1664 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

REGULATORY INFORMATION 

SERVICE CENTER 

Introduction to the Unified Agenda of 

Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory 

Actions—Fall 2017 

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 Unified 

Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory 

Actions and the Regulatory Plan 

represent key components of the 

regulatory planning mechanism 

prescribed in Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 

Executive Order 13771, ‘‘Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs,’’ January 30, 2017, and Executive 

Order 13777, ‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory 

Reform Agenda,’’ February 24, 2017. 

The fall editions of the Unified Agenda 

include the agency regulatory plans 

required by E.O. 12866, which identify 

regulatory priorities and provide 

additional detail about the most 

important significant regulatory actions 

that agencies expect to take in the 

coming year. 

In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act requires that agencies publish 

semiannual ‘‘regulatory flexibility 

agendas’’ describing regulatory actions 

they are developing that will have 

significant effects on small businesses 

and other 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 http://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 2017 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 2017 Unified 

Agenda contains the Regulatory Plans of 

30 Federal agencies and 60 Federal 

agency regulatory agendas. 

ADDRESSES: Regulatory Information 

Service Center (MVE), General Services 

Administration, 1800 F Street NW, 

2219F, 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: John C. Thomas, 

Executive Director, Regulatory 

Information Service Center (MVE), U.S. 

General Services Administration, 1800 F 

Street NW, 2219F, Washington, DC 

20405, (202) 482–7340. 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 2017 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 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

General Services Administration 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 

National Archives and Records 

Administration 

Office of Personnel Management 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

Small Business Administration 

Social Security Administration 

Independent Regulatory Agencies 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Federal Trade Commission 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

AGENCY REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY 

AGENDAS 

Cabinet Departments 

Department of Agriculture 

Department of Commerce 

Department of Defense 

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 

Other Executive Agencies 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers 

Compliance Board 

Environmental Protection Agency 

General Services Administration 

Small Business Administration 

Joint Authority 

Department of Defense/General Services 

Administration/National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (Federal Acquisition 

Regulation) 

Independent Regulatory Agencies 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Federal Communications Commission 

Federal Reserve System 

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. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1665 

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 http://www.reginfo.gov. 

The online Unified Agenda offers 

flexible search tools and access to the 

historic Unified Agenda database 

to1995. The complete online edition of 

the Unified Agenda includes regulatory 

agendas from 67 Federal agencies. 

Agencies of the United States Congress 

are not included. 

The fall 2017 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 http://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 http://reginfo.gov. 

Cabinet Departments 

Department of State 

Department of Veterans Affairs * 

Other Executive Agencies 

Agency for International Development 

American Battle Monuments 

Commission 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Committee for Purchase From People 

Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled 

Corporation for National and 

Community Service 

Court Services and Offender 

Supervision Agency for the District of 

Columbia 

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission * 

Institute of Museum and Library 

Services 

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 Management and Budget 

Office of Personnel Management * 

Office of the United States Trade 

Representative 

Peace Corps 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

Presidio Trust 

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight 

Board 

Railroad Retirement Board 

Social Security Administration * 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

Independent Agencies 

Council of the Inspectors General on 

Integrity and Efficiency 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 

Farm Credit Administration 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Federal Housing Finance Agency 

Federal Maritime Commission 

Federal Trade Commission * 

National Credit Union Administration 

National Indian Gaming Commission * 

National Labor Relations Board 

National Transportation Safety Board 

Postal Regulatory Commission 

Special Inspector General for 

Afghanistan Reconstruction 

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 13771 

Executive Order 13771, ‘‘Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs,’’ January 30, 2017 (82 FR 9339) 

requires each agency to identify for 

elimination two prior regulations for 

every one new regulation issued, and 

the cost of planned regulations be 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1666 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

prudently managed and controlled 

through a budgeting process. 

Executive Order 13777 

Executive Order 13777, ‘‘Enforcing 

the Regulatory Reform Agenda,’’ 

February 24, 2017 (82 FR 12285) 

requires each agency to designate an 

agency official as its Regulatory Reform 

Officer (RRO). Each RRO shall oversee 

the implementation of regulatory reform 

initiatives and policies to ensure that 

agencies effectively carry out regulatory 

reforms, consistent with applicable law. 

The Executive Order also directs that 

each agency designate a regulatory 

Reform Task Force. 

Executive Order 13563 

Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1667 

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. 

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. 

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 http://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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1668 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

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 12/00/14 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. 

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 2015. 

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 erulemaking site, http://

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. 

b 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; 

b 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. 

PL (or 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. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1669 

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 

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 Printing 

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 http://reginfo.gov, 

along with flexible search tools. 

The Government Printing Office’s 

GPO FDsys website contains copies of 

the Agendas and Regulatory Plans that 

have been printed in the Federal 

Register. These documents are available 

at http://www.fdsys.gov. 

Dated: November 29, 2017. 

John C. Thomas, 

Executive Director. 

Introduction to the Fall 2017 

Regulatory Plan 

Following statutory directions, the 

Executive Branch implements many 

federal policies through regulatory 

action in areas as diverse as homeland 

security, environmental protection, 

energy policy, transportation, federal 

land management, education, and 

commerce. Over many decades, federal 

agencies have imposed countless 

regulatory requirements on individuals, 

businesses, landowners, and state and 

local governments. Some of these 

regulations serve important public 

purposes. Other regulations, however, 

are outdated, duplicative, or 

unnecessary, yet they continue to 

impose costly burdens. President Trump 

has committed to reducing the 

regulatory burden on the American 

public in order to promote economic 

growth, job creation, and innovation. 

This Fall 2017 Regulatory Plan 

reflects a fundamental shift. The Trump 

Administration recognizes that 

excessive and unnecessary federal 

regulations limit individual freedom 

and suppress the innovation and 

entrepreneurship that make America 

great. Starting with confidence in 

private markets and individual choices, 

this Administration is reassessing 

existing regulatory burdens. In the 2017 

Plan, Agencies have identified 

regulatory actions ripe for reform and 

are working to eliminate or modify 

them. This Administration also 

approaches the imposition of new 

regulatory requirements with caution to 

ensure that regulations are consistent 

with law, necessary to correct a 

substantial market failure, and net 

beneficial to the public. Furthermore, 

the Plan, along with the Unified Agenda 

of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

(‘‘Agenda’’), identifies the 

Administration’s priorities in manner 

that is transparent and accessible to the 

public. 

Our regulatory philosophy and 

approach emphasize the connection 

between limited government 

intervention and individual liberty. 

Regulatory policy should serve the 

American people by staying within legal 

limits and administering the law with 

respect for due process and fair notice. 

The 2017 Plan sets forth the 

Administration’s roadmap for a more 

limited, effective, and accountable 

regulatory policy. 

Federal Regulatory Policy 

The 2017 Plan both sets a new 

direction in regulatory policy and 

preserves many longstanding regulatory 

best practices. Stressing that ‘‘it is 

essential to manage the costs associated 

with the governmental imposition of 

private expenditures required to comply 

with Federal regulations,’’ President 

Trump directed all federal agencies to 

eliminate two regulations for each new 

one implemented and to reduce new 

regulatory costs to zero in Executive 

Order 13771 (‘‘Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs,’’ January 

30, 2017). He also created regulatory 

reform officers and regulatory reform 

taskforces in each agency in Executive 

Order 13777 (‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory 

Reform Agenda,’’ February 24, 2017). 

Within the Office of Management and 

Budget, the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (‘‘OIRA’’) implements 

federal regulatory policy and has led 

efforts to implement these presidential 

directives, working with agencies to 

identify deregulatory actions and 

eliminate regulatory burdens. 

OIRA also continues to respect and 

pursue longstanding principles and 

practices of centralized regulatory 

review. These principles, set out in 

President Clinton’s Executive Order 

12866, emphasize that agencies should 

regulate only when necessary, when 

consistent with law, and in a manner 

that produces real net benefits for the 

American people. The Administration 

also takes seriously retrospective review 

and the imperative to evaluate the 

actual costs and benefits of existing 

regulations. The President’s two-for-one 

directive and the creation of a regulatory 

cap requires that agencies eliminate 

unnecessary or excessively burdensome 

rules as part of their regulatory 

planning. 

OIRA works with agencies to promote 

sound science and economic analysis. 

Agencies should develop improved 

regulatory impact analyses of the costs 

and benefits of their actions, relying on 

reasonable assumptions and public 

input. In some instances, analysis will 

require revisiting previous regulatory 

impact assessments to ensure that they 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1670 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

reflect the best possible estimate of costs 

and benefits. Moving forward, it 

requires rigor and fairness in assessing 

the actual impacts of new regulatory 

and deregulatory policies. 

This Administration’s regulatory 

philosophy also emphasizes the rule of 

law, including constitutional, statutory, 

and procedural limits on administrative 

action. For instance, OIRA requires 

agencies to indicate the legal authority 

for regulatory actions, whether from a 

statute or judicial order. We look closely 

at planned regulatory and deregulatory 

actions to ensure that they follow the 

law and the correct administrative 

procedures. 

Moreover, the Administration has 

reinforced the importance of fair notice 

and due process. In particular, this 

means agencies should closely examine 

their use of sub-regulatory actions, such 

as guidance documents, enforcement 

manuals, interpretive rules, ‘‘FAQs,’’ 

and the like. Such documents can serve 

an important role in explaining existing 

statutory or regulatory requirements; 

however, they should not be used to 

impose new or additional legal 

obligations or requirements. 

Accordingly, this Administration has 

encouraged agencies to take a close look 

at existing guidance documents to 

assess whether some of them should be 

withdrawn or modified, or whether 

their requirements should go through a 

process of notice and comment 

rulemaking. Limiting guidance to its 

intended purpose of clarifying existing 

law rather than making new law will 

provide greater transparency about the 

regulatory process and ensure that 

regulated entities and the public have 

notice and an opportunity to comment 

on significant changes in regulatory 

requirements. 

These specific policies rest on 

foundational principles of the proper 

role of the Executive Branch in our 

constitutional system of separation of 

powers. Agencies should administer the 

law found in statutes, not make new 

law, and they should respect the 

judicial role in enforcing limits on 

administrative power. Moreover, 

faithful execution of the laws requires 

the Administration be directly 

accountable for its regulatory policies 

and ensure that regulations and their 

enforcement benefit the American 

people. 

2018 Regulatory Priorities 

Reducing regulatory burdens. One of 

the primary priorities reflected in the 

2017 Regulatory Plan is the reduction of 

regulatory burdens. Accordingly, in 

2018, across the Administration 

agencies anticipate eliminating and 

streamlining approximately three 

regulations for each new one imposed. 

Moreover, agencies are set to 

substantially reduce overall regulatory 

costs. This Regulatory Plan reflects a 

new direction that recognizes the costs 

of accumulated regulatory burdens and 

looks for ways to reduce those burdens 

by modifying or eliminating regulations; 

revising or eliminating guidance 

documents; and streamlining 

information collections. 

Agencies have taken several 

approaches to identifying burdens that 

can be minimized or eliminated. 

Regulatory reform task forces have 

brought together political leadership 

and career staff to review and revise 

existing regulations. Agencies have 

sought extensive public comments, both 

through written submissions and public 

listening sessions. Other agencies have 

studied specific problems of 

overregulation and drafted 

comprehensive reports evaluating 

existing regulations. Based on extensive 

experience across administrations, 

OIRA has also worked with the agencies 

to identify potential areas for reform. 

These efforts by the agencies, in 

consultation with the public and OIRA, 

have yielded notable progress, as 

reflected in the agency Regulatory Plans 

that follow. 

Efficacious new regulations. Agencies 

have also planned new regulatory 

initiatives required by law or by a 

compelling public need. These actions 

should be guided by good regulatory 

practices, which include regulating only 

when necessary, carefully studying 

lawful alternatives, and engaging with 

the public and affected parties. 

Moreover, when proceeding with 

regulations, agencies should rely on 

sound science and thorough cost-benefit 

analysis. Unless specifically required by 

law, agencies should regulate only when 

the benefits substantially outweigh the 

costs, and OIRA will carefully examine 

each proposed regulation to ensure that 

it is the least burdensome regulatory 

approach that meets the relevant 

statutory standards. 

Transparency and public access. This 

Administration remains committed to 

transparency in the regulatory process, 

public access to information about 

regulatory policy, and public 

participation in proposed rules. OIRA is 

working with agencies to ensure that 

items listed on the Plan and Agenda 

reflect carefully considered and current 

policy priorities. In addition, with this 

Regulatory Plan and Fall Agenda, OIRA 

has taken a number of steps to improve 

transparency. For instance, we have 

published the ‘‘Inactive List,’’ a list of 

regulations agencies might pursue in the 

future. Although maintained for many 

years, the Inactive list was not 

previously available to the public. 

Publishing the Inactive List online 

allows the public a more complete 

picture of anticipated agency actions. 

OIRA has also implemented enhanced 

categorization and online search 

capabilities for the Agenda, so the 

public can identify actions anticipated 

to be regulatory or deregulatory and 

other detailed information. We hope 

these enhancements will further public 

understanding of proposed regulatory 

actions and encourage participation in 

the regulatory process. 

Conclusion 

The agency plans that follow push 

against the inertia of steadily expanding 

regulatory burdens and represent this 

Administration’s commitment to 

reducing regulations that no longer 

benefit our society. The plans also send 

a clear message that the public can 

invest and plan for the future without 

the looming threat of burdensome and 

unnecessary new regulations. OIRA 

looks forward to working with the 

agencies and all interested stakeholders 

to deliver meaningful regulatory reform 

to the American people. 

Neomi Rao, 

Administrator, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

1 ........................ National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard ................................................. 0581–AD54 Proposed Rule Stage. 

2 ........................ NOP: Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices ....................................................... 0581–AD75 Proposed Rule Stage. 

3 ........................ Lacey Act Implementation Plan: De Minimis Exception and Composite Articles .... 0579–AD44 Proposed Rule Stage. 

4 ........................ National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures ................................. 0579–AC60 Final Rule Stage. 

5 ........................ Animal Welfare; Establishing De Minimis Exemptions From Licensing .................. 0579–AD99 Final Rule Stage. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1671 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE—Continued 

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

6 ........................ Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium Requirements.0584–AE53 Final Rule Stage. 

7 ........................ Modernization of Swine Slaughter Inspection .......................................................... 0583–AD62 Proposed Rule Stage. 

8 ........................ Administrative Issuances; Involving the Public in the Formulation of Forest Service Directives (Rule).0596–AC65 Final Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

9 ........................ Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Geophysical Surveys in the Gulf of Mexico.

0648–BB38 Proposed Rule Stage. 

10 ...................... Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported Fishing; Fisheries Enforcement; High Seas 

Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act.

0648–BG11 Proposed Rule Stage. 

11 ...................... Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Threatened Caribbean and Indo-Pacific Reef-Building Corals.0648–BG26 Proposed Rule Stage. 

12 ...................... Commerce Trusted Trader Program ........................................................................ 0648–BG51 Proposed Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

13 ...................... Earned Value Management Applicability (DFARS Case 2015–D038) .................... 0750–AJ10 Proposed Rule Stage. 

14 ...................... Contractor Purchasing System Review Threshold (DFARS Case 2017–D038) ..... 0750–AJ48 Proposed Rule Stage.

15 ...................... Brand Name or Equal (DFARS Case 2017–D040) ................................................. 0750–AJ50 Proposed Rule Stage. 

16 ...................... Amendment to Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ Program (DFARS Case 2016–D011) .................... 0750–AJ05 Final Rule Stage. 

17 ...................... Use of the Government Property Clause (DFARS Case 2015–D035) .................... 0750–AJ11 Final Rule Stage. 

18 ...................... Repeal of Independent Research and Development Technical Interchange 

(DFARS Case 2017–D041).

0750–AJ51 Final Rule Stage. 

19 ...................... Establishment of TRICARE Select and Other TRICARE Reforms .......................... 0720–AB70 Final Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

20 ...................... Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.1870–AA14 Proposed Rule Stage. 

21 ...................... Borrower Defense and Related Issues .................................................................... 1840–AD26 Proposed Rule Stage. 

22 ...................... Program Integrity; Gainful Employment ................................................................... 1840–AD31 Proposed Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

23 ...................... Energy Conservation Standards and Definition for General Service Lamps .......... 1904–AD09 Proposed Rule Stage. 

24 ...................... Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Conventional Cooking Products .. 1904–AD15 Proposed Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage . 

25 ...................... HIPAA Privacy Rule: Presumption of Good Faith of HealthCare Providers ............ 0945–AA09 Proposed Rule Stage. 

26 ...................... Health Information Technology: Interoperability and Certification Enhancements .. 0955–AA01 Proposed Rule Stage. 

27 ...................... Certification of Opioid Treatment Programs ............................................................. 0930–AA27 Proposed Rule Stage. 

28 ...................... Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records ................................... 0930–AA26 Final Rule Stage. 

29 ...................... Mammography Quality Standards Act; Regulatory Amendments ........................... 0910–AH04 Proposed Rule Stage. 

30 ...................... Medical Device De Novo Classification Process ..................................................... 0910–AH53 Proposed Rule Stage. 

31 ...................... Requirement for Access or Safe Use of Certain Nonprescription Drug Products ... 0910–AH62 Proposed Rule Stage. 

32 ...................... Medication Guides; Patient Medication Information ................................................. 0910–AH68 Proposed Rule Stage. 

33 ...................... Format and Content of Reports Intended to Demonstrate Substantial Equivalence 0910–AH89 Proposed Rule Stage. 

34 ...................... 340B Drug Pricing Program Ceiling Price and Manufacturer Civil Monetary Penalties Regulation.0906–AB12 Proposed Rule Stage. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1672 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES—Continued 

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage . 

35 ...................... National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury 

Table.

0906–AB14 Proposed Rule Stage. 

36 ...................... Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs for Contract Year 2019 (CMS–4182–P).0938–AT08 Proposed Rule Stage. 

37 ...................... Regulatory Provisions to Promote Program Efficiency, Transparency, and Burden 

Reduction (CMS–3346–P).

0938–AT23 Proposed Rule Stage. 

38 ...................... Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System for Acute Care Hospitals and the 

Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and FY 2019 Rates 

(CMS–1694–P).

0938–AT27 Proposed Rule Stage. 

39 ...................... Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities: Regulatory Provisions to Promote 

Program Efficiency, Transparency, and Burden Reduction (CMS–3347–P).

0938–AT36 Proposed Rule Stage. 

40 ...................... Medicaid and CHIP Managed Care (CMS–2408–P) ............................................... 0938–AT40 Proposed Rule Stage. 

41 ...................... Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System .................................... 0970–AC72 Prerule Stage. 

42 ...................... Head Start Service Duration Requirements ............................................................. 0970–AC73 Proposed Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

43 ...................... Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public Charge Grounds ................................... 1615–AA22 Proposed Rule Stage. 

44 ...................... Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking To File H–1B Petitions on Behalf of Aliens Subject to Numerical Limitations.1615–AB71 Proposed Rule Stage. 

45 ...................... Rescission of International Entrepreneur Rule ........................................................ 1615–AC04 Proposed Rule Stage. 

46 ...................... EB–5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program ............................................... 1615–AC11 Proposed Rule Stage. 

47 ...................... Strengthening the H–1B Nonimmigrant Visa Classification Program ...................... 1615–AC13 Proposed Rule Stage. 

48 ...................... Removing H–4 Dependent Spouses from the Class of Aliens Eligible for Employment Authorization.1615–AC15 Proposed Rule Stage. 

49 ...................... EB–5 Immigrant Investor Program Modernization ................................................... 1615–AC07 Final Rule Stage. 

50 ...................... Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) .................................................................... 1651–AB04 Final Rule Stage. 

51 ...................... Collection of Biometric Data Upon Entry to and Exit From the United States ........ 1651–AB12 Final Rule Stage. 

52 ...................... Implementation of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) at U.S. 

Land Borders—Automation of CBP Form I–94W.

1651–AB14 Final Rule Stage. 

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

54 ...................... Amending Vetting Requirements for Employees With Access to a Security Identification Display Area (SIDA).1652–AA70 Proposed Rule Stage. 

55 ...................... Flight Training for Aliens and Other Designated Individuals; Security Awareness 

Training for Flight School Employees.

1652–AA35 Final Rule Stage. 

56 ...................... Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport: Enhanced Security Procedures for 

Certain Operations.

1652–AA49 Final Rule Stage. 

57 ...................... Security Training for Surface Transportation Employees ........................................ 1652–AA55 Final Rule Stage. 

58 ...................... Adjusting Program Fees for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program ............... 1653–AA74 Proposed Rule Stage. 

59 ...................... Apprehension, Processing, Care and Custody of Alien Minors ............................... 1653–AA75 Proposed Rule Stage. 

60 ...................... Practical Training Reform ......................................................................................... 1653–AA76 Proposed Rule Stage. 

61 ...................... Factors Considered When Evaluating a Governor’s Request for Individual Assistance for a Major Disaster.1660–AA83 Final Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

62 ...................... Project Approval for Single Family Condominium (FR–5715) ................................. 2502–AJ30 Final Rule Stage. 

63 ...................... Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (FR–6057) .................... 2577–AD03 Proposed Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

64 ...................... Rescission of the 2015 BLM Hydraulic Fracturing Rule .......................................... 1004–AE52 Final Rule Stage. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1673 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

65 ...................... Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program Regulations ............................................. 1121–AA85 Final Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

66 ...................... Request for Information Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, 

Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees.

1235–AA20 Proposed Rule Stage. 

67 ...................... Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration, Amendment of Regulations.1205–AB85 Proposed Rule Stage. 

68 ...................... Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses .......................................................... 1218–AD17 Proposed Rule Stage. 

69 ...................... Occupational Exposure to Beryllium ........................................................................ 1218–AB76 Final Rule Stage. 

70 ...................... Standards Improvement Project IV .......................................................................... 1218–AC67 Final Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

71 ...................... Pilot Records Database (HR 5900) .......................................................................... 2120–AK31 Proposed Rule Stage. 

72 ...................... Orbital Debris Mitigation Methods for Launch Vehicle Upper Stages (Orbital Debris).2120–AK81 Proposed Rule Stage. 

73 ...................... Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Over People ............................................. 2120–AK85 Proposed Rule Stage. 

74 ...................... Pilot Professional Development ............................................................................... 2120–AJ87 Final Rule Stage. 

75 ...................... Transport Airplane Fuel Tank and System Lightning Protection ............................. 2120–AK24 Final Rule Stage. 

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

77 ...................... Rear Seat Belt Reminder System ............................................................................ 2127–AL37 Proposed Rule Stage. 

78 ...................... Passenger Car and Light Truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards 

MYs 2022–2025.

2127–AL76 Proposed Rule Stage. 

79 ...................... Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Amendments ........................................... 2130–AC46 Final Rule Stage. 

80 ...................... Private Investment Project Procedures .................................................................... 2132–AB27 Proposed Rule Stage. 

81 ...................... Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans ............................................................. 2132–AB23 Final Rule Stage. 

82 ...................... Pipeline Safety: Class Location Requirements ........................................................ 2137–AF29 Prerule Stage. 

83 ...................... Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines ............................................ 2137–AE66 Final Rule Stage. 

84 ...................... Pipeline Safety: Gas Transmission .......................................................................... 2137–AE72 Final Rule Stage. 

85 ...................... Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill Response Plans and Information Sharing for HighHazard Flammable Trains.2137–AF08 Final Rule Stage. 

86 ...................... Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Safety Provisions for Lithium Batteries Transported by Aircraft.2137–AF20 Final Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

87 ...................... Prosthetic and Rehabilitative Items and Services .................................................... 2900–AP46 Proposed Rule Stage. 

88 ...................... Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation to Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014–V005, Parts 812 and 813).2900–AP58 Proposed Rule Stage. 

89 ...................... Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation to Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014–V004, Parts 811 and 832).2900–AP81 Proposed Rule Stage. 

90 ...................... Beneficiary Travel ..................................................................................................... 2900–AP89 Proposed Rule Stage. 

91 ...................... Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation to Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2015–V010).2900–AQ02 Proposed Rule Stage. 

92 ...................... Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation to Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principle (VAAR Case 2016–V002, Parts 829, 846 and 847).2900–AQ04 Proposed Rule Stage. 

93 ...................... Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation to Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principle (VAAR Case 2016–V003, Parts 844 and 845).2900–AQ05 Proposed Rule Stage. 

94 ...................... Authority of Health Care Providers to Practice Telehealth ...................................... 2900–AQ06 Proposed Rule Stage. 

95 ...................... Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation to Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014–V008).2900–AQ18 Proposed Rule Stage. 

96 ...................... Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation to Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014–V006).2900–AQ19 Proposed Rule Stage. 

97 ...................... Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation to Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2015–V011).2900–AQ20 Proposed Rule Stage. 

98 ...................... Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation to Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2015–V012).2900–AQ21 Proposed Rule Stage. 

99 ...................... Per Diem Paid to States for Care of Eligible Veterans in State Homes ................. 2900–AO88 Final Rule Stage. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1674 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS—Continued 

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

100 .................... Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation to Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014–V001, Parts 803, 814 and 822).2900–AP50 Final Rule Stage. 

101 .................... Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation to Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014–V002, Parts 816 and 828).2900–AP82 Final Rule Stage. 

102 .................... Reimbursement for Emergency Treatment .............................................................. 2900–AQ08 Final Rule Stage. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

103 .................... State Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Electric Utility 

Generating Units.

2060–AT67 Prerule Stage. 

104 .................... Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and 

Modified Sources Reconsideration.

2060–AT54 Proposed Rule Stage. 

105 .................... Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators Rule; Reconsideration of the 

Minimum Age Requirements.

2070–AK37 Proposed Rule Stage. 

106 .................... Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard; Reconsideration of Several 

Requirements.

2070–AK43 Proposed Rule Stage. 

107 .................... Clean Water Act Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention ...................................... 2050–AG87 Proposed Rule Stage. 

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

Residues From Electric Utilities: Remand Rule.

2050–AG88 Proposed Rule Stage. 

109 .................... Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs 

Under the Clean Air Act; Reconsideration of Amendments.

2050–AG95 Proposed Rule Stage. 

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

Revisions.

2040–AF15 Proposed Rule Stage. 

111 .................... Second Action: Definition of ’Waters of the United States’ ..................................... 2040–AF75 Proposed Rule Stage. 

112 .................... Renewable Fuel Volume Standards for 2018 and Biomass Based Diesel Volume 

(BBD) for 2019.

2060–AT04 Final Rule Stage. 

113 .................... Repeal of Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: 

Electric Utility Generating Units.

2060–AT55 Final Rule Stage. 

114 .................... Financial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA Section 108(b) for Classes of Facilities in the Hardrock Mining Industry.2050–AG61 Final Rule Stage. 

115 .................... Definition of ‘‘Waters of the United States’’—Recodification of Pre-existing Rule .. 2040–AF74 Final Rule Stage. 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

116 .................... Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Process ........................................ 3046–AB00 Proposed Rule Stage. 

117 .................... Amendments to Regulations Under the Americans With Disabilities Act ................ 3046–AB10 Proposed Rule Stage. 

118 .................... Amendments to Regulations Under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination 

Act of 2008.

3046–AB11 Proposed Rule Stage. 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

119 .................... SBA Express Loan Program; Export Express Program .......................................... 3245–AG74 Proposed Rule Stage. 

120 .................... Women-Owned Small Business and Economically Disadvantaged WomenOwned Small Business—Certification.3245–AG75 Proposed Rule Stage. 

121 .................... Office of Women’s Business Ownership: Women’s Business Center Program ...... 3245–AG02 Final Rule Stage. 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

122 .................... Investigative Policies for Organizational Representative Payees ............................ 0960–AH79 Prerule Stage. 

123 .................... Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Musculoskeletal Disorders (3318P) .......... 0960–AG38 Proposed Rule Stage. 

124 .................... Update to the Comprehensive Medical Listings—Revised Medical Criteria for 

Evaluating Digestive Disorders, Cardiovascular Disorders, and Skin Disorders.

0960–AG65 Proposed Rule Stage. 

125 .................... Minimum Monthly Withholding Amount for Recovery of Title II Benefit Overpayments (3752P).0960–AH42 Proposed Rule Stage. 

126 .................... Removing Ability to Communicate in English as a Vocational Factor ..................... 0960–AH86 Proposed Rule Stage. 

127 .................... Use of Electronic Payroll Data To Improve Program Administration ....................... 0960–AH88 Proposed Rule Stage. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1675 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION—Continued 

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

128 .................... Newer and Stronger Penalties (Conforming Changes) ........................................... 0960–AH91 Proposed Rule Stage. 

129 .................... Privacy Act Exemption: Personnel Security and Suitability Program Files ............. 0960–AH97 Proposed Rule Stage. 

130 .................... References to Social Security and Medicare in Electronic Communications .......... 0960–AI04 Proposed Rule Stage. 

131 .................... Availability of Information and Records to the Public .............................................. 0960–AI07 Proposed Rule Stage. 

132 .................... Privacy Act Exemption: Social Security Administration Violence and Reporting 

System (SSAvers).

0960–AI08 Proposed Rule Stage. 

133 .................... Redeterminations When There is a Reason To Believe Fraud or Similar Fault 

Was Involved in an Individual’s Application for Benefits.

0960–AI10 Proposed Rule Stage. 

134 .................... Changes to the Requirements for Claimant Representation ................................... 0960–AI22 Proposed Rule Stage. 

135 .................... Making Permanent the Attorney Advisor Program .................................................. 0960–AI23 Final Rule Stage. 

DOD/GSA/NASA (FAR) 

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

136 .................... Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); FAR Case 2018–002, Protecting Life in 

Global Health Assistance.

9000–AN62 Proposed Rule Stage. 

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION

Sequence no. Title Regulation 

identifier no. Rulemaking stage 

137 .................... Class II Minimum Internal Control Standards .......................................................... 3141–AA60 Proposed Rule Stage. 

138 .................... Minimum Internal Control Standards ........................................................................ 3141–AA55 Final Rule Stage. 

BILLING CODE 6820–27–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Fall 2017 Statement of Regulatory 

Priorities 

Regulatory reform is one of the 

cornerstones of the Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA) strategy for 

creating a culture of consistent, efficient 

service to our customers, while reducing 

burdens and improving efficiency. 

USDA’s regulatory reform efforts, 

combined with other reform efforts, will 

make it easier to invest, produce, and 

build in rural America, which will lead 

to the creation of jobs and enhanced 

economic prosperity. To achieve results, 

USDA is guided by the following 

comprehensive set of priorities through 

which the Department, its employees, 

and external partners will work to 

identify and eliminate regulatory and 

administrative barriers and improve 

business processes to enhance program 

delivery and reduce burdens on 

program participants. These priorities 

include: 

➢ Agricultural and Rural Prosperity 

Task Force: Executive Order 13790— 

Promoting Agriculture and Rural 

Prosperity in America established the 

inter-Departmental Task Force chaired 

by Secretary Perdue to identify 

opportunities for the Federal 

government to work more effectively 

together for the benefit of rural 

Americans. The Task Force is 

examining barriers to economic 

prosperity in rural America and how 

innovation, infrastructure, and 

technology can assist agriculture and 

help rural communities thrive. The Task 

Force is examining regulations across 

the Federal government to identify 

obsolete, inefficient, or unnecessary 

regulations that impede economic 

growth. 

➢ Regulatory Reform Task Force 

(RRTF): In response to Executive Order 

13777—Enforcing the Regulatory 

Reform Agenda and Executive Order 

13771—Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs, which set 

forth expectations for reducing the 

regulatory burden on the public, the 

Department has established an internal 

RRTF to identify outdated regulations 

for elimination and administrative 

processes for streamlining. The USDA 

RRTF is comprised of senior agency 

managers representing all the major 

missions of the Department. USDA is 

also soliciting public comments on 

recommended reforms through July 

2018. 

➢ Farm Bill Reform: As the 2014 

Farm Bill will soon expire, the 

Department is evaluating past practices 

to identify opportunities for policy and 

technical improvements, and to make 

research available so Congress can make 

facts-based, data-driven decisions to 

ensure a robust agricultural economy 

and increased opportunities in rural 

areas. Reauthorization of the Farm Bill 

provides an opportunity to introduce 

program reforms to eliminate obsolete 

and underperforming programs, 

simplify the administration of programs, 

and improve program outcomes. 

➢ Organizational Reform: To ensure 

that USDA’s programs, agencies, and 

offices best serve the Department’s 

customers, USDA is implementing 

organizational changes that are targeted 

at improving customer service. Through 

these reforms, USDA is breaking down 

organizational barriers that have 

impeded the Department’s ability to 

most effectively and efficiently support 

its customers across the Nation and 

around the world. Examples of the 

organizational reforms include the 

establishment of an Under Secretary for 

Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs 

to ensure that American agriculture 

benefits from new and expanded trade 

opportunities and the consolidation of 

administrative functions at the mission 

area level to eliminate inefficiencies. 

These reforms and strategies allow the 

Department to best support the needs of 

its customers. Through the 

implementation of these improvements, 

USDA will be better positioned to 

remove obstacles, and give agricultural 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1676 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

producers every opportunity to prosper 

and feed a growing world population. 

These improvements support the 

accomplishment of USDA’s mission to 

provide leadership on agriculture, food, 

natural resources, rural prosperity, 

nutrition, and related issues through 

fact-based, data-driven, and customerfocused decisions. 

The Department’s fall 2017 Statement 

of Regulatory Priorities reflects the 

Administration’s commitment to 

regulatory reform and USDA’s rigorous 

implementation of Executive Orders 

13777 and 13771. 

Executive Order 13777 

Executive Order 13777 establishes a 

Federal policy to lower regulatory 

burdens on the American people by 

implementing and enforcing regulatory 

reform. The RRTF reviewed proposed, 

pending and existing regulations to 

determine the deregulatory and 

regulatory actions to include in the 2017 

fall Regulatory Agenda. The RRTF 

identified over 270 reform initiatives, 

including 101 deregulatory actions that 

will save the public from unnecessary 

regulatory burdens. These actions were 

further evaluated to determine which 

ones should be made a priority based on 

the impact of the proposals and the 

ability to complete the action in FY 

2018. 

Executive Order 13777 also directed 

the Department to seek input from 

entities significantly affected by Federal 

regulations. To satisfy this requirement, 

the Department published a Request for 

Information (RFI) in the Federal 

Register on July 17, 2017, seeking 

public input on identifying regulatory 

reform initiatives (82 FR 32649). The 

RFI asked the public to identify 

regulations, guidance documents, or any 

other policy documents or 

administrative processes that need 

reform, as well as ideas on how to 

modify, streamline, expand, or repeal 

such items. While comments to the 

notice do not bind USDA to any further 

actions, all submissions will be 

reviewed and will significantly inform 

actions to repeal, replace, or modify 

existing regulations. 

Executive Order 13771 

Executive Order 13771 directs 

agencies to eliminate two existing 

regulations for every new regulation 

while limiting the total costs associated 

with an agency’s regulations. 

Specifically, it requires a regulatory 

two-for-one wherein an agency must 

propose the elimination of two existing 

regulations for every new regulation it 

publishes. Moreover, the costs 

associated with the new regulation must 

be completely offset by cost savings 

brought about by deregulation. 

The Department’s 2017 fall Regulatory 

Agenda reflects the Department’s 

commitment to regulatory reform and 

continues USDA’s rigorous 

implementation of Executive Order 

13771. The regulatory agenda identifies 

76 rules, of which 44 rules are 

deregulatory. The remaining 32 rules are 

not subject to the offsetting or 

deregulatory requirements of Executive 

Order 13771. Of the total number of 

deregulatory actions, USDA has 

identified 29 final rules that will be 

completed in FY 2018 and will result in 

a cost savings. Although we have not 

estimated the savings for 26 of these 

actions, they are considered 

deregulatory actions that USDA will 

implement to meet the direction that an 

agency issues twice as many Executive 

Order 13771 deregulatory actions as 

new Executive Order 13771 regulatory 

actions. 

USDA’s 2017 fall Statement of 

Regulatory Priorities was developed to 

lower regulatory burdens on the 

American people by implementing and 

enforcing regulatory reform. These 

regulatory priorities will contribute to 

the mission of the Department, the 

achievement of the long-term goals the 

Department aims to accomplish. 

Highlights of how the Department’s 

regulatory reform efforts contribute to 

the accomplishment of the Department’s 

strategic goals include the following: 

A primary goal of the Department is 

to ensure that programs are delivered 

efficiently, effectively, with integrity, 

and a focus on customer service: To 

achieve this, USDA is working to 

leverage the strength and talent of 

USDA employees with continued 

dedication to data-driven enterprise 

solutions through collaborative 

governance and human capital 

management strategies centered on 

accountability and professional 

development. USDA will reduce 

regulatory and administrative burdens 

hindering agencies from reaching the 

greatest number of stakeholders. 

Improved customer service and 

employee engagement within USDA 

will create a more effective and 

accessible organization for all 

stakeholders. 

➢ Streamline and expand public 

engagement in the development and 

modification of national forest 

management policies: This final rule 

will provide greater opportunity for 

public participation in the formulation 

of standards, criteria and guidelines 

applicable to Forest Service programs 

by: (1) Expanding the scope of 

documents subject to such review; (2) 

utilizing technologies that were not 

available when these regulations were 

last amended in 1984 to ensure a 

broader swath of the interested public is 

notified of opportunities to review and 

comment on policy changes; and (3) 

increasing the efficiency of the directive 

revision process to reduce 

administrative costs and permit more 

frequent and timely updates. For more 

information about this rule, see RIN 

0596–AC65. 

➢ Streamline National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) implementing 

procedures: The Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and 

the Forest Service are adjusting 

procedures that set out the NEPA 

implementing procedures for each 

agency based on accumulated 

experience of the agencies. APHIS will 

issue a proposed rule to incorporate 

scientific data accumulated since 1995 

on the environmental impact of covered 

actions, clarify categories of action for 

which APHIS would normally complete 

an environmental impact statement or 

an environmental assessment for an 

action, expand the list of actions subject 

to categorical exclusion from further 

environmental documentation, and set 

out an environmental documentation 

process for use in emergencies. For 

more information about this rule, see 

RIN 0579–AC60. The Forest Service will 

publish a proposed rule to eliminate 

outdated requirements and revise 

aspects of the analysis framework, 

scoping and public engagement, and 

determining significance. For more 

information about this rule, see RIN 

0596–AD31. 

➢ Establish de minimis exemptions 

for applying for animal licenses and 

renewals under the Animal Welfare Act 

(AWA): The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service will issue a final rule 

to exempt entities with a small number 

of animals from the requirement to 

obtain an AWA license. This action will 

reduce regulatory burden on small 

entities while also allowing APHIS to 

target enforcement efforts where they 

are most needed. For more information 

about this rule, see RIN 0579–AD99. 

Coupled with this de minimis rule, 

APHIS is considering a proposed rule 

that would promote compliance with 

the AWA by (1) reducing licensing fees 

and (2) strengthening existing 

safeguards that prevent an individual 

whose license has been suspended or 

revoked, or who has a history of 

noncompliance, from obtaining a 

license or working with regulated 

animals. For more information about 

this rule, see RIN 0579–AE35 

➢ Establish de minimis levels for 

enforcing Lacey Act requirements: The 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1677 

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008 amended the Lacey Act to provide, 

among other things, that importers 

submit a declaration at the time of 

importation for certain plants and plant 

products. The declaration requirements 

of the Lacey Act became effective on 

December 15, 2008, and enforcement of 

those requirements is being phased in. 

APHIS will propose an exception to the 

declaration requirements for products 

containing composite plant materials, 

and establish an exception to the 

declaration requirement for products 

containing a minimal amount of plant 

materials. Both actions would relieve 

the burden on importers, while 

continuing to ensure that the 

declaration requirement fulfills the 

purposes of the Lacey Act. For more 

information about this rule, see RIN 

0579–AD44. 

➢ Reduce the time it takes to issue 

housing loans. The Housing 

Opportunity through Modernization Act 

of 2016 permits the Secretary to delegate 

authority to approve and execute single 

family housing loan guarantees directly 

to preferred lenders, those lenders 

whose loans have performed well and 

who have demonstrated strong 

underwriting capability. To take 

advantage of this authority, the Rural 

Housing Service (RHS) will propose to 

delegate loan approval authority to 

preferred lenders participating in the 

Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan 

Program. Preferred lenders would be 

responsible for certifying that both the 

applicant and property meet all program 

requirements and eligible for the 

guarantee. The revisions are expected to 

shorten the loan approval and 

processing time by up to 12 days. For 

more information about this rule, see 

RIN 0575–AD08 

The Department is making it a priority 

to maximize the ability of American 

agricultural producers to prosper by 

feeding and clothing the world: A strong 

and prosperous agricultural sector is 

essential to the well-being of the overall 

U.S. economy. America’s farmers and 

ranchers ensure a safe and reliable food 

and fuel supply and support job growth 

and economic development. To 

maintain a strong agricultural economy, 

USDA will support farmers in starting 

and maintaining profitable farm and 

ranch businesses, as well as offer 

support to producers affected by natural 

disasters. The Department will continue 

to work to create new markets and 

support a competitive agricultural 

system by reducing barriers that inhibit 

agricultural opportunities and economic 

growth. 

