products, 16 CFR 432. On December 18, 

2020, the Commission initiated periodic 

review of the Amplifier Rule (officially 

Power Output Claims for Amplifiers 

Utilized in Home Entertainment 

Products Rule).12 The Commission 

sought comments on, among other 

things, the economic impact, and 

benefits of this Rule; possible conflict 

between the Rule and State, local, or 

other Federal laws or regulations; and 

the effect on the Rule of any 

technological, economic, or other 

industry changes. Staff anticipates 

submitting a recommendation for 

further action to the Commission by 

February 2022. The Amplifier Rule 

establishes uniform test standards and 

disclosures so that consumers can make 

more meaningful comparisons of 

amplifier-equipment performance 

attributes. 

Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust 

Improvements Act Coverage, 

Exemption, and Transmittal Rules, 16 

CFR 801–803. On December 1, 2020, the 

Commission initiated the periodic 

review of the Hart-Scott-Rodino 

Antitrust Improvements Act Coverage, 

Exemption, and Transmittal Rules (HSR 

Rules) as part of the Commission’s 

systematic review of all current 

Commission rules and guides.13 The 

comment period closed on February 1, 

2021, and staff is now reviewing the 

comments. The HSR Rules and the 

Antitrust Improvements Act 

Notification and Report Form (HSR 

Form) were adopted pursuant to section 

7(A) of the Clayton Act, which requires 

firms of a certain size contemplating 

mergers, acquisitions, or other 

transactions of a specified size to file 

notification with the FTC and the DOJ 

and to wait a designated period before 

consummating the transaction. 

During the first quarter of 2022, staff 

anticipates that the Commission will 

propose a rulemaking to update the HSR 

Form and Instructions to the new cloudbased, e-filing system, which will 

eliminate paper filings. 

Guides. During the calendar year of 

2022, the Commission plans to initiate 

periodic review of the Guides Against 

Deceptive Pricing, 16 CFR 233, the 

Guides, 16 CFR 238, the Guide 

Concerning Use of the Word ‘‘Free’’ and 

Similar Representations, 16 CFR 251, 

and the Guides for the Use of 

Environmental Marketing Claims, 16 

CFR 260. 

(2) Ongoing Periodic Reviews of Rules 

and Guides 

The following proceedings for the 

retrospective review of Commission 

rules and guides described in the 2020 

Regulatory Plan are ongoing: 

Children’s Online Privacy Protection 

Rule, 16 CFR 312. On July 25, 2019, the 

Commission issued a request for public 

comment on its Children’s Online 

Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA 

Rule).14 Although the Commission’s last 

COPPA Rule review ended in 2013, the 

Commission initiated this review early 

in light of changes in the marketplace. 

Following an extension, the public 

comment period closed on December 9, 

2019.15 The FTC sought comment on all 

major provisions of the COPPA Rule, 

including its definitions, notice and 

parental-consent requirements, 

exceptions to verifiable parental 

consent, and safe-harbor provision. The 

FTC hosted a public workshop to 

address issues raised during the review 

of the COPPA Rule on October 7, 2019. 

Staff is analyzing and reviewing public 

comments. 

Endorsement Guides, 16 CFR 255. On 

February 21, 2020, the Commission 

initiated a periodic review of the 

Endorsement Guides.16 The comment 

period, as extended, closed on June 22, 

2020.17 FTC staff is currently reviewing 

the comments received. The Guides are 

designed to assist businesses and others 

in conforming their endorsement and 

testimonial advertising practices to the 

requirements of the FTC Act. Among 

other things, the Endorsement Guides 

provide that if there is a connection 

between an endorser and the marketer 

that consumers would not expect and it 

would affect how consumers evaluate 

the endorsement, that connection 

should be disclosed. The advertiser 

must also possess and rely on adequate 

substantiation to support claims made 

through endorsements in the same 

manner the advertiser would be 

required to do if it had made the 

representation directly. 

Franchise Rule, 16 CFR 436. On 

March 15, 2019, the Commission 

initiated periodic review of the 

Franchise Rule (officially titled, 

Disclosure Requirements and 

Prohibitions Concerning Franchising).18

The comment period closed on April 21, 

2019. The Commission then held a 

public workshop on November 10, 2020. 

The closing date for written comments 

related to the issues discussed at the 

workshop was December 17, 2020.19

The Rule is intended to give prospective 

purchasers of franchises the material 

information they need to weigh the risks 

and benefits of such an investment. The 

Rule requires franchisors to provide all 

potential franchisees with a disclosure 

document containing 23 specific items 

of information about the offered 

franchise, its officers, and other 

franchisees. Required disclosure topics 

include, for example, the franchise’s 

litigation history; past and current 

franchisees and their contact 

information; any exclusive territory that 

comes with the franchise; assistance the 

franchisor provides franchisees; and the 

cost of purchasing and starting up a 

franchise. 

Funeral Rule, 16 CFR 453. On 

February 14, 2020, the Commission 

initiated a periodic review of the 

Funeral Industry Practices Rule (Funeral 

Rule).20 The comment period as 

extended closed on June 15, 2020.21

Commission staff is reviewing the 

comments received and anticipates 

submitting a recommendation for 

further action to the Commission by 

early 2022. The Rule, which became 

effective in 1984, requires sellers of 

funeral goods and services to give price 

lists to consumers who visit a funeral 

home. 

Health Breach Notification Rule, 16 

CFR 318. On May 22, 2020, the 

Commission initiated a periodic review 

of the Health Breach Notification Rule.22

The comment period closed on August 

20, 2020. Commission staff has 

reviewed the comments and intends to 

submit a recommendation to the 

Commission by January 2022. The Rule 

requires vendors of personal health 

records (PHR) and PHR-related entities 

to provide: (1) Notice to consumers 

whose unsecured personally identifiable 

health information has been breached; 

and (2) notice to the Commission. Under 

the Rule, vendors must notify both the 

FTC and affected consumers whose 

information has been affected by a 

breach ‘‘without unreasonable delay and 

in no case later than 60 calendar days’’ 

after discovery of a data breach. Among 

other information, the notices must 

provide consumers with steps they can 

take to protect themselves from harm. 