➢ Withdrawal of Proposed Rule 

Regarding the Introduction of Certain 

Genetically Engineered Organisms: 

APHIS withdrew its proposed rule to 

revise the Department’s biotechnology 

regulations and will re-engage with 

stakeholders to determine the most 

effective, science-based approach for 

regulating the products of modern 

biotechnology while protecting plant 

health. APHIS issued the proposed rule 

on January 19, 2017, and received 208 

public comments. APHIS will maintain 

and follow current biotechnology 

regulations for safely handling the 

importation, interstate movement, and 

environmental release of genetically 

engineered organisms as we re-engage 

with stakeholders to determine the most 

effective approach for regulating these 

products. For more information about 

this rule, see RIN 0579–AE15. 

➢ Implement the National 

Bioengineered Food Disclosure 

Standard: This action is mandated by 

the National Bioengineered Food 

Disclosure Standard (Law), which 

requires USDA to develop a national 

standard and the procedures for its 

implementation within two years of the 

Law’s enactment. Pursuant to the law, 

AMS will propose requirements that, if 

finalized, will serve as a national 

mandatory bioengineered food 

disclosure standard for bioengineered 

food and food that may be 

bioengineered. For more information 

about this rule, see RIN 0581–AD54. 

➢ Withdrawal of the Scope of 

Sections 202(a) and (b) of the Packers 

and Stockyards Act (Act) interim final 

rule: On December 20, 2016, the Grain 

Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 

Administration (GIPSA) published an 

interim rule addressing the scope of 

sections 202(a) and (b) of the Act, which 

enumerate unlawful practices under the 

Act. The interim final rule was 

originally scheduled to become effective 

on February 21, 2017. The effective date 

of the final rule was delayed twice until 

October 19, 2017. On April 12, 2017, 

GIPSA published a proposed rule 

requesting comments whether the final 

rule should be allowed to go into effect. 

On October 18, 2017, GIPSA published 

a final rule withdrawing the December 

20, 2016, interim final rule, ending the 

regulatory action. The interim final rule 

was found to conflict with case law in 

several U.S. Court of Appeals Circuits, 

which Congress has declined to 

overturn through legislation. 

Additionally, the interim final rule was 

improperly issued without adequate 

notice and opportunity for comment. 

For more information about this rule, 

see RIN 0580–AB28. 

➢ Re-evaluate the Organic Livestock 

and Poultry Program final rule: Because 

of significant policy and legal issues 

within the final rule (0581–AD44), the 

public was asked to comment on which 

of the following four actions they 

believed would be best for USDA to take 

with regard to the disposition of the 

final rule (0581–AD44). The options 

were: Let the rule become effective on 

November 14, 2017; Suspend the rule 

indefinitely; Delay the effective date of 

the rule further, beyond the effective 

date of November 14, 2017; Withdraw 

the rule so that USDA would not pursue 

implementation of the rule. Comments 

were received on all four options. Based 

on the content of the comments received 

and the evaluation those comments 

generated, the option to delay the 

effective date further was chosen. For 

more information about this rule, see 

RIN 0581–AD74. USDA plans to 

propose the final disposition of 0581– 

AD44 in December 2017. For more 

information about this rule, see RIN 

0581–AD75. 

➢ Updating plant pest regulations: 

APHIS is planning to update regulations 

regarding the movement of plant pests 

to establish criteria governing the 

movement and environmental release of 

biological control organisms, and to 

establish regulations allowing the 

importation and movement in interstate 

commerce of certain types of plant pests 

without restriction by granting 

exceptions from permitting 

requirements for those pests. These 

updates would include the movement of 

soil. This action would clarify the 

factors that would be considered when 

assessing the risks associated with the 

movement of certain organisms and 

facilitates the movement of regulated 

organisms and articles in a manner that 

also protects U.S. agriculture. For more 

information about this rule, see RIN 

0579–AC98. 

➢ Establishing a performance 

standard for authorizing the 

importation and interstate movement of 

fruits and vegetables: APHIS would 

broaden the existing performance 

standard to provide for consideration of 

all new fruits and vegetables for 

importation into the United States using 

a notice-based process rather than 

through proposed and final rules. 

Likewise, APHIS would propose an 

equivalent revision of the performance 

standard governing the interstate 

movements of fruits and vegetables from 

Hawaii and the U.S. territories (Guam, 

Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and the 

removal of commodity-specific 

phytosanitary requirements from those 

regulations. This action will allow for 

the consideration of requests to 

authorize the importation or interstate 

movement of new fruits and vegetables 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1678 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

in a manner that enables a more flexible 

and responsive regulatory approach to 

evolving pest situations in both the 

United States and exporting countries. It 

will not, however, alter the sciencebased process in which the risk 

associated with importation or interstate 

movement of a given fruit or vegetable 

is evaluated or the manner in which 

risks associated with the importation or 

interstate movement of a fruit or 

vegetable are mitigated. For more 

information about this rule, see RIN 

0579–AD71. 

Providing all Americans access to a 

safe, nutritious, and secure food supply 

is USDA’s most important 

responsibility, and it is one undertaken 

with great seriousness. USDA has 

critical roles in preventing foodborne 

illness and protecting public health, 

while ensuring Americans have access 

to food and healthful diet. The 

Department will continue to prevent 

contamination and limit foodborne 

illness by expanding its modernization 

of food inspection systems, and USDA’s 

research, education, and extension 

programs will continue to provide 

information, tools, and technologies 

about the causes of foodborne illness 

and its prevention. USDA will continue 

to develop partnerships that support 

best practices in implementing effective 

nutrition assistance programs that 

ensure eligible populations have access 

to programs that support their food 

needs. 

➢ Increase flexibilities provided to 

school lunch program operators in 

meeting nutrition requirements: The 

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) plans 

to issue an interim final rule that 

provides flexibilities consistent with 

those currently available to Program 

operators participating in the Child 

Nutrition Programs beginning in School 

Year 2018–2019. These flexibilities 

include: (1) Providing operators the 

option to offer flavored, low-fat (1 

percent fat) milk in the Child Nutrition 

Programs; (2) extending the State 

agencies’ option to allow individual 

school food authorities to include grains 

that are not whole grain-rich in the 

weekly menu offered under the National 

School Lunch Program (NSLP) and 

School Breakfast Program (SBP); and (3) 

revising the sodium reduction timeline 

for the NSLP and SBP. For more 

information about this rule, see RIN 

0584–AE53. 

➢ Improve effectiveness and 

efficiency of moving individuals into 

work: The Food and Nutrition Act of 

2008 (FNA) establishes a time limit for 

participation in SNAP of three months 

in three years for able-bodied adults 

without children who are not working. 

FNA allows states to waive the time 

limit under certain circumstances. FNS 

would request public input on a 

proposed framework for modifying 

ABAWD time-limit waivers with the 

goal of moving individuals to work as 

the best solution for poverty, and to 

advance this goal consistent with the 

structure and the intent of the act. For 

more information about this rule, see 

RIN 0584–AE57. 

➢ Provide regulatory flexibility for 

retailers in the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP): FNS will 

issue a proposed rule to modify the 

definition of the term ‘‘variety’’ as it 

pertains to the stocking requirements for 

certain SNAP authorized retail food 

stores to increase the number of items 

that qualify as acceptable varieties in 

the four staple food categories, meat, 

poultry, fish, and dairy products. This 

proposed change will provide retailers 

with more flexibility in meeting the 

enhanced SNAP eligibility requirements 

of the 2016 final rule and meet the 

requirements expressed in the 

Consolidated Appropriation Act of 

2017. For more information about this 

rule, see RIN 0584–AE61. 

➢ Reduce the reporting burden for 

nutrition program operators: FNS will 

withdraw the interim final rule 

provisions of the SNAP: Certification, 

Eligibility, and Employment and 

Training Provisions of the Food, Energy 

and Conservation Act of 2008 rule 

published on January 6, 2017. The 

interim final rule portion increased 

requirements for Group Living 

Arrangements and Drug and Alcohol 

Treatment Centers. Comments received 

on these changes indicated that the 

regulatory change presented significant 

technical and administrative challenges. 

For more information about this rule, 

see RIN 0584–AE54. 

➢ Modernize swine slaughter 

inspection: The Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing 

to establish a voluntary New Swine 

Inspection System (NSIS) for markethog slaughter establishments, and 

mandatory provisions for all swine 

slaughtering establishments (i.e., 

including those that also slaughter 

roaster swine, sows, and boars). NSIS 

will provide for increased offline 

inspection activities that are more 

directly related to food safety resulting 

in greater compliance with sanitation 

and Hazard Analysis and Critical 

Control Point (HACCP) regulations and 

reduce the risk of foodborne illness. 

NSIS would also provide incentives to 

establishments to improve their 

processing methods and to develop 

more efficient slaughter and dressing 

technologies. Additionally, FSIS is 

considering requiring establishments to 

implement written sanitary dressing 

plans to prevent contamination of 

carcasses throughout the slaughter and 

dressing operation; modernizing process 

control sampling programs; and 

sampling the slaughter environment for 

microbiological contamination. For 

more information about this rule, see 

RIN 0583–AD62. 

➢ Modernize egg products inspection: 

FSIS is proposing to replace current 

regulations with HACCP Systems and 

Sanitation Standard Operating 

Procedures (SOPs), consistent with 

HACCP and Sanitation SOP 

requirements in the meat and poultry 

products inspection regulations. In 

addition, FSIS is proposing to remove 

the current requirements for prior 

approval by FSIS of egg products plant 

drawings, specifications, and equipment 

prior to their use in official plants, 

provide for the generic labeling of egg 

products, and require safe handling 

labels on shell eggs and egg products. 

The agency is also proposing to move 

from continuous inspection to daily 

inspection of establishments. For more 

information about this rule, see RIN 

0583–AC58. 

USDA—AGRICULTURAL MARKETING 

SERVICE (AMS) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

1. National Bioengineered Food 

Disclosure Standard 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114–216; 7 

U.S.C. 1621 to 1627 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1285. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On July 29, 2016, the 

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 was 

amended to establish a National 

Bioengineered Food Disclosure 

Standard (Law) (Pub. L. 114–216). 

Pursuant to the law, this NPRM will 

propose requirements that, if finalized, 

will serve as a national mandatory 

bioengineered food disclosure standard 

for bioengineered food and food that 

may be bioengineered. 

Statement of Need: This action is 

mandated by Public Law 114–216. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

authority for this action is provided by 

the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 

as amended by Public Law 114–216. 

Alternatives: The alternatives will be 

identified during the drafting stage and 

the public will be given the opportunity 

to comment on alternatives. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

rule will fulfill the mandate of Public 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1679 

Law 114–216. The specific costs and 

benefits will be determined during the 

drafting of the proposed rule. AMS is 

striving to fulfill the mandate while 

minimizing the burden on the regulated 

community. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/17 

Final Action ......... 07/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

E.O. 13132. 

Agency Contact: Arthur Neal, Deputy 

Administrator, Transportation and 

Marketing, Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Marketing Service, Phone: 

202 692–1300. 

RIN: 0581–AD54 

USDA—AMS 

2. • NOP: Organic Livestock and 

Poultry Practices 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501 to 6522 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Organic Livestock and 

Poultry Practices final rule, published 

on January 19, 2017, adds provisions to 

the USDA organic regulations to address 

livestock and poultry living conditions, 

health care practices, and animal 

handling and transport, and during 

slaughter. The final rule was originally 

scheduled to become effective on March 

20, 2017; the effective date was 

subsequently delayed to May 19, 2017. 

AMS published a notice further 

delaying the effective date to November 

14, 2017. Per a document published on 

November 14, 2017, the January 2017 

rule was further delayed to May 14, 

2018. As stated within the November 

2017 publication, this proposed rule 

requests public comments on: (1) The 

scope of the Secretary’s authority under 

of the Organic Foods Production Act 

including 7 U.S.C. 6509; (2) whether the 

requirements in the final rule are the 

most innovative and least burdensome 

tool for meeting regulatory objectives; 

and, (3) whether the revised benefits 

calculations, which corrected a 

mathematical error in the final rule, 

justify the estimated costs. 

Statement of Need: This action is 

needed to ensure only regulations that 

are properly supported by legislative 

authority and requirements of executive 

orders are met. 

Summary of Legal Basis: AMS 

National Organic Program is authorized 

by the Organic Foods Production Act of 

1990 (OFPA) to establish national 

standards governing the marketing of 

organically produced agricultural 

products (7 U.S.C. 6501–6522). The 

USDA organic regulations set the 

requirements for the organic 

certification of agricultural products (7 

CFR part 205). 

Alternatives: As AMS evaluates the 

concerns outlined in the abstract, the 

possible outcomes of the evaluation 

range from allowing the January 2017 

final rule to become effective to 

withdrawing the January 2017 final rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: AMS 

estimated that the discounted costs, 

transfers, and benefits of the January 

2017 final rule, for three different 

producer response scenarios, would 

range from $8.2 to $31 million annually 

due to increased compliance and 

regulatory burdens. In addition, there is 

also an estimated $3.9 million 

undiscounted annual paperwork 

burden. AMS also estimated transfers 

ranging from $80 to $86 million 

annually caused by producers exiting 

the organic market. AMS estimates the 

benefits would range from $3.3 to $31.6 

million for all producer response 

scenarios when the mathematical error 

is corrected. 

Risks: This action is likely to be 

contentious. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/17 

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. 

Agency Contact: Jennifer Tucker, 

Associate Deputy Administrator, USDA 

National Organic Program, Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing 

Service, 1400 Independence Avenue 

SW, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 

720–3252. 

Related RIN: Related to 0581–AD44, 

Related to 0581–AD74 

RIN: 0581–AD75 

USDA—ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH 

INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

3. Lacey Act Implementation Plan: De 

Minimis Exception and Composite 

Articles 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 357. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Food, Conservation, 

and Energy Act of 2008 amended the 

Lacey Act to provide, among other 

things, that importers submit a 

declaration at the time of importation 

for certain plants and plant products. 

The declaration requirements of the 

Lacey Act became effective on 

December 15, 2008, and enforcement of 

those requirements is being phased in. 

We are proposing an exception to the 

declaration requirements for products 

containing composite plant materials. 

We are also proposing to establish an 

exception to the declaration 

requirement for products containing a 

minimal amount of plant materials. 

Both of these actions would relieve the 

burden on importers while continuing 

to ensure that the declaration 

requirement fulfills the purposes of the 

Lacey Act. 

Statement of Need: Will update. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Will update. 

Alternatives: Will update. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Will 

update. 

Risks: Will update. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 06/30/11 76 FR 38330 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

08/29/11 

NPRM .................. 12/00/17 

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. 

Additional Information: Additional 

information about APHIS and its 

programs is available on the internet at 

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

Agency Contact: Parul Patel, Senior 

Agriculturalist, Permitting and 

Compliance Coordination, PPQ, 

Department of Agriculture, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 

River Road, Unit 60, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1231, Phone: 301 851–2351. 

RIN: 0579–AD44 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1680 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

USDA—APHIS 

Final Rule Stage 

4. National Environmental Policy Act 

Implementing Procedures 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 372. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: We are amending the 

regulations that set out our National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

implementing procedures. The 

amendments will clarify when we will 

complete an environmental impact 

statement or an environmental analysis 

for an action, provide additional 

categories of actions for which we will 

prepare such documents, expand the list 

of actions subject to categorical 

exclusion from further environmental 

documentation, and set out an 

environmental documentation process 

that could be used in emergencies. The 

changes are intended to update the 

regulations and improve their clarity 

and effectiveness. 

Statement of Need: APHIS’ NEPA 

regulations were last amended in 1995. 

The Council on Environmental Quality’s 

regulations for implementing NEPA at 

40 CFR 1507.3(a) indicate that agencies 

‘‘shall continue to review their policies 

and procedures and in consultation 

with the Council to revise them as 

necessary to ensure full compliance 

with the purposes and provisions of the 

Act.’’ Accordingly, we have evaluated 

our regulations and identified changes 

that would clarify the regulations, make 

them more consistent with NEPA, and 

allow us greater flexibility in fulfilling 

the requirements of NEPA and CEQ’s 

NEPA implementing regulations while 

responding to immediate disease and 

pest threats or damage to the 

environment. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), is the United States’ basic charter 

for protection of the environment. 

Consistent with NEPA and with the 

requirements of CEQ’s NEPA 

implementing regulations, APHIS’ 

NEPA regulations provide guidance, 

sources of information and assistance, 

definitions, classifications of action, 

identification of major planning and 

decision points, opportunities for public 

involvement, and methods of processing 

different types of environmental 

documents. 

Alternatives: Leaving the regulations 

unchanged would be unsatisfactory 

because it would perpetuate the current 

situation; i.e., one in which the current 

regulations, last amended in 1995, are 

outdated and in need of clarification. 

Another alternative would be to 

establish criteria for categorical 

exclusion that are less (or more) 

restrictive, thus increasing (or 

decreasing) the number of actions 

eligible for categorical exclusion. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: APHIS 

has determined that the proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Some entities will experience 

time and money savings, but the savings 

should benefit only a few entities each 

year. The proposal would also serve to 

clarify the regulations and make the 

NEPA process more transparent, which, 

although beneficial, should not have a 

significant economic impact on affected 

entities. 

Risks: Not Applicable. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM ............... 07/20/16 81 FR 47051 

NPRM Comment Period 

End.

09/19/16 

Final Rule ......... 03/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: Additional 

information about APHIS and its 

programs is available on the internet at 

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

Agency Contact: Eileen Sutker, APHIS 

Federal NEPA Contact, Environmental 

and Risk Analysis Services, PPD, 

Department of Agriculture, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 

River Road, Unit 149, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238, Phone: 301 851–3043. 

RIN: 0579–AC60 

USDA—APHIS 

5. Animal Welfare; Establishing De 

Minimis Exemptions From Licensing 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

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

CFR Citation: 9 CFR 1 to 3. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: In the 2014 Farm Bill, 

Congress amended the Animal Welfare 

Act (AWA) to provide the Secretary of 

Agriculture with the authority to 

determine what facilities and activities 

involving AWA regulated animals are 

de minimis and therefore exempt from 

licensure and oversight. We are 

amending the AWA regulations to enact 

this new provision. This change 

provides APHIS with the flexibility to 

exempt from licensing those dealers and 

exhibitors who provide adequate levels 

of humane care to their animals, 

allowing us to target our enforcement 

resources where they are most needed. 

Dealers and exhibitors operating at or 

below the threshold will be exempted 

from APHIS licensing and oversight 

under the AWA. 

Statement of Need: A 2014 Farm Bill 

amendment to the Animal Welfare Act 

provides the Secretary of Agriculture 

with the authority to determine when 

animal dealers and exhibitors are not 

required to obtain a license under the 

Act, if the size of the business 

conducting AWA-related activities is 

determined by the Secretary to be de 

minimis. This rule is necessary to 

establish the thresholds for what 

constitutes a de minimis level of 

activity. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Agricultural Act of 2014 Farm Bill (Pub. 

L. 113–79), section 12308, which 

amended section 3 of the Animal 

Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2133). 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: By the 

very nature of this proposal, all entities 

that would be affected are considered 

small. The entities most likely to be 

affected by this proposal are businesses 

engaged in AWA-related exhibition 

activities that have small numbers of 

regulated animals. This proposed rule 

would relieve regulatory responsibilities 

for some currently licensed entities and 

reduce the cost of business for those 

entities. Those currently licensed 

exhibitors, breeders, and dealers who 

are under the proposed de minimis 

thresholds would no longer be subject to 

licensing, animal identification and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Risks: Establishing de minimis 

thresholds in this proposal would allow 

APHIS to direct inspection and 

enforcement efforts on higher risk 

entities. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/04/16 81 FR 51386 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

11/02/16 

Final Rule ............ 02/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Additional Information: Additional 

information about APHIS and its 

programs is available on the internet at 

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

Agency Contact: Kay Carter-Corker, 

Director, National Policy Staff, Animal 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1681 

Care, Department of Agriculture, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 84, 

Riverdale, MD 20737, Phone: 301 851– 

3748. 

RIN: 0579–AD99 

USDA—FOOD AND NUTRITION 

SERVICE (FNS) 

Final Rule Stage 

6. Child Nutrition Programs: 

Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, 

and Sodium Requirements 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1758; 42 

U.S.C. 1766; 42 U.S.C. 1772; 42 U.S.C. 

1773; 42 U.S.C. 1779 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 210.10; 7 CFR 

210.11; 7 CFR 215.7a; 7 CFR 220.8; 7 

CFR 226.20. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This interim final rule 

provides flexibilities consistent with 

those currently available by 

Congressional directive to program 

operators participating in the Child 

Nutrition Programs for School Year 

2018–2019. These flexibilities include: 

(1) Providing operators the option to 

offer flavored, low-fat (one percent fat) 

milk in the Child Nutrition Programs; 

(2) extending the State agencies’ option 

to allow individual school food 

authorities to include grains that are not 

whole grain-rich in the weekly menu 

offered under the National School 

Lunch Program (NSLP) and School 

Breakfast Program (SBP); and (3) 

revising the sodium reduction timeline 

for the NSLP and SBP. 

Statement of Need: Will update. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Will update. 

Alternatives: Will update. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Will 

update. 

Risks: Will update. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 11/30/17 82 FR 56703 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

01/29/18 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

07/01/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: School 

Lunch—NSLA Section 9(a)(1)—42 

U.S.C. 1758(a)(1). Child and Adult Care 

Food Program—NSLA Section 17(g)—42 

U.S.C. 1766(g) Special Milk Program— 

Child Nutrition Act Section 3(a)(1)—42 

U.S.C. 1772(a)(1). School Breakfast 

Program—Child Nutrition Act Section 

4(e)(1)(A)—42 U.S.C. 1773(e)(1)(A). 

Smart Snacks in Schools—Child 

Nutrition Act Section 10(b)—42 U.S.C. 

1779(b). 

Agency Contact: Charles H. Watford, 

Regulatory Review Specialist, 

Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 

Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 

703 605–0800, Email: charles.watford@

fns.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0584–AE53 

USDA—FOOD SAFETY AND 

INSPECTION SERVICE (FSIS) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

7. Modernization of Swine Slaughter 

Inspection 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

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

CFR Citation: 9 CFR 301, 309, 310, 

and 314. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing 

to amend the Federal meat inspection 

regulations to establish a new 

inspection system for swine slaughter 

establishments demonstrated to provide 

greater public health protection than the 

existing inspection system. The Agency 

is also proposing several changes to the 

regulations that would affect all 

establishments that slaughter swine, 

regardless of the inspection system 

under which they operate. 

Statement of Need: The proposed 

action is necessary to improve food 

safety, improve compliance with the 

Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, 

improve the effectiveness of market hog 

slaughter inspection, make better use of 

the Agency’s resources, and remove 

unnecessary regulatory obstacles to 

innovation. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: The Agency is 

considering alternatives such as: (1) A 

mandatory New Swine Slaughter 

Inspection System (NSIS) for market hog 

slaughter establishments and (2) a 

voluntary NSIS for market hog 

establishments, under which FSIS 

would conduct the same offline 

inspection activities as traditional 

inspection. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed regulations are expected to 

benefit establishments by removing 

unnecessary regulatory obstacles to 

innovation and allowing establishments 

more flexibility in line configuration. 

The proposed changes are also expected 

to reduce establishments’ sampling 

costs. Additionally, the proposed 

regulations are expected to improve the 

effectiveness of market hog slaughter 

inspection, leading to a reduction in the 

number of human illnesses attributed to 

products derived from market hogs. The 

proposed actions make better use of the 

Agency’s resources, which is expected 

to reduce the Agency’s personnel and 

training budgetary requirements. 

Establishments are expected to incur 

increased labor and recordkeeping costs. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/00/17 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Matthew Michael, 

Director, Issuances 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@

fsis.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0583–AD62 

USDA—FOREST SERVICE (FS) 

Final Rule Stage 

8. Administrative Issuances; Involving 

the Public in the Formulation of Forest 

Service Directives (Rule) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1612(a) 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 2.7; 36 CFR 

200.4; 36 CFR 216. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This procedural final rule 

will provide greater opportunity for 

public participation in the formulation 

of standards, criteria and guidelines 

applicable to Forest Service programs 

by: (1) Expanding the scope of 

documents subject to such review; (2) 

utilizing technologies that were not 

available when these regulations were 

last amended in 1984 to ensure a 

broader swath of the interested public is 

notified of opportunities to review and 

comment on policy changes; and (3) 

increasing the efficiency of the directive 

revision process to reduce 

administrative costs and permit more 

frequent and timely updates. Consistent 

with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), this rule is 

issued as a final rule as it imposes no 

additional burdens on any governmental 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1682 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

entity or the public but expands the 

ability of such parties to comment upon 

the issuance of Agency policies set forth 

in Forest Service rules and guidance. 

Statement of Need: Will update. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Will update. 

Alternatives: Will update. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Will 

update. 

Risks: Will update. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Final Rule ............ 01/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Michael Migliori, 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 

202 205–2496, Email: mmigliori@

fs.fed.us. 

RIN: 0596–AC65 

BILLING CODE: 3410–90–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC) 

Statement of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Priorities 

Established in 1903, the Department 

of Commerce (Commerce) 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 by 

promoting innovation, 

entrepreneurship, competitiveness, and 

environmental stewardship. Commerce 

has 12 operating units, which are 

responsible for managing a diverse 

portfolio of programs and services, 

ranging from trade promotion and 

economic development assistance to 

broadband and the National Weather 

Service. 

Commerce touches Americans daily, 

in many ways—making possible the 

daily weather reports and survey 

research; facilitating technology that all 

of us use in the workplace and in the 

home each day; supporting the 

development, gathering, and 

transmission of information essential to 

competitive business; enabling the 

diversity of companies and goods found 

in America’s and the world’s 

marketplace; and supporting 

environmental and economic health for 

the communities in which Americans 

live. 

Commerce has a clear and compelling 

vision for itself, for its role in the 

Federal Government, and for its roles 

supporting the American people, now 

and in the future. To achieve this vision, 

Commerce works in partnership with 

businesses, universities, communities, 

and workers to: 

1. 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; 

2. Support entrepreneurship and 

commercialization by enabling 

community development and 

strengthening minority businesses and 

small manufacturers; 

3. Maintain U.S. economic 

competitiveness in the global 

marketplace by promoting exports, 

ensuring a level playing field for U.S. 

businesses, advancing free, fair, and 

reciprocal trade, and ensuring that 

technology transfer is consistent with 

our nation’s economic and security 

interests; 

4. Provide effective management and 

stewardship of our nation’s resources 

and assets to ensure sustainable 

economic opportunities; and 

5. Make informed policy decisions 

and enable better understanding of the 

economy by providing accurate 

economic and demographic data. 

Commerce is a vital resource base, 

tireless advocate, and Cabinet-level 

voice for job creation. This Regulatory 

Plan tracks the most important 

regulations that implement these policy 

and program priorities, as well as new 

efforts by the Department to remove 

unnecessary regulatory burdens on 

external stakeholders. 

Responding to the Administration’s 

Regulatory Philosophy and Principles 

The vast majority of the Commerce’s 

programs and activities do not involve 

regulation. Of Commerce’s 12 primary 

operating units, only the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) will be 

planning actions that are considered the 

‘‘most important’’ significant preregulatory or regulatory actions for FY 

2018. During the next year, NOAA plans 

to publish five rulemaking actions that 

are designated as Regulatory Plan 

actions. The Bureau of Industry and 

Security (BIS) may also publish 

rulemaking actions designated as 

Regulatory Plan actions. Further 

information on these actions is provided 

below. 

Commerce has a long-standing policy 

to prohibit the issuance of any 

regulation that discriminates on the 

basis of race, religion, gender, or any 

other suspect category and requires that 

all regulations be written so as to be 

understandable to those affected by 

them. The Secretary also requires that 

Commerce afford the public the 

maximum possible opportunity to 

participate in Departmental 

rulemakings, even where public 

participation is not required by law. 

Commerce has implemented 

Executive Order 13771 working through 

its Regulatory Reform Task Force 

established under Executive Order 

13777 to identify and prioritize 

deregulatory actions that each bureau 

within the Department can take to 

reduce and remove regulatory burdens 

on stakeholders. 

In Fiscal Year 2018, Commerce 

expects to publish approximately 2 

regulatory actions and over 30 

deregulatory actions, far exceeding the 

requirement under Executive Order 

13771 to publish two deregulatory 

actions for every one regulatory action. 

Additionally, Commerce’s Regulatory 

Reform Task Force will continue 

working to execute directives under 

Executive Orders 13783 and 13807 to 

streamline regulatory process and 

permitting reviews for new energy and 

infrastructure projects. To that end, 

Commerce may have other deregulatory 

actions to implement that do not 

currently appear in the agenda. 

Regulatory reform and agency 

streamlining are key elements to 

Commerce’s agenda for the next year. 

Senior policy analysis, performance 

measurements, and employee 

evaluations will incorporate these 

priorities as the Department continues 

to regulate private industry through 

multiple bureaus within the agency. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

NOAA establishes and administers 

Federal policy for the conservation and 

management of the Nation’s oceanic, 

coastal, and atmospheric resources. It 

provides a variety of essential 

environmental and climate services vital 

to public safety and to the Nation’s 

economy, such as weather forecasts, 

drought forecasts, and storm warnings. 

It is a source of objective information on 

the state of the environment. NOAA 

plays the lead role in achieving 

Commerce’s goal of promoting 

stewardship by providing assessments 

of the global environment. 

Recognizing that economic growth 

must go hand-in-hand with 

environmental stewardship, Commerce, 

through NOAA, conducts programs 

designed to provide a better 

understanding of the connections 

between environmental health, 

economics, and national security. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1683 

Commerce’s emphasis on ‘‘sustainable 

fisheries’’ is designed to boost long-term 

economic growth in a vital sector of the 

U.S. economy while conserving the 

resources in the public trust and 

minimizing any economic dislocation 

necessary to ensure long-term economic 

growth. Commerce is where business 

and environmental interests intersect, 

and the classic debate on the use of 

natural resources is transformed into a 

‘‘win-win’’ situation for the 

environment and the economy. 

Three of NOAA’s major components, 

the National Marine Fisheries Services 

(NMFS), the National Ocean Service 

(NOS), and the National Environmental 

Satellite, Data, and Information Service 

(NESDIS), exercise regulatory authority. 

NMFS oversees the management and 

conservation of the Nation’s marine 

fisheries, protects threatened and 

endangered marine and anadromous 

species and marine mammals, and 

promotes economic development of the 

U.S. fishing industry. NOS assists the 

coastal States in their management of 

land and ocean resources in their 

coastal zones, including estuarine 

research reserves; manages the national 

marine sanctuaries; monitors marine 

pollution; and directs the national 

program for deep-seabed minerals and 

ocean thermal energy. NESDIS 

administers the civilian weather 

satellite program and licenses private 

organizations to operate commercial 

land-remote sensing satellite systems. 

Commerce, through NOAA, has a 

unique role in promoting stewardship of 

the global environment through 

effective management of the Nation’s 

marine and coastal resources and in 

monitoring and predicting changes in 

the Earth’s environment, thus linking 

trade, development, and technology 

with environmental issues. NOAA has 

the primary Federal responsibility for 

providing sound scientific observations, 

assessments, and forecasts of 

environmental phenomena on which 

resource management, adaptation, and 

other societal decisions can be made. 

In the environmental stewardship 

area, NOAA’s goals include: Rebuilding 

and maintaining strong U.S. fisheries by 

using market-based tools and ecosystem 

approaches to management; conserving, 

protecting, and recovering threatened 

and endangered marine and 

anadromous species and marine 

mammals while still allowing for 

economic and recreational 

opportunities; promoting healthy 

coastal ecosystems by ensuring that 

economic development is managed in 

ways that maintain biodiversity and 

long-term productivity for sustained 

use; and modernizing navigation and 

positioning services. In the 

environmental assessment and 

prediction area, goals include: 

Understanding the impacts of a 

changing climate and communicating 

that understanding to government and 

private sector stakeholders enabling 

them to adapt; continually improving 

the National Weather Service; 

implementing reliable seasonal and 

interannual climate forecasts to guide 

economic planning; providing sciencebased policy advice on options to deal 

with very long-term (decadal to 

centennial) changes in the environment; 

and advancing and improving shortterm warning and forecast services for 

the entire environment. 

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). Among 

the several hundred rulemakings that 

NOAA plans to issue in FY 2018, a 

number of the regulatory and 

deregulatory actions will be significant. 

The exact number of such rulemakings 

is unknown, since they are usually 

initiated by the actions of eight regional 

Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) 

that are responsible for preparing 

fishery management plans (FMPs) and 

FMP amendments, and for drafting 

implementing regulations for each 

managed fishery. NOAA issues 

regulations to implement FMPs and 

FMP amendments. Once a rulemaking is 

triggered by an FMC, the MagnusonStevens Act places stringent deadlines 

upon NOAA by which it must exercise 

its rulemaking responsibilities. FMPs 

and FMP amendments for Atlantic 

highly migratory species, such as 

bluefin tuna, swordfish, and sharks, are 

developed directly by NOAA, not by 

FMCs. 

FMPs address a variety of issues 

including maximizing fishing 

opportunities on healthy stocks, 

rebuilding overfished stocks, and 

addressing gear conflicts. One of the 

problems that FMPs may address is 

preventing overcapitalization 

(preventing excess fishing capacity) of 

fisheries. This may be resolved by 

market-based systems such as catch 

shares, which permit shareholders to 

harvest a quantity of fish and which can 

be traded on the open market. Harvest 

limits based on the best available 

scientific information, whether as a total 

fishing limit for a species in a fishery or 

as a share assigned to each vessel 

participant, enable stressed stocks to 

rebuild. Other measures include 

staggering fishing seasons or limiting 

gear types to avoid gear conflicts on the 

fishing grounds and establishing 

seasonal and area closures to protect 

fishery stocks. 

The FMCs provide a forum for public 

debate and, using the best scientific 

information available, make the 

judgments needed to determine 

optimum yield on a fishery-by-fishery 

basis. Optional management measures 

are examined and selected in 

accordance with the national standards 

set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

This process, including the selection of 

the preferred management measures, 

constitutes the development, in 

simplified form, of an FMP. The FMP, 

together with draft implementing 

regulations and supporting 

documentation, is submitted to NMFS 

for review against the national standards 

set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

in other provisions of the Act, and other 

applicable laws. The same process 

applies to amending an existing 

approved FMP. 

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 take of marine 

mammals. The MMPA allows, upon 

request, 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 we find 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 

collection of wild animals for scientific 

research or public display or to enhance 

the survival of a species or stock, and 

established the Marine Mammal 

Commission, which makes 

recommendations to the Secretaries of 

the Departments of Commerce and the 

Interior and other Federal officials on 

protecting and conserving marine 

mammals. The Act underwent 

significant changes in 1994 to allow for 

takings incidental to commercial fishing 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1684 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

operations, to provide certain 

exemptions for subsistence and 

scientific uses, and to require the 

preparation of stock assessments for all 

marine mammal stocks in waters under 

U.S. jurisdiction. 

Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(ESA) provides for the conservation of 

species that are determined to be 

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

conservation of the ecosystems on 

which these species depend. The ESA 

authorizes both NMFS and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) to jointly 

administer the provisions of the ESA. 

NMFS manages marine and 

‘‘anadromous’’ species, and FWS 

manages land and freshwater species. 

Together, NMFS and FWS work to 

protect critically imperiled species from 

extinction. Of the approximately 1,300 

listed species found in part or entirely 

in the United States and its waters, 

NMFS has jurisdiction over 

approximately 60 species. NMFS’ 

rulemaking actions 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, under the 

ESA, Federal agencies consult with 

NMFS on any proposed action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by 

that agency that may affect listed 

species or designated critical habitat, or 

that may affect proposed species or 

critical habitat. These interagency 

consultations are designed to assist 

Federal agencies in fulfilling their duty 

to ensure Federal actions do not 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species or destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat, while still allowing 

Federal agencies to fulfill their 

respective missions (e.g., permitting 

infrastructure projects or oil and gas 

exploration, conducting military 

readiness activities). 

NOAA’s Regulatory Plan Actions 

While most of the rulemakings 

undertaken by NOAA do not rise to the 

level necessary to be included in 

Commerce’s regulatory plan, NMFS is 

undertaking four actions that rise to the 

level of ‘‘most important’’ of 

Commerce’s significant regulatory 

actions and thus are included in this 

year’s regulatory plan. A description of 

the four regulatory plan actions is 

provided below. 

Additionally, NMFS is undertaking a 

series of rulemakings that are 

considered deregulatory, as defined by 

Executive Order 13771. Such actions 

directly benefit the regulated 

community by increasing access, 

providing more economic opportunity, 

reducing costs, and/or increasing 

flexibility. A specific example of such 

an action is the Commerce Trusted 

Trader Program, as described below. 

Other examples include actions 

implementing FMPs that alleviate or 

reduce previous requirements. 

1. Illegal, Unregulated, and 

Unreported Fishing; Fisheries 

Enforcement; High Seas Driftnet Fishing 

Moratorium Protection Act (0648– 

BG11): The U.S. is a signatory to the 

Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA). 

The agreement is aimed at combatting 

illegal, unreported and unregulated 

(IUU) fishing activities by increased port 

inspection for foreign fishing vessels 

and closing seafood markets to the 

products of illegal fishing. Benefits of 

the rule will accrue when IUU vessels 

are denied entry to the U.S., and illegal 

seafood products are precluded from the 

U.S. supply chain, thereby maintaining 

higher prices and market share for 

legitimate producers of fishery products. 

2. Commerce Trusted Trader Program 

(0648–BG51): Under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, importation of fish 

products taken in violation of foreign 

law and regulation is prohibited. To 

enforce this prohibition, NMFS has 

implemented the Seafood Import 

Monitoring Program (81 FR 88975, 

December 9, 2016) which requires U.S. 

importers to report on the origin of fish 

products and to keep supply chain 

records. The Commerce Trusted Trader 

Program will establish a voluntary 

program for certified seafood importers 

that provides benefits such as reduced 

targeting and inspections, and enhanced 

streamlined entry into the United States. 

The program will require that a 

Commerce Trusted Trader establish a 

secure supply chain and maintain the 

records necessary to verify the legality 

of all designated product entering into 

U.S. commerce, but it will excuse the 

Commerce Trusted Trader from entering 

that data into the International Trade 

Data System prior to entry, as required 

by Seafood Import Monitoring Program. 

This program is deregulatory in nature 

because it reduces reporting costs at 

entry and reduces recordkeeping costs 

due to flexibility in archiving. 

3. Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Geophysical Surveys in the 

Gulf of Mexico (0648–BB38): The 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) prohibits the ‘‘take’’ (e.g., 

behavioral harassment, injury, or 

mortality) of marine mammals with 

certain exceptions, including through 

the issuance of incidental take 

authorizations. Where there is a 

reasonable likelihood of an activity 

resulting in the take of marine 

mammals—as is the case for certain 

methods of geophysical exploration, 

including the use of airgun arrays (i.e., 

‘‘seismic surveys’’)—action proponents 

must ensure that take occurs in a lawful 

manner. However, there has not 

previously been any analysis of industry 

survey activities in the Gulf of Mexico 

conducted pursuant to requirements of 

MMPA, and industry operators have 

been, and currently are, conducting 

their work without MMPA incidental 

take authorizations. In support of the oil 

and gas industry, the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management has requested 5- 

year incidental take regulations, which 

would provide a regulatory framework 

under which individual companies 

could apply for project-specific Letters 

of Authorization. Providing for industry 

compliance with the MMPA through the 

requested regulatory framework, versus 

companies pursuing individual 

authorizations, would be the most 

efficient way to achieve such 

compliance for both industry and for 

NMFS, and would provide regulatory 

certainty for industry operators. 

4. Endangered and Threatened 

Species; Designation of Critical Habitat 

for Threatened Caribbean and IndoPacific Reef-building Corals (0648– 

BG26): Caribbean and Indo-Pacific reef 

building corals were listed under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 

September 2014. Section 4 of the ESA 

requires that critical habitat be specified 

to the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable at the time a species is 

listed (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)). The ESA 

also requires that we publish final 

critical habitat rules within one year of 

proposed rules. At the time these corals 

were listed, we were unable to 

determine what areas met the statutory 

definition of critical habitat. We 

subsequently published a proposed rule 

to designate critical habitat. This action 

would designate new critical habitat for 

twelve corals (Dendrogyra cylindrus, 

Orbicella annularis, Orbicella faveolata, 

Orbicella franksi, Mycetophyllia ferox, 

Acropora globiceps, Acropora 

jacquelineae, Acropora retusa, Acropora 

speciosa, Euphyllia paradivisa, Isopora 

crateriformis, and Seriatopora aculeata) 

and revise the 2008 critical habitat 

designation for two corals (Acropora 

palmata and Acropora cervicornis). 

BIS 

The Bureau of Industry and Security 

(BIS) advances U.S. national security, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1685 

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 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 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. BIS export control 

officers are also 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 

multilateral export control regimes and 

to promote effective export controls 

through cooperation with other 

Governments 

BIS’s Regulatory Plan Action 

BIS maintains the EAR, including the 

Commerce Control List (CCL). The CCL 

describes commodities, software, and 

technology that are subject to licensing 

requirements for specific reasons for 

control. The Department of State, 

Directorate of Defense Trade Controls 

(DDTC), maintains the International 

Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 

including the United States Munitions 

List (USML), which describes defense 

articles subject to State’s licensing 

jurisdiction. 

In Fiscal Year 2018, BIS plans to 

publish a proposed rule describing how 

articles the President has determined no 

longer warrant control under USML 

Category I (Firearms, Close Assault 

Weapons and Combat Shotguns), 

Category II (Guns and Armament), and 

Category III (Ammunition/Ordnance) 

would be controlled on the CCL and by 

the EAR. This proposed rule will be 

published in conjunction with a DDTC 

proposed rule that would amend the list 

of articles controlled by those USML 

Categories to describe more precisely 

items warranting continued control on 

that list. 

The changes that will be described in 

these proposed rules are based on a 

review of those categories by the 

Department of Defense, which worked 

with the Departments of State and 

Commerce in preparing the 

amendments. The review was focused 

on identifying the types of articles that 

are now controlled on the USML that 

are either (i) inherently military and 

otherwise warrant control on the USML 

or (ii) if of a type common to nonmilitary firearms applications, possess 

parameters or characteristics that 

provide a critical military or intelligence 

advantage to the United States, and are 

almost exclusively available from the 

United States. If an article satisfies one 

or both of those criteria, the article will 

remain on the USML. If an article does 

not satisfy either criterion, it will be 

identified in the new Export Control 

Classification Numbers (ECCNs) 

included in the BIS proposed rule. 

Thus, the scope of the items that will be 

described in the proposed rule is 

essentially commercial items widely 

available in retail outlets and less 

sensitive military items. 

Although the firearms and other items 

described in the proposed rule are 

widely used for sporting applications, 

BIS will not propose to ‘‘de-control’’ 

these items. BIS would require licenses 

to export or reexport to any country a 

firearm or other weapon that would be 

added to the CCL by the proposed rule. 

Rather than decontrolling firearms and 

other items, in publishing the proposed 

rule, BIS, working with the Departments 

of Defense and State, is trying to reduce 

the procedural burdens and costs of 

export compliance on the U.S. firearms 

industry while allowing the U.S. 

Government to control firearms 

appropriately and to make better use of 

its export control resources. 

United States Patent Trademark Office 

The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office’s (USPTO) 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 

USPTO is the Federal agency for 

granting U.S. patents and registering 

trademarks. In doing this, the USPTO 

fulfills the mandate of Article I, Section 

8, Clause 8, of the Constitution that the 

legislative branch ‘‘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.’’ 

The USPTO registers trademarks based 

on the commerce clause of the 

Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 

3). Under this system of protection, 

American industry has flourished. New 

products have been invented, new uses 

for old ones discovered, and 

employment opportunities created for 

millions of Americans. The strength and 

vitality of the U.S. economy depends 

directly on effective mechanisms that 

protect new ideas and investments in 

innovation and creativity. The 

continued demand for patents and 

trademarks underscores the ingenuity of 

American inventors and entrepreneurs. 

The USPTO is at the cutting edge of the 

nation’s technological progress and 

achievement. 

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 the stronger and more 

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. 

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. 

USPTO’s Regulatory Plan Action 

Final Rule: Setting and Adjusting 

Patent Fees during Fiscal Year 2017 

(RIN 0651–AD02): The Leahy-Smith 

America Invents Act (AIA), enacted in 

2011, provided USPTO with the 

authority to set and adjust its fees for 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1686 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

patent and trademark services. In early 

2013, USPTO issued a final rule, 

‘‘Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees’’ 

(RIN 0651–AC54, 78 FR 4212, Jan. 18, 

2013), in which USPTO for the first time 

set a new fee structure for patent 

services using the authority provided by 

Section 10 of the AIA. Since then, 

USPTO has conducted an internal 

biennial fee review, in which it 

undertook internal consideration of the 

current fee structure, and considering 

ways that the structure might be 

improved, including rulemaking 

pursuant to the USPTO’s fee setting 

authority. This fee review process 

involved public outreach, including, as 

required by the Act, public hearings 

held by the USPTO’s Public Advisory 

Committees (which were held in late 

2015), as well as public comment and 

other outreach to the user community 

and public in general. In October 2016, 

USPTO published an NPRM proposing 

the setting and adjusting of patent fees. 

The comment period for that propose 

rule closed on December 2, 2016. Per 

E.O. 12866, this NPRM was determined 

to be economically significant. USPTO 

has reviewed all public comments 

received and considered made revisions 

to its proposed fee adjustments based on 

those comments. USPTO is now in the 

process of preparing a final rule that 

will set and adjust patent fees. In this 

final rule, the USPTO will set and adjust 

Patent fee amounts to provide the Office 

with a sufficient amount of aggregate 

revenue to recover its aggregate cost of 

operations while helping the Office 

maintain a sustainable funding model, 

reduce the current patent application 

backlog, decrease patent pendency, 

improve quality, and upgrade the 

Office’s business information 

technology capability and 

infrastructure. USPTO anticipates 

publishing this rule in the fall of 2017, 

with new fees to be effective 60 days 

after the rule publishes. 

The Economic Development 

Administration 

The Economic Development 

Administration (EDA) provides 

assistance to economically distressed 

communities in order to stimulate 

commercial growth, improve 

infrastructure, and generate 

employment opportunities. Over the 

next year, EDA will continue to 

implement grants and assistance 

programs that achieve the agency’s 

mission, in line with statutory authority, 

and also support the President’s agenda. 

Accordingly, EDA’s regulatory activities 

target new efforts to streamline and 

simplify agency process. 

EDA’s Regulatory Action Plan 

EDA published a final rule that 

focused on improving and modernizing 

EDA’s oversight of its Revolving Loan 

Fund (RLF) Program under the Public 

Works and Economic Development Act 

of 1965, as amended (PWEDA). The RLF 

Program provides grants to eligible 

recipients, such as local governments 

and non-profit organizations, to operate 

lending programs that offer low-interest 

loans and flexible repayment terms, 

primarily to small businesses in 

distressed communities that are unable 

to obtain traditional bank financing. The 

final rule implemented a risk-based 

oversight approach that has improved 

EDA oversight of the RLF Program, 

consistent with recommendations from 

the Department’s Office of Inspector 

General. In particular, EDA’s shift to a 

modern risk analysis system 

concentrates EDA’s limited oversight 

resources on those RLFs at greatest risk 

and simultaneously reduced compliance 

burdens on successful RLFs. 

EDA’s transition to risk-based 

monitoring of the RLF Program is 

expected to result in more efficient and 

effective oversight of the RLF Program 

through reduced reporting, compliance, 

and monitoring costs of approximately 

$960,000 each year. For this reason, the 

final rule was a ‘‘deregulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 13771, 

‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs.’’ These regulatory 

changes were necessary regardless of 

whether EDA continues to operate or if 

EDA were to be eliminated by Congress 

as requested in the President’s Fiscal 

Year 2018 Budget because the 

Department is under an obligation to 

administer and monitor RLF grants in 

perpetuity under current statutory 

authorities. The regulatory changes 

made by the Final Rule would enable 

EDA or the Department to more 

efficiently manage the residual RLF 

portfolio going forward. 

The final rule also effectuated 

important, but less comprehensive, 

updates to other parts of EDA’s 

regulations implementing PWEDA that 

enable EDA or the Department to more 

effectively oversee the non-RLF grant 

portfolio, even in the event of EDA’s 

elimination by Congress. These non-RLF 

PWEDA regulations ensure that grantees 

continue to use projects for the purpose 

originally funded and to eventually 

execute releases of the Federal interest 

in the property at the expiration of the 

useful life, often 20 years after the date 

of the grant award. 

DOC—NATIONAL OCEANIC AND 

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

(NOAA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

9. Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Geophysical Surveys in 

the Gulf of Mexico 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 50 CFR 217. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The National Marine 

Fisheries Service is taking this action in 

response to an October 17, 2016, 

application from the U.S. Department of 

the Interior (DOI) and the Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to 

promulgate regulations and issue Letters 

of Authorization to take marine 

mammals incidental to oil and gas 

industry sponsored seismic surveys for 

purposes of geophysical exploration on 

the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf 

of Mexico from approximately 2018 

through 2023. BOEM states that 

underwater activities associated with 

sound sources (i.e., airguns, boomers, 

sparkers, and chirpers) may expose 

marine mammals in the area to noise 

and pressure. 

Statement of Need: The Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 

prohibits the ‘‘take’’ (e.g., behavioral 

harassment, injury, or mortality) of 

marine mammals with certain 

exceptions, including through the 

issuance of incidental take 

authorizations. Where there is a 

reasonable likelihood of an activity 

resulting in the take of marine 

mammals—as is the case for certain 

methods of geophysical exploration, 

including the use of airgun arrays (i.e., 

‘‘seismic surveys’’)—action proponents 

must ensure that take occurs in a lawful 

manner. However, there has not 

previously been any analysis of industry 

survey activities in the Gulf of Mexico 

conducted pursuant to requirements of 

MMPA, and industry operators have 

been, and currently are, conducting 

their work without MMPA incidental 

take authorizations. In support of the oil 

and gas industry, the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management (BOEM) has 

requested five-year incidental take 

regulations, which would provide a 

regulatory framework under which 

individual companies could apply for 

project-specific letters of authorization. 

Providing for industry compliance with 

the MMPA through the requested 

regulatory framework, versus companies 

pursuing individual authorizations 

would be the most efficient way to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1687 

achieve such compliance for both 

industry and for NMFS, and would 

provide regulatory certainty for industry 

operators. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. 

Alternatives: While the MMPA does 

not require consideration of alternatives 

in rulemaking, the regulatory impact 

analysis considers a more stringent and 

less stringent regulatory alternative. The 

more stringent alternative would require 

more mitigation of industry 

authorization-holders. The less stringent 

alternative is the basis for the proposed 

rule. As an alternative to regulation, 

individual companies could request 

specific permits known as incidental 

harassment authorizations (IHA). 

However, these permits require 

approximately six to nine months to 

obtain (compared with an anticipated 

less than three months to obtain letters 

of authorization under a rule), are 

information-intensive in terms of the 

required application, and require a 

public comment period. They also must 

be renewed on a yearly basis, whereas 

a Letter of Authorization lasts for five 

years. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed rule would include mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements, 

as required by the MMPA. However, as 

the proposed rule would alleviate other 

current regulatory requirements that 

would otherwise be expected to cost 

37.8 to 230 million dollars per year, it 

is estimated to result in a net annualized 

savings of 8 to 123 million dollars (the 

range of values reflects ranges of 

projected future activity levels). The 

proposed rule would result in 

additional indirect (non-monetized) 

costs as a result of the imposition of 

time-area restrictions on survey effort. 

However, these costs are expected to be 

minimal, as two of three proposed 

restrictions are in areas with low to no 

levels of activity and a third, which has 

been in place under current baseline 

conditions, is seasonal and therefore 

may be planned around. The proposed 

rule would also result in certain nonmonetized benefits. The protection of 

marine mammals afforded by this rule 

(pursuant to the requirements of the 

MMPA) would benefit the regional 

economic value of marine mammals via 

tourism and recreation to some extent, 

as mitigation measures applied to 

geophysical survey activities in the 

GOM region are expected to benefit the 

marine mammal populations that 

support this economic activity in the 

GOM. The proposed rule would also 

afford significant benefit to the 

regulated industry by providing an 

efficient framework within which 

compliance with the MMPA, and the 

attendant regulatory certainty, may be 

achieved. Cost savings may be generated 

in particular by the reduced 

administrative effort required to obtain 

an LOA under the framework 

established by a rule compared to what 

would be required to obtain an 

incidental harassment authorization 

(IHA) under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA. Absent the rule, survey 

operators in the GOM would likely be 

required to apply for an IHA. Although 

not monetized, NMFS’ analysis 

indicates that the upfront work 

associated with the rule (e.g., analyses, 

modeling, process for obtaining LOA) 

would likely save significant time and 

money for operators. 

Risks: Absent the rule, oil and gas 

industry operators would face a highly 

uncertain regulatory environment due to 

the imminent threat of litigation. BOEM 

currently issues permits under a stay of 

ongoing litigation, in the absence of the 

proposed rule the litigation would 

continue and NMFS would be added as 

a defendant. The IHA application 

process that would be available to 

companies would be more expensive 

and time-consuming. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/17 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Energy Effects: Statement of Energy 

Effects planned as required by Executive 

Order 13211. 

Agency Contact: Donna Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, 

Phone: 301 427–8400. 

RIN: 0648–BB38 

DOC—NOAA 

10. Illegal, Unregulated, and 

Unreported Fishing; Fisheries 

Enforcement; High Seas Driftnet Fishing 

Moratorium Protection Act 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114–81 

CFR Citation: 50 CFR 300. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule will 

make conforming amendments to 

regulations implementing the various 

statutes amended by the Illegal, 

Unreported and Unregulated Fishing 

Enforcement Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114– 

81). The Act amends several regional 

fishery management organization 

implementing statutes as well as the 

High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium 

Protection Act. It also provides 

authority to implement two new 

international agreements the Antigua 

Convention, which amends the 

Convention for the establishment of an 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna 

Commission, and the United Nations 

Food and Agriculture Organization 

Agreement on Port State Measures to 

Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, 

Unreported and Unregulated Fishing 

(Port State Measures Agreement), which 

restricts the entry into U.S. ports by 

foreign fishing vessels that are known to 

be or are suspected of engaging in 

illegal, unreported, and unregulated 

fishing. This proposed rule will also 

implement the Port State Measures 

Agreement. To that end, this proposed 

rule will require the collection of certain 

information from foreign fishing vessels 

requesting permission to use U.S. ports. 

It also includes procedures to designate 

and publicize the ports to which foreign 

fishing vessels may seek entry and 

procedures for conducting inspections 

of these foreign vessels accessing U.S. 

ports. Further, the rule establishes 

procedures for notification of: The 

denial of port entry or port services for 

a foreign vessel, the withdrawal of the 

denial of port services if applicable, the 

taking of enforcement action with 

respect to a foreign vessel, or the results 

of any inspection of a foreign vessel to 

the flag nation of the vessel and other 

competent authorities as appropriate. 

Statement of Need: The United States 

is a signatory to the Port State Measures 

Agreement (PSMA). The agreement is 

aimed at combatting illegal, unreported 

and unregulated (IUU) fishing activities 

by increased port inspection for foreign 

fishing vessels and closing seafood 

markets to the products of illegal 

fishing. 

Summary of Legal Basis: MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. 

Alternatives: Alternatives to taking 

action at the port would include taking 

action at sea against IUU fishing vessels 

and in the supply chain against IUU 

fishing products. At-sea monitoring and 

inspection is part of an overall strategy 

to combat IUU fishing, but it is 

extremely expensive and resources are 

limited. Likewise, tracing and removing 

illegal products already released into 

the market would be difficult and 

resource intensive. Preventing entry of 

IUU fishing vessels into ports or 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1688 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

investigating fishing vessels at the port 

is an efficient and effective approach to 

combatting illegal activity. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

anticipated costs will be minimal in that 

foreign vessels requesting permission to 

visit U.S. ports will have to include 

more information about the vessel and 

its cargo when they submit an electronic 

notice of arrival to the U.S. Coast Guard. 

Based on the information submitted, 

NMFS may deny port privileges for 

vessels known to have engaged in illegal 

fishing or to meet the vessel to conduct 

an inspection. The minimal additional 

data elements required of foreign fishing 

vessels will be submitted electronically 

through the existing U.S. Coast Guard 

system for notices of Arrival and 

Departure, thus reporting costs are not 

anticipated to affect shipping patterns, 

port usage, or international commerce. 

In addition, vessel inspections will be 

coordinated and planned based on the 

notice of arrival submitted prior to entry 

into port, thus delays for inspection will 

be minimal and not result in significant 

costs to legitimate vessels. Benefits of 

the rule will accrue when IUU vessels 

are denied entry, and illegal seafood 

products are precluded from the U.S. 

supply chain, thereby maintaining 

higher prices and market share for 

legitimate producers of fishery products. 

Risks: If the port entry reporting and 

inspection provisions of this rule were 

not implemented, there is an increased 

risk of IUU fishing vessels entering U.S. 

ports and/or the products of IUU fishing 

infiltrating the U.S. supply chain. In 

addition, the U.S. would be out of 

compliance with its international 

obligation under the PSMA. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/17 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

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: John Henderschedt, 

Director, Office for International Affairs 

and Seafood Inspection, Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 1315 EastWest Highway, Room 10362, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 427– 

8314, Email: john.henderschedt@

noaa.gov. 

RIN: 0648–BG11 

DOC—NOAA 

11. Endangered and Threatened 

Species; Designation of Critical Habitat 

for Threatened Caribbean and IndoPacific Reef-Building Corals 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 50 CFR 226. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

September 10, 2016, Statutory deadline 

for final critical habitat designation of 

listed Indo–Pacific corals. 

Abstract: On September 10, 2014, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service listed 

20 species of reef-building corals as 

threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act, 15 in the Indo-Pacific and 

five in the Caribbean. Of the 15 IndoPacific species, seven occur in U.S. 

waters of the Pacific Islands Region, 

including in American Samoa, Guam, 

the Commonwealth of the Mariana 

Islands, and the Pacific Remote Island 

Areas. This proposed rule would 

designate critical habitat for the seven 

species in U.S. waters (Acropora 

globiceps, Acropora jacquelineae, 

Acropora retusa, Acropora speciosa, 

Euphyllia paradivisa, Isopora 

crateriformis, and Seriatopora aculeata). 

The proposed designation would cover 

coral reef habitat around 17 island or 

atoll units in the Pacific Islands Region, 

including four in American Samoa, one 

in Guam, seven in the Commonwealth 

of the Mariana Islands, and five in 

Pacific Remote Island Areas, containing 

essential features that support 

reproduction, growth, and survival of 

the listed coral species. This rule also 

proposes to designate critical habitat for 

the five Caribbean corals and proposed 

to revise critical habitat for two, 

previously-listed corals, Acropora 

palmata and Acropora cervicornis. 

Statement of Need: Caribbean and 

Indo-Pacific reef building corals were 

listed under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) in September 2014. Section 4 of 

the ESA requires that critical habitat be 

specified to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable at the time a 

species is listed (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(6)(C)). The ESA also requires 

that we publish final critical habitat 

rules within one year of proposed rules. 

At the time these corals were listed, we 

were unable to determine what areas 

met the statutory definition of critical 

habitat. We subsequently published a 

proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat. This action would designate 

new critical habitat for twelve corals 

(Dendrogyra cylindrus, Orbicella 

annularis, Orbicella faveolata, Orbicella 

franksi, Mycetophyllia ferox, Acropora 

globiceps, Acropora jacquelineae, 

Acropora retusa, Acropora speciosa, 

Euphyllia paradivisa, Isopora 

crateriformis, and Seriatopora aculeata) 

and revise the 2008 critical habitat 

designation for two corals (Acropora 

palmata and Acropora cervicornis). 

Summary of Legal Basis: Endangered 

Species Act. 

Alternatives: During the formulation 

of the final rule, pursuant to section 

4(b)(2) of the ESA, we will evaluate the 

impacts of designating all and any parts 

of the proposed critical habitat. We are 

required to analyze the economic, 

national security, and other relevant 

impacts of designating critical habitat. 

Through this process, we have 

discretion to exclude areas from the 

final designation as long as such 

exclusions do not result in the 

extinction these coral species. Based on 

our draft impacts analysis supporting 

the proposed rule, we excluded one area 

in Florida, one area in Guam, and two 

areas in the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands for national 

security impacts. We also completed an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

and analyzed a ‘‘no action’’ alternative, 

an alternative in which some of the 

identified critical habitat areas are 

designated, and an alternative in which 

all critical habitat areas identified. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

primary benefit of designation is the 

protection afforded under section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act, requiring 

all Federal agencies to insure their 

actions are not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify designated critical 

habitat. In addition to these protections, 

the designation may also result in other 

forms of benefits including, but not 

limited to: Educational awareness and 

outreach benefits, benefits to tourism 

and recreation, and improved or 

sustained habitat quality. Costs 

specifically associated with the 

designation of critical habitat stem 

mainly from Federal agencies’ 

requirement to consult with NMFS, 

under section 7 of the ESA, to insure 

that any action they carry out, permit 

(authorize), or fund will not result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat of a listed species. 

Risks: If critical habitat is not 

designated, listed corals will not be 

protected to the extent provided for in 

the ESA, posing a legal risk to the 

agency and a risk to the species’ 

continued existence and recovery. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/18 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1689 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Donna Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, 

Phone: 301 427–8400. 

Related RIN: Merged with 0648–BG20 

RIN: 0648–BG26 

DOC—NOAA 

12. Commerce Trusted Trader Program 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 50 CFR 300. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule will establish a 

voluntary Commerce Trusted Trader 

Program for importers, aiming to 

provide benefits such as reduced 

targeting and inspections and enhanced 

streamlined entry into the United States 

for certified importers. Specifically, this 

rule would establish the criteria 

required of a Commerce Trusted Trader, 

and identify specifically how the 

program will be monitored and by 

whom. It will require that a Commerce 

Trusted Trader establish a secure supply 

chain and maintain the records 

necessary to verify the legality of all 

designated product entering into U.S. 

commerce, but will excuse the 

Commerce Trusted Trader from entering 

that data into the International Trade 

Data System prior to entry, as required 

by Seafood Import Monitoring Program 

(finalized on December 9, 2016). The 

rule will identify the benefits available 

to a Commerce Trusted Trader, detail 

the application process, and specify 

how the Commerce Trusted Trader will 

be audited by third-party entities while 

the overall program will be monitored 

by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

Statement of Need: Under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

importation of fish products taken in 

violation of foreign law and regulation 

is prohibited. To enforce this 

prohibition, NMFS has implemented the 

Seafood Import Monitoring Program (81 

FR 88975, December 9, 2016) which 

requires U.S. importers to report on the 

origin of fish products and to keep 

supply chain records. The Commerce 

Trusted Trader Program would reduce 

the burden on importers by reducing the 

reporting requirements and allowing 

more flexible approaches to keep supply 

chain records. 

Summary of Legal Basis: MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. 

Alternatives: The Seafood Import 

Monitoring Program is aimed at 

preventing the infiltration of illegal fish 

products into the U.S. market. 

Alternatives to reduce the reporting and 

recordkeeping burden for U.S. importers 

were considered during the course of 

that rulemaking. Collecting less 

information at import about the origin of 

products would increase the likelihood 

of illegal products entering the supply 

chain. However, working with 

individual traders to secure the supply 

chain will be an economical approach to 

ensure that illegal products are 

precluded and records will be kept as 

needed for post-entry audits. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

costs of the Commerce Trusted Trader 

Program will be minimal in that 

applicants to the program will have a 

small application fee and will incur the 

costs for an independent audit of several 

entries on an annual basis. Benefits of 

Trusted Trader status will include 

reduced reporting costs at entry and 

reduced recordkeeping costs due to 

flexibility in archiving. 

Risks: Risks of not implementing a 

Commerce Trusted Trader Program 

would include increased compliance 

costs to industry and potential increased 

incidence of illegal seafood infiltrating 

the U.S. market. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/00/17 

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. 

Agency Contact: John Henderschedt, 

Director, Office for International Affairs 

and Seafood Inspection, Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 1315 EastWest Highway, Room 10362, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 427– 

8314, Email: john.henderschedt@

noaa.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 0648–BF09 

RIN: 0648–BG51 

BILLING CODE 3510–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

Background 

The mission of the Department of 

Defense (DoD) is to provide the military 

forces needed to deter war and to 

protect the security of our country. 

The Department is America’s oldest 

and largest government agency. Today, 

DoD is not only in charge of the 

military, but it also employs a civilian 

force of thousands. With over 1.3 

million men and women on active duty 

and 742,000 civilian personnel, the 

Department is the nation’s largest 

employer. Another 826 thousand serve 

in the National Guard and Reserve 

forces and more than 2 million military 

retirees and their family members 

receive benefits. Our military service 

members and civilians operate in every 

time zone and in every climate with 

more than 450,000 employees overseas, 

both afloat and ashore. 

To accomplish this mission, DoD’s 

physical plant consists of more than 

several hundred thousand individual 

buildings and structures located at more 

than 5,000 different locations or sites. 

These sites range from the very small in 

size such as unoccupied sites 

supporting a single navigational aid that 

sits on less than one-half acre, to the 

Army’s vast White Sands Missile Range 

in New Mexico with over 3.6 million 

acres, or the Navy’s large complex of 

installations at Norfolk, Virginia with 

more than 78,000 employees. 

DoD trains and equips the armed 

forces through our three military 

departments: The Army, Navy and Air 

Force. The Marine Corps, mainly an 

amphibious force, is part of the 

Department of the Navy. The primary 

job of the military departments is to 

train and equip their personnel to 

perform warfighting, peacekeeping and 

humanitarian/disaster assistance tasks. 

• The Army defends the land mass of 

the United States, its territories, 

commonwealths, and possessions; it 

operates in more than 50 countries. 

• The Navy maintains, trains, and 

equips combat-ready maritime forces 

capable of winning wars, deterring 

aggression, and maintaining freedom of 

the seas. 

• The Air Force provides a rapid, 

flexible, and when necessary, air and 

space capability that routinely 

participates in peacekeeping, 

humanitarian, and aeromedical 

evacuation missions. 

• The U.S. Marine Corps maintains 

ready expeditionary forces, sea-based 

and integrated air-ground units for 

contingency and combat operations, and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1690 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

the means to stabilize or contain 

international disturbance. 

• National Guard and Reserve forces 

are taking on new and more important 

roles, at home and abroad, as we 

transform our national military strategy. 

An all-service or ‘‘joint’’ service office 

supports the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff in his capacity as the 

principal military advisor to the 

President, the National Security 

Council, and the Secretary of Defense. 

The unified commanders are the direct 

link from the military forces to the 

President and the Secretary of Defense. 

The Secretary of Defense exercises his 

authority over how the military is 

trained and equipped through the 

Service secretaries; but uses a totally 

different method to exercise his 

authority to deploy troops and exercise 

military power. This latter authority is 

directed, with the advice of the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 

the nine unified commands. 

The Department of Defense 

contributes to homeland security 

through its military missions overseas, 

homeland defense, and support to civil 

authorities. The Department is also 

responsible for homeland defense which 

is the protection of US sovereignty, 

territory, domestic population, and 

critical defense infrastructure against 

external threats and aggression, or other 

threats as directed by the President. 

Homeland Defense includes missions 

such as domestic air defense, maritime 

intercept operations, and land-based 

defense of critical infrastructure and 

assets Defense support of civil 

authorities, often referred to as civil 

support, can include Federal military 

forces, the Department’s career civilian 

and contractor personnel, and DoD 

agency and component assets, for 

domestic emergencies and for 

designated law enforcement and other 

activities. The Department of Defense 

provides defense support of civil 

authorities when directed to do so by 

the President or Secretary of Defense. 

The Office of the Secretary of Defense 

helps the Secretary plan, advise, and 

carry out the nation’s security policies 

as directed by both the Secretary of 

Defense and the President. The 

rulemakings discussed in this regulatory 

statement comes out of the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 

(OUSD(AT&L)) and the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)). 

These Offices are described below: 

• OUSD(AT&L)—procurement of 

goods and services; research and 

development; developmental testing; 

contract administration; logistics, 

maintenance, and sustainment support; 

and maintenance of the defense 

industrial base of the United States. 

• OUSD(P&R)—readiness; National 

Guard and Reserve component affairs; 

health affairs; training; and personnel 

requirements and management, 

including equal opportunity, morale, 

welfare, recreation, and quality of life 

matters. 

This Regulatory Plan tracks the most 

important regulations implementing the 

Department’s policy and program 

priorities, as well as new efforts by the 

Department to remove unnecessary 

regulatory burdens on external 

stakeholders. 

DoD’s Regulatory Philosophy and 

Principles 

The Department’s rulemaking 

program strives to be responsive, 

efficient, and transparent. As noted in 

Executive Order 13609, ‘‘Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation’’ 

(May 1, 2012), international regulatory 

cooperation, consistent with domestic 

law and prerogatives and U.S. trade 

policy, can be an important means of 

promoting public health, welfare, safety, 

and our environment as well as 

economic growth, innovation, 

competitiveness, and job creation. 

DoD, along with the Departments of 

State and Commerce, engages 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. 

DoD has been a key participant in the 

Administration’s Export Control Reform 

effort that resulted in a complete 

overhaul of the U.S. Munitions List and 

fundamental changes to the Commerce 

Control List. New controls have 

facilitated transfers of goods and 

technologies to allies and partners while 

helping prevent transfers to countries of 

national security and proliferation 

concern. DOD will continue to assess 

new and emerging technologies to 

ensure items that provide critical 

military and intelligence capabilities are 

properly controlled on international 

export control regime lists. 

Executive Order 13777, ‘‘Enforcing 

the Regulatory Reform Agenda’’ 

(February 24, 2017), required DoD to 

appoint a Regulatory Reform Officer to 

oversee the implementation of 

regulatory reform initiatives and 

policies and establish a Regulatory 

Reform Task Force (Task Force) to 

review and evaluate existing regulations 

and make recommendations to the 

agency head regarding their repeal, 

replacement, or modification, consistent 

with applicable law. 

Those reform initiatives and policies 

include Executive Order 13771, 

‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs’’ (January 30, 2017), 

section 6 of Executive Order 13563, 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’ (January 18, 2011), and 

Executive Order 12866. DoD is 

implementing a three phase effort to 

review, implement, and sustain its 

regulations: 

• Phase I: Utilizing the DoD Task 

Force, assess all 716 existing, codified 

DoD regulations to include 350 

solicitation provisions and contract 

clauses. The Task Force will present 

recommendations for the repeal, 

replacement, or modification to the 

Secretary of Defense on a quarterly basis 

through the end of December 2018. 

• Phase II: Upon Secretary of Defense 

approval, DoD will begin implementing 

the elimination of regulations. 

Implementation requires drafting, 

internal coordination, review by the 

Office of Management and Budget, and 

providing for notice and comment, as 

required by law. 

• Phase III: DoD will incorporate into 

its policies a requirement for 

component’s to sustain review of both 

new regulatory actions and existing 

regulations. 

As a result of the ongoing review, 

evaluation, and recommendations of its 

Task Force, DoD has identified priority 

regulatory and deregulatory actions that 

reduce costs to the public by 

eliminating unnecessary, ineffective, 

and duplicative regulations. 

Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics/Defense Procurement and 

Acquisition Policy, Personnel and 

Readiness/Health Affairs, and the Army 

Corps of Engineers will be planning 

actions that are considered the ‘‘most 

important’’ significant pre-regulatory or 

regulatory actions for FY 2018. During 

the next year, these DoD Components 

plan to publish eight rulemaking actions 

that are designated as significant 

actions. Further information on these 

actions is provided below. 

DoD has implemented Executive 

Order 13771 through its Regulatory 

Reform Task Force established under 

Executive Order 13777 to identify and 

prioritize deregulatory actions that each 

component or Service can take to reduce 

and remove regulatory burdens on 

stakeholders. 

In Fiscal Year 2018, DoD expects to 

publish more deregulatory actions than 

regulatory actions. Exact figures are not 

yet available as the regulations reported 

in this edition of the Unified Agenda are 

still under evaluation for classification 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1691 

under Executive Order 13771. 

Additionally, the Department 

Regulatory Reform Task Force will 

continue working to execute directives 

under Executive Orders 13783 and 

13807 to streamline regulatory process 

and permitting reviews. To that end, 

DoD may have other actions which do 

not currently appear in the Agenda. DoD 

focuses its regulatory resources on the 

most serious acquisition, health, and 

personnel and readiness risks as 

discussed below. 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics/ 

Defense Procurement and Acquisition 

Policy (DPAP) 

DPAP is responsible for all 

contracting and procurement policy 

matters in the Department and uses the 

Defense Acquisition Regulation System 

(DARS) to develop and maintain 

acquisition rules and to facilitate the 

acquisition workforce as they acquire 

the goods and services. Significant rules 

are highlighted below. 

Rulemakings that are expected to have 

high net benefits well in excess of costs. 

Use of the Government Property 

Clause (DFARS Case 2015–D035). 

This rule will amend the DFARS to 

expand the use of Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) clause 52.245–1, 

Government Property, in certain 

purchase orders for repair. This FAR 

clause is used in contracts to require 

contractors comply with basic property 

receipt and record keeping 

requirements. This ensures the 

Government is able to track, report, and 

manage Government-furnished 

property. ‘‘Government-furnished 

property’’ is property in the possession 

of, or directly acquired by, the 

Government and subsequently 

furnished to the contractor for 

performance of a contract. It includes, 

but is not limited to, spares and 

property furnished for repair, 

maintenance, overhaul, or modification. 

Currently, the FAR clause is not 

required for use in purchase orders for 

repair, when the unit acquisition cost of 

the Government-furnished property to 

be repaired is less than the simplified 

acquisition threshold (currently 

$150,000). However, the unit cost of the 

item to be repaired alone is not an 

indicator of the criticality or sensitivity 

of the item. For example, firearms, body 

armor, night vision equipment, 

computers, or cryptological devices may 

individually be valued at less than 

$150,000, but accountability of these 

items is of vital importance to the 

Department. Not using the FAR clause 

in purchase orders for repair, 

significantly increases the risk of misuse 

or loss of Government-furnished 

property items. In order to strengthen 

the management and accountability of 

Government-furnished property 

provided to contractors, this rule will 

amend the DFARS to require use of the 

FAR clause 52.245–1 in all DoD 

purchase orders for repair, regardless of 

the unit acquisition cost of the 

individual items to be repaired. 

Rulemakings that promote Open 

Government and use disclosure as a 

regulatory tool. 

Brand Name or Equal (DFARS Case 

2015–D041). 

This rule proposes to amend the 

DFARS to implement section 888 of the 

NDAA for FY 2017. Section 888 requires 

that competition not be limited through 

the use of specifying brand name, brand 

name or equivalent descriptions, or 

proprietary specifications and 

standards, unless a justification for such 

specifications is provided and approved 

in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(f). 

Currently, if the Government intends to 

procure specific ‘‘brand name’’ 

products, the contracting officer must 

prepare a brand name justification and 

obtain the appropriate approvals based 

on the estimated dollar value of the 

contracts (see FAR 6.302–1(c) and 

6.304). However, a justification is not 

required to use ‘‘brand name or equal’’ 

descriptions in a solicitation. Rather, 

contracting officers are required to 

include in their solicitation a 

description of the salient physical, 

functional, or performance 

characteristics of the brand name item 

that an ‘‘equal’’ item must meet. The 

contracting officer will also include 

FAR provision 52.211–6, Brand Name or 

Equal, in solicitations, which informs 

potential offerors that offers of ‘‘equal’’ 

products must meet the salient 

characteristic specified in this 

solicitation. To implement section 888, 

this rule proposes to amend the DFARS 

to require contracting officers to take the 

additional step of preparing and 

obtaining an approval of a justification 

for use of ‘‘brand name or equal’’ 

descriptions, prior to including those 

descriptions in a solicitation. 

Contracting officers will include the 

justification with the posting of the 

solicitation, which will promote 

transparency with industry and presents 

an opportunity to increase competition. 

Amendment to Mentor-Prote ́ge ́

Program (DFARS Case 2016–D011). 

This rule amends Appendix I of the 

DFARS I to implement changes to the 

Pilot Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ Program provided 

by section 861 of the NDAA for FY 

2016. This Program was originally 

established under section 831 of the 

NDAA for FY 1991. Under this program, 

eligible companies approved as ‘‘mentor 

firms’’ will enter into agreements with 

eligible ‘‘prote ́ge ́ firms.’’ The mentor 

firms provide developmental assistance 

to prote ́ge ́ firms to perform as 

subcontractors or suppliers on 

Government contracts. In return, the 

mentor firms may receive credit against 

applicable subcontracting goals under 

contracts with DoD or other Federal 

agencies. This rule amends Appendix I 

of the DFARS to implement the 

amendments to the Program provided 

by section 861. Specifically, the rule 

will require mentor firms to report 

additional information on the assistance 

they have provided to their prote ́ge ́

firms. DoD’s Office of Small Business 

Programs will use this information to 

support decisions regarding whether to 

continue particular mentor-prote ́ge ́

agreements. In addition, this rule adds 

new eligibility criteria for both mentor 

and prote ́ge ́ firms and will limit the 

period of time a prote ́ge ́ firm can 

participate in the Program, as well as 

the number of mentor-prote ́ge ́

agreements to which a prote ́ge ́ can be a 

party. Finally, this rule also extends the 

Program for three years. 

Rulemakings that streamline 

regulations and reduce unjustified 

burdens. 

Earned Value Management 

Applicability (DFARS Case 2015–D038). 

This rule proposes to amend the 

DFARS to clarify DoD’s policy for 

Earned Value Management System 

(EVMS) application on DoD contracts. 

‘‘Earned value management system’’ 

means a project management tool that 

effectively integrates the project scope 

of work with cost, schedule, and 

performance elements for optimum 

project planning and control. 

Implemented properly, an EVMS will 

measure progress against a baseline and 

provide an early warning of cost 

overruns and schedule delays for major 

acquisitions. Currently, an EVMS is 

required for major acquisitions for 

development, in accordance with OMB 

Circular A–11 (see FAR 34.201(a)). 

However, individual agencies may 

require an EVMS on other acquisitions, 

as specified in their agency procedures. 

DoD applies the EVMS requirement to 

cost or incentive contracts and 

subcontracts valued at $20 million or 

more, and requires the EVMS comply 

with the guidelines in the American 

National Standards Institute/Electronic 

Industries Alliance Standard 748, 

Earned Value Management Systems 

(ANSI/EIA–748). In addition, for DoD 

cost or incentive contracts and 

subcontracts valued at $50 million or 

more, the EVMS must be determined by 

the cognizant Federal agency to be 

compliant with ANSI/EIA–748. This 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1692 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

DFARS rule proposes the clarify that 

EVMS requirements are applicable to 

DoD cost reimbursement or incentive 

fee contracts that have a dollar value of 

$20 million or more (inclusive of all 

options) and a period of performance of 

18 months or longer. In addition, the 

rule raises the threshold for a formal 

EVMS system compliance 

determination by the Defense Contract 

Management Agency from $50 million 

to $100 million. It is expected that this 

rule will reduce the number of contracts 

subject to EVMS requirements, as well 

as the number of contractor EVMS 

reviews to determine compliance. 

Contractor Purchasing System Review 

Threshold (DFARS Case 2017–D038). 

This rule proposes to amend the 

DFARS to raise the threshold for 

determining when a contractor 

purchasing system review (CPSR) is 

required. Per FAR subpart 44.3, the 

Government will conduct a CPRS in 

order to evaluate the efficiency and 

effectiveness with which a prime 

contractor spends Government funds 

and complies with Government policy 

when subcontracting. During a CPSR, 

the Government will pay special 

attention to certain aspects of a prime 

contractor’s subcontracting program. For 

example, the Government will review 

the degree of price competition obtained 

by a prime contractor on subcontracts, 

whether the prime contractor is 

complying with Government Cost 

Accounting Standards, and whether the 

appropriate contract types are being 

used on subcontracts (see FAR 44.303). 

Currently, if a contractor’s sales to the 

Government are expected to exceed $25 

million during the next 12 months, then 

the administrative contracting officer 

(ACO) will determine whether there is 

a need for a CPSR (see FAR 44.302(a)). 

This rule proposes to amend the DFARS 

to raise the ACO determination dollar 

threshold to $50 million for DoD 

contracts. It is expected that this rule 

may reduce the number of CPSRs 

conducted by DoD and, in turn, alleviate 

the burden on contractors associated 

with participating in the CPSR. 

Rules modifying, streamlining, 

expanding, or repealing making DOD’s 

regulatory program more effective or 

less burdensome in achieving the 

regulatory objectives. 

Repeal of Independent Research and 

Development Technical Interchange 

(DFARS Case 2017–D041). 

This final rule will amend the DFARS 

to remove a requirement for major 

contractors to have a technical 

interchange with the Government prior 

to generating independent research and 

development (IR&D) costs. DoD 

published a final rule, effective 

November 4, 2016, that revised DFARS 

231.205–18(c)(iii)(C)(4) to require major 

contractors to engage in and document 

a technical interchange with a DoD 

employee, prior to generating IR&D 

costs for IR&D projects initiated in fiscal 

year 2017 and later, in order for those 

costs to be allowable. This requirement 

causes the contractor to expend time 

preparing for a discussion, contacting 

appropriate Government personnel, 

discussing the IR&D project, and 

documenting the conversation. Since 

contractors commonly pool all of their 

IR&D project costs to develop a single 

billing rate, this requirement would 

necessitate contractors having to discuss 

all of the IR&D projects contained in 

their billing rate. While some 

contractors may have a single project, 

many have close to 100 or more, which 

could be significantly burdensome. This 

regulation is being repealed pursuant to 

action taken by the DoD Regulatory 

Reform Task Force in accordance with 

E.O. 13777. Repealing the technical 

interchange prerequisite from the 

DFARS, will not only reduce the burden 

imposed on major contractors, but also 

free these contractors to pursue IR&D 

projects without including the 

Government in those preliminary 

decisions. 