Identity Theft Rules, 16 CFR 681. In 

December 2018, the Commission 

initiated a periodic review of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5180 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

23 83 FR 63604 (Dec. 11, 2018). 

24 84 FR 8045 (Mar. 6, 2019). 

25 84 FR 52393 (Oct. 2, 2019). 

26 79 FR 46732 (Aug. 11, 2014). 

27 79 FR 61267 (Oct. 10, 2014). 

28 85 FR 44485 (July 23, 2020). 

29See Final Actions below for information about 

a separate completed rulemaking proceeding for the 

Energy Labeling Rule. 

30 80 FR 53274 (Sept. 3, 2015). 

31See Final Actions below for information about 

a separate completed rulemaking proceeding for the 

Safeguards Rule. 

32 86 FR 9274 (Feb. 12, 2021). 

Identity Theft Rules, which include the 

Red Flags Rule and the Card Issuer 

Rule.23 FTC staff is reviewing the 

comments received and anticipates 

sending a recommendation to the 

Commission by January 2022. The Red 

Flags Rule requires financial institutions 

and creditors to develop and implement 

a written identity theft prevention 

program (a Red Flags Program). By 

identifying red flags for identity theft in 

advance, businesses can be better 

equipped to spot suspicious patterns 

that may arise and take steps to prevent 

potential problems from escalating into 

a costly episode of identity theft. The 

Card Issuer Rule requires credit and 

debit card issuers to implement 

reasonable policies and procedures to 

assess the validity of a change of 

address if they receive notification of a 

change of address for a consumer’s debit 

or credit card account and, within a 

short period of time afterwards, also 

receive a request for an additional or 

replacement card for the same account. 

Leather Guides, 16 CFR 24. On March 

6, 2019, the Commission initiated 

periodic review of the Leather Guides, 

formally known as the Guides for Select 

Leather and Imitation Leather 

Products.24 The comment period closed 

on April 22, 2019, and staff anticipates 

submitting a recommendation for 

further action to the Commission by 

December 2021. The Leather Guides 

apply to the manufacture, sale, 

distribution, marketing, or advertising of 

leather or simulated leather purses, 

luggage, wallets, footwear, and other 

similar products. The Guides address 

misrepresentations regarding the 

composition and characteristics of 

specific leather and imitation leather 

products. 

Negative Option Rule, 16 CFR 425. On 

October 2, 2019, the Commission issued 

an Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking public 

comment on the effectiveness and 

impact of the Trade Regulation Rule on 

Use of Prenotification Negative Option 

Plans (Negative Option Rule).25 The 

Negative Option Rule helps consumers 

avoid recurring payments for products 

and services they did not intend to 

order and to allow them to cancel such 

payments without unwarranted 

obstacles. The Commission is studying 

various options, but the next expected 

action is undetermined. 

Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 

CFR 310. On August 11, 2014, the 

Commission initiated a periodic review 

of the TSR as set out on the 10-year 

review schedule.26 The comment period 

as extended closed on November 13, 

2014.27 Staff anticipates making a 

recommendation to the Commission by 

November 2021. 

b. Proposed Rules 

Since the publication of the 2020 

Regulatory Plan, the Commission has 

initiated or plans to take further steps as 

described below in the following 

rulemaking proceedings: 

Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 423. On 

July 23, 2020, the Commission issued a 

Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking seeking comment on a 

proposed repeal of the Rule.28 On July 

21, 2021, the Commission voted to 

retain the Care Labeling Rule (officially 

the Rule on Care Labeling of Textile 

Apparel and Certain Piece Goods as 

Amended) to ensure American 

consumers continue to get accurate 

information on how to take care of their 

fabrics and extend the life of their 

clothes. In a public statement, the 

Commission also indicated that it would 

continue to consider ways to improve 

the Rule to the benefit of families and 

businesses. Promulgated in 1971, the 

Care Labeling Rule makes it an unfair or 

deceptive act or practice for 

manufacturers and importers of textile 

wearing apparel and certain piece goods 

to sell these items without attaching 

care labels stating what regular care is 

needed for the ordinary use of the 

product. The Rule also requires that the 

manufacturer or importer possess, prior 

to sale, a reasonable basis for the care 

instructions and allows the use of 

approved care symbols in lieu of words 

to disclose care instructions. 

Energy Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 305. 

The Energy Labeling Rule requires 

energy labeling for major home 

appliances and other consumer 

products to help consumers compare 

the energy usage and costs of competing 

models. Staff anticipates sending the 

Commission a recommendation to 

update comparability ranges for 16 CFR 

305.12 by April 2022.29

Eyeglass Rule, 16 CFR 456. As part of 

the systematic review process, the 

Commission issued a Federal Register 

notice seeking public comments about 

the Trade Regulation Rule on 

Ophthalmic Practice Rules (Eyeglass 

Rule) on September 3, 2015.30 The 

comment period closed on October 26, 

2015. Commission staff has completed 

the review of 831 comments on the 

Eyeglass Rule and anticipates sending a 

recommendation for further 

Commission action by November 2021. 

The Eyeglass Rule requires that an 

optometrist or ophthalmologist give the 

patient, at no extra cost, a copy of the 

eyeglass prescription immediately after 

the examination is completed. The Rule 

also prohibits optometrists and 

ophthalmologists from conditioning the 

availability of an eye examination, as 

defined by the Rule, on a requirement 

that the patient agree to purchase 

ophthalmic goods from the optometrist 

or ophthalmologist. 

Safeguards Rule (Standards for 

Safeguarding Customer Information), 16 

CFR 314. The FTC’s Safeguards Rule, 

which was issued under the GrammLeach-Bliley Act, requires each financial 

institution subject to the FTC’s 

jurisdiction to assess risks and develop 

a written information security program 

that is appropriate to its size and 

complexity, the nature and scope of its 

activities, and the sensitivity of the 

customer information at issue. On 

October 27, 2021, the Commission 

announced the issuance of a 

Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking that proposes to further 

amend the Safeguards Rule to require 

financial institutions to report to the 

Commission any security event where 

the financial institutions have 

determined misuse of customer 

information has occurred or is 

reasonably likely and that at least 1,000 

consumers have been affected or 

reasonably may be affected. The 

comment period closes 60 days after 

publication in the Federal Register.31

c. Final Actions 

Since the publication of the 2020 

Regulatory Plan, the Commission has 

issued the following final agency 

actions in rulemaking proceedings: 

Energy Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 305. On 

February 12, 2021, the Commission 

published a final rule that establishes 

EnergyGuide labels for portable air 

conditioners and requires manufacturers 

to label portable air conditioner units 

produced after October 1, 2022.32 The 

Commission also updated the Rule in 

conformity with new DoE energy 

descriptors for central air conditioner 

units that will become effective on 

January 1, 2023. Additionally, on 

October 20, 2021, the Commission 

issued a final rule updating the 

comparability ranges and sample labels 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5181 

33Final Rule, 86 FR 57985 (Oct. 20, 2021); NPRM, 

86 FR 29533 (June 2, 2021). 

34See (2) Ongoing Periodic Reviews of Rules and 

Guides (b) Proposed Rules for information about a 

separate and ongoing rulemaking under the Energy 

Labeling Rule. 

35Final Rule (16 CFR 640), 86 FR 51795 (Sept. 17, 

2021); NPRM, 85 FR 63462 (Oct. 8, 2020). 

36Final Rule (16 CFR 641), 86 FR 51817 (Sept. 17, 

2021); NPRM, 85 FR 57172 (Sept. 15, 2020). 

37Final Rule (16 CFR 642), 86 FR 50848 (Sept. 13, 

2021); NPRM, 85 FR 59226 (Sept. 21, 2020). 

38Final Rule (16 CFR 660), 86 FR 51819 (Sept. 17, 

2021); NPRM, 85 FR 61659 (Sept. 30, 2020). 

39Final Rule (16 CFR 680), 86 FR 51609 (Sep. 16, 

2021); NPRM, 85 FR 59466 (Sept. 22, 2020). 

40 86 FR 37022 (July 14, 2021). 

41Final Rule, 86 FR —— (—— —, 2021); NPRM, 

84 FR 13150 (Apr. 4, 2019). 

42 86 FR 12091 (Mar. 2, 2021). 

43See (2) Ongoing Periodic Reviews of Rules and 

Guides (b) Proposed Rules for information about a 

separate and ongoing rulemaking under the 

Safeguards Rule. 

for central air conditioners.33 The 

amendments are effective on January 1, 

2023.34

Fair Credit Reporting Act Rules, 16 

CFR 640–642, 660, and 680. On 

September 8, 2021, the Commission 

announced final rules for each of these 

Rule reviews that included revisions to 

the Rules to correspond to changes to 

the Fair Credit Reporting Act made by 

the Dodd-Frank Act. The final rules 

were effective 30 days after publication 

in the Federal Register. These rules 

include: Duties of Creditors Regarding 

Risk-Based Pricing, 16 CFR 640 35; 

Duties of Users of Consumer Reports 

Regarding Address Discrepancies, 16 

CFR 641 36; Prescreen Opt-Out Notice, 

16 CFR 642 37; Duties of Furnishers of 

Information to Consumer Reporting 

Agencies, 16 CFR 660 38; and Affiliate 

Marketing, 16 CFR 680.39

Made in USA Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 

323. On July 14, 2021, the Commission 

issued a final rule that codified the 

FTC’s longstanding enforcement policy 

statement regarding U.S.-origin 

claims.40 The rule was effective on 

August 13, 2021. The Rule prohibits 

marketers from making unqualified 

MUSA claims on labels unless final 

assembly or processing of the product 

occurs in the United States; all 

significant processing that goes into the 

product occurs in the United States; and 

all or virtually all ingredients or 

components of the product are made 

and sourced in the United States. The 

rule does not impose any new 

requirements on businesses. By 

codifying this guidance into a formal 

rule, the Commission can increase 

deterrence of Made in USA fraud and 

seek restitution for victims. The final 

rule included a provision allowing 

marketers to seek exemptions if they 

have evidence showing their 

unqualified Made-in-USA claims are not 

deceptive. 

Privacy of Consumer Financial 

Information Rule, 16 CFR 313. The 

Privacy of Consumer Financial 

Information Rule (Rule) requires, among 

other things, that certain motor vehicle 

dealers provide an annual disclosure of 

their privacy policies to their customers 

by hand delivery, mail, electronic 

delivery, or through a website, but only 

with the consent of the consumer. On 

October 27, 2021, the Commission 

announced the issuance of a final rule 

to, among other changes, revise the 

Rule’s scope, modify the Rule’s 

definitions of ‘‘financial institution’’ 

and ‘‘federal functional regulator,’’ and 

update the Rule’s annual customer 

privacy notice requirement.41 This 

action was necessary to conform the 

Rule to the current requirements of the 

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The 

amendments will be effective 30 days 

after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

The Prohibition of Energy Market 

Manipulation Rule, 16 CFR 317. On 

March 2, 2021, the Commission 

completed its regulatory review and 

issued a Federal Register Notice 

confirming that the Rule was being 

retained without modification.42

Safeguards Rule (Standards for 

Safeguarding Customer Information), 16 

CFR 314. The FTC’s Safeguards Rule, 

which was issued under the GrammLeach-Bliley Act, requires each financial 

institution subject to the FTC’s 

jurisdiction to assess risks and develop 

a written information security program 

that is appropriate to its size and 

complexity, the nature and scope of its 

activities, and the sensitivity of the 

customer information at issue. On 

October 27, 2021, the Commission 

announced the issuance of a final rule 

that, among other amendments, 

provides additional requirements for 

financial institutions’ information 

security programs. The final rule also 

expands the definition of ‘‘financial 

institution’’ to include entities that are 

significantly engaged in activities that 

are incidental to financial activities, so 

that the rules would cover ‘‘finders’’— 

for example, companies that serve as 

lead generators for payday loan 

companies or mortgage companies. 