Personnel and Readiness/Health 

Affairs 

The mission of DoD’s health program 

is to enhance the Department of Defense 

and our nation’s security by providing 

health support for the full range of 

military operations and sustaining the 

health of all those entrusted to our care 

by creating a world-class health care 

system that supports the military 

mission by fostering, protecting, 

sustaining and restoring health. 

TRICARE is the health care program 

for uniformed service members 

including active duty and retired 

members of the: U.S. Army, U.S. Air 

Force, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, 

U.S. Coast Guard, the Commissioned 

Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service 

and the Commissioned Corps of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Association and their families around 

the world. It serves 9.5 million 

individuals worldwide. It continues to 

offer an increasingly integrated and 

comprehensive health care plan, 

refining and enhancing both benefits 

and programs in a manner consistent 

with the law, industry standard of care, 

and best practices, to meet the changing 

needs of its beneficiaries. The program’s 

goal is to increase access to health care 

services, improve health care quality, 

and control health care costs. 

For this component, DoD is 

highlighting the following rule. 

Establishment of TRICARE Select and 

Other TRICARE Reforms, RIN 0720– 

AB70. This final rule implements the 

primary features of section 701 and 

partially implements several other 

sections of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 

(NDAA–17). This final rule advances all 

four components of the Military Health 

System’s quadruple aim of improved 

readiness, better care, better health, and 

lower cost. The aim of improved 

readiness is served by reinforcing the 

vital role of the TRICARE Prime health 

plan to refer patients, particularly those 

needing specialty care, to military 

medical treatment facilities (MTFs) in 

order to ensure that military health care 

providers maintain clinical currency 

and proficiency in their professional 

fields. The objective of better care is 

enhanced by a number of improvements 

in beneficiary access to health care 

services, including increased 

geographical coverage for the TRICARE 

Select provider network, reduced 

administrative hurdles for TRICARE 

Prime enrollees to obtain urgent care 

services and specialty care referrals, and 

promotion of high value services and 

medications. The goal of better health is 

advanced by expanding TRICARE 

coverage of preventive care services, 

treatment of obesity, high-value care, 

and telehealth. And the aim of lower 

cost is furthered by refining cost-benefit 

assessments for TRICARE plan 

specifications that remain under DoD’s 

discretion and adding flexibilities to 

incentivize high-value health care 

services. 

Army Corps of Engineers 

The United States Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE), is a major Army 

command made up of some 37,000 

civilian and military personnel, making 

it one of the world’s largest public 

engineering, design, and construction 

management agencies. Although 

generally associated with dams, canals 

and flood protection in the United 

States, USACE is involved in a wide 

range of public works throughout the 

world. The Corps of Engineers provides 

outdoor recreation opportunities to the 

public, and provides 24% of U.S. 

hydropower capacity. 

The corps’ mission is to ‘‘Deliver vital 

public and military engineering 

services; partnering in peace and war to 

strengthen our Nation’s security, 

energize the economy and reduce risks 

from disasters.’’ The most visible 

missions include: 

• Planning, designing, building, and 

operating locks and dams. Other civil 

engineering projects include flood 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1693 

control, beach nourishment, and 

dredging for waterway navigation. 

• Design and construction of flood 

protection systems through various 

federal mandates. 

• Design and construction 

management of military facilities for the 

Army, Air Force, Army Reserve and Air 

Force Reserve and other Defense and 

Federal agencies. 

• Environmental regulation and 

ecosystem restoration. 

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). On October 9, 2015, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 

stayed the 2015 rule nationwide 

pending further action of the court. On 

February 28, 2017, the President signed 

the ‘‘Executive Order on Restoring the 

Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic 

Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the 

United States’ Rule’’ which instructed 

the agencies to review the 2015 rule and 

rescind or replace it as appropriate and 

consistent with law. On July 27, 2017, 

the agencies published a Federal 

Register notice proposing to withdraw 

(STEP 1 of a comprehensive 2-STEP 

process) the 2015 Clean Water Rule 

(CWR) and reinstate pre-existing 

regulations and guidance (1986 

regulations plus 2003 SWANCC and 

2008 Rapanos Guidance); the initial 30- 

day comment period was extended an 

additional 30 days to September 28, 

2017. 

The Executive Order further directs 

that EPA and the Army ‘‘shall consider 

interpreting the term ‘navigable waters’ 

‘‘in a manner consistent with Supreme 

Court Justice Scalia’s opinion’’ in 

Rapanos indicating that Clean Water Act 

jurisdiction includes relatively 

permanent waters and wetlands with a 

continuous surface connection to 

relatively permanent waters. Later this 

fiscal year, after considering the 

comments received in response to the 

STEP 1 FRN, the agencies plan to 

propose a new definition to replace the 

definition and regulatory approach 

codified in the 2015 CWR. Over the past 

few months the agencies have been 

having meetings and holding webinars 

with Tribes, States, and organizations 

that request them to explain the 2-STEP 

process, what the Scalia Opinion means, 

and some of the options for developing 

a new definition of Waters of the United 

States. These briefing and listening 

sessions will continue through 

November 2017. Until the new rule is 

finalized, the agencies will continue to 

implement the regulatory definition in 

place prior to the 2015 CWR consistent 

with the SWANCC and Rapanos 

Guidance, while the 6th Circuit Court 

stay of the 2015 CWR is still in effect or 

the EPA and Army complete rulemaking 

to amend the effective date of the 2015 

CWR. 

DOD—DEFENSE ACQUISITION 

REGULATIONS COUNCIL (DARC) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

13. Earned Value Management 

Applicability (DFARS Case 2015–D038) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 234; 48 CFR 

252. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

clarify DoD’s policy for Earned Value 

Management System (EVMS) 

application on DoD contracts, beyond 

the basic triggers of contract types and 

dollar values. Specifically, the rule: 

• Clarifies that EVMS requirements 

are applicable to all DoD contracts, task 

orders, and delivery orders, that are cost 

reimbursement or incentive fee; have a 

value of $20 million or more (inclusive 

of all options); and have a period of 

performance of 18 months or longer; 

• Clarifies that, with the exception of 

a contractor EVMS under the 

cognizance of the Naval Sea Systems 

Command, where system approval is 

not delegated to the Defense Contract 

Management Agency (DCMA), DCMA is 

responsible for approving a contractor’s 

EVMS; 

• Removes the reference to American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI) 

guidelines and states that EVMS must 

comply with guidelines in Electronic 

Industries Alliance (EIA) Standard 748 

(EIA–748); 

• Raises the threshold for a formal 

earned value management system 

compliance determination by the 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

from $50 million to $100 million; and 

• Clarifies that EVMS requirements 

apply unless the requirements package 

includes a determination of earned 

value management nonapplicability or a 

waiver signed by the component 

acquisition executive. 

This rule will not increase costs for 

contractors. DoD expects that this rule 

will decreases costs for contractors by 

increasing the dollar threshold for 

formal EVMS compliance 

determinations from $50 million to $100 

million, and providing for earned value 

management non-applicability 

determinations and waivers. DoD 

estimates that this rule will reduce the 

number of contractor reviews by nearly 

20 percent with very little risk to the 

Government, since over 97 percent of 

the contract dollars will still be covered 

by the increased threshold. 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

necessary to ensure proper application 

of EVMS requirements in DoD contracts, 

task orders, and delivery orders based 

on contract type and period of 

performance, and increase the 

contractual threshold for an approved 

earned value management system from 

$50 million to $100 million. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is 

proposed under the authority at 41 

U.S.C. 1303, functions and authority, 

which provides the authority to issue 

and maintain the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation and executive agency 

implementing regulations. 

Alternatives: No alternatives were 

considered. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based 

on the DoD Performance Assessments 

and Root Cause Analyses (PARCA) 

Earned Value Management Division’s 

assessment of DoD application of earned 

value management, the reduction in 

DoD EVMS compliance surveillance 

will allow for the valuable repurposing 

of an estimated 50 personnel to support 

other essential priorities and missions, 

resulting in direct savings to the 

Department in excess of $3 million. 

Furthermore, corresponding savings in 

reduced DoD contractor overhead costs 

are conservatively estimated at two to 

three times the DoD savings (One 

contractor alone in PARCA’s study 

estimated approximately $6 million 

company-wide savings annually). Since 

the actual cost impact is difficult to 

quantify, DoD is conservatively 

estimating annualized savings of $10 

million. 

Risks: Failure to implement this rule 

will perpetuate the unproductive 

regulatory earned value management 

compliance requirements on industry 

for certain types of contracts where such 

oversight is unnecessary. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/18 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

03/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Jennifer Hawes, 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System, Department of Defense, 3060 

Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1694 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

Washington, DC 20301–3060, Phone: 

571 372–6115, Email: 

jennifer.l.hawes2.civ@mail.mil. 

RIN: 0750–AJ10 

DOD—DARC 

14. • Contractor Purchasing System 

Review Threshold (DFARS CASE 2017– 

D038) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 244. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement to establish a 

higher dollar threshold for conducting 

contractor purchasing system reviews. 

This rule proposes, in lieu of the 

threshold at Federal Acquisition 

Regulation 44.302(a), the administrative 

contracting officer shall determine the 

need for a contractors purchasing 

system review if a contractor’s sales to 

the Government are expected to exceed 

$50 million during the next 12 months. 

This rule is not expected to increase 

costs for contractors; rather, the rule 

may reduce the number of contractor 

purchasing system reviews conducted 

by the Government, thus alleviating 

burden on contractors. 

Statement of Need: There is a need to 

increase the threshold for a contractor 

purchasing system review from $25 to 

$50 million to reduce the administrative 

burden on contractors and the 

Government for maintaining and 

reviewing an approved contractor 

purchasing system. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is 

proposed under the authority at 41 

U.S.C. 1303, Functions and authority, 

which provides the authority to issue 

and maintain the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation and executive agency 

implementing regulations. 

Alternatives: No alternatives to this 

action are being considered at this time. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Implementing this rule provides a net 

annualized savings of approximately 

$12 million. This estimate is based on 

data available in the Federal 

Procurement Data System (FPDS) data 

for fiscal year 2016, which indicates that 

958 unique vendors received awards 

valued at $25 million or more, but less 

than $50 million, that were subject to 

the purchasing system review. 

Removing this requirement would 

relieve these contractors from the time 

and cost burden required to establish, 

maintain, audit, document, and train for 

an approved purchasing system. 

Risks: If this rule is not finalized, the 

public will continue to experience 

additional costs to comply with this rule 

at the current threshold. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/17 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

02/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Jennifer Hawes, 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System, Department of Defense, 3060 

Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060, Phone: 

571 372–6115, Email: 

jennifer.l.hawes2.civ@mail.mil. 

RIN: 0750–AJ48 

DOD—DARC 

15. • Brand Name or Equal (DFARS 

Case 2017–D040) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

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

L. 113–291, sec. 888; 10 U.S.C. 2304(f) 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 206; 48 CFR 

211. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

December 23, 2016, Effective upon 

enactment. 

Abstract: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement to implement 

section 888 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for FY 2017, which 

requires that competition not be limited 

through the use of specifying brand 

names or brand name or equivalent 

descriptions, or proprietary 

specifications and standards, unless a 

justification for such specifications is 

provided and approved in accordance 

with 10 U.S.C. 2304(f). This rule affects 

the internal operating procedures of the 

Government, and is not expected to 

increase costs for contractors or offerors. 

Statement of Need: This case is 

necessary to ensure contracting officers 

comply with section 888 of the NDAA 

for FY 2015 (Pub. L. 113–291). 

Specifically, it will ensure contracting 

officers properly justify for the use of 

brand name and brand name or 

equivalent descriptions, or proprietary 

specifications or standards. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is 

proposed under the authority at 41 

U.S.C. 1303, Functions and authority, 

which provides the authority to issue 

and maintain the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation and executive agency 

implementing regulations. In addition, 

this rule is necessary to implement the 

statutory amendments made by section 

888 of the NDAA for FY 2017. 

Alternatives: There are no viable 

alternatives that are consistent with the 

stated objectives of the statute. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Department does not expect this 

proposed rule to have any cost impact 

on contractors or offerors. Rather, 

preparing a justification for the use of 

brand name descriptions or 

specifications provides increased 

transparency into the acquisition 

planning and source selection strategy 

process for department goods and 

services. 

Risks: If this rule is not finalized, the 

department will not be in compliance 

with section 888 of the NDAA for FY 

2017, therefore losing an opportunity to 

increase competition, expand the 

defense industrial base and secure 

reduced pricing. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/18 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

05/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Jennifer Hawes, 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System, Department of Defense, 3060 

Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060, Phone: 

571 372–6115, Email: 

jennifer.l.hawes2.civ@mail.mil. 

RIN: 0750–AJ50 

DOD—DARC 

Final Rule Stage 

16. Amendment to Mentor-Prote ́ge ́

Program (DFARS Case 2016–D011) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

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

L. 114–92, sec. 861 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 219; 48 CFR, ch. 

2, app I. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: DoD is issuing a final rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement to 

implement section 861 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for FY 2016, 

which provides the following 

amendments to the DoD Pilot MentorProte ́ge ́ Program (‘‘the Program’’): 

• Requires mentor firms to report 

assistance provided to or obtained for 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1695 

prote ́ge ́ firms; new subcontracts 

awarded to prote ́ge ́ firms; any 

extensions, increases in the scope of 

work, or additional, unreported 

payments to prote ́ge ́ firms; all Federal 

contracts awarded to the mentor and 

prote ́ge ́ firms as a joint venture; whether 

the terms of the mentor-prote ́ge ́

agreement have changed; and a 

narrative describing the success 

assistance provided under the Program 

has had in addressing the prote ́ge ́ firm’s 

developmental needs, the impact on 

DoD contracts, and addressing any 

problems encountered. 

• Requires mentor firms and prote ́ge ́

firms to meet new eligibility criteria. 

• Limits the number of mentorprote ́ge ́ agreements to which a prote ́ge ́

firm may be a party to one at a time. 

• Limits the period of time during 

which a prote ́ge ́ firm may participate in 

mentor-prote ́ge ́ agreements under the 

Program to five years. 

• Requires mentor-prote ́ge ́

agreements to address the benefits of the 

agreement to DoD and goals for 

additional awards for which the prote ́ge ́

firm can compete outside the Program. 

• Removes business development 

assistance using mentor firm personnel 

and cash in exchange for an ownership 

interest in the prote ́ge ́ firm from the 

types of assistance that a mentor firm 

may provide to a prote ́ge ́ firm. 

• Prohibits reimbursement of any fee 

assessed by the mentor firm for certain 

services provided to the prote ́ge ́ firm 

while participating in a joint venture 

with the prote ́ge ́ firm. 

One respondent submitted a public 

comment on the proposed rule. This 

rule will slightly increase the costs for 

contractors participating in the program 

by introducing new reporting 

requirements, as required by the statute; 

however, these costs are offset by 

benefits offered by the Program. For 

example, the Program provides 

incentives to both mentor and prote ́ge ́

firms. Mentor firms may receive credit 

toward the goals in their small business 

subcontracting plan for the funds they 

spend on developmental assistance for 

their prote ́ge ́ firms. The Program offers 

prote ́ge ́ firms the opportunity to learn 

about contracting with DoD and to 

receive subcontracts from an 

established, successful DoD contractor. 

Statement of Need: This final rule 

amends the DFARS to implement 

section 861 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal 

Year 2016, which provides amendments 

to the DoD Pilot Mentor-Prote ́ge ́

Program (the Program). These 

amendments include new reporting 

requirements that will provide 

information to DoD’s Office of Small 

Business Programs to support decisions 

regarding continuation of particular 

mentor-prote ́ge ́ agreements; a three-year 

extension of the Program; and changes 

to the requirements for business 

development assistance provided by a 

mentor firm and for the reimbursement 

of fees assessed by the mentor firm. This 

rule is needed to implement these 

statutory requirements. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is 

proposed under the authority at 41 

U.S.C. 1303, Functions and authority, 

which provides the authority to issue 

and maintain the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation and executive agency 

implementing regulations. In addition, 

this rule is necessary to implement the 

statutory amendments made to the 

mentor protege program by section 861 

of the NDAA for FY 2016. 

Alternatives: There are no viable 

alternatives that are consistent with the 

stated objectives of the statute. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

annualized cost to the public is 

anticipated to be approximately $20,000 

over the next four years, after which the 

Program is scheduled to end. Nearly all 

of these costs are borne by mentor firms. 

The anticipated cost is based on the 

number of firms currently participating 

in the Program, the number of new 

mentor applications DoD receives each 

year, and the number of new mentorprote ́ge ́ agreements submitted for DoD 

approval each year under the Program. 

The Government estimated the cost of 

various activities mentor and prote ́ge ́

firms must perform to comply with the 

rule, including submission of reports. 

The anticipated costs are offset by 

benefits offered by the Program. For 

mentor firms, these benefits include 

credit toward the goals in their small 

business subcontracting plans for the 

developmental assistance they provide 

to their prote ́ge ́ firms. Participation in 

the Program as a mentor is one way for 

mentors to demonstrate a good-faith 

effort to comply with their 

subcontracting plans. For prote ́ge ́ firms, 

the benefits of the Program include an 

opportunity to gain assistance from a 

successful mentor that will enable them 

to grow and develop as a business. Such 

assistance will help them obtain 

subcontracts with DoD contractors and 

eventually contracts with DoD. 

Risks: If this rule is not finalized, all 

developmental assistance provided 

under the Program will end on 

September 30, 2018. As of that date, 

mentor firms will no longer be able to 

receive credit toward the goals in their 

small business subcontracting plans for 

developmental assistance provided to 

prote ́ge ́ firms. Prote ́ge ́ firms will no 

longer have the opportunity to learn 

about contracting with DoD from a 

mentor who is a successful DoD 

contractor. In addition, the Government 

will lose access to a pool of potential 

new contractors and subcontractors, 

therefore losing an opportunity to 

strengthen and diversify the defense 

industrial base. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 09/23/16 81 FR 65610 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

11/22/16 

Final Action ......... 03/00/18 

Final Action Effective.03/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Jennifer Hawes, 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System, Department of Defense, 3060 

Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060, Phone: 

571 372–6115, Email: 

jennifer.l.hawes2.civ@mail.mil. 

RIN: 0750–AJ05 

DOD—DARC 

17. Use of the Government Property 

Clause (DFARS Case 2015–D035) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 245. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: DoD is issuing a final rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement to 

expand the prescription for use of 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

clause 52.245–1, Government Property, 

to apply to all purchase orders for 

repair, maintenance, overhaul, or 

modification to Government property 

regardless of the acquisition cost of the 

items to be repaired. Currently, the FAR 

clause is optional for use in purchase 

orders for repair when the acquisition 

cost of the item to be repaired is less 

than the simplified acquisition 

threshold; however, acquisition cost 

alone is not an indicator of the 

criticality or sensitivity of the property. 

The acquisition cost of individual items 

of firearms, body armor, night-vision 

equipment, computers, or cryptologic 

devices may be below the simplified 

acquisition threshold, but the 

accountability requirements for these 

items are fairly stringent. Requiring the 

clause in all purchase orders for repair, 

regardless of the acquisition cost of the 

item to be repaired, will ensure DoD has 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1696 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

better accountability and insight into 

military reparable assets. 

One respondent submitted comments 

on the proposed rule. This rule will 

increase costs for contractors, including 

small entities, who receive purchase 

orders for repair of Government 

property, because these contractors will 

be required to comply with the 

reporting requirements associated with 

Government property clause. However, 

the rule also provides the contractors 

with the protections of the Government 

Property clause (where the Government 

self-insures the property provided to the 

contractor), and provides DoD better 

accountability of its property. 

Statement of Need: The rule is 

required to achieve greater 

accountability of Government furnished 

property (GFP) and decrease the risk of 

misuse or loss of Government property. 

Accountability of assets is an important 

part of audit readiness. This rule 

facilitates DoD’s goal of achieving full 

accountability and visibility of 

equipment provided to contractors as 

GFP, including critical and sensitive 

equipment items. This rule closes an 

existing accountability gap by treating 

purchase orders for repair, maintenance, 

overhaul, or modification of GFP no 

different from other contractual 

instruments involving repair of GFP, 

such as delivery orders awarded under 

Basic Ordering Agreements or issued 

under Indefinite Delivery Contracts. 

The rule also enables compliance 

with DoD Instruction 4161.02 entitled 

Accountability and Management of 

Government Contract Property, which 

requires DoD components to use 

electronic transactions when 

transferring GFP to a contractor and 

upon the return of the property to DoD. 

Use of FAR clause 52.245–1, 

Government Property, in conjunction 

with associated DFARS clauses, creates 

an electronic end-to-end process for 

GFP management. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is 

proposed under the authority at 41 

U.S.C. 1303, Functions and authority, 

which provides the authority to issue 

and maintain the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation and executive agency 

implementing regulations. 

Alternatives: There are no viable 

alternatives that would provide tracking 

and accountability of GFP provided to 

contractors for repair that would 

provide full visibility of Government 

assets and integrate with existing GFP 

procedures and electronic systems. The 

rule reflects marketplace practices, 

which limits the consideration of 

alternatives. Many of the requirements 

contained in FAR 52.245–1, e.g., 

receiving reports, discrepancy reports 

and property records, are typical 

commercial practices, and so not 

unduly burdensome. For example, 

customary commercial practice is to 

create receiving reports and keep 

records for incoming assets regardless of 

the source of such assets. In addition, 

the policy at FAR 45.103(b) permits 

contractors to use their own existing 

property management procedures, 

practices, and systems to account for 

and manage Government property. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

annual estimated cost to the public is 

based on Federal Procurement Data 

System transaction data for fiscal year 

2015 for purchase orders for repairs of 

Government equipment. Using this 

baseline, costs were calculated for 

contractor reporting, record keeping, 

and compliance costs. Some contractors 

may be required to setup a property 

management system; however, this 

impact is minimal since contractors may 

use their own existing practices and 

systems. The annualized cost is 

estimated to be approximately $350,000. 

Benefits of this rule accrue to both 

contractors and the Government 

resulting from improved accountability 

of GFP, which should reduce losses and 

mitigate potential property ownership 

issues. This will serve to minimize 

contract disputes, claims, and litigation; 

thereby reducing administrative costs 

for both contractors and the 

Government. Accountability of GFP 

facilitates proper disposition and 

adjudication of all property during 

contract closeout and should result in 

prompt contract payment. 

Risks: This rule addresses an 

accountability gap in managing and 

accounting for Government assets and 

should mitigate the risk of loss of 

Government property. Some equipment 

requiring repairs that would now be 

covered by this rule are deemed critical 

and sensitive, e.g., firearms, body armor, 

night-vision equipment, computers, and 

cryptologic devices. Loss or theft of 

such devices could have far reaching 

consequences. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/21/16 81 FR 73002 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

12/20/16 

Final Action ......... 02/00/18 

Final Action Effective.02/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Jennifer Hawes, 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System, Department of Defense, 3060 

Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060, Phone: 

571 372–6115, Email: 

jennifer.l.hawes2.civ@mail.mil. 

RIN: 0750–AJ11 

DOD—DARC 

18. • Repeal of Independent Research 

and Development Technical 

Interchange (DFARS Case 2017–D041) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 231. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: DoD is issuing a final rule to 

amend the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

remove the requirement at DFARS 

231.205–18(c)(iii)(C)(4) for contractors 

to conduct a technical interchange with 

a DoD Government employee before 

independent research and development 

(IR&D) costs are generated for IR&D 

projects initiated in FY 2017 or later, as 

a prerequisite for those costs to be 

determined allowable. This rule is 

expected to decrease costs for 

contractors and offerors. 

Statement of Need: This action is 

necessary relieve excess burden 

experienced by industry when deciding 

to invest in innovative technologies that 

may benefit the Department. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is 

proposed under the authority at 41 

U.S.C. 1303, Functions and authority, 

which provides the authority to issue 

and maintain the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation and executive agency 

implementing regulations. 

Alternatives: No alternatives to this 

action are being considered at this time. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Implementing this rule provides a net 

annualized savings of approximately $2 

million. This estimate is based on data 

available in the Federal Procurement 

Data System (FPDS) data for FY 2016, 

which indicates that 307 unique 

vendors were awarded a noncommercial, cost-type contract subject 

to cost accounting standards and 

certified cost and pricing data. IR&D 

costs are most commonly included in 

non-commercial, cost-type contracts 

that are subject to certified cost and 

pricing data and cost accounting 

standards. Public comments on the case 

implementing this requirement in the 

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement indicate that a contractor 

may invest in numerous IR&D projects 

that would be incorporated into their 

proposed IR&D rate. Removing this 

requirement would relieve contractors 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1697 

from the time burden of preparing for a 

discussion, locating the appropriate 

Government contact, discussing with 

the Government, and documenting a 

technical interchange for an IR&D 

project. 

Risks: If this rule is not finalized, the 

public will experience additional costs 

to comply with this rule, as well as the 

possibility of not being reimbursed for 

IR&D costs under a Government 

contract. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Final Action ......... 01/00/18 

Final Action Effective.01/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal./ 

Agency Contact: Jennifer Hawes, 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System, Department of Defense, 3060 

Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060, Phone: 

571 372–6115, Email: 

jennifer.l.hawes2.civ@mail.mil. 

RIN: 0750–AJ51 

DOD—OFFICE OF ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS 

(DODOASHA) 

Final Rule Stage 

19. Establishment of Tricare Select and 

Other Tricare Reforms 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Not subject 

to, not significant. 

Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. ch. 55; 

NDAA–17 sec. 701; NDAA–17 sec. 706; 

NDAA–17 sec. 715; NDAA–17 sec. 718; 

NDAA–17 sec. 729 

CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199. 

Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, June 

23, 2017, NDAA 17 section 718. Other, 

Statutory, January 1, 2018, NDAA 17 

section 729. 

Abstract: This interim final rule 

implements the primary features of 

section 701 and partially implements 

several other sections of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (NDAA–17). The law makes 

significant changes to the TRICARE 

program, especially to the health 

maintenance organization (HMO)-like 

health plan, known as TRICARE Prime; 

to the preferred provider organization 

health plan, previously called TRICARE 

Extra and now to be called TRICARE 

Select; and to the third health care 

option, known as TRICARE Standard, 

which will be terminated as of 

December 31, 2017, and replaced by 

TRICARE Select. The statute also adopts 

a new health plan enrollment system 

under TRICARE and new provisions for 

access to care, high value services, 

preventive care, and healthy lifestyles. 

In implementing the statutory changes, 

this interim final rule makes a number 

of improvements to TRICARE. 

Specifically, this rule will enhance 

beneficiary access to health care 

services, including increased geographic 

coverage for the TRICARE Select 

provider network, reduced 

administrative hurdles for TRICARE 

Prime enrollees to obtain urgent care 

services and specialty care referrals, and 

promotion of high value services and 

medications and telehealth services. It 

will also expand TRICARE coverage of 

preventive care services and prevention 

and treatment of obesity and refining 

cost-benefit assessments for TRICARE 

plan specifications that remain under 

DoD’s discretion. 

Statement of Need: This interim final 

rule implements the primary features of 

section 701 and partially implements 

several other sections of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (NDAA–17). The law makes 

significant changes to the TRICARE 

program, especially to the health 

maintenance organization (HMO)-like 

health plan, known as TRICARE Prime; 

to the preferred provider organization 

health plan, previously called TRICARE 

Extra and now to be called TRICARE 

Select; and to the third health care 

option, known as TRICARE Standard, 

which will be terminated as of 

December 31, 2017, and replaced by 

TRICARE Select. The statute also adopts 

a new health plan enrollment system 

under TRICARE and new provisions for 

access to care, high-value services, 

preventive care, and healthy lifestyles. 

In implementing the statutory changes, 

this interim final rule makes a number 

of improvements to TRICARE. 

In implementing section 701 and 

partially implementing several other 

sections of NDAA–17, this interim final 

rule advances all four components of 

the Military Health System’s quadruple 

aim of stronger readiness, better care, 

healthier people, and smarter spending. 

The aim of stronger readiness is served 

by reinforcing the vital role of the 

TRICARE Prime health plan to refer 

patients, particularly those needing 

specialty care, to military medical 

treatment facilities in order to ensure 

that military health care providers 

maintain clinical currency and 

proficiency in their professional fields. 

The objective of better care is enhanced 

by a number of improvements in 

beneficiary access to health care 

services, including geographical 

coverage for the TRICARE Select 

provider network, reduced 

administrative hurdles for TRICARE 

Prime enrollees to obtain urgent care 

services and specialty care referrals, and 

promotion of high-value services and 

medications and telehealth services. 

The goal of healthier people is advanced 

by expanding TRICARE coverage of 

preventive care services and prevention 

and treatment of obesity. And the aim 

of smarter spending is furthered by 

sharpening cost-benefit assessments for 

TRICARE plan specifications that 

remain under the DoD’s discretion. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This interim 

final rule is required to implement or 

partially implement several sections of 

NDAA–17, including 701, 706, 715, 718, 

and 729. The legal authority for this rule 

also includes chapter 55 of title 10, 

United States Code. 

Alternatives: None. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

rule is not anticipated to have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100M or 

more, thus it is not an economically 

significant rule under the Executive 

Order and the Congressional Review 

Act. The rule includes estimated 

program costs associated with 

implementation that include 

administrative startup costs ($11M) 

information systems changes ($10M). 

Executive Order 13771, Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs, seeks to control costs associated 

with the government imposition of 

private expenditures required to comply 

with Federal regulations and to reduce 

regulations that impose such costs. 

Consistent with the analysis of transfer 

payments under OMB Circular A–4, this 

interim final rule does not involve 

regulatory costs subject to E.O. 13771. 

Risks: The rule does not impose any 

risks. The risks lie in not implementing 

statutorily required changes. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 09/29/17 82 FR 45438 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

11/28/17 

Final Action ......... 04/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Mark Ellis, 

Department of Defense, Office of 

Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, 

5111 Leesburg Pike, Suite 810A, Falls 

Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703 681– 

0039. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1698 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

RIN: 0720–AB70 

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 

in order to ensure that all Americans, 

including those with disabilities, 

receive a high-quality education and are 

prepared for high-quality employment. 

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, postsecondary students, 

members of the public, families, and 

many others. These efforts are helping 

to ensure that all children and students 

from pre-kindergarten through grade 12 

will be ready for, and succeed in, 

postsecondary education or 

employment, and that students 

attending postsecondary institutions 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, and 

support innovative 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 2017–18 school year, about 56 

million students will attend an 

estimated 133,000 elementary and 

secondary schools in approximately 

13,600 districts, and about 20 million 

students will enroll in degree-granting 

postsecondary schools. All 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. We know that improving 

education starts with allowing greater 

decision-making authority at the State 

and local levels while also recognizing 

that the ultimate form of local control 

occurs when parents and students are 

empowered to choose their own 

educational paths forward. Our core 

mission includes this empowerment of 

local education, serving the most 

vulnerable, and facilitating equal access 

for all, to ensure all students receive a 

high-quality 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, 

community-based early learning 

programs, elementary and secondary 

schools, colleges, rehabilitation service 

providers, adult education providers, 

professional associations, 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 Docketing 

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. 

We are committed to reducing burden 

with regard to regulations, guidance, 

and information collections, reducing 

the burden on information providers 

involved in our programs, and making 

information easily accessible to the 

public. To that end and consistent with 

Executive Order 13777 (‘‘Enforcing the 

Regulatory Reform Agenda’’), we are in 

the process of reviewing all of our 

regulations and guidance to modify and 

rescind items that: (1) Eliminate jobs, or 

inhibit job creation; (2) are outdated, 

unnecessary, or ineffective; (3) impose 

costs that exceed benefits; (4) create a 

serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with regulatory reform 

initiatives and policies; (5) are 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

(44 U.S.C. 3516 note), or the guidance 

issued pursuant to that provision, in 

particular those regulations that rely in 

whole or in part on data, information, or 

methods that are not publicly available 

or that are insufficiently transparent to 

meet the standard for reproducibility; or 

(6) derive from or implement Executive 

Orders or other Presidential directives 

that have been subsequently rescinded 

or substantially modified. 

II. Regulatory and Deregulatory 

Priorities 

Proposed Rulemakings 

The following actions are the 

significant new rulemaking actions the 

Department is planning for the coming 

year. Because we are just now beginning 

the rulemaking process for these 

regulations, we have limited 

information about the potential costs 

and benefits and therefore whether 

these would be considered regulatory or 

deregulatory actions under Executive 

Order 13771. 

Postsecondary Education/Federal 

Student Aid 

The Secretary is planning two new 

rulemakings in the area of higher 

education and Federal Student Aid 

under the Higher Education Act of 1965, 

as amended (HEA). In 2014, we 

completed a rulemaking to establish 

regulations governing certain 

postsecondary educational programs 

that prepare students for gainful 

employment in a recognized 

occupation, and in 2016, we completed 

a rulemaking to establish regulations 

governing, among other issues, borrower 

defenses to repayment of student loans. 

In the two new rulemakings, described 

below, we are planning to revisit these 

regulations with the goals of alleviating 

unnecessary regulatory burdens and 

ensuring appropriate protections for 

students, institutions, the taxpayers, and 

the Federal government. Through the 

use of the negotiated rulemaking 

process, we will receive input from a 

diverse range of interests and affected 

parties and will have the opportunity to 

reach consensus on a set of regulations 

that best meets those parties’ needs and 

our overall goals. 

More specifically, the Secretary plans 

to establish new regulations governing 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1699 

the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan 

(Direct Loan) Program regarding the 

standard and the process for 

determining whether a borrower has a 

defense to repayment on a loan based on 

an act or omission of a school. We also 

may amend other sections of the Direct 

Loan Program regulations, including 

those that codify our current policy 

regarding the impact that discharges 

have on the 150 percent Direct 

Subsidized Loan Limit; and the Student 

Assistance General Provisions 

regulations providing the financial 

responsibility standards and disclosure 

requirements for schools. In addition, 

we may amend the discharge provisions 

in the Federal Perkins Loan, Direct 

Loan, Federal Family Education Loan, 

and Teacher Education Assistance for 

College and Higher Education Grant 

programs. 

The Secretary is also commencing 

rulemaking to amend the gainful 

employment regulations, including 

those provisions relating to institutional 

eligibility, reporting, and disclosures. 

Civil Rights/Title IX 

The Secretary is planning a new 

rulemaking to address significant issues 

under Title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972, as amended. In 

this action, we seek to clarify schools’ 

obligations in redressing sex 

discrimination, including complaints of 

sexual misconduct, and the procedures 

by which they must do so. 

Deregulatory Actions 

The Department anticipates issuing a 

number of deregulatory actions in the 

upcoming fiscal year. We have thus far 

been focusing our deregulatory efforts 

on eliminating outdated regulations. In 

many instances, our deregulatory 

actions are being taken because 

legislation has superseded our 

regulations. For example, we are 

planning to rescind a number of 

sections from our Office of Elementary 

and Secondary Education regulations to 

clarify which regulations were 

superseded by the recently enacted 

Every Student Succeeds Act. These 

deregulatory actions, such as rescinding 

the Adequate Yearly Progress 

regulations at 34 CFR 200.13–22, will 

clarify for our stakeholders and the 

general public which of our regulations 

are still in effect, and which have been 

rescinded. Similarly, we are planning to 

rescind a number of the Office of 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services regulations issued by the 

Department’s former National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research (NIDRR). Congress transferred 

NIDRR to the Department of Health and 

Human Services, and this deregulatory 

action will rescind regulations that the 

Department no longer administers, 

thereby avoiding confusion. The unified 

agenda identifies other deregulatory 

actions that provide cost savings and 

clarity. 

III. Regulatory Review 

As stated previously, the Department 

is undertaking a comprehensive 

regulatory reform effort pursuant to 

Executive Order 13777, focusing on 

rescinding and modifying all outdated, 

unnecessary, or ineffective regulations, 

guidance, and information collections. 

Section 3(e) of the Executive Order 

requires the Department, as part of this 

effort, to ‘‘seek input and other 

assistance, as permitted by law, from 

entities significantly affected by Federal 

regulations, including State, local, and 

tribal governments, small businesses, 

consumers, non-governmental 

organizations, and trade associations’’ 

on regulations that meet some or all of 

the criteria above. 

Consistent with section 3(e), on June 

22, 2017, the Department published a 

Federal Register notice soliciting such 

input from the public to inform its 

evaluation of existing regulations and 

guidance. We specified in the notice 

that we are particularly interested in 

regulatory provisions that are unduly 

costly or unnecessarily burdensome. 

The public’s comments will be closely 

reviewed and considered as part of our 

overall regulatory reform initiative. 

IV. 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 

20. • 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. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

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

CFR Citation: 34 CFR 106. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Secretary plans to issue 

a notice of proposed rulemaking to 

clarify schools’ obligations in redressing 

sex discrimination, including 

complaints of sexual misconduct, and 

the procedures by which they must do 

so. 

Statement of Need: This regulatory 

action will address issues regarding 

schools’ obligations under Title IX of 

the Education Amendments of 1972, as 

amended, to redress sex discrimination. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 20 U.S.C. 

1681, et seq. 

Alternatives: These will be presented 

in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

discussed in the Final Regulations. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These 

will be presented in a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and discussed in 

the Final Regulations. 

Risks: These will be presented in a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

discussed in the Final Regulations. 

Timetable: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1700 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Alejandro Reyes, 

Department of Education, Office for 

Civil Rights, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 4E213, Washington, DC 20202, 

Phone: 202 453–7100, Email: 

t9ocrcomments@ed.gov. 

RIN: 1870–AA14 

ED—OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY 

EDUCATION (OPE) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

21. Borrower Defense and Related 

Issues 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

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; and other sections as 

applicable. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Secretary plans to 

establish new regulations governing the 

William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan 

(Direct Loan) Program regarding the 

standard and the process for 

determining whether a borrower has a 

defense to repayment on a loan based on 

an act or omission of a school. We also 

may amend other sections of the Direct 

Loan Program regulations, including 

those that codify our current policy 

regarding the impact that discharges 

have on the 150 percent Direct 

Subsidized Loan Limit; and the Student 

Assistance General Provisions 

regulations providing the financial 

responsibility standards and disclosure 

requirements for schools. In addition, 

we may amend the discharge provisions 

in the Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins 

Loan), Direct Loan and Federal Family 

Education Loan (FFEL) program 

regulations. 

Statement of Need: The Secretary is 

initiating negotiated rulemaking to 

revise current regulations governing 

borrower defenses to loan repayment. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 492 

of the HEA requires that, before 

publishing any proposed regulations to 

implement programs authorized under 

title IV of the HEA, the Secretary obtain 

public involvement in the development 

of the proposed regulations. After 

obtaining advice and recommendations 

from the public, the Secretary conducts 

negotiated rulemaking to develop the 

proposed regulations. Section 455(h) of 

the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (HEA), 20 U.S.C. 1087e(h), 

authorizes the Secretary to specify in 

regulation which acts or omissions of an 

institution of higher education a 

borrower may assert as a defense to 

repayment of a Direct Loan. 

Alternatives: These will be identified 

through the negotiated rulemaking 

process, presented in a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, and discussed in 

the Final Regulations. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These 

will be identified through the negotiated 

rulemaking process, in a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and discussed in 

the Final Regulations. 

Risks: These will be identified 

through the negotiated rulemaking 

process, in a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and discussed in the Final 

Regulations. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice of Intention 

to Commence 

Negotiated 

Rulemaking.

06/16/17 82 FR 27640 

NPRM .................. 05/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Annmarie Weisman, 

Department of Education, Office of 

Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW, Room 6W245, Washington, 

DC 20202, Phone: 202 453–6712, Email: 

annmarie.weisman@ed.gov. 

RIN: 1840–AD26 

ED—OPE 

22. • Program Integrity; Gainful 

Employment 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

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) 

CFR Citation: 34 CFR 668. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Secretary plans to 

amend regulations on institutional 

eligibility under the Higher Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), and the 

Student Assistance General Provisions, 

including the regulations governing 

whether certain postsecondary 

educational programs prepare students 

for gainful employment in a recognized 

occupation, and the conditions under 

which these educational programs 

remain eligible under the Federal 

Student Aid programs authorized under 

title IV of the HEA. 

Statement of Need: The Secretary is 

initiating negotiated rulemaking to 

revise the gainful employment 

regulations published by the 

Department on October 31, 2014 (79 FR 

64889). 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 492 

of the HEA requires that, before 

publishing any proposed regulations to 

implement programs authorized under 

title IV of the HEA, the Secretary obtain 

public involvement in the development 

of the proposed regulations. After 

obtaining advice and recommendations 

from the public, the Secretary conducts 

negotiated rulemaking to develop the 

proposed regulations. Section 431 of the 

Department of Education Organization 

Act provides authority to the Secretary, 

in relevant part, to inform the public 

regarding federally supported education 

programs; and collect data and 

information on applicable programs for 

the purpose of obtaining objective 

measurements of the effectiveness of 

such programs in achieving the 

intended purposes of such programs. 20 

U.S.C. 1231a. 