Certain provisions of the amendments, 

set forth in section 314.5 of the final 

rule, will be effective one year after the 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. The remainder of the 

amendments are effective 30 days after 

Federal Register publication.43

d. Significant Regulatory Actions 

The Commission has no proposed 

rule that would be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the definition 

in Executive Order 12866. The 

Commission also has no proposed rule 

that would have significant 

international impacts, or any 

international regulatory cooperation 

activities that are reasonably anticipated 

to lead to significant regulations, as 

defined in Executive Order 13609. 

Summary 

The actions under consideration 

advance the Commission’s mission by 

informing and protecting consumers 

while minimizing burdens on honest 

businesses. The Commission continues 

to identify and weigh the costs and 

benefits of proposed regulatory actions 

and possible alternative actions. 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING 

COMMISSION (NIGC) 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

In 1988, Congress adopted the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) (Pub L. 

100–497, 102 Stat. 2475) with a primary 

purpose of providing ‘‘a statutory basis 

for the operation of gaming by Indian 

tribes as a means of promoting tribal 

economic development, self-sufficiency, 

and strong tribal governments.’’ IGRA 

established the National Indian Gaming 

Commission (NIGC or the Commission) 

to protect such gaming, amongst other 

things, as a means of generating tribal 

revenue for strengthening tribal 

governance and tribal communities. 

At its core, Indian gaming is a 

function of sovereignty exercised by 

tribal governments. In addition, the 

Federal government maintains a 

government-to-government relationship 

with the tribes—a responsibility of the 

NIGC. Thus, while the Agency is 

committed to strong regulation of Indian 

gaming, the Commission is equally 

committed to strengthening 

government-to-government relations by 

engaging in meaningful consultation 

with tribes to fulfill IGRA’s intent. The 

NIGC’s vision is to adhere to principles 

of good government, including 

transparency to promote agency 

accountability and fiscal responsibility, 

to operate consistently to ensure 

fairness and clarity in the 

administration of IGRA, and to respect 

the responsibilities of each sovereign in 

order to fully promote tribal economic 

development, self-sufficiency, a strong 

workforce, and strong tribal 

governments. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5182 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

As an independent regulatory agency, 

the NIGC has been performing a 

retrospective review of its existing 

regulations. The NIGC recognizes the 

importance of Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011, and its 

regulatory review is being conducted in 

the spirit of Executive Order 13563, to 

identify those regulations that may be 

outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or 

excessively burdensome and to modify, 

streamline, expand, or repeal them in 

accordance with input from the public. 

In addition, as required by Executive 

Order 13175, issued on November 6, 

2000, the Commission has been 

conducting government-to-government 

consultations with tribes regarding each 

regulation’s relevancy, consistency in 

application, and limitations or barriers 

to implementation, based on the tribes’ 

experiences. The consultation process is 

also intended to result in the 

identification of areas for improvement 

and needed amendments, if any, new 

regulations, and the possible repeal of 

outdated regulations. 

The following Regulatory Identifier 

Numbers (RINs) have been identified as 

associated with the review: 

RIN Title 

3141–AA32 ....... Definitions. 

3141–AA70 ....... Class II Minimum Internal Control Standards. 

3141–AA58 ....... Management Contracts. 

3141–AA69 ....... Class II Minimum Technical Standards. 

3141–AA71 ....... Background and Licensing. 

3141–AA68 ....... Audit Regulations. 

3141–AA72 ....... Self-Regulation of Gaming Activities. 

3141–AA73 ....... Gaming Ordinance Submission Requirements. 

3141–AA74 ....... Substantial Violations List. 

3141–AA75 ....... Appeals to Commission. 

3141–AA76 ....... Facility License Notifications and Submissions. 

3141–AA77 ....... Fees. 

3141–AA79 ....... Suspensions of Gaming Licenses for Key Employees and Primary Management Officials. 

3141–AA80 ....... Fee Rate Assessment, Reporting, and Calculation Guidelines for Self Regulated Tribes. 

3141–AA81 ....... Orders of Temporary Closure. 

More specifically, the NIGC is 

currently considering promulgating new 

regulations in the following areas: (i) 

Amendments to its regulatory 

definitions to conform to the newlypromulgated rules; (ii) updates or 

revisions to its management contract 

regulations to address the current state 

of the industry; (iii) updates or revisions 

to the existing audit regulations to 

reduce cost burdens for small or 

charitable gaming operations; (iv) the 

review and revision of the minimum 

technical standards for Class II gaming; 

(v) the review and revision of the 

minimum internal control standards 

(MICS) for Class II gaming; (vi) 

background and licensing; (vii) selfregulation of Class II gaming activities; 

(viii) gaming ordinance submission 

requirements; (ix) substantial violations; 

(x) appeals to the Commission; (xi) 

facility license notification and 

submission; (xii) fees; (xiii) updating its 

regulations concerning suspension of 

licenses issued to Key Employees and 

Primary Management Officials who the 

NIGC determines are not eligible for 

employment; (xiv) amending its 

regulations concerning fee rate 

assessment, carry over status reporting 

process, budget commitments for 

maintaining transition funds, and fee 

rate calculation guidelines for selfregulated tribes; (xv) amending a 

substantial violations identified in its 

regulations to provide that closure for a 

tribe’s failure to construct and operate 

its gaming operation in a manner that 

adequately protects the environment, 

public health, and safety includes issues 

related to cyber-security. 

NIGC is committed to staying up-todate on developments in the gaming 

industry, including best practices and 

emerging technologies. Further, the 

Commission aims to continue reviewing 

its regulations to determine whether 

they are overly burdensome to tribes 

and industry stakeholders, including 

smaller or rural operations. The NIGC 

anticipates that the ongoing 

consultations with tribes will continue 

to play an important role in the 

development of the NIGC’s rulemaking 

efforts. 

BILLING CODE 7565–01–P 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities for 

Fiscal Year 2022 

I. Introduction 

Under the authority of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 

as amended, the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates 

the possession and use of source, 

byproduct, and special nuclear material. 

Our regulatory mission is to license and 

regulate the Nation’s civilian use of 

byproduct, source, and special nuclear 

materials to ensure adequate protection 

of public health and safety and promote 

the common defense and security. As 

part of our mission, we regulate the 

operation of nuclear power plants and 

fuel-cycle plants; the safeguarding of 

nuclear materials from theft and 

sabotage; the safe transport, storage, and 

disposal of radioactive materials and 

wastes; the decommissioning and safe 

release for other uses of licensed 

facilities that are no longer in operation; 

and the medical, industrial, and 

research applications of nuclear 

material. In addition, we license the 

import and export of radioactive 

materials. 

As part of our regulatory process, we 

routinely conduct comprehensive 

regulatory analyses that examine the 

costs and benefits of contemplated 

regulations. We have developed internal 

procedures and programs to ensure that 

we impose only necessary requirements 

on our licensees and to review existing 

regulations to determine whether the 

requirements imposed are still 

necessary. 

Our regulatory priorities for fiscal 

year (FY) 2022 reflect our safety and 

security mission and will enable us to 

achieve our two strategic goals 

described in NUREG–1614, Volume 7, 

‘‘Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2018– 

2022’’ (https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1614/v7/) 

(1) to ensure the safe use of radioactive 

materials, and (2) to ensure the secure 

use of radioactive materials. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5183 

II. Regulatory Priorities 

This section contains information on 

some of our most important and 

significant regulatory actions that we are 

considering issuing in proposed or final 

form during FY 2022. The NRC’s highpriority rulemaking titled ‘‘RiskInformed, Technology Inclusive 

Regulatory Framework for Advanced 

Reactors (RIN 3150–AK31; NRC–2019– 

0062)’’ is not included in this report due 

to the timeframe for reporting, as the 

agency will not be publishing it in 

proposed or final form during FY 2022. 

The proposed rule is expected to be 

published in FY 2023. For additional 

information on NRC rulemaking 

activities and on a broader spectrum of 

our upcoming regulatory actions, see 

our portion of the Unified Agenda of 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. 

We also provide additional information 

on planned rulemaking and petition for 

rulemaking activities, including priority 

and schedule, on our website at https:// 

www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/ 

rulemaking/rules-petitions.html. 

A. NRC’s Priority Rulemakings 

Proposed Rules 

Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement (RIN 

3150–AK55; NRC–2020–0101): This rule 

would amend the regulations that 

govern the NRC’s environmental 

reviews under National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) by codifying the 

findings of the advanced nuclear reactor 

generic environmental impact 

statement. 

Alternative Physical Security 

Requirements for Advanced Reactors 

(RIN 3150–AK19; NRC–2017–0227): 

This rule would amend the NRC’s 

physical security requirements for small 

modular reactors and other advanced 

reactor technologies. 

Cyber Security for Fuel Facilities (RIN 

3150–AJ64; NRC–2015–0179): This rule 

would amend the NRC’s regulations to 

add cyber security requirements for 

certain nuclear fuel cycle facility 

applicants and licensees. 

Final Rules 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers 2019–2020 Code Editions 

(RIN 3150–AK22; NRC–2018–0290): 

This rule will incorporate by reference 

into the NRC’s regulations the 2019 and 

2020 Editions of the Boiler and Pressure 

Vessel Code and the Operations and 

Maintenance Code. 

Emergency Preparedness 

Requirements for Small Modular 

Reactors and Other New Technologies 

(RIN 3150–AJ68; NRC–2015–0225): This 

rule will amend the regulations to add 

new emergency preparedness 

requirements for small modular reactors 

and other new technologies such as 

non-light-water reactors and non-power 

production or utilization facilities. 

NuScale Small Modular reactor 

Design Certification (RIN 3150–AJ98; 

NRC–2017–0029): This rulemaking will 

amend the NRC’s regulations to 

incorporate the NuScale small modular 

reactor standard plant design. 

B. Significant Final Rules 

The following rulemaking activity 

meets the requirements of a significant 

regulatory action in Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ because it is likely to have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more. 

Revision of Fee Schedules: Fee 

Recovery for FY 2022 (RIN 3150–AK44; 

NRC–2020–0031): This rule will amend 

the NRC’s fee schedules for licensing, 

inspection, and annual fees charged to 

its applicants and licensees. 

NRC 

Proposed Rule Stage 

175. Cyber Security at Fuel Cycle 

Facilities [NRC–2015–0179] 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 

U.S.C. 5841 

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70; 

10 CFR 73. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

amend the NRC’s regulations to add 

cyber security requirements for certain 

nuclear fuel cycle facility applicants 

and licensees. The rule would require 

certain fuel cycle facilities to establish, 

implement, and maintain a cyber 

security program that is designed to 

protect public health and safety and the 

common defense and security. It would 

affect fuel cycle applicants or licensees 

that are or plan to be authorized to: (1) 

Possess greater than a critical mass of 

special nuclear material and perform 

activities for which the NRC requires an 

integrated safety analysis or (2) engage 

in uranium hexafluoride conversion or 

deconversion. 

Statement of Need: The NRC 

currently does not have a 

comprehensive regulatory framework 

for addressing cyber security at fuel 

cycle facilities (FCFs). Each FCF 

licensee is subject to either design basis 

threats (DBTs) or to the Interim 

Compensatory Measures (ICM) Orders 

issued to all FCF licensees subsequent 

to the events of September 11, 2001. 

Both the DBTs and the ICM Orders 

contain a provision that these licensees 

include consideration of a cyber attack 

when considering security 

vulnerabilities. However, the NRC’s 

current regulations do not provide 

specific requirements or guidance on 

how to implement these performance 

objectives. Since the issuance of the 

ICM Orders and the 2007 DBT 

rulemaking, the threats to digital assets 

have increased both globally and 

nationally. Cyber attacks have increased 

in number, become more sophisticated, 

resulted in physical consequences, and 

targeted digital assets similar to those 

used by FCF licensees. The rulemaking 

would establish requirements for FCF 

licensees to establish, implement, and 

maintain a cyber security program to 

detect, protect against, and respond to a 

cyber attack capable of causing a 

consequence of concern. The design of 

this cyber security program would 

provide flexibility to account for the 

various types of FCFs, promote common 

defense and security, and provide 

reasonable assurance that the public 

health and safety remain adequately 

protected against the evolving risk of 

cyber attacks. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal 

basis for the proposed action is 42 

U.S.C. 2201 and 42 U.S.C. 5841. 