Alternatives: These will be identified 

through the negotiated rulemaking 

process, presented in a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, and discussed in 

the Final Regulations. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These 

will be identified through the negotiated 

rulemaking process, presented in a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and 

discussed in the Final Regulations. 

Risks: These will be identified 

through the negotiated rulemaking 

process, presented in a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, and discussed in 

the Final Regulations. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice of Intention 

to Commence 

Negotiated 

Rulemaking.

06/16/17 82 FR 27640 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1701 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Annmarie Weisman, 

Department of Education, Office of 

Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW, Room 6W245, Washington, 

DC 20202, Phone: 202 453–6712, Email: 

annmarie.weisman@ed.gov. 

RIN: 1840–AD31 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Statement of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Priorities 

The Department of Energy (DOE or 

The Department) 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 

ensure America’s security and 

prosperity by addressing its energy, 

environmental, and nuclear challenges 

through transformative science and 

technology solutions. 

Through its regulatory and 

deregulatory activities, the Department 

works to ensure it both achieves its 

critical mission, and implements the 

administration’s initiative to reduce 

regulation and control regulatory costs 

as outlined in Executive Order (E.O.) 

13771, ‘‘Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs.’’ As such, 

the Department strives to act in a 

prudent and financially responsible 

manner in the expenditure of funds, 

from both public and private sources, 

and manages appropriately the costs 

associated with private expenditures 

required for compliance with DOE 

regulations. Ultimately, DOE aims to 

promote meaningful regulatory burden 

reduction, while at the same time 

achieve its regulatory objectives and 

statutory obligations. 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities 

DOE’s regulatory and deregulatory 

priorities reflect the Department’s efforts 

to achieve meaningful burden reduction 

while continuing to achieve the 

Department’s statutory obligations. 

DOE’s regulatory priorities reflect the 

Department’s statutory obligations. The 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(EPCA) requires DOE to review its 

appliance efficiency standards at least 

once every six years to determine 

whether a new standard can be 

implemented at a level that achieves the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. The 

Department continues to work to meet 

these obligations. 

DOE is also engaging in a number of 

deregulatory activities aimed at 

reducing regulatory costs and burdens. 

These activities include expediting the 

approval process for applicants 

proposing to export small volumes of 

natural gas and taking a number of 

actions to right-size the safety 

requirements for persons conducting 

activities that affect, or may affect, the 

safety of DOE nuclear facilities. 

Aggregate Number of Anticipated 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

For fiscal year 2017 and 2018 DOE 

plans to implement 7 regulatory actions 

and 16 deregulatory actions. DOE is 

largely focusing its resources on 

pursuing the deregulatory actions listed 

in the Regulatory Agenda. While none 

of the rulemakings listed as regulatory 

actions in DOE’s regulatory agenda meet 

the Regulatory Plan criterion of ‘‘most 

important significant regulatory 

actions’’ of the agency, DOE is placing 

one action in its Regulatory Plan, for the 

purpose of transparency and due to the 

non-trivial costs of the proposed action: 

Energy Conservation Standards for 

Residential Conventional Cooking 

Products. At the 7% and 3% discount 

rate the primary annualized cost for this 

rule is expected to be 42.6 million and 

42.3 million dollars respectively. The 

primary annualized benefits at the 7% 

and 3% discount rate are expected to be 

126 million and 178 million 

respectively. 

In all its rulemakings, as required by 

E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ DOE ensures that the net 

benefits of any rule it publishes 

outweigh the costs of the rulemaking. 

Further, DOE will not issue a rule if that 

rule contains unjustified burdens. 

Retrospective Analyses of Existing Rules 

As part of its efforts to comply with 

Section 6 of E.O. 13563, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ 

which requires agencies to conduct a 

retrospective review of existing rules to 

identify rules that are ‘‘outmoded, 

ineffective, insufficient, or excessively 

burdensome,’’ and to determine whether 

such regulations should be ‘‘modified, 

streamlined, expanded, or repealed’’ 

DOE issued a request for information 

(RFI) on May 30, 2017, 82 FR 24582. 

Among other issues, this RFI requested 

insight from the public as to what 

regulations may meet the definition of 

E.O. 13563. DOE is reviewing all 132 

comments received to gain a better 

insight into possible regulations that can 

be modified, streamlined, expanded or 

repealed. As required by Executive 

Order 13777, ‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory 

Reform Agenda’’, DOE also has 

established a regulatory reform task 

force, tasked with the mission of 

identifying regulations in need of 

reform, as specified in the order. The 

task force’s activities are intended to 

assist DOE in meeting the objectives of 

E.O. 13563. 

DOE—ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND 

RENEWABLE ENERGY (EE) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

23. Energy Conservation Standards and 

Definition for General Service Lamps 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under Public 

Law 104–4. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(6)(A) 

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, Date 

will be determined based on prior 

actions required by the settlement 

agreement. 

Abstract: The Department will issue a 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking that includes a proposed 

determination with respect to whether 

to amend or adopt standards for general 

service light-emitting diode (LED) lamps 

and that may include a proposed 

determination with respect to whether 

to amend or adopt standard for compact 

fluorescent lamps. According to the 

Settlement agreement between NEMA 

vs DOE, DOE will use its best efforts to 

issue GSL SNOPR within five months of 

publishing the final rule on vibration 

service and rough service lamps. 

Statement of Need: DOE is directed 

under EPCA to determine when to 

establish standards for GSL’s, and that 

DOE complete the rulemaking by 

January 1, 2017. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Amendments to EPCA in the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA) directed DOE to conduct two 

rulemaking cycles to evaluate energy 

conservation standards for GSL’s (42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)–(B)). Furthermore, 

pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended 

energy conservation standard that the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1702 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

Department of Energy (DOE) prescribes 

for certain products, such as general 

service lamps, shall be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) and result in a 

significant conservation of energy (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)). 

Alternatives: The statute requires DOE 

to conduct rulemakings to review 

standards and to revise standards to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that the Secretary 

determines is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. In making 

this determination, DOE conducts a 

thorough analysis of the alternative 

standard levels, including the existing 

standard, based on the criteria specified 

in the statute. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE 

finds that the benefits to the Nation of 

the proposed energy standards for 

General Service Lamps outweigh the 

burdens. DOE estimates that energy 

savings will be .85 quads over 30 years 

and the net benefit to the Nation will be 

between $4.4 billion and $9.1 billion. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Framework Document Availability; Notice of 

Public Meeting.

12/09/13 78 FR 73737 

Framework Document Comment 

Period End.

01/23/14 

Framework Document Comment 

Period Extended.

01/23/14 79 FR 3742 

Framework Document Comment 

Period Extended End.

02/07/14 

Preliminary Analysis; Notice of 

Public Meeting.

12/11/14 79 FR 73503 

Preliminary Analysis Comment 

Period End.

02/09/15 

Preliminary Analysis Comment 

Period Extended.

01/30/15 80 FR 5052 

Preliminary Analysis Comment 

Period Extended End.

02/23/15 

Notice of Public 

Meeting; 

Webinar.

03/15/16 81 FR 13763 

NPRM .................. 03/17/16 81 FR 14528 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

05/16/16 

Notice of Public 

Meeting; 

Webinar.

10/05/16 81 FR 69009 

Action Date FR Cite 

Proposed Definition and Data 

Availability.

10/18/16 81 FR 71794 

Proposed Definition and Data 

Availability 

Comment Period End.

11/08/16 

Final Rule Adopting a Definition 

for GSL.

01/19/17 82 FR 7276 

Final Rule Adopting a Definition 

for GSL Effective.

01/01/20 

Final Rule Adopting a Definition 

for GSL Including IRL.

01/19/17 82 FR 7322 

Final Rule Adopting a Definition 

for GSL Including IRL Effective.

01/01/20 

GSL Supplemental NPRM.03/00/18 

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: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=83. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD0051. 

Agency Contact: Lucy DeButts, 

Buildings Technologies Office, EE–5B, 

Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585, Phone: 202 287–1604, Email: 

lucy.debutts@ee.doe.gov. 

RIN: 1904–AD09 

DOE—EE 

24. Energy Conservation Standards For 

Residential Conventional Cooking 

Products 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under Public 

Law 104–4. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1); 

42 U.S.C. 6292 (a)(10); 42 U.S.C. 6295(h) 

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 429; 10 CFR 

430. 

Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, 

Subject to 6-year-look-back at 6295(m). 

Abstract: EPCA, as amended by EISA 

2007, requires the Secretary to 

determine whether updating the 

statutory energy conservation standards 

for residential conventional cooking 

products would yield a significant 

savings in energy use and is technically 

feasible and economically justified. DOE 

is reviewing to make such 

determination. 

Statement of Need: The Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 

as amended, prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including residential conventional 

cooking products. EPCA also requires 

the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to 

determine whether more-stringent, 

amended standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would save 

a significant amount of energy. DOE is 

proposing new and amended energy 

conservation standards for residential 

conventional cooking products, 

specifically conventional cooking tops 

and conventional ovens. 

Summary of Legal Basis: EPCA 

provides that not later than 6 years after 

issuance of any final rule establishing or 

amending a standard, DOE must publish 

either a notice of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a notice of proposed 

rulemaking including new proposed 

energy conservation standards (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)). In accordance with 

this statutory provision, DOE proposes 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards for residential conventional 

cooking products. 

Alternatives: Additional compliance 

flexibilities may be available through 

other means. EPCA provides that a 

manufacturer whose annual gross 

revenue from all of its operations does 

not exceed $8 million may apply for an 

exemption from all or part of an energy 

conservation standard for a period not 

longer than 24 months after the effective 

date of a final rule establishing the 

standard (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)). 

Additionally, section 504 of the 

Department of Energy Organization Act, 

42 U.S.C. 7194, provides authority for 

the Secretary to adjust a rule issued 

under EPCA in order to prevent special 

hardship, inequity, or unfair 

distribution of burdens that may be 

imposed on that manufacturer as a 

result of such rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Using 

a 7-percent discount rate for benefits 

and costs, the estimated cost of the 

proposed standards for consumer 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1703 

conventional cooking products is $42.6 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the estimated annual 

benefits are $120.3 million in reduced 

equipment operating costs. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the proposed standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products is $42.3 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the estimated annual 

benefits are $163.3 million in reduced 

operating costs. 

The industry net present value (INPV) 

is the sum of the discounted cash flows 

to the industry from the reference year 

through the end of the analysis period 

(2017 to 2049). Using a real discount 

rate of 9.1 percent, DOE estimates that 

the INPV for manufacturers of consumer 

conventional cooking products is 

$1,241.6 million in 2016 dollars. Under 

the proposed standards, DOE expects 

that manufacturers may experience a 

reduction of up to 4.7 percent of their 

INPV, which is approximately $58.4 

million in 2016. 

The cumulative net present value 

(NPV) of total consumer benefits of the 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products ranges from $1.08 

billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to 

$2.63 billion (at a 3-percent discount 

rate). This NPV expresses the estimated 

total value of future operating-cost 

savings minus the estimated increased 

product costs for consumer 

conventional cooking products 

purchased in 2020–2049. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Request for Information (RFI).02/12/14 79 FR 8337 

RFI Comment Period End.03/14/14 

RFI Comment Period Extended.03/03/14 79 FR 11714 

RFI Comment Period Extended 

End.

04/14/14 

NPRM and Public 

Meeting.

06/10/15 80 FR 33030 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

07/30/15 80 FR 45452 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

09/09/15 

Supplemental 

NPRM.

09/02/16 81 FR 60784 

SNPRM Comment 

Period End.

10/03/16 

SNPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

09/30/16 81 FR 67219 

SNPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

11/02/16 

Action Date FR Cite 

Supplemental 

NPRM.

10/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

URL For More Information: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=85. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD0005. 

Agency Contact: Stephanie Johnson, 

General Engineer, Department of 

Energy, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW, Building Technologies 

Office, EE5B, Washington, DC 20002, 

Phone: 202 287–1943, Email: 

stephanie.johnson@ee.doe.gov. 

RIN: 1904–AD15 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities for 

Fiscal Year 2018 

The Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) carries out a wide array 

of activities in order to fulfill its mission 

of protecting and promoting the health 

and well-being of the American people. 

From supporting cutting-edge research 

and disease surveillance to regulating 

products and facilities to administering 

programs that help our citizens most in 

need of access to health care and social 

services, HHS’s work has a clear impact 

on the daily life of all Americans. 

In order to successfully carry out its 

mission, HHS is committed to a 

regulatory agenda that is focused on 

better meeting the needs of the 

individuals served by its programs, 

empowering individuals and 

communities by reducing the burden of 

compliance, and maximizing the impact 

of federal investments. Through its 

rulemakings in the coming fiscal year, 

HHS will take concrete steps towards 

streamlining its regulations and 

improving the transparency, flexibility, 

and accountability of its regulatory 

processes in order to realize a future 

where science, health care, and human 

services are fundamentally personcentered. 

I. More Effectively Meeting the Needs of 

Individuals 

In order to better serve the American 

people through its programs, HHS will 

propose a number of regulatory actions 

aimed at improving service delivery 

through meaningful information 

sharing, supporting consumer autonomy 

and decision-making, and better 

aligning programs with the most current 

science. 

Improving Service Delivery Through 

Meaningful and Appropriate 

Information Sharing 

In order to deliver quality health care 

and human services, stronger and 

clearer regulatory systems that promote 

the judicious sharing of personally 

identifiable information among care 

teams, individuals, and families are 

necessary, while protecting the 

confidentiality and security of that 

information. The Office of Civil Rights 

(OCR), the Office of the National 

Coordinator for Health Information 

Technology (ONC), and the Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration (SAMHSA) intend to 

promulgate rules related to the sharing 

of electronic data and records. In 

particular, OCR plans to propose a rule 

clarifying information sharing with 

family members when patients are 

incapacitated. 

Supporting Consumer Autonomy 

Integral to a person-centered approach 

to health care is the concept of 

autonomy and personal responsibility: 

Providing consumers with the 

information they need and choices so 

they can take responsibility for their 

health and better direct their own care. 

In order to provide patients with 

information that is useful, actionable, 

and comprehensible, the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) plans to amend 

its regulations regarding the information 

patients receive for outpatientadministered prescription drugs. To 

encourage more consumer-directed care, 

FDA also plans to propose regulations to 

facilitate access to more treatments for 

common conditions by using new 

approaches, including new 

technologies, to assist consumers in selfselection and use of products that have 

previously been available only by 

prescription. 

Aligning Programs With Scientific 

Advancements 

In order to best respond to the needs 

of patients, it is crucial that HHS 

regulations and programs reflect current 

science. HHS is fulfilling this need by 

updating regulations so that the 

Department can utilize the full spectrum 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1704 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

of current scientific thinking when 

carrying out program activities. 

Specifically, the Health Resources and 

Services Administration (HRSA) plans 

to revise the Vaccine Injury Table to 

include vaccines that the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 

recommends for administration to 

pregnant women. This revision will 

allow injuries related to these vaccines 

to be eligible for the National Vaccine 

Injury Compensation Program. 

Additionally, FDA intends to propose a 

new rule that will modernize 

mammography quality by recognizing 

new technologies, making 

improvements in facility processes, and 

the reporting of breast density, which is 

now widely recognized as a risk factor 

for breast cancer. 

II. Empowering Individuals and 

Communities Through Reducing 

Regulatory Burden 

In order to make HHS programs more 

person-centered, the rulemakings 

described above must be accompanied 

by serious efforts to decrease the burden 

of complying with Federal regulations. 

Regulatory burden can result from a 

variety of sources, including reporting 

requirements, outdated restrictions, 

requirements and/or conditions not 

required by the authorizing statutes, and 

a lack of clear regulatory guidelines. 

HHS is committed to streamlining and 

clarifying its regulations to reduce 

unnecessary burden while continuing to 

protect the public health and to meet 

the human services needs of the 

American people. 

Minimizing Duplication and 

Burdensome Requirements 

The Department recognizes the 

burden that requirements for many of its 

programs place on States, territories, 

tribes, local governments, industry, 

providers and facilities, caseworkers, 

grant recipients, and individuals. HHS 

plans to actively engage stakeholders in 

transparent, deliberative processes to 

ensure that the Department strikes an 

appropriate balance between reducing 

burden and continuing to administer 

high-quality programs. For example, 

The Administration for Children and 

Families (ACF) plans to issue an 

Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking seeking public comment on 

its 2016 Final Rule on the Adoption and 

Foster Care Analysis and Reporting 

System (AFCARS), which doubled 

reporting requirements for States and 

tribes. Through careful consideration of 

all comments submitted by the public 

during this process, ACF believes it can 

streamline the 2016 Rule so that States 

and tribes are able to devote less time 

and fewer resources to administrative 

work and redirect those efforts to the 

children they serve. 

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services (CMS) plans to propose 

changes to the current Conditions of 

Participation (CoPs) or Conditions for 

Coverage (CfCs) that health care 

organizations must meet in order to 

begin and continue participating in the 

Medicare and Medicaid programs. 

These changes will simplify and 

streamline the current regulations by 

reducing the frequency of certain 

required activities and, where 

appropriate, revising timelines for 

certain requirements for providers and 

suppliers. These changes will also 

increase provider flexibility and reduce 

excessively burdensome regulations, 

while allowing providers to focus on 

providing high-quality health care to 

their patients. Ultimately, these 

proposals balance patient safety and 

quality, while also providing broad 

regulatory relief for providers and 

suppliers. 

Through initiatives to eliminate 

regulatory burdens that negatively 

impact the doctor-patient relationship, 

the Department will take steps to 

remove duplicative requirements, 

streamline data collection and reporting 

requirements, and make meaningful 

reforms to programs that limit access to 

care. For example, CMS plans to finalize 

the physician fee schedule, which will 

eliminate the redundant reporting of the 

modifier in the professional claim to 

reduce burden for eligible practitioners. 

The Inpatient Prospective Payment 

System (IPPS), which HHS has finalized 

for fiscal year 2018, also reduces the 

electronic quality reporting measures 

from eight to four measures, to reduce 

burden for eligible practitioners and 

ensure they are spending more time 

caring for the patient rather than in front 

of a computer screen. HHS intends to 

continue building on this progress in 

the next fiscal year rule. 

Eliminating Outdated Restrictions and 

Obsolete Regulations 

In addition to minimizing regulatory 

burden, HHS realizes that many of its 

regulations may contain provisions that 

are outdated, obsolete, or otherwise not 

applicable to the current environment. 

HHS has resolved to reform its 

processes so that those providing care 

and other services to Americans are able 

to thrive within the State and federal 

regulatory environment. As an early 

step in this broader effort, CMS plans to 

issue a proposed rule that will remove 

unnecessary and outdated requirements 

from the conditions of participation for 

the Medicare and Medicaid programs 

for Long-Term Care facilities. Currently, 

these requirements often impede the 

delivery of quality care and divert 

resources away from facility residents. 

Providing Necessary Regulatory Clarity 

to Industry Stakeholders 

While the above rulemakings seek to 

correct overregulation, in some cases, 

HHS programs lack the necessary 

regulations in order to make their 

processes transparent and predictable. 

For example, in the context of FDA’s 

tobacco program, rulemaking is needed 

to clarify for industry what is required 

to be included in premarket 

applications and the procedures that 

will be followed in submitting and 

reviewing these submissions as part of 

a comprehensive framework to regulate 

nicotine and tobacco and advance the 

public health. In addition, FDA is 

updating important rules for medical 

device applications so the rules reflect 

risk-based and least burdensome 

pathways to market for devices, 

including new and innovative devices. 

These rules will fill gaps to ensure that 

manufacturers in these sectors know 

how to bring innovative products to 

market that may save lives or reduce 

health risks. FDA intends to begin 

rulemaking this fiscal year to fill these 

regulatory gaps so that these processes 

become more fair, efficient, and 

predictable. 

In response to extensive outreach to 

physician stakeholders, HHS anticipates 

a number of changes associated with 

private practice physicians and their 

arrangements with Medicare Advantage 

Organizations (MAOs). Of the nearly 

200 regulatory burdens reported by 

more than 30 trade associations, 12 

percent of the groups requested clarity 

with regards to the ways MAOs audit 

physicians and their practices. CMS 

plans on issuing a Part C and D rule for 

Contract Year 2019, that responds to 

these concerns. The rule will also seek 

comment on ways to improve MAO 

audits of solo practitioners and their 

practices. 

III. Maximizing the Impact of Every 

Federal Dollar Spent 

In order to truly protect and promote 

the health and wellbeing of the 

American people, HHS must ensure that 

each and every taxpayer dollar it spends 

is used wisely and managed 

responsibly. HHS’s efforts to reduce 

burden and move toward more personcentered programs must be coupled 

with a department-wide determination 

to do more with the resources that it 

has. By doing so, HHS hopes to use 

taxpayer funds responsibly to reach as 

many Americans in need as possible 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1705 

directly through its programs and to 

empower its community partners to do 

the same. 

Protecting the Integrity of HHS 

Programs 

A key component of maximizing the 

impact of HHS’s investments—and 

protecting taxpayer dollars—is program 

integrity. Without consistent efforts to 

identify fraud, waste, and abuse and 

respond accordingly, the Department 

cannot be certain that its funds are going 

toward their intended use nor can it 

maintain the public’s confidence in its 

programs. As such, the Department is 

committed to keeping program integrity 

a priority in the coming years. This year, 

CMS plans to finalize a rule that will 

implement crucial authorities provided 

by Congress to deny or revoke a 

provider or supplier’s Medicare 

enrollment in certain circumstances 

specified in the rule. Additionally, 

HRSA plans to publish an NPRM 

imposing civil monetary penalties on 

drug manufacturers who knowingly and 

intentionally charge 340B program 

participants a price higher than the 

program ceiling price. 

Promoting Flexibility for States, 

Grantees, and Regulated Entities 

Alongside program integrity activities, 

HHS intends to enhance regulatory 

flexibility so that its State and 

community partners are able to better 

tailor their programs to fit the needs of 

the people they serve. Particularly in the 

context of the Secretary’s three clinical 

priorities—combatting the opioid crisis, 

childhood obesity, and serious mental 

illness—the Department has begun 

looking seriously at its programs to see 

how it can maximize the number of 

people reached through amending its 

regulations to remove or change 

regulatory limitations on grantees and 

regulated entities. Specifically, 

SAMHSA plans to publish an NPRM 

exploring ways that it could better 

facilitate the ability of individuals with 

an Opioid Use Disorder to access 

interim maintenance treatment while 

they are waiting to begin a 

comprehensive treatment plan. In 

addition, ACF plans to consider revising 

minimum service duration requirements 

for Head Start center-based programs. 

Rulemaking carried out in 2016 nearly 

doubled the current minimum. If 

revised again, center-based Head Start 

programs would likely be able to serve 

more children and choose a duration 

that better reflects the needs and daily 

schedules of the families they serve. 

As a way of promoting flexibility for 

States, CMS also plans to propose a rule 

related to Medicaid and CHIP Managed 

Care. This rule would streamline the 

regulatory framework and provide 

burden reductions to ensure state 

Medicaid agencies are able to work 

effectively with CMS to design, develop, 

and deploy managed care programs that 

meet the state population’s needs. These 

changes support state flexibility, local 

leadership, and innovation in the 

delivery of care. 

In the coming fiscal year, HHS plans 

to consider a number of regulatory and 

deregulatory actions intended to make 

its processes more flexible, efficient, 

and transparent. In order to fully realize 

the potential of these efforts, HHS 

recognizes the need for a collaborative 

rulemaking process where the concerns 

of stakeholders are appropriately 

considered. By working with its 

community partners to understand the 

challenges that they face under HHS’s 

current regulatory structures and where 

there are opportunities for 

improvement, the Department hopes to 

modernize and streamline its 

regulations to better serve the needs of 

the American people. 

HHS—OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS 

(OCR) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

25. • HIPAA Privacy Rule: Presumption 

of Good Faith of Healthcare Providers 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: Health Insurance 

Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) 

Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104–191 

CFR Citation: 45 CFR 164.510. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The proposed rule would 

modify the HIPAA Privacy Rule to 

clarify that healthcare providers are 

presumed to be acting in the 

individual’s best interests when they 

share information with an incapacitated 

patient’s family members unless there is 

evidence that a provider was acted in 

bad faith. 

Statement of Need: HIPAA allows 

medical professionals to share protected 

health information with an individual’s 

loved ones in emergency or dangerous 

situations but misunderstandings to the 

contrary persist and create obstacles to 

family support that is crucial to the 

proper care, treatment, and recovery of 

people experiencing a crisis situation. 

Therefore, the Department, through the 

Office for Civil Rights (OCR) intends to 

propose regulatory changes to the 

HIPAA Privacy Rule to clarify that 

healthcare providers are presumed to be 

acting in the individual’s best interests 

when they share information with an 

incapacitated patient’s family members, 

unless there is evidence that a provider 

acted in bad faith. OCR by delegation 

from the Secretary, has broad authority 

under HIPAA to make modifications to 

the Privacy Rule, as provided by section 

264 of HIPAA (codified at 42 U.S.C. and 

1320d–2(note)). 

Summary of Legal Basis: OCR has 

broad authority under the HIPAA 

statute to make modifications to the 

Privacy Rule, within the statutory 

constraints of the HITECH Act and other 

applicable law (e.g., the Administrative 

Procedures Act). 

Alternatives: The alternative is to not 

issue a proposed rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed rule will not create any new 

requirements or costs for regulated 

entities or the public. It will provide 

assurances to health care providers 

about their ability to make disclosures 

that are in the best interests of patients. 

Risks: OCR has not identified any 

risks associated with this proposal. OCR 

currently defers to a healthcare 

provider’s professional judgment in 

these circumstances and has never taken 

enforcement action against a healthcare 

provider who shared information in 

good faith, thus, the proposed regulatory 

change will not decrease the privacy 

protections for individuals’ protected 

health information, or significantly alter 

HIPAA enforcement policy. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Andra Wicks, Health 

Information Privacy Specialist, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Office for Civil Rights, 200 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20201, Phone: 202 774–3081, TDD 

Phone: 800 537–7697, Email: 

andra.wicks@hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0945–AA09 

HHS—OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL 

COORDINATOR FOR HEALTH 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (ONC) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

26. • Health Information Technology: 

Interoperability and Certification 

Enhancements 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1706 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114–255 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The proposed rule would 

update certain provisions of the Health 

Information Technology for Economic 

and Clinical Health Act of 2009 

(HITECH Act) and implement certain 

provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act 

(Cures Act) including provisions related 

to conditions of certification and 

maintenance of certification for a health 

information technology (IT) developer 

or entity, the voluntary certification of 

health IT for use by pediatric health 

providers, health information network 

voluntary attestation to their adoption of 

a trusted exchange framework and 

common agreement in support of 

network-to-network exchange, and 

provisions related to reasonable and 

necessary activities that do not 

constitute information blocking. 

Statement of Need: In part, Title IV of 

the 21st Century Cures Act requires the 

Secretary to engage in notice and 

comment rulemaking that would help 

advance interoperability and the 

exchange of health information, 

including by addressing information 

blocking. The interoperability of health 

information is 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 

proposed provision would be 

implemented under the authority of the 

Public Health Service Act, as amended 

by the HITECH Act and the Cures Act. 

Alternatives: ONC will consider 

different options to improve 

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 

will be incurred by health IT developers 

in terms of meeting new requirements 

and continual compliance with the 

regulations. We expect, however, that 

through implementation and 

compliance with the regulations the 

market particularly providers, patients, 

and payers will benefit greatly from 

increased interoperability and access to 

electronic heath information (e.g., the 

need for less interfaces or making health 

information more accessible at lower 

costs). Other proposed changes are 

aimed at relieving some administrative 

burdens for health IT developers. 

Risks: None identified at this time. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Michael Lipinski, JD, 

Director, Division of Federal Policy and 

Regulatory Affairs, 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. 

RIN: 0955–AA01 

HHS—SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND 

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION (SAMHSA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

27. • Certification of Opioid Treatment 

Programs 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: Sec. 303(g) of the 

Controlled Substances Act (CSA); (21 

U.S.C. 823(g)) establishes procedures for 

determining whether a health care 

practitioner can dispense opioid drugs 

for the purpose of treating opioid use 

disorders 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

delete outmoded requirements for 

transitional certification and add new 

language permitting private, for-profit 

entities to serve as opioid treatment 

programs. 

Statement of Need: SAMHSA plans to 

promulgate a rule to remove the 

transitional certification provisions that 

are now outdated. Additionally, 

updating language to permit private, forprofit entities to serve as opioid 

treatment programs could improve 

patient access to this treatment. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

303(g) of the Controlled Substances Act 

(CSA) (21 U.S.C. 823(g) establishes 

procedures for determining whether a 

healthcare practitioner can dispense 

opioid drugs for the purpose of treating 

opioid use disorders. HHS has adopted 

regulations at 42 CFR part 8 to provide 

additional details. These regulations 

were most recently substantively 

revised in July 2016 (81 FR 44712). 

Alternatives: The alternatives include 

not making these changes or making 

only one of the above changes rather 

than both (i.e., either updating the 

regulatory language to permit private, 

for-profit entities to serve as OTPs or 

removing the transitional certification 

provisions but not both of these 

changes). 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Eliminating outmoded transition 

regulations will make the regulations 

less confusing. In addition, permitting 

private, for-profit entities to qualify for 

certification potentially will broaden 

access to opioid treatment programs. 

SAMHSA is unsure how to quantify 

costs and benefits for these changes. 

Risks: Some advocates may argue that 

controversies about patient brokering 

raise questions about whether private, 

for-profit entities would best uphold the 

interests of patients but SAMHSA has 

no specific information that permitting 

private, for-profit entities to manage 

OTPs will increase risks to patients. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Chris Carroll, 

Director of Health Care Financing and 

Systems Integration, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration, 1 Choke Cherry Road, 

Rockville, MD 02857, Phone: 240 276– 

1765, Email: christopher.carroll@

samhsa.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0930–AA27 

HHS—SAMHSA 

Final Rule Stage 

28. Confidentiality of Substance Use 

Disorder Patient Records 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 290dd–2 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The action would finalize 

the proposed additional clarifications to 

the part 2 regulations which were 

included in the Supplemental NPRM 

published on January 18, 2017, (82 FR 

5485). This proposed to permit lawful 

holders and their contractors and 

subcontractors’ to, under certain 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1707 

circumstances, use and disclose part 2- 

covered data for purposes of carrying 

out payment, healthcare operations, and 

other healthcare related activities. 

Statement of Need: This action should 

improve information sharing for 

purposes of carrying out payment, 

healthcare operations, and other 

healthcare related activities. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

governing statute, 42 U.S.C. 290dd–2, 

establishes that records of the identity, 

diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment of any 

patient which are maintained in 

connection with the performance of any 

program or activity relating to substance 

abuse education, prevention, training, 

treatment, rehabilitation, or research, 

which is conducted, regulated, or 

directly or indirectly assisted by any 

department or agency of the United 

States shall, except as provided in 

subsection (e) of this section, be 

confidential. The statute requires that 

HHS issue regulations, which are 

codified at 42 CFR part 2. SAMHSA. 

This final rule will adopt changes 

proposed in the SNPRM. 

Alternatives: Based on public 

comments, SAMHSA anticipates that 

these modifications will enhance 

efficiency of such payment and health 

care operations as claims processing, 

business management, training and 

customer service. The alternative would 

be not to finalize these changes in 

which case it would remain unclear in 

some cases as to when and whether part 

2 programs could work with contractors 

or subcontractors on payment and 

health care operations activities. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

changes proposed will make it easier for 

part 2 programs to work with 

contractors, subcontractors, and legal 

representatives on payment and 

healthcare operations activities. 

SAMHSA also will develop an 

abbreviated notice of redisclosure that 

may make it easier for some entities to 

use electronic health records. 

Risks: None known. 

This rule, if finalized, would permit 

lawful holders of part 2 information to 

work with contractors, subcontractors 

and legal representatives to make 

additional disclosures of part 2 

information for certain payment and 

health care operations purposes when 

initial patient consent is obtained. The 

rule includes language which provides 

that the contractor and any 

subcontractor or legal representative are 

or will be fully bound by the provisions 

of part 2 upon receipt of the patient 

identifying data, and, as such that each 

disclosure shall be accompanied by a 

required redisclosure notice. SAMHSA 

does not believe the additional 

disclosures permitted will increase risks 

of data breaches or other risks to 

patients. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Final Action ......... 01/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Chris Carroll, 

Director of Health Care Financing and 

Systems Integration, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration, 1 Choke Cherry Road, 

Rockville, MD 02857, Phone: 240 276– 

1765, Email: christopher.carroll@

samhsa.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0930–AA26 

HHS—Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

29. Mammography Quality Standards 

Act; Regulatory Amendments 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360i; 21 

U.S.C. 360nn; 21 U.S.C. 374(e); 42 

U.S.C. 263b 

CFR Citation: 21 CFR 900. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: FDA is proposing to amend 

its regulations governing 

mammography. The amendments would 

update the regulations issued under the 

Mammography Quality Standards Act of 

1992 (MQSA). FDA is taking this action 

to address changes in mammography 

technology and mammography 

processes that have occurred since the 

regulations were published in 1997 and 

to address breast density reporting to 

patient and healthcare providers. 

Statement of Need: FDA is proposing 

to update the mammography regulations 

that were issued under the 

Mammography Quality Standards Act of 

1992 (MQSA) and the Federal Food, 

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

FDA is taking this action to address 

changes in mammography technology 

and mammography processes. 

FDA is also proposing updates to 

modernize the regulations by 

incorporating current science and 

mammography best practices, including 

addressing breast density reporting to 

patients and health care providers. 

These updates are intended to 

improve the delivery of mammography 

services. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Mammography is an X-ray imaging 

examination device that is regulated 

under the authority of the FD&C Act. 

FDA is proposing these amendments to 

the mammography regulations (set forth 

in 21 CFR part 900) under section 354 

of the Public Health Service Act (42 

U.S.C. 263b), and sections 519, 537, and 

704(e) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360i, 

360nn, and 374(e)). 

Alternatives: The Agency will 

consider different options so that the 

health benefits to patients are 

maximized and the economic burdens 

to mammography facilities are 

minimized. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

primary public health benefits of the 

rule will come from the potential for 

earlier breast cancer detection, 

improved morbidity and mortality, 

resulting in reductions in cancer 

treatment costs. The primary costs of the 

rule will come from industry labor costs 

and costs associated with supplemental 

testing and biopsies. 

Risks: If a final regulation does not 

publish, the potential reduction in 

fatalities and earlier breast cancer 

detection, resulting in reduction in 

cancer treatment costs, will not 

materialize to the detriment of public 

health. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: State. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

E.O. 13132. 

Agency Contact: Erica Blake-Payne, 

Regulatory Counsel, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Food and 

Drug Administration, Center for Devices 

and Radiological Health, WO 66, Room 

5522, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, 

Silver Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 301 

796–3999, Fax: 301 847–8145, Email: 

erica.payne@fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AH04 

HHS—FDA 

30. Medical Device De Novo 

Classification Process 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1708 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 513; 21 

U.S.C. 701 

CFR Citation: 21 CFR 860. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: De novo classification 

decreases regulatory burdens because 

manufacturers can use a less 

burdensome application pathway under 

the FD&C Act to market their devices. 

The proposed rule would establish 

procedures and criteria for the de novo 

process and would make it more 

transparent and predictable for 

manufacturers. 

Statement of Need: FDA is taking this 

action to implement amendments to the 

De Novo classification process in the 

FD&C Act that were enacted by the Food 

and Drug Administration Modernization 

Act of 1997 (FDAMA), and the Food and 

Drug Administration Safety and 

Innovation Act of 2012 (FDASIA), and 

the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 

(Cures). 

Summary of Legal Basis: The FD&C 

Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), as amended, 

establishes a comprehensive system for 

the regulation of medical devices 

intended for human use. Section 513 of 

the FD&C Act established three 

categories (classes) of medical devices 

based on the regulatory controls 

sufficient to provide reasonable 

assurance of safety and effectiveness of 

the device. In 1997, Congress enacted 

section 513()(2) to include a De Novo 

classification process for some devices 

for which reasonable assurance of safety 

and effectiveness could be established 

through the De Novo process. FDASIA 

and cures expanded and modified this 

process. 

Alternatives: The De Novo 

classification process is based on 

authority from the FD&C Act. The De 

Novo classification program must 

continue because it is required by 

statute. If the proposed rule is not 

finalized, then procedures and details 

about the application process and 

handling of De Novo applications might 

be unclear to potential applicants, and 

the program may not be as efficient as 

it might be. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: By 

classifying the requirements for the De 

Novo classification process. FDA 

expects that the rule would reduce the 

time and costs associated with 

preparing and reviewing De Novo 

requests, and would generate net 

benefits in the form of cost savings for 

both private and government sectors. 

Risks: If the proposed rule is not 

finalized, then some aspects of the De 

novo classification process may not be 

clear, and potential applicants may miss 

the opportunity for using this less 

burdensome process when seeking 

premarket clearance. This could 

potentially delay getting new medical 

devices to the market and to patients. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Jean M. Olson, 

Regulatory Counsel, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Food and 

Drug Administration, Health and 

Human Services, 10903 New Hampshire 

Avenue, Building 66, Room 5508, Silver 

Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 301 796– 

6579. 

RIN: 0910–AH53 

HHS—FDA 

31. • Requirement for Access or Safe 

use of Certain Nonprescription Drug 

Products 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

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

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

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; . . . 

CFR Citation: 21 CFR 314.56; 21 CFR 

201.67. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The proposed rule is 

intended to increase access to a wider 

variety of nonprescription drug 

products. Under the proposed rule, an 

applicant could submit an application 

to FDA for approval of a 

nonprescription drug product with a 

requirement that ensures consumers’ 

appropriate self-selection, appropriate 

actual use, or both in order to obtain the 

drug without a prescription. 

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 that may be included in 

labeling. FDA is proposing regulations 

that would allow for approval of a 

nonprescription drug product that 

would have additional requirements 

that could be met by consumers to 

obtain the drug without a prescription. 

The proposed rule outlines a framework 

for the use of innovative approaches to 

assist consumers with nonprescription 

drug product self-selection or use. This 

pathway should lead to approval of a 

wider range of nonprescription drug 

products. 

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 .................. 08/00/18 

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 

32. • Medication Guides; Patient 

Medication Information 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

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

undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1709 

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

42 U.S.C. 262; 42 U.S.C. 264; 21 U.S.C. 

371 

CFR Citation: 21 CFR 208; 21 CFR 

606.123 (new); 21 CFR 310.501 and 

310.515 (removal); 21 CFR 201.57 

(a)(18) (revision); 21 CFR 201.809(f)(2) 

(revision); 21 CFR 314.70(b)(2)(v)(B) 

(revision); 21 CFR 610.60(a)(7) 

(removal); . . . 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The proposed rule would 

amend FDA medication guide 

regulations to require a new form of 

patient labeling, Patient Medication 

Information, for submission to and 

review by the FDA for human 

prescription drug products used, 

dispensed, or administered on an 

outpatient basis. The proposed rule 

would include requirements for Patient 

Medication Information development, 

consumer testing, and distribution. The 

proposed rule would require clear and 

concise written prescription drug 

product information presented in a 

consistent and easily understood format 

to help patients use their prescription 

drug products safely and effectively. 

Statement of Need: Patients may 

currently receive one or more types of 

written patient information regarding 

prescription drug products. Research 

has shown that frequently the 

information received is duplicative, 

incomplete, conflicting, or difficult to 

read and understand and such 

information is not sufficient to meet the 

needs of patients. Patient Medication 

Information is a new type of one-page 

Medication Guide that FDA is proposing 

to require for certain prescription drug 

products. Patient Medication 

Information is intended to improve 

public health by providing clear, 

concise, accessible, and useful written 

prescription drug product information, 

delivered in a consistent and easily 

understood format, to help patients use 

prescription drug products safely and 

effectively and potentially reduce 

adverse drug reactions due to incorrect 

use and improve health outcomes. 

Summary of Legal Basis: FDA’s 

proposed revisions to the regulations 

regarding format and content 

requirements for prescription drug 

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 

providing additional guidance to 

entities that supply patients information 

about prescription drugs and various 

formats for patient medication 

information. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

monetary benefit of the proposed rule 

stems from an increase in medication 

adherence due to patients having more 

complete and understandable 

information about their prescription 

drug products. The proposed rule would 

impose costs that stem from developing 

and approving Patient Medication 

Information. 

Risks: The current system does not 

consistently provide patients with 

useful written information to help them 

use their prescription drug products 

safely and effectively. The proposed 

rule would require FDA- approved 

Patient Medication Information for 

certain prescription drug products used, 

dispensed, or administered on an 

outpatient basis. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

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

0;18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

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–AH68 

HHS—FDA 

33. • Format and Content of Reports 

Intended To Demonstrate Substantial 

Equivalence 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 371; 21 

U.S.C. 374; 21 U.S.C. 387; 42 U.S.C. 

4332 

CFR Citation: 21 CFR 1107. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

establish the format and content of 

reports intended to demonstrate 

substantial equivalence (SE) in tobacco 

products and would provide 

information as to how the Agency will 

review and act on these submissions. 