Alternatives: As an alternative to the 

rulemaking, the NRC staff considered 

the ‘‘no-action’’ alternative. Under this 

option the NRC would not modify 10 

CFR part 73. The NRC considered a 

number of additional approaches to 

improving cyber security at FCFs, 

including issuing generic 

communications, developing new 

guidance documents, and revising 

existing inspection modules or 

enforcement guidance. Because these 

approaches would not fully address the 

regulatory issues, the NRC did not 

evaluate them as alternatives to the 

proposed action. Because the 

Commission had previously rejected the 

issuance of orders to resolve these 

regulatory issues, orders were not 

evaluated as an alternative for this 

rulemaking. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

NRC evaluated the provisions of the 

proposed rule in the Regulatory Basis 

and concluded that the provisions 

provide a substantial increase in the 

overall protection of public health and 

safety through effective implementation 

of the cyber security program to prevent 

safety consequences of concern. The 

analysis further demonstrated that the 

costs for the proposed rule provisions 

are cost justified for the additional 

protection provided. 

Risks: In the absence of specific NRC 

requirements, FCF licensees have 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5184 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

implemented limited, ad hoc, voluntary 

cyber security measures. Voluntary 

cyber security measures do not include 

a complete set of controls for digital 

assets, which leaves facilities 

susceptible to potential vulnerabilities 

and the programs may not be 

enforceable unless licensees incorporate 

them into their licensing basis. This 

may result in a cyber security program 

that is unable to adequately address the 

evolving cyber security threat 

confronting FCF licensees. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Draft Regulatory 

Basis.

09/04/15 80 FR 53478 

Draft Regulatory 

Basis Comment 

Period End.

10/05/15 

Final Regulatory 

Basis.

04/12/16 81 FR 21449 

NPRM .................. 12/00/21 

Final Rule ............ 10/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: The proposed 

rule was provided to the Commission on 

October 4, 2017 (SECY–17–0099), 

(ADAMS Package Accession No. 

ML17018A218). 

Agency Contact: Irene Wu, Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Office of 

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Phone: 

301 415–1951, Email: irene.wu@nrc.gov. 

RIN: 3150–AJ64 

NRC 

176. Alternative Physical Security 

Requirements for Advanced Reactors 

[NRC–2017–0227] 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 

U.S.C. 5841 

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 73. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule would amend the 

NRC’s physical security requirements 

for small modular reactors and other 

advanced reactor technologies. This 

rulemaking would establish voluntary 

alternative physical security 

requirements commensurate with the 

potential consequences to public health 

and safety and the common defense and 

security. This rulemaking would 

provide regulatory stability, 

predictability, and clarity in the 

licensing process and minimize or 

eliminate uncertainty for applicants 

who might otherwise request 

exemptions from the regulations. 

Statement of Need: Required by 

NEIMA. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Policy 

Statement on the Regulation of 

Advanced Reactors, published in the 

Federal Register (FR) on October 14, 

2008 (73 FR 60612). Staff Requirements 

Memorandum (SRM)-SECY–18–0076, 

dated November 19, 2018, (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML18324A478), the 

Commission approved the staff’s 

recommendation to initiate a limitedscope rulemaking. 

Alternatives: SECY–18–0076, Options 

and Recommendation for Physical 

Security for Advanced Reactors, dated 

August 1, 2018, (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML18170A051), presenting alternatives 

and a recommendation to the 

Commission on possible changes to the 

regulations and guidance related to 

physical security for advanced reactors 

(light-water small modular reactors and 

non-light-water reactors). The staff 

evaluated the advantages and 

disadvantages of each alternative and 

recommended a limited-scope 

rulemaking to further assess and, if 

appropriate, revise a limited set of NRC 

regulations. The staff also recommended 

developing necessary guidance to 

address performance criteria for which 

the alternative requirements may be 

applied for advanced reactor license 

applicants. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

estimated benefits of the proposed 

action include (1) fewer exemption 

requests as compared to those made 

under current regulations, (2) fewer 

security staff or other security features 

compared to those currently required by 

10 CFR 73.55 commensurate with offsite 

consequences and radiation risks to 

public health and safety, (3) consistent 

regulatory applicability in the review of 

physical security plans in accordance 

with 10 CFR part 73, and (4) potential 

use of a more risk-informed, 

performance-based physical security 

framework. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Regulatory Basis 07/16/19 84 FR 33861 

Comment Period 

End.

08/15/19 

NPRM .................. 12/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: NRC is not 

issuing a final regulatory basis and will 

address public comments on the 

regulatory basis (84 FR 33861) in the 

proposed rule. 

Agency Contact: Dennis Andrukat, 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 

of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Phone: 301 415–3561, Email: 

dennis.andrukat@nrc.gov. 

RIN: 3150–AK19 

NRC 

177. Revision of Fee Schedules: Fee 

Recovery for FY 2022 [NRC–2020–0031] 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 31 U.S.C. 483; 42 

U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 2214; 42 U.S.C. 

5841 

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 170; 10 CFR 

171. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

September 30, 2022. 

The Nuclear Energy Innovation and 

Modernization Act (NEIMA) requires 

the NRC to assess and collect service 

fees and annual fees in a manner that 

ensures that, to the maximum extent 

practicable, the amount assessed and 

collected approximates the NRC’s total 

budget authority for that fiscal year less 

the NRC’s budget authority for excluded 

activities. NEIMA requires that the fees 

for FY 2022 be collected by September 

30, 2022. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

amend the NRC’s regulations for fee 

schedules. The NRC conducts this 

rulemaking annually to recover 

approximately 100 percent of the NRC’s 

FY 2022 budget authority, less excluded 

activities to implement NEIMA. This 

rulemaking would affect the fee 

schedules for licensing, inspection, and 

annual fees charged to the NRC’s 

applicants and licensees. 