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), requires 

premarket submissions for new tobacco 

products. Substantial equivalence 

reports are one type of premarket 

submission that manufacturers of new 

tobacco products may use to obtain 

marketing authorization for a new 

tobacco product. This regulation is 

necessary to provide information to 

manufacturers to aid them in preparing 

and submitting substantial equivalence 

reports. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

905(j) of the FD&C Act, as amended by 

the Tobacco Control Act, provides for 

the submission of substantial 

equivalence reports and authorizes FDA 

to prescribe the form and manner of 

these reports. Section 910 of the FD&C 

Act mandates the premarket review of 

new tobacco products, establishes 

definitions of substantial equivalence 

and characteristics, and requires health 

information as part of a submission 

under section 905(j) of the FD&C Act. 

Section 909 establishes record and 

report requirements for tobacco 

products. Sections 701 and 704 of the 

FD&C Act authorize the promulgation of 

regulations to implement the FD&C Act 

and inspections. 

Alternatives: In addition to the 

benefits and costs of the proposed rule, 

FDA assessed the benefits and costs of 

several alternatives to the proposed rule: 

(1) Extending the effective date of the 

rule, (2) allowing for more deficiency 

letters and review cycles, and (3) 

allowing for only one review cycle. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

costs of the rule are compliance costs on 

affected entities, e.g., to read and 

understand the rule, to revise internal 

procedures, and fill out a form for 

substantial equivalence reports. The 

quantified benefits of the proposed rule 

are cost-savings resulting from shorter 

FDA review times and fewer staff to 

review substantial equivalence reports. 

The cost savings to the government is 

expected to be larger than the 

compliance cost for industry and the net 

result is an overall net positive benefit 

from this proposed rule. The qualitative 

benefits of the rule include additional 

clarity to industry about the 

requirements for the content and format 

of substantial equivalence reports, as 

well as the establishment of procedures 

for substantial equivalence report 

review and communication with 

applicants. These changes make the 

substantial equivalence marketing 

pathway clearer for both FDA and 

applicants. 

Risks: Premarket submissions for new 

tobacco products are required by the 

FD&C Act. But to prepare premarket 

submissions such as substantial 

equivalence reports intended to meet 

those requirements, manufacturers need 

more information about content and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1710 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

format requirements. This rule provides 

more information on content and format 

requirements and describes possible 

FDA actions on the substantial 

equivalence report. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Annette L. Marthaler, 

Regulatory Counsel, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Food and 

Drug Administration, Center for 

Tobacco Products, Document Control 

Center, Building 71, Room G335, 10903 

New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, 

MD 20993, Phone: 877 287–1373, Fax: 

877 287–1426, Email: ctpregulations@

fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AH89 

HHS—HEALTH RESOURCES AND 

SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

34. • 340B Drug Pricing Program 

Ceiling Price and Manufacturer Civil 

Monetary Penalties Regulation 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 102–585: 

Veterans HealthCare Act of 1992 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 10. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

amend the definition of ‘knowingly and 

intentionally’ at section 10.3 and amend 

section 10.10(b) regarding 340B ceiling 

price. The sections being amended were 

included in a final rule that published 

on January 5, 2017 (82 FR 1210; RIN 

0906–AA89). The January 5, 2017, final 

rule set forth the calculation of the 

ceiling price and application of civil 

monetary penalties. 

Statement of Need: This statutorily 

required rule defines the standards and 

methodology for the calculation of 

ceiling prices within the 340B Program 

and imposes civil monetary penalties on 

drug manufacturers who knowingly and 

intentionally charge a covered entity a 

price above the 340B ceiling price. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule 

would implement provisions of section 

340B of the Public Health Service Act 

(PHSA), referred to as the 340B Drug 

Pricing Program or the 340B Program. 

Alternatives: None. This rule 

implements statutory requirements. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

proposed rule will not have economic 

impacts of $100 million or more in any 

1 year, and, therefore, has not been 

designated an economically significant 

rule under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866. This proposed rule 

proposes to modify current policy 

regarding calculation of the 340B ceiling 

price. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/17 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: CAPT Krista Pedley, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Health Resources and Services 

Administration, Health Services and 

Resources Administration, 5600 Fishers 

Lane, 10C–03, Rockville, MD 20857, 

Phone: 301 443–5294, Email: 

krista.pedley@hrsa.hhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 0906–AA89 

RIN: 0906–AB12 

HHS—HRSA 

35. • National Vaccine Injury 

Compensation Program: Revisions to 

the Vaccine Injury Table 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 21st Century Cures 

Act; FR 114–255 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 100. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

revise the Vaccine Injury Table to 

include vaccines recommended by the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention for routine administration in 

pregnant women. The addition of this 

category of vaccines to the Vaccine 

Injury Table is necessary to allow 

related injury claims to be eligible for 

adjudication through the Vaccine Injury 

Compensation Program. 

Statement of Need: This statutorily 

required regulation revises the Vaccine 

Injury Table to include vaccines 

recommended by the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention for routine 

administration in pregnant women. This 

category of vaccines must be added to 

the Table for such injury claims to be 

eligible for adjudication through the 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule 

would implement provisions of the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation 

Program (the Program), as required by 

the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as 

amended. 

Alternatives: None. This rule 

implements statutory requirements. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: An 

estimate of costs of this regulation is not 

available at this time. There are no 

anticipated costs to this regulation. 

Risks: This category of vaccines must 

be added to the Table for such injury 

claims to be eligible for adjudication 

through the Vaccine Injury 

Compensation Program. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 09/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Tamara Overby, 

Deputy Director, Division of Injury 

Compensation Programs, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Health 

Resources and Services Administration, 

5600 Fishers Lane, 08N142, Rockville, 

MD 20857, Phone: 301 443–3766, Email: 

toverby@hrsa.gov. 

RIN: 0906–AB14 

HHS—CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & 

MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

36. Policy and Technical Changes to the 

Medicare Advantage and the Medicare 

Prescription Drug Benefit Programs for 

Contract Year 2019 (CMS–4182–P) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114–198, sec. 

702; Pub. L. 114–255, secs. 17005 & 

17006; 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395hh 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 417; 42 CFR 

422; 42 CFR 423; 42 CFR 483; . . . 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

set forth programmatic and operational 

changes to the Medicare Advantage 

(MA) and prescription drug benefit 

programs for contract year 2019. 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

necessary to make revisions to the MA 

program (Part C) and Prescription Drug 

Benefit Program (Part D), and other 

changes to the regulations based on our 

continued experience in the 

administration of the Part C and Part D 

programs. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1711 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule 

addresses multiple sections of the Social 

Security Act (including secs. 1102 and 

1871) and the Public Health Service Act. 

It also implements section 704 of the 

Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery 

Act (CARA) and sections 17005 and 

17006 of the 21 st Century Cures Act. 

Alternatives: This rule proposes 

approaches to improve the quality, 

accessibility and affordability of the 

Medicare Part C and Part D programs 

and to improve the CMS customer 

experience. The Agency will consider 

options that support these 

improvements. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

rule includes changes that support 

innovative approaches by Medicare 

Advantage (MA) organizations and Part 

D sponsors in administering the benefit 

and that prevent improper provision of 

services, implementing changes in line 

with the Comprehensive Addiction and 

Recovery Act of 2016 and the 21st 

Century Cures Act. We believe the 

proposed changes will result in a 

reduction of burden to MA 

Organizations and Part D Sponsors and 

generate program savings. As we move 

toward publication, estimates of the cost 

and benefits of these provisions will be 

included in the rule. 

Risks: If this regulation is not 

published timely, changes will not be in 

place for contract year 2019. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/00/17 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Christian Bauer, 

Director, Division of Part D Policy, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, 

MS: C1–26–16, 7500 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, 

Phone: 410 786–6043, Email: 

christian.bauer@cms.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0938–AT08 

HHS—CMS 

37. • Regulatory Provisions To Promote 

Program Efficiency, Transparency, and 

Burden Reduction (CMS–3346–P) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 263a, 273, 

1302, 1320a–7, 1320b–8,1395, 

1395eee(f),1395hh, 1395i, 1395rr, 1396r, 

1396u–4(f)); 42 U.S.C. 273; 42 U.S.C. 

1302; 42 U.S.C. 1320a–7; 42 U.S.C. 

1320b–8; 42 U.S.C. 1395; 42 U.S.C. 

1395eee(f); 42 U.S.C. 1395hh; 42 U.S.C. 

1395i; 42 U.S.C. 1395rr; 42 U.S.C. 1396r; 

42 U.S.C. 1396u–4(r) 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 403; 42 CFR 

405; 42 CFR 416; 42 CFR 418; . . . 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

reform Medicare regulations that CMS 

has identified as unnecessary, obsolete, 

or excessively burdensome on 

healthcare providers and suppliers. This 

rule would increase the ability of 

healthcare professionals to devote 

resources to improving patient care by 

eliminating or reducing requirements 

that impede quality patient care or that 

divert resources away from providing 

high quality patient care. 

Statement of Need: CMS is committed 

to transforming the healthcare delivery 

system, and the Medicare program, by 

putting an additional focus on patientcentered care and working with 

providers, physicians, and patients to 

improve outcomes. We seek to reduce 

burdens for hospitals, physicians, and 

patients, improve the quality of care, 

decrease costs, and ensure that patients 

and their providers and physicians are 

making the best healthcare choices 

possible. 

We are therefore proposing changes to 

the current Conditions of Participation 

(CoPs) or Conditions for Coverage (CfCs) 

that would simplify and streamline the 

current regulations and thereby increase 

provider flexibility and reduce 

excessively burdensome regulations, 

while also allowing providers to focus 

on providing high-quality healthcare to 

their patients. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 

1102 and 1871 of the Social Security 

Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh). 

Alternatives: From within the entire 

body of CoPs and CfCs, the most viable 

candidates for reform were those 

identified by stakeholders, by recent 

research, or by experts as unusually 

burdensome if not changed. This subset 

of the universe of standards is the focus 

of this proposed rule. For all of the 

proposed provisions, we considered not 

making these changes or changing them 

in other manners. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

rule would create ongoing cost savings 

to providers and suppliers in many 

areas and significant additional health 

benefits. Other changes we have 

proposed would clarify existing policy 

and relieve some administrative 

burdens. 

Risks: Our estimates of the effects of 

this regulation are subject to significant 

uncertainty. While we are confident that 

these reforms will provide flexibilities 

to facilities that will yield major cost 

savings, there are uncertainties about 

the magnitude of these effects. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Alpha-Banu Huq, 

Health Insurance Specialist, 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: 410 786–8687, Email: alphabanu.huq@cms.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0938–AT23 

HHS—CMS 

38. • Hospital Inpatient Prospective 

Payment System for Acute Care 

Hospitals and the Long-Term Care 

Hospital Prospective Payment System 

and FY 2019 Rates (CMS–1694–P) 

(Section 610 Review) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 

U.S.C. 1395hh 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 412; 42 CFR 

413. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

April 1, 2018. Final, Statutory, August 

1, 2018. 

Abstract: This annual proposed rule 

would revise the Medicare hospital 

inpatient and long-term care hospital 

prospective payment systems for 

operating and capital-related costs. This 

proposed rule would implement 

changes arising from our continuing 

experience with these systems. 

Statement of Need: CMS annually 

revises the Medicare hospital inpatient 

prospective payment systems (IPPS) for 

operating and capital-related costs to 

implement changes arising from our 

continuing experience with these 

systems. In addition, we describe the 

proposed changes to the amounts and 

factors used to determine the rates for 

Medicare hospital inpatient services for 

operating costs and capital-related costs. 

Also, CMS annually updates the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1712 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

payment rates for the Medicare 

prospective payment system (PPS) for 

inpatient hospital services provided by 

long-term care hospitals (LTCHs). The 

rule solicits comments on the proposed 

IPPS and LTCH payment rates and new 

policies. CMS will issue a final rule 

containing the payment rates for the FY 

2019 IPPS and LTCHs at least 60 days 

before October 1, 2018. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Social 

Security Act (the Act) sets forth a 

system of payment for the operating 

costs of acute care hospital inpatient 

stays under Medicare Part A (Hospital 

Insurance) based on prospectively set 

rates. The Act requires the Secretary to 

pay for the capital-related costs of 

hospital inpatient and Long Term Care 

stays under a PPS. Under these systems, 

Medicare payment for hospital inpatient 

and Long Term Care operating and 

capital-related costs is made at 

predetermined, specific rates for each 

hospital discharge. These changes 

would be applicable to services 

furnished on or after October 1, 2018. 

Alternatives: This proposed rule will 

provide descriptions of the statutory 

provisions that are addressed, identify 

the proposed policies, and present 

rationales for our decisions and 

alternatives that were considered. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total 

expenditures will be adjusted for FY 

2019; however, at this time, the impact 

is expected to affect transfers only and 

not contain costs/benefits outside of 

Medicare spending. 

Risks: If this regulation is not 

published timely, inpatient hospital and 

LTCH services will not be paid 

appropriately beginning October 1, 

2018. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Donald Thompson, 

Deputy Director, Division of Acute Care, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, 

MS: C4–08–06, 7500 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, 

Phone: 410 786–6504, Email: 

donald.thompson@cms.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0938–AT27 

HHS—CMS 

39. • Requirements for Long-Term Care 

Facilities: Regulatory Provisions To 

Promote Program Efficiency, 

Transparency, and Burden Reduction 

(CMS–3347–P) 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: Sec. 1819 and 1919 

of the Social Security Act; sec. 

1819(d)(4)(B) and 1919(d)(4)(B) of the 

Social Security Act; sec. 1819(b)(1)(A) 

and 1919(b)(1)(A) of the Social Security 

Act 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 483; 42 CFR 

488. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

reform the requirements that long-term 

care facilities must meet to participate 

in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, 

that CMS has identified as unnecessary, 

obsolete, or excessively burdensome on 

facilities. This rule would increase the 

ability of healthcare professionals to 

devote resources to improving resident 

care by eliminating or reducing 

requirements that impede quality care 

or that divert resources away from 

providing high quality care. 

Statement of Need: CMS is committed 

to transforming the healthcare delivery 

system, and the Medicare program, by 

putting an additional focus on patientcentered care and working with 

providers, physicians, and patients to 

improve outcomes. We seek to reduce 

burdens for long-term care facilities; 

healthcare professionals and residents; 

improve the quality of care; decrease 

costs; and, ensure that residents and 

their providers are making the best 

healthcare choices possible. 

We are therefore proposing revisions 

to the requirements that long-term care 

facilities must meet to participate in the 

Medicare and Medicaid programs that 

would increase the ability of healthcare 

professionals to devote resources to 

improving resident care by eliminating 

or reducing requirements that impede 

quality care or that divert resources 

away from providing high quality care. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This 

proposed rule is in accordance with the 

January 30, 2017 Executive Order 

Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs (E.O. 13771). 

Alternatives: For all of the proposed 

provisions, we considered not making 

these changes. Specifically, we 

considered the impact that any revisions 

would have on the health and safety of 

residents in long-term care facilities and 

if such revisions would realistically be 

burden reducing for facilities. 

Ultimately, we believe that the proposed 

revisions will be burden reducing and 

do not impede on the health and safety 

of residents. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

proposed rule would create ongoing cost 

savings to long-term care facilities in 

many areas. In addition, various 

proposals would clarify existing policy 

and relieve some administrative 

burdens. 

Risks: Our estimates of the effects of 

this regulation are subject to significant 

uncertainty. While we are confident that 

these reforms would provide 

flexibilities to facilities that will yield 

major cost savings, there are 

uncertainties about the magnitude of 

these effects. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Ronisha Blackstone, 

Health Insurance Specialist, 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: 410 786–6882, Email: 

ronisha.blackstone@cms.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0938–AT36 

HHS—CMS 

40. • Medicaid and CHIP Managed Care 

(CMS–2408–P) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 430; 42 CFR 

431; 42 CFR 438. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

streamline the regulatory framework 

and provide burden reductions to 

ensure state Medicaid agencies are able 

to work effectively with CMS to design, 

develop, and deploy managed care 

programs that meet the state 

population’s needs. 

Statement of Need: This proposed 

rule would advance CMS’ efforts to 

streamline Medicaid and CHIP managed 

care and reflects a broader strategy to 

relieve regulatory burdens; support state 

flexibility and local leadership; 

empower the patient-doctor relationship 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1713 

in health care; and promote 

transparency, flexibility, and innovation 

in the delivery of care. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1102 

of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

1302). 

Alternatives: The HHS letter to the 

nation’s governors on March 14, 2017, 

committed to a review of the managed 

care regulations in order to prioritize 

beneficiary outcomes and State 

priorities. We are reviewing the 

managed care regulations in accordance 

with this commitment and 

recommending appropriate rulemaking. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

proposed rule is intended to streamline 

the federal requirements for Medicaid 

and CHIP managed care. We anticipate 

that these changes will likely be 

economically significant. 

Risks: The current revisions of the 

regulations are intended to ensure that 

the regulatory framework is efficient 

and feasible for States to implement in 

a cost effective manner and address the 

risks identified in previous rulemaking. 

This would ensure that States operating 

State Medicaid and CHIP managed care 

programs can implement program and 

fiscal integrities without undue 

administrative burdens. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Agency Contact: James Golden, 

Director, Division of Managed Care 

Plans, Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, Center for Medicaid 

and CHIP Services, MS: S2–14–26, 7500 

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21244, Phone: 410 786–7111, Email: 

james.golden@cms.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0938–AT40 

HHS—ADMINISTRATION FOR 

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF) 

Prerule Stage 

41. • Adoption and Foster Care 

Analysis and Reporting System 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: Sections 474(f), 479 

and 1102 of the Social Security Act 

CFR Citation: 45 CFR 1355. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This advanced notice of 

proposed rulemaking seeks public 

suggestions in particular from state and 

tribal title IV–E agencies and Indian 

tribes, tribal organizations and 

consortiums, for streamlining the 

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and 

Reporting System (AFCARS) data 

elements and removing any undue 

burden related to reporting AFCARS. 

Statement of Need: The reporting 

requirements for the Adoption and 

Foster Care Analysis and Reporting 

System (AFCARS) have doubled in the 

past year. In an effort to ensure that an 

appropriate balance is achieved between 

reporting burden and administering 

high-quality programs that provide 

services to children and families. By 

engaging in this rulemaking process, the 

public and stakeholders will be afforded 

an opportunity to provide input on what 

data collections are most useful to the 

administration of child welfare 

programs. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 479 

of the Social Security Act requires HHS 

regulate a national data collection 

system which provides comprehensive 

information on adopted and foster 

children and their parents. 

Alternatives: None. This rule 

implements statutory requirements. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: An 

estimate of costs to states to modify 

their existing data systems is not 

available at this time. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 10/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Kathleen McHugh, 

ACYF/Children’s Bureau, Department of 

Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and 

Families, Washington, DC 20013, 

Phone: 202 401–5789, Email: kmchugh@

acf.dhhs.gov. 

RIN: 0970–AC72 

HHS—ACF 

Proposed Rule Stage 

42. • Head Start Service Duration 

Requirements 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: Section 641A of the 

Head Start Act 

CFR Citation: 45 CFR 1302. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule would address the 

requirement in the Head Start Program 

Performance Standards (HSPPS) that 

increases service duration for all Head 

Start center-based programs to a 

minimum of 1,020 hours. 

Statement of Need: The Head Start 

Program Performance Standards 

(HSPPS) regulation includes two 

requirements that increase service 

duration for all Head Start center-based 

programs. The first requirement, 

effective on August 1, 2019, requires 

center-based programs to operate 50 

percent of their slots for 1,020 annual 

hours. The second requirement, 

effective August 1, 2021, requires 

center-based programs to operate 100 

percent of their slots for 1,020 annual 

hours. Each requirement will go into 

effect unless the Secretary acts to lower 

each percentage 18 months prior to its 

respective effective date. The Secretary, 

through the HSPPS regulation, has the 

authority to lower the 50 percent 

requirement through a public notice. 

Elimination of the 1,020 annual hour 

requirements allows maximum 

flexibility for Head Start grantees. 

Programs could choose to operate for 

longer than the 448-hour minimum 

based on demonstrated need in their 

communities, but it would not be a 

requirement. The Head Start Act allows 

programs to convert part-day slot to fullday or full-working-day slots. 

Summary of Legal Basis: HHS 

believes that the Secretary could not yet 

make a defensible determination to 

reduce the second requirement of 100 

percent, based on an assessment of the 

availability of sufficient funding to 

mitigate a substantial reduction in 

funded enrollment, because the effective 

date of the 100 percent requirement is 

several budget cycles away. With 

several years before the 100 percent 

requirement would go into effect, there 

is sufficient time to complete the 

regulatory notice and comment process 

and to issue a final rule eliminating 

these duration requirements. 

Alternatives: None. The service 

duration requirements were codified in 

regulation and in order to remove the 

100 percent requirement a regulation 

must be issued. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

estimated cost of the 100 percent Head 

Start center-based duration requirement 

(effective August 1, 2021) is 

approximately $1.2 billion. 

Risks: Without additional funding, 

this requirement would likely result in 

a loss of between 130,000 and 140,000 

Head Start slots. 

Timetable: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1714 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Colleen Rathgeb, 

Division Director, Department of Health 

and Human Services, Administration for 

Children and Families, 330 C Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20447, Phone: 202 358– 

3263, Email: collen.rathgeb@

acf.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0970–AC73 

BILLING CODE 4150–03–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY (DHS) 

Fall 2017 Statement of Regulatory 

Priorities 

The Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS or Department) was 

created in 2003 pursuant to the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–296. The DHS mission 

statement provides the following: ‘‘With 

honor and integrity, we will safeguard 

the American people, our homeland, 

and our values.’’ 

Fulfilling this mission requires the 

dedication of more than 225,000 

employees in jobs that range from 

aviation and border security to 

emergency response, from cybersecurity 

analyst to chemical facility inspector. 

Our duties are wide-ranging, but our 

goal is clear—keeping America safe. 

Leading a unified national effort, DHS 

has five core missions: (1) Prevent 

terrorism and enhance security, (2) 

secure and manage our borders, (3) 

enforce and administer our immigration 

laws, (4) safeguard and secure 

cyberspace, and (5) ensure resilience to 

disasters. In addition, we must 

specifically focus on maturing and 

strengthening the homeland security 

enterprise itself. 

In achieving these goals, we are 

continually strengthening our 

partnerships with communities, first 

responders, law enforcement, and 

Government agencies—at the State, 

local, tribal, Federal, and international 

levels. We are accelerating the 

deployment of science, technology, and 

innovation in order to make America 

more secure, and 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 http://www.dhs.gov/ 

our-mission. 

The regulations we have summarized 

below in the Department’s fall 2017 

regulatory plan and agenda support the 

Department’s responsibility areas. These 

regulations will improve the 

Department’s ability to accomplish its 

mission. Also, the regulations we have 

identified in this year’s regulatory plan 

continue to address legislative 

initiatives such as the Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), 

Public Law 110–53 (Aug. 3, 2007). 

DHS strives for organizational 

excellence and uses a centralized and 

unified approach in 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 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, 

build coalitions and partnerships, 

develop human resources, innovate, and 

be accountable to the American public. 

Executive Order 13771 Requirements 

In fiscal year 2018, DHS plans to 

finalize the following actions: 

• 0 Executive Order 13771 regulatory 

actions; 

• 15 Executive Order 13771 

deregulatory actions (including 

information collections); 

• 5 Executive Order 13771-exempt 

regulations; and 

• 9 regulations for which we are 

unsure of their Executive Order 13771 

designation. (Note: These are 

regulations that we designated as 

‘‘other’’ in the newly-created Executive 

Order 13771 designation data field in 

the Unified Agenda entries). 

We provide further information about 

these actions in the DHS Regulatory 

Plan and Unified Agenda. 

DHS is also 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 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. 

Finally, the Department values public 

involvement in the development of its 

regulatory plan, agenda, and 

regulations, and takes particular 

concern with the impact its regulations 

have on small businesses. 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. 

The fall 2017 regulatory plan for DHS 

includes regulations from several DHS 

components, including U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services (USCIS), the 

U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 

the U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE), the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), and the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA). Below is 

a discussion of the regulations that 

comprise the DHS fall 2017 regulatory 

plan. 

United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Services 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS) is the government 

agency that oversees lawful immigration 

to the United States. USCIS’s role is to 

efficiently adjudicate and manage 

petitions, applications, and requests for 

immigration benefits for foreign 

nationals seeking lawful immigration 

status in the United States and for 

individuals seeking to become citizens 

of the United States, and other matters 

within the jurisdiction of the agency, in 

a manner that detects, deters, and 

prevents fraud, protects the jobs and 

working conditions of American 

workers as appropriate, and ensures the 

national security, public safety, and 

welfare of the American people. In the 

coming year, USCIS will promulgate 

several regulatory and deregulatory 

actions to directly support these 

commitments and goals. 

Rescission of International 

Entrepreneur Rule. USCIS will propose 

to rescind the final rule published in the 

Federal Register on January 17, 2017. 

The final rule established a program that 

would allow for consideration of parole 

into the United States, on case-by-case 

basis, of certain inventors, researchers, 

and entrepreneurs who had established 

a U.S. start-up entity, and who had been 

awarded substantial U.S. investor 

financing or otherwise hold the promise 

of innovation and job creation through 

the development of new technologies or 

the pursuit of cutting edge research. 

Removing H–4 Dependent Spouses 

from the Class of Aliens Eligible for 

Employment Authorization. USCIS will 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1715 

also propose to rescind the final rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 25, 2015. The 2015 final rule 

amended DHS regulations by extending 

eligibility for employment authorization 

to certain H–4 dependent spouses of H– 

1B nonimmigrants who are seeking 

employment-based lawful permanent 

resident status. 

H–1B Nonimmigrant Program and 

Petitioning Process Regulations. In order 

to improve U.S. worker protections as 

well as to address the requirements of 

Executive Order 13788, Buy American 

and Hire American, USCIS proposes to 

issue regulations with the focus of 

improving the H–1B nonimmigrant 

program and petitioning process. Such 

initiatives include a proposed rule that 

would establish an electronic 

registration program for H–1B petitions 

subject to annual numerical limitations 

and would improve the H–1B numerical 

limitation allocation process 

(Registration Requirement for 

Petitioners Seeking to File H–1B 

Petitions on Behalf of Aliens Subject to 

Numerical Limitations); and a proposed 

rule that would revise the definition of 

specialty occupation to increase focus 

on truly obtaining the best and brightest 

foreign nationals via the H–1B program 

and would revise the definition of 

employment and employer-employee 

relationship to help better protect U.S. 

workers and wages. (Strengthening the 

H–1B Nonimmigrant Visa Classification 

Program.) 

Heightened Screening and Vetting of 

Immigration Programs Regulations. 

USCIS will propose regulations guiding 

the inadmissibility determination 

whether an alien is likely at any time to 

become a public charge under section 

212(a)(4) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act. (Inadmissibility and 

Deportability on Public Charge 

Grounds.) 

Employment Creation Immigrant 

Regulations. USCIS will amend its 

regulations modernizing the 

employment-based, fifth preference 

(EB–5) immigrant investor category 

based on current economic realities and 

to reflect statutory changes made to the 

program. (EB–5 Immigrant Investor 

Program Modernization). In addition, 

USCIS will propose to update its 

regulations for the EB–5 Immigrant 

Investor Regional Center Program to 

better reflect realities for regional 

centers and EB–5 immigrant investors, 

to increase predictability and 

transparency in the adjudication 

process, to improve operational 

efficiency, and to enhance program 

integrity. (EB–5 Immigrant Investor 

Regional Center Program.) 

United States Coast Guard 

The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) is 

a military, multi-mission, maritime 

service of the United States and the only 

military organization within DHS. It is 

the principal Federal agency responsible 

for the $4.5 trillion maritime 

transportation system, including 

maritime safety, security, and 

stewardship. The Coast Guard delivers 

daily value to the nation through multimission resources, authorities, and 

capabilities. 

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 highlytrained 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. 

The Coast Guard does not have 

significant regulatory actions planned 

for the coming fiscal year; however, the 

Coast Guard is highlighting the 

following Executive Order 13771 

deregulatory action. 

Marine Casualty Reporting Property 

Damage Thresholds. This rule would 

raise the monetary property damage 

threshold for reporting a marine 

casualty, and for reporting a type of 

marine casualty called a ‘‘serious 

marine incident.’’ Currently, whether 

and how a marine casualty must be 

reported to the Coast Guard depends in 

part on the dollar value of the property 

damage resulting from the casualty. The 

dollar threshold amounts date to the 

1980s and have not been updated to 

keep pace with inflation; consequently, 

relatively minor casualties must be 

reported and may require mandatory 

drug and alcohol testing. Updating the 

thresholds would reduce a reporting 

burden on vessel owner and operators, 

and reduce the Coast Guard resources 

expended to investigate minor 

incidents. (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.) 

United States Customs and Border 

Protection 

U.S. 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 and at official 

crossings into the United States. CBP 

must accomplish its border security and 

enforcement mission without stifling 

the flow of legitimate trade and travel. 

The primary mission of CBP is its 

homeland security mission, that is, to 

prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons 

from entering the United States. An 

important aspect of this priority mission 

involves improving security at our 

borders and ports of entry, but it also 

means extending our zone of security 

beyond our physical borders. 

CBP is also responsible for 

administering laws concerning the 

importation into the United States of 

goods, and enforcing the laws 

concerning the entry of persons into the 

United States. This includes regulating 

and facilitating international trade; 

collecting import duties; enforcing U.S. 

trade, immigration and other laws of the 

United States at our borders; inspecting 

imports, overseeing the activities of 

persons and businesses engaged in 

importing; enforcing the laws 

concerning smuggling and trafficking in 

contraband; apprehending individuals 

attempting to enter the United States 

illegally; protecting our agriculture and 

economic interests from harmful pests 

and diseases; servicing all people, 

vehicles, and cargo entering the United 

States; maintaining export controls; and 

protecting U.S. businesses from theft of 

their intellectual property. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1716 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

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 during the next fiscal 

year that are intended to improve 

security at our borders and ports of 

entry. During the upcoming year, CBP 

will also be working on various projects 

to streamline CBP processing, reduce 

duplicative processes, reduce various 

burdens on the public, and automate 

various paper forms. Below are 

descriptions of CBP’s planned actions 

for fiscal year 2018. 

Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS). 

To address ongoing aviation security 

threats, CBP intends to amend its 

regulations pertaining to the submission 

of advance air cargo data to implement 

a mandatory Air Cargo Advance 

Screening (ACAS) program for any 

inbound aircraft required to make entry 

under the CBP regulations that will have 

commercial cargo aboard. The ACAS 

program will require the inbound carrier 

or other eligible party to electronically 

transmit specified advance cargo data 

(ACAS data) to CBP for air cargo 

transported onboard U.S.-bound aircraft 

as early as practicable, but no later than 

prior to loading of the cargo onto the 

aircraft. The ACAS program will 

enhance the security of the aircraft and 

passengers on U.S.-bound flights by 

enabling CBP to perform targeted risk 

assessments on the air cargo prior to the 

aircraft’s departure for the United 

States. These risk assessments will 

identify and prevent high-risk air cargo 

from being loaded on the aircraft that 

could pose a risk to the aircraft during 

flight. CBP, in cooperation with TSA, 

has been operating ACAS as a voluntary 

pilot program since 2010 and intends to 

publish an interim final rule in the next 

fiscal year to implement ACAS as a 

regulatory program. 

Collection of Biometric Data Upon 

Entry to and Departure from the United 

States. DHS is required by statute to 

develop and implement an integrated, 

automated entry and exit data system to 

match records, including biographic 

data and biometric identifiers, of aliens 

entering and departing the United 

States. In addition, Executive Order 

13780, Protecting the Nation from 

Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United 

States, states that DHS is to expedite the 

completion and implementation of a 

biometric entry-exit tracking system. 

Although the current regulations 

provide that DHS may require certain 

aliens to provide biometrics when 

entering and departing the United 

States, they only authorize DHS to 

collect biometrics from certain aliens 

upon departure under pilot programs at 

land ports and at up to 15 airports and 

seaports. To provide the legal 

framework for DHS to begin a 

comprehensive biometric entry-exit 

system, DHS intends to issue an interim 

final rule in the next fiscal year to 

amend the regulations to remove the 

references to pilot programs and the 

port limitation. In addition, to facilitate 

the implementation of a seamless 

biometric entry-exit system that uses 

facial recognition, this rule would also 

provide that all travelers may be 

required to provide photographs upon 

entry or departure. 

In addition to the regulations that CBP 

issues to promote DHS’s mission, CBP 

also 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 

addition to its plans to continue issuing 

regulations to enhance border security, 

CBP, in the coming year, 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. 

Implementation of the Electronic 

System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) 

at U.S. Land Borders—Automation of 

CBP Form I–94W. During the next fiscal 

year, CBP intends to amend DHS 

regulations to implement the ESTA 

requirements under section 711 of the 

Implementing Recommendations of the 

9/11 Commission Act of 2007, for aliens 

who intend to enter the United States 

under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) 

at land ports of entry. Currently, aliens 

from VWP countries must provide 

certain biographic information to U.S. 

CBP officers at land ports of entry on a 

paper I–94W Nonimmigrant Visa 

Waiver Arrival/Departure Record (Form 

I–94W). Under this rule, these VWP 

travelers will instead provide this 

information to CBP electronically 

through ESTA prior to application for 

admission to the United States. 

Travelers will bear opportunity costs 

and CBP will bear information 

technology costs as a result of this rule. 

Both travelers and CBP, however, will 

enjoy opportunity cost savings as a 

result of this rule, resulting in an overall 

net savings. In addition, the public will 

benefit from improved security. 

Modernization of the Customs Brokers 

Regulations. CBP will issue a proposed 

rule to amend the requirements for 

customs brokers. Specifically, CBP will 

propose to simplify the broker 

permitting framework by eliminating 

district permits and the corresponding 

district permit requirements. 

Additionally, CBP will propose to 

update the responsible supervision and 

control oversight framework to better 

reflect the modern business 

environment. (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 issue this rule 

amending the 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, 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. (Note: There 

is no associated Regulatory Plan entry 

for this rule, because this rule is not 

significant under Executive Order 

12866. There is an entry, however, in 

the Unified Agenda.) 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

The Federal Emergency Management 

Agency’s (FEMA’s) mission is to 

support our citizens and first responders 

to ensure that as a Nation we work 

together to build, sustain, and improve 

our capability to prepare for, protect 

against, respond to, recover from, and 

mitigate all hazards. FEMA’s ethos is to 

serve the Nation by helping its people 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1717 

and first responders, especially when 

they are most in need. 

FEMA is working on various 

deregulatory actions in the coming fiscal 

year. FEMA will propose to remove 

outdated regulations that require 

publication of community loss of 

eligibility notices in the Federal 

Register. (Removal of Federal Register 

Publication Requirement for Community 

Loss of Eligibility Notices under the 

National Flood Insurance Program. 

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.) FEMA 

will also issue other deregulatory 

actions, such as removing regulations 

with sunset programs, which will result 

in general cleanup of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. 

Factors Considered When Evaluating 

a Governor’s Request for Individual 

Assistance for a Major Disaster. In 

addition, FEMA plans to promulgate 

this significant regulation during the 

fiscal year. The Sandy Recovery 

Improvement Act of 2013 requires the 

FEMA Administrator to review, update, 

and revise through rulemaking the 

individual assistance factors FEMA uses 

to measure the severity, magnitude, and 

impact of a disaster. FEMA published a 

proposed rule on November 12, 2015, 

and now plans to issue a final rule. 

Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center 

The Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center (FLETC) does not have 

any significant regulations planned for 

fiscal year 2018. 

United States Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement 

Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) is the principal 

criminal investigative arm of DHS and 

one of the three Department 

components charged with the 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 

fiscal year 2018, ICE will focus 

rulemaking efforts on three priority 

regulations: Increasing the fees paid to 

the Student and Exchange Visitor 

Program (SEVP) to recover costs for 

services; Flores Settlement Agreement 

provisions; and comprehensive reform 

of practical training for foreign students 

with an F or M visa. 

Below are ICE’s significant regulatory 

actions for the coming fiscal year: 

Adjusting Program Fees for the 

Student and Exchange Visitor Program. 

ICE will propose to adjust the fees that 

the Student and Exchange Visitor 

Program (SEVP) charges individuals and 

organizations. In 2016, SEVP conducted 

a comprehensive fee study and 

determined that current fees do not 

recover the full costs of the services 

provided. ICE has determined that 

adjusting fees is necessary to fully 

recover the increased costs of SEVP 

operations, program requirements, and 

to provide the necessary funding to 

sustain initiatives critical to supporting 

national security. DHS will propose to 

adjust its fees for individuals and 

organizations to establish a more 

equitable distribution of costs and to 

establish a sustainable revenue level. 

The SEVP fee schedule was last 

adjusted in a rule published on 

September 26, 2008. 

Apprehension, Processing, Care, and 

Custody of Alien Minors. ICE will issue 

a proposed rule related to the detention, 

processing, and release of alien 

children. In 1985, a class-action suit 

challenged the policies of the former 

Immigration and Naturalization Service 

(INS) relating to the detention, 

processing, and release of alien 

children; the case eventually reached 

the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court 

upheld the constitutionality of the 

challenged INS regulations on their face 

and remanded the case for further 

proceedings consistent with its opinion. 

In January 1997, the parties reached a 

comprehensive settlement agreement, 

referred to as the Flores Settlement 

Agreement (FSA). The FSA was to 

terminate five years after the date of 

final court approval; however, the 

termination provisions were modified in 

2001, such that the FSA does not 

terminate until forty-five days after 

publication of regulations implementing 

the agreement. Since 1997, intervening 

statutory changes, including passage of 

the Homeland Security Act (HSA) and 

the William Wilberforce Trafficking 

Victims Protection Reauthorization Act 

of 2008 (TVPRA), have significantly 

changed the applicability of certain 

provisions of the FSA. The proposed 

rule will codify the substantive terms of 

the FSA and enable the U.S. 

Government to seek termination of the 

FSA and litigation concerning its 

enforcement. Through this rule, DHS 

will create a pathway to ensure the 

humane detention of family units while 

satisfying the goals of the FSA. The rule 

will also implement related provisions 

of the TVPRA. 

Practical Training Reform. ICE will 

issue a proposed rule that improves 

protections of U.S. workers who may be 

negatively impacted by employment of 

nonimmigrant students on F and M 

visas. The rule will be a comprehensive 

reform of practical training options; it is 

intended to reduce fraud and abuse. 

National Protection and Programs 

Directorate 

The National Protection and Programs 

Directorate’s (NPPD) vision is a safe, 

secure, and resilient infrastructure 

where the American way of life can 

thrive. NPPD leads the national effort to 

protect and enhance the resilience of the 

Nation’s physical and cyber 

infrastructure. Although NPPD does not 

plan to finalize any significant 

regulations within the next fiscal year, 

NPPD will undertake reviews of its 

existing regulations in accordance with 

Executive Order 13771. NPPD is also 

working on several future rulemaking 

projects, as reflected in the Unified 

Agenda. 

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 TSA’s mission. This 

approach results in layers of security to 

mitigate risks effectively and efficiently. 

TSA uses established processes, 

working with stakeholders, to review 

programs, requirements, and procedures 

for appropriate modifications based 

upon changes in the environment, 

whether those changes result from an 

evolving threat or enhancements 

available through new technologies. 

For the coming fiscal year, TSA is 

prioritizing deregulatory actions and 

regulatory actions that are required to 

meet statutory mandates and that are 

necessary for national security. Below 

are the planned TSA actions for fiscal 

year 2018. 

Security Training for Surface 

Transportation Employees. TSA will 

finalize a rule requiring higher-risk 

public transportation agencies 

(including rail mass transit and bus 

systems), railroad carriers (freight and 

passenger), and over-the-road bus 

(OTRB) owner/operators to conduct 

security training for frontline 

employees. This regulation will 

implement mandates of the 

Implementing Regulations of the 9/11 

Commission Act of 2007, (9/11 Act), 

which addressed recommendations of 

the 9/11 Commission for enhancing the 

nation’s security based upon 

vulnerabilities identified in the 

aftermath of September 11, 2001. In 

compliance with the definition of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1718 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

frontline employees in pertinent 

provisions of the 9/11 Act, the rule will 

include identification of which 

employees are required to receive 

security training and the content of that 

training. The final rule will also propose 

definitions for transportation securitysensitive materials, as required by 

section 1501 of the 9/11 Act. 

Vetting of Certain Surface 

Transportation Employees. TSA will 

propose a rule requiring 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 OTRB owner/operators. 

The NPRM will also propose provisions 

to implement TSA’s statutory 

requirement to recover its cost of vetting 

through user fees. TSA is in the process 

of determining the costs and benefits of 

this rulemaking. While many 

stakeholders conduct background 

checks on their employees, their actions 

are limited based upon the data they can 

access. Through this rule, TSA will be 

able to conduct a more thorough check 

against terrorist watch-lists of 

individuals in security-sensitive 

positions. 

Amending Vetting Requirements for 

Employees with Access to a Security 

Identification Display Area. The 

Aviation 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 

will propose revisions that enhance the 

eligibility requirements and 

disqualifying criminal offenses for 

individuals seeking or having 

unescorted access to any Security 

Identification Display Area of an airport. 

Protection of Sensitive Security 

Information. Through a joint rulemaking 

with the Department of Transportation 

(DOT), TSA will streamline existing 

requirements to protect sensitive 

security information (SSI). This action 

finalizes an Interim Final Rule for a 

statutorily-required regulation related to 

national security. The rule amends 

TSA’s and DOT’s regulations to provide 

three options for the SSI distribution 

statement, one significantly abbreviated, 

to address concerns that the current 

marking requirements are unduly 

burdensome. TSA is considering further 

deregulatory action to align the 

requirement for the handling of Federal 

Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) names 

consistent with the handling of Federal 

Air Marshal names (two names listed 

together qualify as SSI). The 

modification to TSA’s SSI regulations 

would protect lists of FFDO names, 

rather than a single FFDO name. (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.) 

Ronald Reagan Washington National 

Airport: Enhanced Security Procedures 

for Certain Operations. This IFR 

reopened Ronald Reagan Washington 

National Airport (DCA) to general 

aviation (GA) aircraft operations after an 

approximately four-year closure (from 

September 2001 to August 2005) with 

measures in place to minimize the 

security risk to vital government assets 

in the Washington, DC metropolitan 

area. While prohibiting GA access to 

DCA imposes an economic hardship on 

these operations, access without 

appropriate security measures increases 

the risk of an airborne strike originating 

from DCA. Under the requirements of 

this regulation, aircraft operations into 

and out of DCA must have and 

implement a DCA Access Standard 

Security Program (DASSP) approved by 

TSA. 

In response to recommendations from 

industry submitted through the Aviation 

Security Advisory Committee (ASAC), 

TSA is assessing the risks associated 

with eliminating a requirement to have 

an armed security officer on flights 

accessing DCA. The DASSP requires 

each aircraft operating into or out of 

DCA with passengers to have onboard at 

least one armed security officer. The 

only exception to this requirement is for 

flights with a Federal Air Marshal on 

board. After this requirement was put in 

place, TSA implemented the Secure 

Flight program, which provides for 

vetting of passengers against the 

Terrorist Screening Database. The 

requirement for an armed security 

officer could be modified, and TSA 

could accept other alternative 

procedures, including Secure Flight 

vetting, that provide commensurate 

levels of security at lower costs. These 

procedures could include a requirement 

to limit passengers and crewmembers to 

those with a Known Traveler Number 

(KTN). A critical dependency for this 

proposed repeal of the armed security 

officer requirement would be the ability 

of DHS/TSA to quickly process requests 

for KTNs and the willingness of the 

regulated parties to bear the cost of 

obtaining a KTN. 

This rule would streamline TSA’s 

regulations to eliminate a burden no 

longer necessary under the current 

operating environment, and result in a 

net benefit, most likely to small 

businesses providing GA services. 

Finalizing this rule will ensure the 

continued balance between providing 

access and ensuring vital government 

assets in the Washington, DC 

metropolitan area. The security 

requirements in the final rule are 

necessary to defeat the threat posed by 

members of terrorist groups to vital U.S. 

assets and security in a manner that 

protects the nation’s transportation 

systems to ensure freedom of movement 

for people and commerce. 

Flight Training for Aliens and Other 

Designated Individuals; Security 

Awareness Training for Flight School 

Employees. This rule would streamline 

regulations and reduce burden for the 

alien flight student program (AFSP). 

This action finalizes an IFR for a 

national security rule that is required to 

implement a statutory requirement. The 

AFSP program requires security threat 

assessments for aliens seeking flight 

training in the United States and 

imposes additional security measures 

on the flight schools training these 

individuals. In response to 

recommendations from industry 

through the ASAC, TSA is considering 

revising these requirements to reduce 

costs and industry burden. For example, 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for the program are 

estimated at an annual cost of $7.4 

million, discounted at 7 percent. These 

costs include maintaining paper records 

on alien flight students. TSA is 

considering an electronic recordkeeping 

platform where all flight providers 

would upload required student 

information to a TSA-managed website. 

Also at industry’s request, TSA is 

considering changing the interval for 

security threat assessments of alien 

flight students, eliminating the 

requirement for a new security threat 

assessment for each ‘‘training event.’’ A 

related change to the current 

information collection request 

pertaining to the AFSP program will be 

part of this deregulatory action. 

United States Secret Service 

The United States Secret Service does 

not have any significant regulations 

planned for fiscal year 2018. 

DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 

2018 

A more detailed description of the 

priority regulations that comprise the 

DHS fall regulatory plan follows. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1719 

DHS—U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 

IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

43. Inadmissibility and Deportability on 

Public Charge Grounds 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101 to 

1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182 and 1183; . . . 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 237; 

8 CFR 245a.18. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) will propose 

regulatory provisions guiding the 

inadmissibility determination on 

whether an alien is likely at any time to 

become a public charge under section 

212(a)(4) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 

1182(a)(4). DHS proposes to add a 

regulatory provision, which would 

define the term public charge and 

would outline DHS’s public charge 

considerations. 

Statement of Need: To ensure that 

foreign nationals coming to the United 

States or adjusting status to permanent 

residence, either temporarily or 

permanently, have adequate means of 

support while in the United States, and 

that foreign nationals do not become 

dependent on public benefits for 

support. 

Summary of Legal Basis: INA 

212(a)(4). 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is 

currently considering the specific cost 

and benefit impacts of the proposed 

provisions. In general, DHS anticipates 

that by clarifying the meaning of public 

charge some stakeholders would incur 

costs. The anticipated costs to 

individuals requesting immigration 

benefits are associated with the 

opportunity cost of time to complete 

and file required forms and 

documentation, and possible costs 

associated with any additional 

background checks. DHS anticipates 

there will be benefits associated with 

ensuring that foreign nationals coming 

to the United States have adequate 

means of support and do not become 

dependent on public assistance. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/26/99 64 FR 28676 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

07/26/99 

NPRM .................. 07/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Additional Information: CIS No. 

1989–99. Transferred from RIN 1115– 

AF45. 

Agency Contact: Mark Phillips, Chief, 

Residence and Naturalization Division, 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 

Massachusetts Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272– 

8377, Email: mark.phillips@

uscis.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1615–AA22 

DHS—USCIS 

44. Registration Requirement for 

Petitioners Seeking To File H–1B 

Petitions on Behalf of Aliens Subject to 

Numerical Limitations 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1184(g) 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of 

Homeland Security proposes to amend 

its regulations governing petitions filed 

on behalf of alien workers subject to 

annual numerical limitations. This rule 

proposes to establish an electronic 

registration program for petitions 

subject to numerical limitations for the 

H–1B nonimmigrant classification. This 

action is being considered because the 

demand for H–1B specialty occupation 

workers by U.S. companies has often 

exceeded the numerical limitation. This 

rule is intended to allow USCIS to more 

efficiently manage the intake and lottery 

process for these H–1B petitions. The 

Department published a proposed rule 

on this topic in 2011. The Department 

intends to publish an additional 

proposed rule in 2018. The proposal 

may include a modified selection 

process, as outlined in section 5(b) of 

Executive Order 13788, Buy American 

and Hire American. 

Statement of Need: This regulation 

would help to streamline the process for 

administering the H–1B cap process and 

to ensure that H–1B visas are awarded 

to the most skilled or highest-paid 

petition beneficiaries. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: DHS is currently in the 

process of considering policies that 

align with our overarching goals of 

ensuring the allocation of H–1B cap 

numbers are provided to the best and 

brightest foreign national beneficiaries, 

and ensuring that the operational 

process is as efficient as possible. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: While 

DHS is currently in the process of 

assessing the costs and benefits of the 

policy changes under consideration, 

DHS believes that in aggregate the 

proposed changes would result in better 

resource management and predictability 

for both USCIS and petitioning 

employers. DHS anticipates that 

implementing a pre-registration process 

could benefit the regulated public by 

potentially reducing the cost and time 

involved in petitioning for H–1B 

nonimmigrants, through an up-front cap 

selection process where only those 

employers who have obtained a cap 

number would be required to submit the 

entire Petition for a Nonimmigrant 

Worker, Form I–129. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/03/11 76 FR 11686 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

05/02/11 

NPRM .................. 02/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: USCIS 2443– 

08. Includes Retrospective Review 

under E.O. 13563. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings, 

Division Chief, Business and Foreign 

Workers Division, Department of 

Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, Office of 

Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529, 

Phone: 202 272–8377, Fax: 202 272– 

1480, Email: 

kevin.j.cummings@uscis.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1615–AB71 

DHS—USCIS 

45. Rescission of International 

Entrepreneur Rule 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 

1182(d)(5)(A) 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 212.5. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On January 17, 2017, DHS 

published the International 

Entrepreneur Final Rule (the IE final 

rule) in the Federal Register at 82 FR 

5238, with an original effective date of 

July 17, 2017. On July 11, 2017, DHS 

published a final rule at 82 FR 31887 

delaying the effective date of the IE final 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1720 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

rule until March 14, 2018, to allow for 

a full review of the rule. This notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) will 

propose to rescind the IE final rule. The 

NPRM will solicit public comments on 

the proposal to rescind the IE final rule. 

Statement of Need: DHS is reviewing 

the IE final rule in light of issuance of 

Executive Order 13767, Border Security 

and Immigration Enforcement. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Secretary’s authority for this proposed 

regulatory amendment can be found in 

the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–296, section 102, 116 

Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 112, and INA 

section 103, 8 U.S.C. 1103, which give 

the Secretary the authority to administer 

and enforce the immigration and 

nationality laws, as well as INA section 

212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5), which 

refers to the Secretary’s discretionary 

authority to grant parole and provides 

DHS with regulatory authority to 

establish terms and conditions for 

parole once authorized. 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

economic costs of the IE final rule 

would have resulted from the filing 

costs of principal applicants applying 

for parole and from the associated filing 

costs of dependents of principal 

applicants. Therefore, this proposal to 

withdraw the IE final rule would result 

in those costs not being realized. This 

withdrawal of the IE final rule would 

also result in time saved by DHS 

adjudicators, as they would not be 

required to process the relevant parole 

applications. Furthermore, DHS would 

also save from expending any additional 

costs in technology and related systems 

updates that would otherwise be 

necessary. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/31/16 81 FR 60129 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

10/17/16 

Final Rule ............ 01/17/17 82 FR 5238 

Final Rule Effective.07/17/17 

Final Rule Delay 

of Effective 

Date.

07/11/17 82 FR 31887 

NPRM .................. 11/00/17 

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. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings, 

Division Chief, Business and Foreign 

Workers Division, Department of 

Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, Office of 

Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529, 

Phone: 202 272–8377, Fax: 202 272– 

1480, Email: kevin.j.cummings@

uscis.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1615–AC04 

DHS—USCIS 

46. EB–5 Immigrant Investor Regional 

Center Program 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5); 

Pub. L. 102–395, secs. 610 and 601(a); 

Pub. L. 107–273, sec. 11037; Pub. L. 

101–649, sec. 121(a); Pub. L. 105–119, 

sec. 116; Pub. L. 106–396, sec. 402; Pub. 

L. 108–156, sec. 4; Pub. L. 112–176, sec. 

1; Pub. L. 114–113, sec. 575; Pub. L. 

114–53, sec. 131; Pub. L. 107–273 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 216. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) is considering 

making regulatory changes to the EB–5 

Immigrant Investor Regional Center 

Program. DHS issued an Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPRM) to seek comment from all 

interested stakeholders on several 

topics, including: (1) The process for 

initially designating entities as regional 

centers, (2) a potential requirement for 

regional centers to utilize an exemplar 

filing process, (3) continued 

participation requirements for 

maintaining regional center designation, 

and (4) the process for terminating 

regional center designation. While DHS 

has gathered some information related 

to these topics, the ANPRM sought 

additional information that can help the 

Department make operational and 

security updates to the Regional Center 

Program while minimizing the impact of 

such changes on regional center 

operations and EB–5 investors. 

Statement of Need: Based on decades 

of experience operating the program, 

DHS has determined that program 

changes are needed to better reflect 

business realities for regional centers 

and EB–5 immigrant investors, to 

increase predictability and transparency 

in the adjudication process for 

stakeholders, to improve operational 

efficiency for the agency, and to 

enhance program integrity. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is 

still in the process of reviewing 

potential changes it would propose to 

the regional center process. DHS may 

propose to implement an exemplar 

filing requirement for all designated 

regional centers that would require 

regional centers to file exemplar project 

requests. An exemplar filing 

requirement could cause some projects 

to not go forward, but DHS is still in the 

process of assessing the impacts on the 

number of projects that may be affected. 

DHS anticipates that any proposed 

changes to the regional center program 

would increase overall program 

efficiency and predictability for both 

USCIS and EB–5 stakeholders. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 01/11/17 82 FR 3211 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

04/11/17 

NPRM .................. 10/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Lori S. MacKenzie, 

Division Chief, Operations Policy & 

Stakeholder Communications, 

Immigrant Investor Program, 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 

20529–2200, Phone: 202 357–9214, 

Email: lori.s.mackenzie@uscis.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1615–AC11 

DHS—USCIS 

47. • Strengthening the H–1B 

Nonimmigrant Visa Classification 

Program 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1184 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4). 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) will propose 

to revise the definition of specialty 

occupation to increase focus on 

obtaining the best and the brightest 

foreign nationals via the H–1B program, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1721 

and revise the definition of employment 

and employer-employee relationship to 

better protect U.S. workers and wages. 

In addition, DHS will propose 

additional requirements designed to 

ensure employers pay appropriate 

wages to H–1B visa holders. 

Statement of Need: The purpose of 

these changes is to ensure that H–1B 

visas are awarded only to individuals 

who will be working in a job which 

meets the statutory definition of 

specialty occupation. In addition, these 

changes are intended to ensure that the 

H–1B program supplements the U.S. 

workforce and strengthens U.S. worker 

protections. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is 

still considering the cost and benefit 

impacts of the proposed provisions. In 

general, DHS anticipates that there may 

be some filing fees and opportunity 

costs of time in preparing and filing 

forms for the eligible population. DHS 

also anticipates benefits in the form of 

reduced fraud and abuses of the current 

H–1B program. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings, 

Division Chief, Business and Foreign 

Workers Division, Department of 

Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, Office of 

Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529, 

Phone: 202 272–8377, Fax: 202 272– 

1480, Email: kevin.j.cummings@

uscis.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1615–AC13 

DHS—USCIS 

48. • Removing H–4 Dependent Spouses 

From the Class of Aliens Eligible for 

Employment Authorization 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 6 U.S.C. 112; 8 U.S.C. 

1103(a); 8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1); 8 U.S.C. 

1324a(H)(3)(B) 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 274a. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On February 25, 2015, DHS 

published a final rule extending 

eligibility for employment authorization 

to certain H–4 dependent spouses of H– 

1B nonimmigrants who are seeking 

employment-based lawful permanent 

resident (LPR) status. DHS is publishing 

this notice of proposed rulemaking to 

amend that 2015 final rule. DHS is 

proposing to remove from its regulations 

certain H–4 spouses of H–1B 

nonimmigrants as a class of aliens 

eligible for employment authorization. 

Statement of Need: DHS is reviewing 

the 2015 final rule in light of issuance 

of Executive Order 13788, Buy 

American and Hire American. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Secretary of Homeland Security 

(Secretary) has the authority to amend 

this regulation under section 102 of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 

112, and section 103(a) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 

8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which authorize the 

Secretary to administer and enforce the 

immigration and nationality laws. In 

addition, section 214(a)(1) of the INA, 8 

U.S.C. 1184(a)(1), provides the Secretary 

with authority to prescribe the time and 

conditions of nonimmigrants’ 

admissions to the United States. Also, 

section 274A(h)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 

U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)(B), recognizes the 

Secretary’s discretionary authority to 

extend employment authorization. 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS 

anticipates that there would be two 

primary impacts that DHS can estimate: 

The cost-savings accruing to forgone 

future filings by H–4 spouses, and labor 

turnover costs that employers of H–4 

workers could incur. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings, 

Division Chief, Business and Foreign 

Workers Division, Department of 

Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, Office of 

Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529, 

Phone: 202 272–8377, Fax: 202 272– 

1480, Email: kevin.j.cummings@

uscis.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1615–AB92 

RIN: 1615–AC15 

DHS—USCIS 

Final Rule Stage 

49. EB–5 Immigrant Investor Program 

Modernization 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5) 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204.6; 8 CFR 

216.6. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: In January 2017, the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) proposed to amend its regulations 

governing the employment-based, fifth 

preference (EB–5) immigrant investor 

classification. In general, under the EB– 

5 program, individuals are eligible to 

apply for lawful permanent residence in 

the United States if they make the 

necessary investment in a commercial 

enterprise in the United States and 

create or, in certain circumstances, 

preserve 10 permanent full-time jobs for 

qualified U.S. workers. This rule sought 

public comment on a number of 

proposed changes to the EB–5 program 

regulations. Such proposed changes 

included: Raising the minimum 

investment amount; allowing certain 

EB–5 petitioners to retain their original 

priority date; changing the designation 

process for targeted employment areas; 

and other miscellaneous changes to 

filing and interview processes. 

Statement of Need: The proposed 

regulatory changes are necessary to 

reflect statutory changes and codify 

existing policies, more accurately reflect 

existing and future economic realities, 

improve operational efficiencies to 

provide stakeholders with a higher level 

of predictability and transparency in the 

adjudication process, and enhance 

program integrity by clarifying key 

eligibility requirements for program 

participation and further detailing the 

processes required. Given the 

complexities involved in adjudicating 

benefit requests in the EB–5 program, 

along with continued program integrity 

concerns and increasing adjudication 

processing times, DHS has decided to 

revise the existing regulations to 

modernize key areas of the program. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Immigration Act (INA) authorizes the 

Secretary of Homeland Security 

(Secretary) to administer and enforce 

the immigration and nationality laws 

including establishing regulations 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1722 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

deemed necessary to carry out his 

authority, and section 102 of the 

Homeland Security Act, 6 U.S.C. 112, 

authorizes the Secretary to issue 

regulations. 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), INA 

section 103(a). INA section 203(b)(5), 8 

U.S.C. 1153(b)(5), also provides the 

Secretary with authority to make visas 

available to immigrants seeking to 

engage in a new commercial enterprise 

in which the immigrant has invested 

and which will benefit the United States 

economy and create full-time 

employment for not fewer than 10 U.S. 

workers. Further, section 610 of Public 

Law 102–395 (8 U.S.C. 1153 note) 

created the Immigrant Investor Pilot 

Program and authorized the Secretary to 

set aside visas for individuals who 

invest in regional centers created for the 

purpose of concentrating pooled 

investment in defined economic zones, 

and was last amended by Public Law 

107–273. 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Due to 

data limitations and the complexity of 

EB–5 investment structures, it is 

difficult to quantify and monetize the 

costs and benefits of the proposed 

provisions, with the exception of 

application costs for dependents who 

would file the Petition by Entrepreneur 

to Remove Conditions on Permanent 

Resident Status (Form I–829) separately 

from principal investors, and 

familiarization costs to review the rule. 

The proposal to raise the investment 

amounts and reform the targeted 

employment area (TEA) geography 

could deter some investors from 

participating in the EB–5 program. The 

increase in investment could reduce the 

number of investors as they may be 

unable or unwilling to invest at the 

higher proposed levels of investment. 

On the other hand, raising the 

investment amounts increases the 

amount invested by each investor and 

thereby potentially increases the total 

economic benefits of U.S. investment 

under this program. The proposed TEA 

provision would rule out TEA 

configurations that rely on a large 

number of census tracts indirectly 

linked to the actual project tract by 

numerous degrees of separation, and 

may better target investment capital to 

areas where unemployment rates are the 

highest. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/13/17 82 FR 4738 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

04/11/17 

Final Action ......... 02/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Lori S. MacKenzie, 

Division Chief, Operations Policy & 

Stakeholder Communications, 

Immigrant Investor Program, 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 

20529–2200, Phone: 202 357–9214, 

Email: lori.s.mackenzie@uscis.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1205–AB69 

RIN: 1615–AC07 

DHS—U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER 

PROTECTION (USCBP) 

Final Rule Stage 

50. Air Cargo Advance Screening 

(ACAS) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 19 U.S.C. 2071 note 

CFR Citation: 19 CFR 122. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: To address ongoing aviation 

security threats, CBP intends to amend 

its regulations pertaining to the 

submission of advance air cargo data to 

implement a mandatory Air Cargo 

Advance Screening (ACAS) program for 

any inbound aircraft required to make 

entry under the CBP regulations that 

will have commercial cargo aboard. The 

ACAS program will require the inbound 

carrier or other eligible party to 

electronically transmit specified 

advance cargo data (ACAS data) to CBP 

for air cargo transported onboard U.S.- 

bound aircraft as early as practicable, 

but no later than prior to loading of the 

cargo onto the aircraft. The ACAS 

program will enhance the security of the 

aircraft and passengers on U.S.-bound 

flights by enabling CBP to perform 

targeted risk assessments on the air 

cargo prior to the aircraft’s departure for 

the United States. These risk 

assessments will identify and prevent 

high-risk air cargo from being loaded on 

the aircraft that could pose a risk to the 

aircraft during flight. 

Statement of Need: DHS has 

identified an elevated risk associated 

with cargo being transported to the 

United States by air. This rule will help 

address this risk by giving DHS the data 

it needs to improve targeting of the 

cargo prior to departure. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Trade 

Act of 2002 authorizes CBP to 

promulgate regulations providing for the 

mandatory transmission of electronic 

cargo information by way of a CBPapproved electronic data interchange 

(EDI) system before the cargo is brought 

into or departs the United States by any 

mode of commercial transportation. 

Under the Trade Act, the required cargo 

information is that which is reasonably 

necessary to ensure cargo safety and 

security pursuant to the laws enforced 

and administered by CBP. 

Alternatives: In addition to the 

proposed rule, CBP analyzed two 

alternatives—Requiring the data 

elements to be transmitted to CBP 

further in advance than the proposed 

rule requires; and requiring fewer data 

elements. CBP concluded that the 

proposal rule provides the most 

favorable balance between security 

outcomes and impacts to air 

transportation. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To 

improve CBP’s risk assessment and 

targeting capabilities and to enable CBP 

to target and identify risk cargo prior to 

departure of the aircraft to the United 

States, ACAS would require the 

submission of certain of the advance 

electronic information for air cargo 

earlier in the process. In most cases, the 

information would have to be submitted 

as early as practicable, but no later than 

prior to the loading of cargo onto an 

U.S.-bound aircraft. CBP, in conjunction 

with TSA, has been operating ACAS as 

a voluntary pilot program since 2010. 

CBP believes this pilot program has 

proven successful by not only mitigating 

risks to the United States, but also 

minimizing costs to the private sector. 

To address ongoing aviation security 

threats, CBP is transitioning the ACAS 

pilot program into an ongoing 

mandatory regulatory program. Costs of 

this program to carriers include onetime costs to upgrade systems to 

facilitate transmission of these data to 

CBP and recurring per transmission 

costs. Benefits of the program include 

improved security that will result from 

receiving the data earlier. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 01/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1723 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Agency Contact: Craig Clark, Branch 

Chief, Advance Data Programs and 

Cargo Initiatives, Department of 

Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20229, 

Phone: 202 344–3052, Email: 

craig.clark@cbp.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1651–AB04 

DHS—USCBP 

51. Collection of Biometric Data Upon 

Entry to and Exit From the United 

States 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1365a; 8 

U.S.C. 1365b 

CFR Citation: 19 CFR 215.8; 19 CFR 

235.1. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) is required by 

statute to develop and implement an 

integrated, automated entry and exit 

data system to match records, including 

biographic data and biometric 

identifiers, of aliens entering and 

departing the United States. In addition, 

Executive Order 13780, Protecting the 

Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into 

the United States, published in the 

Federal Register at 82 FR 13209, states 

that DHS is to expedite the completion 

and implementation of a biometric 

entry-exit tracking system. Although the 

current regulations provide that DHS 

may require certain aliens to provide 

biometrics when entering and departing 

the United States, they only authorize 

DHS to collect biometrics from certain 

aliens upon departure under pilot 

programs at land ports and at up to 15 

airports and seaports. To provide the 

legal framework for CBP to begin a 

comprehensive biometric entry-exit 

system, DHS is amending the 

regulations to remove the references to 

pilot programs and the port limitation. 

In addition, to facilitate the 

implementation of a seamless biometric 

entry-exit system that uses facial 

recognition, DHS is amending the 

regulations as they pertain to the 

provision of photographs upon entry 

and exit. 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

necessary to provide the legal 

framework for DHS to begin 

implementing a comprehensive 

biometric entry-exit system. Collecting 

biometrics at departure will allow CBP 

and DHS to know with better accuracy 

whether aliens are departing the country 

when they are required to depart, 

reduce visa fraud, and improve CBP’s 

ability to identify criminals and known 

or suspected terrorists before they 

depart the United States. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Numerous 

Federal statutes require DHS to create 

an integrated, automated biometric 

entry and exit system that records the 

arrival and departure of aliens, 

compares the biometric data of aliens to 

verify their identity, and authenticates 

travel documents presented by such 

aliens through the comparison of 

biometric identifiers. See, e.g., 

Immigration and Naturalization Service 

Data Management Improvement Act of 

2002, the Intelligence Reform and 

Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and 

the 2016 Consolidated Appropriations 

Act. In addition, Executive Order 13780, 

Protecting the Nation from Foreign 

Terrorist Entry into the United States, 

states that DHS is to expedite the 

completion and implementation of a 

biometric entry-exit tracking system. 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

rule will allow CBP to know with 

greater certainty whether foreign visa 

holders depart the country when 

required. It will also prevent visa fraud 

and allow CBP to more easily identify 

criminals or terrorists when they 

attempt to leave the country. The 

technology used to implement this rule 

could also eventually be used to modify 

entry and exit procedures to reduce 

processing and wait times. This rule 

imposes opportunity and technology 

acquisition and maintenance costs on 

CBP and opportunity costs on the 

traveling public. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 04/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Michael Hardin, 

Deputy Director, Department of 

Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, Customs and Border 

Protection, Entry/Exit Policy and 

Planning, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Office of Field Operations, 5th 

Floor, Washington, DC 20229, Phone: 

202 325–1053, Email: michael.hardin@

cbp.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1651–AB12 

DHS—USCBP 

52. Implementation of the Electronic 

System for Travel Authorization 

(ESTA) at U.S. Land Borders— 

Automation of CBP Form I–94W 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110–53 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 212.1; 8 CFR 

217.2; 8 CFR 217.3; 8 CFR 217.5; 8 CFR 

286.9. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule amends 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) regulations to implement the 

Electronic System for Travel 

Authorization (ESTA) requirements 

under section 711 of the Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission Act of 2007, for aliens who 

intend to enter the United States under 

the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) at land 

ports of entry. Currently, aliens from 

VWP countries must provide certain 

biographic information to U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) officers at 

land ports of entry on a paper I–94W 

Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/

Departure Record (Form I–94W). Under 

this rule, these VWP travelers will 

instead provide this information to CBP 

electronically through ESTA prior to 

application for admission to the United 

States. DHS has already implemented 

the ESTA requirements for aliens who 

intend to enter the United States under 

the VWP at air or sea ports of entry. 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

necessary to implement the Electronic 

System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) 

under section 711 of the Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission Act of 2007 for aliens who 

intend to enter the United States under 

the Visa Waiver Program at land ports 

of entry. ESTA was implemented at air 

and sea ports of entry in 2008. At that 

time, however, CBP did not have the 

ability to implement the program at land 

ports of entry. This rule will ensure that 

ESTA is now implemented at all ports 

of entry. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In 

addition to fulfilling a statutory 

mandate, the ESTA Land rule will 

strengthen national security through 

enhanced traveler vetting, streamline 

entry processing through Form I–94W 

automation, reduce inadmissible 

traveler arrivals, and produce a 

consistent, modern VWP admission 

policy in all U.S. travel environments, 

which will benefit VWP travelers, CBP, 

and the public. The rule will also 

introduce time and fee costs to VWP 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1724 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

travelers required to complete an ESTA 

application. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 04/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Suzanne Shepherd, 

Director, Electronic System for Travel 

Authorization, Department of Homeland 

Security, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20229, Phone: 202 

344–2073, Email: suzanne.m.shepherd@

cbp.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1651–AB14 

DHS—TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION (TSA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

53. Vetting of Certain Surface 

Transportation Employees 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

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. 

Other, Statutory, August 3, 2008, 

Background and immigration status 

check for all railroad 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 mechanisms 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. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA is 

in the process of determining the costs 

and benefits of this rulemaking. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/00/18 

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: Chandru (Jack) Kalro, 

Deputy Director, Surface Division, 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Transportation Security Administration, 

Office of Security Policy and Industry 

Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, 

Arlington, VA 20598–6028, Phone: 571 

227–1145, Email: surfacefrontoffice@

tsa.dhs.gov. 

Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, 

Economic Analysis Branch–Cross Modal 

Division, Department of Homeland 

Security, Transportation Security 

Administration, Office of Security 

Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 

South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598– 

6028, Phone: 571 227–5839, Email: 

alex.moscoso@tsa.dhs.gov. 

Laura Gaudreau, Attorney–Advisor, 

Regulations and Security Standards, 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Transportation Security Administration, 

Office of Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th 

Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6002, 

Phone: 571 227–1088, Email: 

laura.gaudreau@tsa.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1652–AA55 

RIN: 1652–AA69 

DHS—TSA 

54. Amending Vetting Requirements for 

Employees With Access to a Security 

Identification Display Area (SIDA) 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114–190, sec. 

3405 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1524.209. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

January 11, 2017, Rule for individuals 

with unescorted access to any Security 

Identification Display Area (SIDA) due 

180 days after date of enactment. 

According to sec, 3405 of Title III of 

the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security 

Act, 2016 (Aviation Security Act of 

2016), Public Law 114–190 (130 Stat. 

615, July 15, 2016), a final rule revising 

the regulations under 49 U.S.C. 44936 is 

due 180 days after the date of 

enactment. 

Abstract: As required by the Aviation 

Security Act of 2016, the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) will 

propose a rule to revise its regulations, 

with current knowledge of insider threat 

and intelligence, to enhance the 

eligibility requirements and 

disqualifying criminal offenses for 

individuals seeking or having 

unescorted access to any SIDA of an 

airport. Consistent with the statutory 

mandate, TSA will consider adding 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. 

Statement of Need: Employee vetting 

is an important and effective tool for 

averting or mitigating potential attacks 

by those with malicious intent who 

wish to target aviation and plan or 

perpetrate actions that may cause 

significant injuries, loss of life, or 

economic disruption. Enhancing 

eligibility standards for airport workers 

will improve transportation and 

national security. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA is 

in the process of determining the costs 

and benefits of this rulemaking. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 09/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Alex Moscoso, Chief 

Economist, Economic Analysis 

Branch—Cross Modal Division, 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Transportation Security Administration, 

Office of Security Policy and Industry 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1725 

Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, 

Arlington, VA 20598–6028, Phone: 571 

227–5839, Email: alex.moscoso@

tsa.dhs.gov. 

John Vergelli, Senior Counsel, 

Regulations and Security Standards, 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Transportation Security Administration, 

Office of Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th 

Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6002, 

Phone: 571 227–4416, Email: 

john.vergelli@tsa.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1652–AA11 

RIN: 1652–AA70 

DHS—TSA 

Final Rule Stage 

55. Flight Training for Aliens and Other 

Designated Individuals; Security 

Awareness Training for Flight School 

Employees 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

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 TSA to issue an interim 

final rule within 60 days of enactment 

of Vision 100. 

Requires the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) to establish a 

process to implement the requirements 

of sec. 612(a) of Vision 100—Century of 

Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 

108–176, Dec. 12, 2003; 117 Stat. 2490), 

including the fee provisions, not later 

than 60 days after the enactment of the 

Act. 

Abstract: The interim final rule (IFR) 

was published and effective on 

September 20, 2004. The IFR 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. TSA 

subsequently issued exemptions and 

interpretations in response to comments 

on the IFR and questions raised during 

operation of the program since 2004. 

TSA also issued a fee notice on April 

13, 2009. This regulation requires flight 

schools to notify TSA when aliens, and 

other individuals designated by TSA, 

apply for flight training or recurrent 

training. TSA is considering a final rule 

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 Alien Flight 

Student Program (AFSP) 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 AFSP application, 

vetting, and recordkeeping process for 

all parties involved. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA is 

considering revising the requirements of 

the AFSP to reduce costs and industry 

burden. For example, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for the 

program are estimated at an annual cost 

of $7.4 million, discounted at seven 

percent. This cost includes maintaining 

paper records on alien flight students. 

TSA is considering 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 alien 

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 

deregulatory actions would be 

immediate cost savings to flight schools 

and alien students without 

compromising the security profile. 

Risks: 

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 

Notice—Information Collection; 

30-Day Renewal.

03/30/05 70 FR 16298 

Action Date FR Cite 

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 

Final Rule ............ 09/00/18 

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, Office of Intelligence 

and Analysis, 601 South 12th Street, 

Arlington, VA 20598–6010, Phone: 571 

227–2188, Email: johannes.knudsen@

tsa.dhs.gov. 

Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, 

Economic Analysis Branch—Cross 

Modal Division, Department of 

Homeland Security, Transportation 

Security Administration, Office of 

Security Policy and Industry 

Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, 

Arlington, 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, 

Office of Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th 

Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6002, 

Phone: 571 227–2465, Email: 

david.ross1@tsa.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1652–AA61 

RIN: 1652–AA35 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1726 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

DHS—TSA 

56. Ronald Reagan Washington 

National Airport: Enhanced Security 

Procedures for Certain Operations 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; 49 

U.S.C. 40113; 49 U.S.C. 41718 note; 49 

U.S.C. 44901 to 44905; 49 U.S.C. 44916 

to 44918; 49 U.S.C. 46105 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 

1540; 49 CFR 1562. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The interim final rule (IFR), 

published by the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) on July 

19, 2005, created a new part 1562, 

subpart B, for General Aviation (GA), in 

title 49 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR). The IFR restored 

access to Ronald Reagan Washington 

National Airport (DCA) for passenger 

aircraft operations not otherwise 

regulated under 49 CFR 1546.101(a) or 

(b) (foreign air carriers) or 49 CFR part 

1544 (U.S. air carriers operating under 

a full security program). From 

September 11, 2001, until the IFR 

became effective on August 18, 2005, 

GA aircraft operations had been 

prohibited at DCA. The IFR reopened 

access to the extent requirements are 

met to maintain the security of critical 

Federal Government and other assets in 

the Washington, DC metropolitan area. 

In general, this rule requires GA aircraft 

operators to adopt and carry out security 

measures that are comparable to the 

security measures required of regularly 

scheduled, commercial aircraft. This 

rule also established security 

procedures for GA aircraft operators and 

gateway airport operators, and security 

requirements relating to crewmembers, 

passengers, and armed security officers 

onboard aircraft operating to or from 

DCA. TSA plans to take final action on 

the IFR to respond to the public 

comments and close out this 

rulemaking. TSA is also considering a 

recommendation from the Aviation 

Security Advisory Committee to remove 

the armed security officer requirement 

for flights operating under the DCA 

Access Standard Security Program to 

the extent other security safeguards are 

in effect, such as all passengers onboard 

the flight having a Department of 

Homeland Security Known Traveler 

Number (KTN). 

Statement of Need: The purpose of 

this regulation is to allow GA aircraft 

operations access to DCA without 

decreasing the security of vital 

government assets in the Washington, 

DC metropolitan area. Prohibiting GA 

access to DCA imposes an economic 

hardship on these operations. But 

access, without appropriate security 

measures, increases the risk that an 

airborne strike initiated from DCA, 

located moments away from vital 

national assets, could occur. While TSA 

recognizes that such an impact may not 

cause substantial damage to property or 

a large structure, it could potentially 

result in an undetermined number of 

fatalities and injuries, as well as 

reduced tourism. The resulting tragedies 

would adversely impact the regional 

economies. Finalizing the IFR will 

ensure the continued balance between 

these interests; providing access without 

decreasing security of the vital 

government assets in the Washington, 

DC metropolitan area. The security 

requirements in the final rule are 

necessary to defeat the threat posed by 

members of terrorist groups to vital U.S. 

assets and security, in a manner that 

protects the nation’s transportation 

systems to ensure freedom of 

movement. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: If TSA 

repeals the requirement for an ASO, 

with acceptance of alternative 

procedures in its place, this 

modification is likely to provide 

commensurate levels of security at 

lower costs. To the extent these 

alternative procedures include a 

requirement for all passengers and 

crewmembers to have a KTN, there is a 

dependency linked to the ability of 

DHS/TSA to quickly process requests 

for KTNs and the willingness of the 

regulated parties (or their passengers) to 

bear the cost of obtaining a KTN. The 

benefits of the repeal of the ASO 

requirement would be cost savings to 

DASSP operators from no longer having 

to hire an ASO. DASSP operators would 

receive a cost savings from no longer 

hiring an ASO for each departure from 

or arrival into DCA. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule; 

Request for 

Comments.

07/19/05 70 FR 41586 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

08/18/05 

Interim Final Rule; 

Comment Period End.

09/19/05 

Notice—Information Collection; 

Approval and 

60-Day Renewal.

08/26/05 70 FR 50391 

Notice—Information Collection; 

30-Day Renewal.

10/26/05 70 FR 61831 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice—Information Collection; 

60-Day Renewal.

10/20/08 73 FR 62304 

Notice—Information Collection; 

30-Day Renewal.

12/29/08 73 FR 79499 

Notice—Information Collection; 

60-Day Renewal.

02/29/12 77 FR 12321 

Notice—Information Collection; 

30-Day Renewal.

04/27/12 77 FR 25188 

Notice—Information Collection; 

60-Day Renewal.

01/03/16 81 FR 943 

Notice—Information Collection; 

30-Day Renewal.

03/17/16 81 FR 14470 

Final Rule ............ 06/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Kevin Knott, Branch 

Manager, Industry Engagement 

Branch—Aviation Division, Department 

of Homeland Security, Transportation 

Security Administration, Office of 

Security Policy and Industry 

Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, 

Arlington, VA 20598–6028, Phone: 571 

227–4370, Email: kevin.knott@

tsa.dhs.gov. 

Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, 

Economic Analysis Branch—Cross 

Modal Division, Department of 

Homeland Security, Transportation 

Security Administration, Office of 

Security Policy and Industry 

Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, 

Arlington, VA 20598–6028, Phone: 571 

227–5839, Email: alex.moscoso@

tsa.dhs.gov. 

David Kasminoff, Senior Counsel, 

Regulations and Security Standards, 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Transportation Security Administration, 

Office of Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th 

Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6002, 

Phone: 571 227–3583 Email: 

david.kasminoff@tsa.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1652–AA08 

RIN: 1652–AA49 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1727 

DHS—TSA 

57. Security Training for Surface 

Transportation Employees 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; Pub. L. 

110–53, secs. 1405, 1408, 1501, 1512, 

1517, 1531, and 1534 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1500; 49 CFR 

1520; 49 CFR 1570; 49 CFR 1580; 49 

CFR 1582 (new); 49 CFR 1584 (new). 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

November 1, 2007, Interim Rule for 

public transportation agencies is due 90 

days after date of enactment. 

Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule 

for public transportation agencies is due 

one year after date of enactment. 

Final, Statutory, February 3, 2008, 

Rule for railroads and over-the-road 

buses is due six months after date of 

enactment. 

According to sec. 1408 of Public Law 

110–53, Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), 

(121 Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007), interim 

final regulations for public 

transportation agencies are due 90 days 

after the date of enactment (Nov. 1, 

2007), and final regulations are due one 

year after the date of enactment. 

According to sec. 1517 of the 9/11 Act, 

final regulations for railroads and overthe-road buses are due no later than six 

months after the date of enactment. 

Abstract: The 9/11 Act requires 

security training for employees of 

higher-risk freight railroad carriers, 

public transportation agencies 

(including rail mass transit and bus 

systems), passenger railroad carriers, 

and over-the-road bus (OTRB) 

companies. This final rule implements 

the regulatory mandate. Owner/

operators of these higher-risk railroads, 

systems, and companies will be 

required to train employees performing 

security-sensitive functions, using a 

curriculum addressing preparedness 

and how to observe, assess, and respond 

to terrorist-related threats and/or 

incidents. As part of this rulemaking, 

the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) is expanding its 

current requirements for rail security 

coordinators and reporting of significant 

security concerns (currently limited to 

freight railroads, passenger railroads, 

and the rail operations of public 

transportation systems) to include the 

bus components of higher-risk public 

transportation systems and higher-risk 

OTRB companies. TSA is also adding a 

definition for Transportation SecuritySensitive Materials (TSSM). Other 

provisions are being amended or added, 

as necessary, to implement these 

additional requirements. 

Statement of Need: Employee training 

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. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 

114; sections 1402, 1408, 1501, 1517, 

1531, and 1534 of Public Law 110–53, 

Implementing Recommendations of the 

9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 

2007; 121 Stat. 266). 