Statement of Need: The NRC, as 

required by statue conducts an annual 

rulemaking in order to assess and 

collect service fees and annual fees in a 

manner that ensures that, to the 

maximum extent practicable, the 

amount assessed and collected 

approximates the NRC’s total budget 

authority for that fiscal year less the 

NRC’s budget authority for excluded 

activities. NEIMA requires the NRC to 

establish through rulemaking a schedule 

of annual fees that fairly and equitably 

allocates the aggregate amount of annual 

fees among licensees and certificate 

holders. NEIMA states that this 

schedule may be based on the allocation 

of the NRC’s resources among licensees, 

certificate holders, or classes of 

licensees or certificate holders and 

requires that the schedule of annual 

fees, to the maximum extent practicable, 

shall be reasonably related to the cost of 

providing regulatory services. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5185 

Summary of Legal Basis: Effective 

October 1, 2020, NEIMA puts in place 

a revised framework for fee recovery by 

eliminating OBRA–90’s approximately 

90 percent fee-recovery requirement and 

requiring the NRC to assess and collect 

service fees and annual fees in a manner 

that ensures that, to the maximum 

extent practicable, the amount assessed 

and collected approximates the NRC’s 

total budget authority for that fiscal year 

less the NRC’s budget authority for 

excluded activities. 

Alternatives: Because this action is 

mandated by statute and the fees must 

be assessed through rulemaking, the 

NRC did not consider alternatives to 

this action. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

cost to the NRC’s licensees is 

approximately 100 percent of the NRC 

FY 2022 budget authority less the 

amounts appropriated for excluded 

activities. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/22 

Final Rule ............ 05/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Agency Contact: Anthony Rossi, 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 

of the Chief Financial Officer, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Phone: 

301 415–7341, Email: anthony.rossi@

nrc.gov. 

RIN: 3150–AK44 

NRC 

178. Advanced Nuclear Reactor 

Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement [NRC–2020–0101] 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 

U.S.C. 5841 

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 51. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

amend the NRC’s regulations that 

govern the agency’s National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

reviews. The rulemaking would codify 

the findings of the Advanced Nuclear 

Reactor Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement (ANR GEIS). The ANR GEIS 

would use a technology-neutral 

regulatory framework and performancebased assumptions to determine generic 

environmental impacts for new 

commercial advanced nuclear reactors. 

The ANR GEIS would streamline the 

NEPA reviews for future advanced 

reactor applicants. 

Statement of Need: The NRC is 

developing a GEIS for advanced nuclear 

reactors in order to streamline the 

environmental review process for future 

advanced nuclear reactor (ANR) 

environmental reviews. The purpose of 

an ANR GEIS is to determine which 

environmental impacts could result in 

essentially the same (generic) impact for 

different ANR designs that fit within the 

parameters set in the GEIS, and which 

environmental impacts would require a 

plant-specific analysis. Environmental 

reviews for advanced nuclear reactor 

license applications could incorporate 

the ANR GEIS by reference and provide 

site-specific information and analyses in 

a Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (SEIS), thereby streamlining 

the environmental review process. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 42 U.S.C. 

4332, 4334, 4335. 

Alternatives: As an alternative to the 

rulemaking, the NRC staff considered 

the ‘‘no-action’’ alternative. Under this 

alternative the NRC would not modify 

10 CFR part 51 to codify the results of 

the ANR GEIS. This alternative would 

not provide the benefits of streamlining 

the environmental review process. 

Therefore, rulemaking is the preferred 

alternative. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

anticipated benefits would exceed the 

costs associated with the proposed 

regulatory action. The supporting 

regulatory analysis will provide a 

detailed analysis of the costs and 

benefits associated with this action. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Daniel Doyle, 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 

of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Phone: 301 415–3748, Email: 

daniel.doyle@nrc.gov. 

RIN: 3150–AK55 

NRC 

Final Rule Stage 

179. Emergency Preparedness 

Requirements for Small Modular 

Reactors and Other New Technologies 

[NRC–2015–0225] 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 

U.S.C. 5841 

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 52. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

amend the NRC’s regulations to add 

new emergency preparedness 

requirements for small modular reactors 

and other new technologies such as 

non-light-water reactors and non-power 

production or utilization facilities. The 

rule would adopt a scalable plume 

exposure pathway emergency planning 

zone approach that is performancebased, consequence-oriented, and 

technology-inclusive. This rulemaking 

would affect applicants for new NRC 

licenses and reduce regulatory burden 

related to the exemption process. 

Statement of Need: Current 

emergency preparedness (EP) 

regulations do not sufficiently reflect 

the advances in designs and more recent 

safety research, particularly with respect 

to small modular reactors (SMRs) and 

other new technologies (ONTs), such as 

non-light-water reactors (non-LWRs) 

and medical isotope facilities. 

Summary of Legal Basis: None. 

Alternatives: None. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed rule would be projected to 

result in a cost-justified change based on 

a net (i.e., accounting for both costs and 

benefits) averted cost to the industry 

that ranges from $4.72 million using a 

7-percent discount rate to $7.56 million 

using a 3-percent discount rate. Relative 

to the regulatory baseline, the NRC 

would realize a net averted cost of $1.17 

million using a 7-percent discount rate 

and $2.16 million using a 3-percent 

discount rate. The proposed rule 

alternative would result in net averted 

costs to the industry and the NRC 

ranging from $5.89 million using a 7- 

percent discount rate to $9.71 million 

using a 3-percent discount rate. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Draft Regulatory 

Basis.

04/13/17 82 FR 17768 

Draft Regulatory 

Basis Comment 

Period End.

06/27/17 

Regulatory Basis 11/15/17 82 FR 52862 

NPRM .................. 05/12/20 85 FR 28436 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

07/27/20 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5186 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

07/21/20 85 FR 44025 

Comment Period 

End.

09/25/20 

Final Rule ............ 03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: The proposed 

rule was published for public comment 

on May 12, 2020. Draft regulatory 

guidance was also published for public 

comment with the proposed rule. The 

public comment period ended on 

September 25, 2020. 

Agency Contact: Soly Soto Lugo, 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 

of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Phone: 302 415–7528, Email: 

soly.sotolugo@nrc.gov. 

RIN: 3150–AJ68 

NRC 

180. NuScale Small Modular Reactor 

Design Certification [NRC–2017–0029] 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 

U.S.C. 5841 

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 52. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

amend the NRC’s regulations to 

incorporate the NuScale small modular 

reactor (SMR) standard plant design. 

The rulemaking would add a new 

appendix for the initial certification of 

the NuScale SMR standard plant design. 

This action would allow applicants 

intending to construct and operate an 

SMR to reference this design 

certification rule in future applications. 

Statement of Need: This rule would 

place the NuScale standard design 

certification, once issued by the 

Commission, into the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR). 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

regulations in 10 CFR 52.51 require the 

NRC to initiate rulemaking after an 

application is filed under 10 CFR 52.45. 

Alternatives: Based on a review of 

NuScale Power’s evaluation, the NRC 

concludes that: (1) NuScale Power 

identified a reasonably complete set of 

potential design alternatives to prevent 

and mitigate severe accidents for the 

NuScale design and (2) none of the 

potential design alternatives appropriate 

at the design certification stage are 

justified on the basis of cost/benefit 

considerations. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There 

is no anticipated increase in costs for 

consumers, individual industries, or 

geographical regions as a result of the 

rulemaking. This action will certify a 

reactor design; it does not constitute the 

license for construction of a nuclear 

power plant at a site. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/01/21 86 FR 34999 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

08/30/21 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

08/24/21 86 FR 47251 

NPRM Comment 

Extension Period End.

10/14/21 

Final Rule ............ 03/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Yanely MalaveVelez, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Phone: 301 415–1519, Email: 

yanely.malave-velez@nrc.gov. 

RIN: 3150–AJ98 

NRC 

181. American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers 2019–2020 Code Editions 

[NRC–2018–0290] 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 

U.S.C. 5841 

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

amend the NRC’s regulations to 

authorize the use of recent editions of 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME) codes. The rule 

would incorporate by reference the 2019 

Edition of the ASME Boiler and 

Pressure Vessel Code and the 2020 

Edition of the ASME Operations and 

Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants 

Code into the NRC’s regulations, with 

conditions. This action increases 

consistency across the industry and 

makes use of current voluntary 

consensus standards (as required by the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act), while continuing to 

provide adequate protection to the 

public. This rulemaking would affect 

nuclear power reactor licensees. 

Statement of Need: The need for the 

rulemaking is to update the regulations 

to incorporate the latest editions of 

consensus standards. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal 

basis for the proposed action is 42 

U.S.C. 2201, 42 U.S.C. 5841, and 10 CFR 

part 2, Agency Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, ‘‘Subpart H, Rulemaking.’’ 

Alternatives: In the absence of 

incorporation by the reference of the 

latest Editions of ASME Codes, 

licensees will continue to implement 

Code editions that are currently 

incorporated by reference in the rule 

and will not be able to take advantage 

of the latest advantages of ASME Codes, 

including relaxation of certain 

requirements in the proposed rule. 

Thus, licensees will have to continue to 

implement the requirements of older 

Code editions and continue to request 

exemptions from certain requirements 

that would otherwise not be needed. 

This may result in nuclear power plant 

licensees, who would be the primary 

beneficiaries, to not be able to apply the 

latest editions of ASME Codes, and the 

NRC would not be able to meets its goal 

of ensuring the protection of public 

health and safety and the environment 

by continuing to provide the NRC’s 

approval of ASME Code editions that 

allow the use of the most current 

methods and technology and that may 

decrease the likelihood of an accident 

and, therefore, decrease the overall risk 

to public health. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed rule would result in a costjustified change based on a net (i.e., 

taking into account both costs and 

benefits) averted cost to the industry 

ranging from $6.26 million (7-percent 

net present value (NPV)) to $6.99 

million (3-percent NPV). Relative to the 

regulatory baseline, the NRC would 

realize a net averted cost ranging from 

$0.49 million (7-percent NPV) to $0.57 

million (3-percent NPV). The total costs 

and benefits of proceeding with the rule 

would result in net averted costs to the 

industry and the NRC ranging from 

$6.75 million (7-percent NPV) to $7.56 

million (3-percent NPV). Other benefits 

of the proposed rule include the NRC’s 

continued ability to meet its goal of 

ensuring the protection of public health 

and safety and the environment through 

the agency’s approval of new editions of 

the ASME BPV Code and ASME OM 

Code, which allow the use of the most 

current methods and technology. 

Risks: In the absence of incorporation 

by the reference of the latest Editions of 

ASME Codes, licensees will continue to 

implement Code editions that are 

currently incorporated by reference in 

the rule and will not be able to take 

advantage of the latest advantages of 

ASME Codes, including relaxation of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan 5187 

certain requirements in the proposed 

rule. Thus, licensees will have to 

continue to implement the requirements 

of older Code editions and continue to 

request exemptions from certain 

requirements that would otherwise not 

be needed. This may result in nuclear 

power plant licensees, who would be 

the primary beneficiaries, to not be able 

to apply the latest editions of ASME 

Codes, and the NRC would not be able 

to meets its goal of ensuring the 

protection of public health and safety 

and the environment by continuing to 

provide the NRC’s approval of ASME 

Code editions that allow the use of the 

most current methods and technology 

and that may decrease the likelihood of 

an accident and, therefore, decrease the 

overall risk to public health. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/26/21 86 FR 16087 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

05/25/21 

Final Rule ............ 06/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Victoria V. 

Huckabay, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 

20555–0001, Phone: 301 415–5183, 

Email: victoria.huckabay@nrc.gov. 

RIN: 3150–AK22 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

[FR Doc. 2022–00702 Filed 1–28–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–27–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2