Alternatives: TSA is required by 

statute to publish regulations requiring 

security training programs for these 

owner/operators. As part of its notice of 

proposed rulemaking, TSA sought 

public comment on alternatives in 

which the final rule could carry out the 

requirements of the statute. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Owner/operators will incur costs for 

training their employees, developing a 

training plan, maintaining training 

records, and participating in inspections 

for compliance. Some owner/operators 

will also incur additional costs 

associated with assigning security 

coordinators and reporting significant 

security incidents to TSA. TSA will 

incur costs associated with reviewing 

owner/operators’ training plans, 

registering owner/operators’ security 

coordinators, responding to owner/

operators’ reported significant security 

incidents, and conducting inspections 

for compliance with this rule. In the 

NPRM, TSA estimated the annual cost 

from this regulation to be approximately 

$22 million, discounted at 7 percent. As 

part of TSA’s risk-based security, 

benefits include mitigating potential 

attacks by heightening awareness of 

employees on the frontline. In addition, 

by designating security coordinators and 

reporting significant security concerns 

to TSA, TSA has a direct line for 

communicating threats and receiving 

information necessary to analyze trends 

and potential threats across all modes of 

transportation. 

Risks: The Department of Homeland 

Security aims to prevent terrorist attacks 

within the United States and to reduce 

the vulnerability of the United States to 

terrorism. By providing for security 

training for personnel, TSA intends in 

this rulemaking to reduce the risk of a 

terrorist attack on this transportation 

sector. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/16/16 81 FR 91336 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

03/16/17 

Final Rule ............ 09/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Local. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Chandru (Jack) Kalro, 

Deputy Director, Surface Division, 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Transportation Security Administration, 

Office of Security Policy and Industry 

Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, 

Arlington, VA 20598–6028, Phone: 571 

227–1145, Email: surfacefrontoffice@

tsa.dhs.gov. 

Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, 

Economic Analysis Branch—Cross 

Modal Division, Department of 

Homeland Security, Transportation 

Security Administration, Office of 

Security Policy and Industry 

Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, 

Arlington, VA 20598–6028, Phone: 571 

227–5839, Email: alex.moscoso@

tsa.dhs.gov. 

Traci Klemm, Assistant Chief 

Counsel, Regulations and Security 

Standards, Department of Homeland 

Security, Transportation Security 

Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, 

601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 

20598–6002, Phone: 571 227–3596, 

Email: traci.klemm@tsa.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1652–AA56, 

Merged with 1652–AA57, Merged with 

1652–AA59 

RIN: 1652–AA55 

DHS—U.S. IMMIGRATION AND 

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (USICE) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

58. • Adjusting Program Fees for the 

Student and Exchange Visitor Program 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1372; 8 

U.S.C. 1762; 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 

1356; 31 U.S.C 901–903; 31 U.S.C. 902; 

. . . 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: ICE will propose to adjust 

fees that the Student and Exchange 

Visitor Program (SEVP) charges 

individuals and organizations. In 2017, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1728 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

SEVP conducted a comprehensive fee 

study and determined that current fees 

do not recover the full costs of the 

services provided. ICE has determined 

that adjusting fees is necessary to fully 

recover the increased costs of SEVP 

operations, program requirements, and 

to provide the necessary funding to 

sustain initiatives critical to supporting 

national security. ICE will propose to 

adjust its fees for individuals and 

organizations to establish a more 

equitable distribution of costs and to 

establish a sustainable revenue level. 

The SEVP fee schedule was last 

adjusted in a rule published on 

September 26, 2008. 

Statement of Need: The Student and 

Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) 

conducted a comprehensive fee study in 

2017 and determined that current fees, 

most recently adjusted in 2008, do not 

recover the full costs of the services 

provided. ICE has determined that 

adjusting fees is necessary to fully 

recover the increased costs of SEVP 

operations, program requirements, and 

to provide the necessary funding to 

implement and sustain initiatives 

critical to supporting national security. 

ICE will propose to adjust its fees for 

individuals and organizations to 

establish a more equitable distribution 

and sustainable level of costs relevant to 

services. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: ICE is 

in the process of assessing the costs, 

benefits, and transfers of this rule. In 

order to recover the full cost of its 

budget for the services it provides, SEVP 

proposes to increase the amounts of its 

fees for SEVP certified schools and for 

those schools that will seek SEVP 

certification, for F and M nonimmigrant 

students, and for J nonimmigrant 

exchange visitors. The fee adjustment 

would allow to continue to maintain 

and improve SEVIS in order to uphold 

the integrity of the U.S. immigration 

laws regarding student and exchange 

visitors. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Sharon Snyder, Unit 

Chief, Policy and Response Unit, 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Potomac Center North STOP 5600, 500 

12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20536– 

5600, Phone: 703 603–5600. 

RIN: 1653–AA74 

DHS—USICE 

59. • Apprehension, Processing, Care 

and Custody of Alien Minors 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 

U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 1225 to 1227; 8 

U.S.C. 1362 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: In 1985, a class-action suit 

challenged the policies of the former 

Immigration and Naturalization Service 

(INS) relating to the detention, 

processing, and release of alien 

children; the case eventually reached 

the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court 

upheld the constitutionality of the 

challenged INS regulations on their face 

and remanded the case for further 

proceedings consistent with its opinion. 

In January 1997, the parties reached a 

comprehensive settlement agreement, 

referred to as the Flores Settlement 

Agreement (FSA). The FSA was to 

terminate five years after the date of 

final court approval; however, the 

termination provisions were modified in 

2001, such that the FSA does not 

terminate until forty-five days after 

publication of regulations implementing 

the agreement. 

Since 1997, intervening statutory 

changes, including passage of the 

Homeland Security Act (HSA) and the 

William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims 

Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 

(TVPRA), have significantly changed the 

applicability of certain provisions of the 

FSA. The proposed rule will codify the 

substantive terms of the FSA and enable 

the U.S. Government to seek 

termination of the FSA and litigation 

concerning its enforcement. Through 

this rule, ICE will create a pathway to 

ensure the humane detention of family 

units while satisfying the goals of the 

FSA. The rule will also implement 

related provisions of the TVPRA. 

Statement of Need: In 1985, a classaction suit challenged the policies of the 

former INS relating to the detention, 

processing, and release of alien 

children; the case eventually reached 

the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court 

upheld the constitutionality of the 

challenged INS regulations on their face 

and remanded the case for further 

proceedings consistent with its opinion. 

In January 1997, the parties reached a 

comprehensive settlement agreement, 

referred to as the FSA. The FSA was to 

terminate five years after the date of 

final court approval; however, the 

termination provisions were modified in 

2001, such that the FSA does not 

terminate until forty-five days after 

publication of regulations implementing 

the agreement. 

Since 1997, intervening legal changes 

including passage of the HSA and 

TVPRA have significantly changed the 

applicability of certain provisions of the 

FSA. The proposed rule will codify the 

substantive terms of the FSA and enable 

the U.S. Government to seek 

termination of the FSA and litigation 

concerning its enforcement. Through 

this rule, ICE will create a pathway to 

ensure the humane detention of family 

units while satisfying the goals of the 

FSA. The rule will also implement 

related provisions of the TVPRA. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: ICE is 

in the process of determining the costs 

and benefits which would be incurred 

by regulated entities and individuals, as 

well as the costs and benefits to ICE for 

ensuring compliance with the 

requirements of this rule. 

ICE expects to incur costs related to 

new or additional procedures for 

immigration proceedings for alien 

minors. Benefits include enhancing the 

process and protections for alien 

minors. This regulation will also 

strengthen DHS efforts to combat human 

trafficking of minors. Other benefits are 

enabling the U.S. Government to seek 

termination of the FSA and litigation 

concerning its enforcement, as well as 

bringing clarity and certainty to the 

process of addressing alien minors. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 09/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Sara Shaw, Deputy 

Assistant Director, Department of 

Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th 

Street SW, Washington, DC 20536, 

Phone: 202 732–3994, Email: 

sara.shaw@ice.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1653–AA75 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1729 

DHS—USICE 

60. • Practical Training Reform 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: ICE will propose this rule to 

improve protections of U.S. workers 

who may be negatively impacted by 

employment of nonimmigrant students 

on F and M visas. The rule is a 

comprehensive reform of practical 

training options intended to reduce 

fraud and abuse. 

Statement of Need: ICE will prepare 

this rule to improve protections of U.S. 

workers who may be negatively 

impacted by employment of 

nonimmigrant students on F and M 

visas. The rule would implement new 

requirements that would reduce fraud 

and abuse in the practical training 

programs. The proposed provisions 

include increased oversight of the 

schools and students participating in 

the program to ensure compliance with 

requirements of the program. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: ICE is 

in the process of assessing the costs and 

benefits that would be incurred by 

regulated entities and individuals, as 

well as the costs and benefits to the 

public at large. ICE, SEVP certified 

schools, nonimmigrant students who 

participate in practical training, and 

their employers for practical training 

would incur costs for increased 

oversight requirements. This rule is 

intended to decrease the incidence of 

immigrant employment fraud and 

improve the integrity of nonimmigrant 

student employment opportunities. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Sharon Snyder, Unit 

Chief, Policy and Response Unit, 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Potomac Center North STOP 5600, 500 

12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20536– 

5600, Phone: 703 603–5600. 

RIN: 1653–AA76 

DHS—FEDERAL EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) 

Final Rule Stage 

61. Factors Considered When 

Evaluating a Governor’s Request for 

Individual Assistance for a Major 

Disaster 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5121 to 

5207 

CFR Citation: 44 CFR 206.48(b). 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

January 29, 2014, Section 1109 of the 

Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 

2013, Public Law 113–2. 

The Sandy Recovery Improvement 

Act of 2013 (SRIA) requires the 

Administrator of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), in 

cooperation with representatives of 

State, tribal, and local emergency 

management agencies, to review, 

update, and revise through rulemaking 

the individual assistance factors FEMA 

uses to measure the severity, magnitude, 

and impact of a disaster (not later than 

1 year after enactment). 

Abstract: FEMA is issuing a final rule 

to revise its regulations to comply with 

Section 1109 of SRIA. SRIA requires 

FEMA, in cooperation with State, local, 

and Tribal emergency management 

agencies, to review, update, and revise 

through rulemaking the Individual 

Assistance factors FEMA uses to 

measure the severity, magnitude, and 

impact of a disaster. FEMA published a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the 

matter on November 12, 2015. 

Statement of Need: On January 29, 

2013, SRIA was enacted into law (Pub. 

L. 113–2). Section 1109 of SRIA requires 

FEMA, in cooperation with State, local, 

and Tribal emergency management 

agencies, to review, update, and revise 

through rulemaking the factors found at 

44 CFR 206.48 that FEMA uses to 

determine whether to recommend 

provision of Individual Assistance (IA) 

during a major disaster. These factors 

help FEMA measure the severity, 

magnitude, and impact of a disaster, as 

well as the capabilities of the affected 

jurisdictions. 

FEMA is issuing this final rule to 

comply with SRIA and to provide 

clarity on the IA factors that FEMA 

currently considers in support of its 

recommendation to the President on 

whether a major disaster declaration 

authorizing IA is warranted. The 

additional clarity may reduce delays in 

the declaration process by decreasing 

the back and forth between States and 

FEMA during the declaration process. 

Summary of Legal Basis: FEMA has 

authority for this final rule pursuant to 

the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 

and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford 

Act). 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. Section 401 

of the Stafford Act lays out the 

procedures for a declaration for FEMA’s 

major disaster assistance programs 

when a catastrophe occurs in a State. 

The specific changes in this final rule 

comply with section 1109 of SRIA, 

Public Law 113–2. 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

2015 NPRM proposed to codify current 

declaration considerations and 

introduced new factors that FEMA 

would use when reviewing and 

recommending a major disaster 

declaration request that includes IA. 

Codifying the factors that capture 

FEMA’s current declaration practice and 

considerations would not result in 

additional costs. However, the new 

factors would have small burden 

increases associated with obtaining the 

additional information. FEMA does not 

anticipate the rule would impact the 

number of major disaster declaration 

requests received that include IA or the 

amount of IA assistance provided, and 

therefore there would be no impact to 

transfer payments. 

FEMA estimated the 10-year present 

value total cost of the proposed rule 

would be $15,806 and $13,302 if 

discounted at 3 and 7 percent, 

respectively. The annualized cost of the 

proposed rule would be $1,853 at 3 

percent and $1,894 at 7 percent. (All 

amounts in the NPRM are presented in 

2013 dollars.) Benefits of the proposed 

rule include clarifying FEMA’s existing 

practices, reducing processing time for 

requests due to clarifications, and 

providing States with notice of the new 

information FEMA is proposing to 

consider as part of the IA declarations 

process. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/12/15 80 FR 70116 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/11/16 

Final Rule ............ 09/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

State, Tribal. 

Additional Information: Docket ID 

FEMA–2014–0005. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1730 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

Agency Contact: Mark Millican, 

Individual Assistance Division, 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, 

DC 20472–3100, Phone: 202 212–3221, 

Email: fema-ia-regulations@

fema.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1660–AA83 

BILLING CODE 9110–9B–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Fall 2017 Statement of Regulatory 

Priorities for Fiscal Year 2018 

Introduction 

The Regulatory Plan for the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) for Fiscal Year (FY) 

2018 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, committed to 

addressing the housing needs of 

Americans, promoting economic and 

community development, and enforcing 

the nation’s fair housing laws, HUD 

plays a significant role in the lives of 

families and in communities throughout 

America. The Department’s programs 

help to provide decent, safe, and 

sanitary housing, and create suitable 

living environments for all Americans. 

HUD also provides housing and other 

essential support to a wide range of 

individuals and families with special 

needs, including homeless individuals, 

the elderly, and persons with 

disabilities. 

HUD’s regulatory plan for FY2018 

reflects the leadership and vision of 

Secretary Carson who has directed 

HUD, consistent with Executive Order 

13771, entitled ‘‘Reducing Regulation 

and Controlling Regulatory Costs,’’ to 

identify and eliminate or streamline 

regulation that are wasteful, inefficient 

or unnecessary. Executive Order 13771 

directs that agencies manage the costs 

associated with the governmental 

imposition of private expenditures 

required to comply with Federal 

regulations. Toward this end, Executive 

Order 13771 directs that for every one 

new regulation issued, at least two prior 

regulations be identified for elimination 

and requires that the cost of planned 

regulations be prudently managed and 

controlled. Consistent with this policy 

goal, the Secretary has also led HUD’s 

implementation of Executive Order 

13777, entitled ‘‘Enforcing the 

Regulatory Reform Agenda.’’ The 

Executive Order 13777 supplements and 

reaffirms the rulemaking principles of 

Executive Order 13771 by directing each 

agency to establish a Regulatory Reform 

Task Force to evaluate existing 

regulations to identify those that merit 

repeal, replacement, modification, are 

outdated, unnecessary, or are 

ineffective, eliminate or inhibit job 

creation, impose costs that exceed 

benefits, or derive from or implement 

Executive Orders that have been 

rescinded or significantly modified. 

HUD’s Regulatory Reform Task Force 

has been hard at work to provide 

recommendations on which regulations 

to repeal, modify or keep to ensure 

those that remain effectively manage 

scarce federal resources, adequately 

protect low-income families and 

facilitate the development of affordable 

housing and provide the provide the 

opportunity for families to become selfsufficient. As a result, HUD’s Fall 2017 

Unified Agenda of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Actions lists two 

anticipated regulatory actions and 

eleven deregulatory actions. 

The rules highlighted in HUD’s 

regulatory plan for FY2018 reflect 

HUD’s efforts to fulfill its mission and 

improve performance, including by 

removing regulations that HUD has 

determined are outdated, unnecessary, 

or are ineffective. 

Implementing the Housing Opportunity 

Through Modernization Act of 2016 

Regulatory Priority: Deregulation 

The Housing Opportunity Through 

Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA) 

(Pub. L. 114–201, approved July 29, 

2016) amended the United States 

Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act) and 

other housing laws to modify multiple 

HUD programs, along with the 

Department of Agriculture’s Single 

Family Housing Guaranteed Loan 

Program. Significant amendments 

included setting a maximum income 

level for continued occupancy in public 

housing, expanding the availability of 

Family Unification Program vouchers 

for children aging out of foster care, 

changes to the housing quality 

standards for Section 8 Voucher units, 

multiple changes to the Project-Based 

Voucher (PBV) program, modifying 

requirements for mortgage insurance for 

condominiums under the Federal 

Housing Administration, creating a 

Special Assistant for Veterans Affairs in 

HUD, and changing the allocation 

formula for the Housing Opportunities 

for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) 

program. 

On October 24, 2016, at 81 FR 73030, 

HUD issued a notice in the Federal 

Register announcing which provisions 

of the statute were self-implementing 

and which would require further action 

by HUD. This was followed up by a 

notice for comment on November 29, 

2016 (81 FR 85996) seeking public input 

on the best way to determine the income 

limit for public housing residents. 

HUD published another notice in the 

Federal Register on January 18, 2017 

(82 FR 5458), utilizing authority granted 

by HOTMA to implement certain 

provisions by notice, but also soliciting 

public comment on HUD’s 

implementation methods. That notice 

implemented new statutory provisions 

regarding certain inspection 

requirements for both housing choice 

voucher (HCV) tenant-based and PBV 

assistance (found in § 101(a)(1) of 

HOTMA), the definition of public 

housing agency (PHA)-owned housing 

(§ 105 of HOTMA), and changes to the 

PBV program at large (§ 106 of HOTMA) 

by providing the additional information 

needed for PHAs and owners to use 

those provisions. The notice also 

implemented and provided guidance on 

the statutory change to the HCV housing 

assistance payment (HAP) calculation 

for families who own manufactured 

housing and are renting the 

manufactured home space (§ 112 of 

HOTMA). 

Many of the statutory provisions in 

HOTMA are intended to streamline 

administrative processes and reduce 

burdens on PHAs and private owners. 

The January 18, 2017, notice 

implemented provisions that reduced 

the number and frequency of 

inspections required before allowing a 

family to move into a unit, limited the 

definition of PHA-owned housing and 

therefore reduced requirements for 

getting third parties involved in 

inspections, and reduced some of the 

requirements for submission to HUD for 

PHAs looking to project-base voucher 

assistance in projects currently under 

contract or previously assisted under a 

different form of assistance. Other 

provisions in HOTMA not yet 

implemented increase a PHA’s ability to 

access databases to ease the burden of 

verifying income and also allow a 

family to self-certify as to the value of 

their assets when their assets are valued 

at less than $50,000. 

HUD further intends to implement the 

new HOTMA provisions in such a way 

as to align policies and procedures 

across program offices, to include 

multifamily programs and programs that 

are administered by the Office of 

Community Planning and Development. 

Alignment will reduce disparities 

between the programs and better enable 

PHAs and owners to use multiple forms 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1731 

of assistance to best serve their 

communities. 

HUD intends to complete this 

rulemaking in Fiscal Year 2018. 

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 2018. HUD expects 

that the neither the total economic costs 

nor the total efficiency gains will exceed 

$100 million. 

HUD Office: Offices of the Assistant 

Secretary for Public and Indian 

Housing, Assistant Secretary for 

Housing, and Assistant Secretary for 

Community Planning and Development, 

HUD. 

Rulemaking Stage: Proposed Rule. 

Priority: Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a; 42 

U.S.C. 1437f; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d); Pub. L. 

114–201, 130 Stat. 782 

CFR Citation: 24 CFR parts 5, 92, 574, 

576, 583, 850, 880, 882, 884, 886, 891, 

960,982, 983. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Through this rule, HUD 

proposes to codify the changes the 

Housing Opportunity Act of 2016 

(HOTMA) made to the U.S. Housing Act 

of 1937 that affect the Section 8 ProjectBased Rental Assistance (PBRA), 

Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) and 

Public Housing programs. The areas 

most impacted by HOTMA include unit 

inspections in the HCV program, 

project-based voucher assistance in the 

HCV program; income and rent 

calculations for Public Housing, HCV, 

and multifamily housing programs, and 

operating fund and capital fund 

flexibility in public housing. 

Many of the statutory provisions in 

HOTMA are intended to streamline 

administrative processes and reduce 

burdens on PHAs and private owners. 

The January 18, 2017, notice 

implemented provisions that reduced 

the number and frequency of 

inspections required before allowing a 

family to move into a unit, limited the 

definition of PHA-owned housing and 

therefore reduced requirements for 

getting third parties involved in 

inspections, and reduced some of the 

requirements for submission to HUD for 

PHAs looking to project-base voucher 

assistance in projects currently under 

contract or previously assisted under a 

different form of assistance. Other 

provisions in HOTMA not yet 

implemented increase a PHA’s ability to 

access databases to ease the burden of 

verifying income and also allow a 

family to self-certify as to the value of 

their assets when their assets are valued 

at less than $50,000, which reduces the 

work required to determine the family’s 

annual income. 

HUD CPD programs that have 

mimicked provisions in the U.S. 

Housing Act of 1937 that were changed 

by HOTMA will also be affected. 

Alignment will reduce disparities 

between the programs and better enable 

PHAs and owners to use multiple forms 

of assistance to best serve their 

communities. 

Statement of Need 

HOTMA provided HUD the authority 

to implement some statutory changes by 

notice, but not all of the changes 

included that authority. For those 

changes that were implemented by 

notice, HUD must make conforming 

changes to the regulations. 

Alternatives: None. 

Anticipated Costs and Benefits 

Many of the changes included 

additional flexibilities for public 

housing agencies (PHAs) and private 

owners, such as allowing for alternative 

inspection methods to reduce 

duplicative inspections, reducing 

paperwork requirements for projectbasing vouchers in PHA-owned 

properties, and allowing for longer-term 

housing assistance payments contracts. 

The rule will also provide for more 

timely reviews of significant changes in 

family income to ensure the effective 

provision of assistance. 

Compliance costs are expected to be 

minimal and one-time as PHAs and 

owners shift their practices to meet the 

new requirements. 

Risks: Reduced oversight of unit 

quality could increase the amount of 

poor housing quality, but the increased 

flexibilities will allow HUD, PHAs, and 

private owners to better direct resources 

to entities that pose higher risks, 

improving the overall quality and 

effectiveness of the programs. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Federal Register 

Notice.

10/24/

2016 

81 FR 73030 

Federal Register 

Notice.

01/18/

2017 

82 FR 5458 

Next Action .......... 06/00/

2018 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: State, 

Local. 

Federalism Affected: No. 

Energy Affected: No. 

International Impacts: No. 

Agency Contact: Danielle Bastarache, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of 

Policy, Programs and Legislative 

Initiatives, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, Office of Public 

and Indian Housing, 451 Seventh Street 

SW, Room 3178, Washington, DC 20410, 

Phone: 202 402–5264. 

RIN: 2577–AD03 

HUD—OFFICE OF HOUSING (OH) 

Final Rule Stage 

62. Project Approval for Single Family 

Condominium (FR–5715) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1707, 1709, 

1710; 12 U.S.C. 1715b; 12 U.S.C. 1715y; 

12 U.S.C. 1715z–16; 12 U.S.C. 1715u; 42 

U.S.C. 3535(d) 

CFR Citation: 24 CFR 203. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Through this rule, HUD will 

amend its policies and procedures for 

projects to be approved as 

condominiums in which individual 

units would be eligible for mortgage 

insurance. Insurance of condominiums 

in approved projects was first 

authorized by the Housing and 

Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008. 

HERA moved the insurance of a single 

unit condominium unit in a project 

without a blanket mortgage from Section 

234 of the National Housing Act. There 

are no existing regulations under section 

203. While HERA permitted the 

program to be operated via guidance 

pending the issuance of regulations, 

more recently, the Housing Opportunity 

Through Modernization Act of 2016, 

Public Law 114–201 (HOTMA) contains 

specific provisions regarding 

condominiums under section 203. 

Relevant to this rule, HOTMA requires: 

changes in requirements for project 

recertification; requests for exceptions 

to the commercial space percentage 

requirement to be made either through 

the HUD review process or through the 

lender review and approval process; and 

for HUD to issue guidance, by rule, 

notice, or mortgagee letter, regarding the 

percentage of units that must be owneroccupied, including as a secondary 

residence. The rule also includes a 

savings provision preserving section 234 

insurance where the project has a 

blanket mortgage. 

Statement of Need: The Housing 

Opportunities through Modernization 

Act of 2016 requires HUD to issue 

regulations on the commercial space 

requirements for condominium projects; 

these regulations would be codified in 

HUD’s Code of Federal Regulations 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1732 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

(CFR) volume. Having one portion of the 

basic program rules codified in the CFR 

and others not codified would be 

confusing and unfriendly to the public. 

Additionally, the current program rules 

are overly rigid. The rule will add 

needed flexibility and logically codify 

the basic rules of the program, similar 

to HUD’s other single-family programs. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal 

basis (in addition to HUD’s general 

rulemaking authority under 42 U.S.C. 

3535(d)) is the definition of mortgage in 

section 201 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1707), 

which definition also applies to section 

203 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1709). The 

definition was revised by the Housing 

and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 

(Pub. L. 110–289, approved July 30, 

2008) to include a mortgages on a onefamily unit in a multifamily project, and 

an undivided interest in the common 

areas and facilities which serve the 

project (this is the arrangement that 

characterizes the large majority of condo 

projects). More recently, the Housing 

Opportunity Through Modernization 

Act (Pub. L. 114–201, approved July 29, 

2016), requires HUD to: Streamline the 

condominium recertification process; 

issue regulations to amend the 

limitations on commercial space to 

allow such requests to be processed 

under either HUD or lender review and 

to consider factors relating to the 

economy for the locality in which such 

project is located or specific to project, 

including the total number of family 

units in the project. HUD will be 

addressing these issues through the 

regulation. 

Alternatives: None. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

rule will produce cost savings of $1 

million per year by reducing the 

paperwork required for recertification of 

an approved project. There are some 

costs associated with qualifying to 

participate in the Direct Endorsement 

Lender Review and Approval Process 

(DELRAP). However, HUD anticipates 

that many provisions of the rule, such 

as single-unit approvals, flexible 

standards, and a longer interval for 

condominium approvals would reduce 

or eliminate the compliance costs of the 

rule. 

Risks: The DELRAP process (which 

gives underwriting responsibility to 

qualified lenders) and single unit 

approvals (which allow HUD to insure 

mortgages in unapproved condominium 

projects) could increase the risk of 

defaults. However, the rule would add 

safeguards to fully mitigate these risks. 

The participating DELRAP lenders 

would have to meet qualification 

standards, and HUD would monitor 

their performance on an ongoing basis, 

and would have authority to take 

corrective actions if a lender’s 

performance is deficient. In addition, 

single unit approvals would require that 

HUD not insure mortgages in an 

unapproved project if the percentage of 

such mortgages exceeds an amount 

determined by the Commissioner to be 

necessary for the protection of the 

insurance fund. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 09/28/16 81 FR 66565 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

11/28/16 

Final Action ......... 03/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov/

searchResults?rpp=25&po=0&s=FR5715&fp=true&ns=true. 

Agency Contact: Elissa Saunders, 

Director, Office of Single Family 

Program Development, Office of 

Housing, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, Office of Housing, 

451 Seventh Street, Washington, DC 

20410, Phone: 202 708–2121. 

RIN: 2502–AJ30 

HUD—OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND INDIAN 

HOUSING (PIH) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

63. • Housing Opportunity Through 

Modernization Act of 2016 (FR–6057) 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114–201; 130 

Stat. 782 

CFR Citation: 24 CFR 5; 24 CFR 92; 

24 CFR 574; 24 CFR 576; 24 CFR 583; 

24 CFR 850; 24 CFR 880; 24 CFR 882; 

24 CFR 884; 24 CFR 886; 24 CFR 891; 

24 CFR 960; 24 CFR 982; 24 CFR 983. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Through this rule, HUD 

proposes to codify the changes the 

Housing Opportunity Act of 2016 

(HOTMA) made to the U.S. Housing Act 

of 1937 that affect the Section 8 ProjectBased Rental Assistance (PBRA), 

Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) and 

Public Housing programs. The areas 

most impacted by HOTMA include unit 

inspections in the HCV program, 

project-based voucher assistance in the 

HCV program; income and rent 

calculations for Public Housing, HCV, 

and multifamily housing programs, and 

operating fund and capital fund 

flexibility in public housing. HUD CPD 

programs that have mimicked 

provisions in the U.S. Housing Act of 

1937 that were changed by HOTMA will 

also be affected. 

Statement of Need: HOTMA provided 

HUD the authority to implement some 

statutory changes by notice, but not all 

of the changes included that authority. 

For those changes that were 

implemented by notice, HUD must 

make conforming changes to the 

regulations. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 42 U.S.C. 

1437a; 42 U.S.C. 1437f; 42 U.S.C. 

3535(d). 

Alternatives: None. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Many 

of the changes included additional 

flexibilities for public housing agencies 

(PHAs) and private owners, such as 

allowing for alternative inspection 

methods to reduce duplicative 

inspections, reducing paperwork 

requirements for project-basing 

vouchers in PHA-owned properties, and 

allowing for longer-term housing 

assistance payments contracts. The rule 

will also provide for more timely 

reviews of significant changes in family 

income to ensure the effective provision 

of assistance. Compliance costs are 

expected to be minimal and one-time as 

PHAs and owners shift their practices to 

meet the new requirements. 

Risks: Reduced oversight of unit 

quality could increase the amount of 

poor housing quality, but the increased 

flexibilities will allow HUD, PHAs, and 

private owners to better direct resources 

to entities that pose higher risks, 

improving the overall quality and 

effectiveness of the programs. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Agency Contact: Danielle Bastarache, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of 

Policy & Legislative Initiatives, 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Office of Public and 

Indian Housing, 451 7th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 402– 

5264. 

RIN: 2577–AD03 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1733 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

REGULATORY PLAN 

Introduction 

The U.S. Department of the Interior 

(Interior) serves the American people by 

managing one in every five acres of land 

in the United States, as well as on the 

Outer Continental Shelf. Interior 

manages these resources under a legal 

framework that includes regulations that 

ultimately affect many American’s lives 

and livelihoods. Interior’s Office of 

Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) 

collects over $10 billion dollars 

annually from onshore and offshore 

energy production, one of the Federal 

Government’s largest sources of non-tax 

revenue. 

Interior manages more than 500 

million acres of Federal lands, including 

more than 400 park units, more than 

500 wildlife refuges, and more than a 

billion submerged offshore acres. 

Hundreds of millions of people visit 

Interior-managed lands each year for 

camping, hiking, hunting, and other 

outdoor recreation, which supports 

local communities and their economies. 

Interior provides access on public lands 

for energy development, which creates 

jobs and stimulates the U.S. economy. 

Interior manages water projects that are 

a lifeline and economic engine for many 

communities in the West; and manages 

forests and fights wildfires. 

Regulatory Reform 

President Trump has made it a 

priority of his administration to reform 

regulatory requirements that negatively 

impact our economy while maintaining 

environmental standards. Since day 

one, Secretary Zinke has been 

committed to regulatory reform. Interior 

is playing a key role in regulatory 

reform and, pursuant to Executive Order 

13777, has established a Regulatory 

Reform Task Force to make Interior’s 

regulations work better for the American 

people. Interior continues to encourage 

and seek public input on these 

regulatory reform efforts. See (82 FR 

28429, June 22, 2017) and https://

www.doi.gov/regulatory-reform. Interior 

is committed to a conservation ethic 

that also recognizes that unnecessary 

regulations create harmful economic 

consequences on the U.S. economy. 

Therefore, Interior expects to reduce 

regulatory burdens, promote effective 

and efficient regulations, and respect 

property rights as it implements its 

regulatory agenda for fiscal year 2018. 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities 

Interior’s regulatory and deregulatory 

priorities focus on: 

• Promoting American Energy 

Independence 

• Increasing outdoor recreation 

opportunities for all Americans 

• Enhancing conservation 

stewardship 

• Improving management of species 

and their habitats 

• Upholding trust responsibilities to 

the federally recognized American 

Indian and Alaska Native tribes and 

addressing the challenges of economic 

development. 

Promoting American Energy 

Independence 

In Executive Order 13783, Promoting 

Energy Independence and Economic 

Growth (March 28, 2017), President 

Trump announced it was in the national 

interest to promote clean and safe 

development of our Nation’s vast energy 

resources, while at the same time 

avoiding regulatory burdens that 

unnecessarily encumber energy 

production, constrain economic growth, 

and prevent job creation. The Executive 

Order directed the executive 

departments and agencies to 

immediately review existing regulations 

that potentially burden the development 

or use of domestically produced energy 

resources and appropriately suspend, 

revise, or rescind those that unduly 

burden the development of domestic 

energy resources beyond the degree 

necessary to protect the public interest 

or otherwise comply with the law. 

Interior’s review and actions are 

included in its Final Report on Actions 

that Potentially Burden Domestic 

Energy (Final Energy Report). This 

report is available on the internet at 

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/ 

uploads/interior_energy_actions_report_

final.pdf. 

Among the actions that Interior 

identified and explained more fully in 

the Final Energy Report are the 

following: 

• BLM published a proposed rule on 

July 25, 2017 (82 FR 24464), to rescind 

the final rule entitled ‘‘Oil and Gas; 

Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and 

Indian Lands,’’ 80 FR 16128 (March 26, 

2015). 

• BLM will review and revise the 

final rule entitled ‘‘Waste Prevention, 

Production Subject to Royalties, and 

Resource Conservation,’’ 81 FR 83008 

(November 18, 2016). 

• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

will review the final rule entitled 

‘‘Management of Non-Federal Oil and 

Gas Rights,’’ 81 FR 79948 (November 14, 

2016); and 

• the Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement and/or the 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

will review 

Æ The proposed rule ‘‘Offshore Air 

Quality Control, Reporting, and 

Compliance’’ published on April 5, 

2016. See 81 FR 19717; 

Æ The final rule ‘‘Oil and Gas and 

Sulfur Operations in the Outer 

Continental Shelf—Blowout Preventer 

Systems and Well Control,’’ published 

on April 29, 2016. See 81 FR 25887, and 

Æ The final rule ‘‘Oil and Gas and 

Sulfur Operations on the Outer 

Continental Shelf—Requirements for 

Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer 

Continental Shelf,’’ published on July 

15, 2016. See 81 FR 46478. 

Increasing Outdoor Recreation for All 

Americans, Enhancing Conservation 

Stewardship, and Improving 

Management of Species and Their 

Habitat 

On March 2, 2017, Secretary Zinke 

signed Secretarial Order (S.O.) 3347, 

Conservation Stewardship and Outdoor 

Recreation, which established a goal to 

enhance conservation stewardship, 

increase outdoor recreation, and 

improve the management of game 

species and their habitat. In S.O. No. 

3356, Hunting, Fishing, Recreational 

Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation 

Opportunities and Coordination with 

States, Tribes, and Territories 

(September 15, 2017), Interior 

announced continued efforts to enhance 

conservation stewardship; increase 

outdoor recreation opportunities for all 

Americans, including opportunities to 

hunt and fish; and improve the 

management of game species and their 

habitats for this generation and beyond. 

To help meet these goals, S.O. 3356 

directs, among other actions, Interior 

bureaus and offices to: 

• Work cooperatively with state, 

tribal, and territorial wildlife agencies to 

ensure that hunting and fishing 

regulations for Department lands and 

waters complement the regulations on 

the surrounding lands and waters to the 

extent legally practicable; 

• in close coordination and 

cooperation with the appropriate state, 

tribal, or territorial wildlife agency, 

begin the necessary process to modify 

regulations in order to advance shared 

wildlife conservation goals/objectives 

that align predator management 

programs, seasons, and methods of take 

permitted on all Department-managed 

lands and waters with corresponding 

programs, seasons, and methods 

established by state, tribal, and 

territorial wildlife management agencies 

to the extent legally practicable; and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1734 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

• create a plan to update all existing 

regulations to be consistent with the 

Order. 

Upholding Trust Responsibilities to the 

Federally Recognized American Indian 

and Alaska Native Tribes and 

Addressing the Challenges of Economic 

Development 

BIA is committed to identifying 

opportunities to promote economic 

growth and the welfare of the people 

BIA serves by removing barriers to the 

development of energy and other 

resources in Indian country. 

Aggregate Deregulatory and Significant 

Regulatory Actions 

Interior has made substantial progress 

reducing its regulatory burdens upon 

the American public. After a thorough 

review of existing regulations planned 

for publication, Interior removed 154 

regulatory actions from its Spring 2017 

Agenda of Regulatory Actions. This 

reduced its previous inventory of 321 by 

almost half. In fiscal year 2018, Interior 

expects to finalize 28 deregulatory 

actions, resulting in more than a billion 

net present dollars (present value) of 

deregulatory cost savings. Interior does 

not currently expect to publish any 

significant regulatory actions during the 

next year that are subject to E.O. 13771. 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘deregulatory action’’ and ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ refer to actions that 

are subject to E.O. 13771. 

Bureaus and Offices Within the 

Department of the Interior 

The following sections give an 

overview of some of the major 

deregulatory and regulatory priorities of 

DOI bureaus and offices. 

Indian Affairs 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (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. BIA also provides quality 

education opportunities to students in 

Indian schools. BIA maintains a 

government-to-government relationship 

with the 567 federally recognized Indian 

tribes. The Bureau 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 Indians and Indian tribes. 

Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions 

In the coming year, BIA’s regulatory 

plan focuses on priorities that ease 

regulatory burdens on Tribes, American 

Indians and Alaska Natives, and others 

subject to BIA regulations, in 

accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 

13771, Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 

13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform 

Agenda. BIA has identified one 

deregulatory action on the current 

Agenda that would streamline the rightof-way process for governmental entities 

seeking a waiver of the requirement to 

obtain a bond in certain cases. BIA has 

one significant regulatory action on the 

Agenda that would revise existing 

regulations governing off-reservation 

trust acquisitions to establish new items 

that must be included in an application 

and threshold criteria that must be met 

for off-reservation acquisitions before 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) compliance will be required. 

The rule would also reinstate the 30-day 

delay for taking land into trust following 

a decision by the Secretary or Assistant 

Secretary. This rule is expected to have 

de minimis economic impacts and 

therefore likely exempt from offset 

requirements under E.O. 13771. 

Because many of its existing 

regulations require compliance with the 

NEPA, BIA will examine whether it can 

streamline NEPA implementation, in 

accordance with E.O. 13807, 

Establishing Discipline and 

Accountability in the Environmental 

Review and Permitting Process for 

Infrastructure Projects, and S.O. 3355, 

Streamlining National Environmental 

Policy Act Reviews and Implementation 

of Executive Order 13807. 

Bureau of Land Management 

The Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) manages more than 245 million 

acres of public land, primarily located 

in 12 Western states including Alaska. 

The BLM also administers 700 million 

acres of sub-surface mineral estate 

throughout the nation, creating jobs 

throughout the country and generating 

non-tax royalty revenue for the Federal 

government. As stewards, BLM has a 

multiple-use mission to provide 

opportunities for economic growth 

through energy development, ranching, 

mining, and logging, as well as outdoor 

recreation activities such as camping, 

hunting, and fishing, while also 

supporting conservation efforts. Public 

lands provide valuable tangible goods 

and materials the American people use 

every day to heat their homes, build 

their roads, and feed their families. The 

BLM works hard to be a good neighbor 

in the communities it serves, and is 

committed to keeping public landscapes 

healthy and productive. 

Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions 

BLM has identified the following four 

deregulatory actions for the coming year 

with total estimated cost savings of at 

least $156 million: 

• Rescission of the 2015 BLM 

Hydraulic Fracturing Rule (RIN 1004– 

AE51) 

• Waste Prevention, Production 

Subject to Royalties, and Resource 

Conservation; Delay and Suspension of 

Implementation Dates for Certain 

Requirements (RIN 1004–AE54) 

• Revision or Rescission of the 2016 

Waste Prevention, Production Subject to 

Royalties, and Resource Conservation 

rule (RIN 1004–AE53) 

• Resource Management Planning 

(RIN 1004–AE39—CRA nullification 

conforming rule) 

BLM has no significant regulatory 

actions subject to E.O. 13771 planned in 

FY 2018. 

• Rescission of the 2015 BLM 

Hydraulic Fracturing Rule 

In March 2015, the BLM finalized a 

rule that would impose requirements on 

operators using hydraulic fracturing on 

Federal and Indian oil and gas leases. 

However, before the rule became 

effective, a U.S. Federal District Court 

granted a preliminary injunction and 

then set aside the rule, preventing the 

BLM from implementing it. The rule has 

never gone into effect. The Court of 

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, however, 

vacated the district court’s decision in 

September 2017. If there are no further 

proceedings in the Tenth Circuit, the 

mandate will issue to the district court 

on November 13, 2017. If that were to 

happen, the BLM would need to decide 

how to phase in compliance with the 

rule. The rescission of these 

requirements would not leave hydraulic 

fracturing operations unregulated, as 

operators still need to comply with 

other Federal regulations and 

requirements, state regulations, and 

tribal regulations, where applicable. 

This is a good example of a regulation 

that is a prime candidate for regulatory 

reform because of the multiple 

regulations by authorities at the Federal, 

State, and tribal levels. The BLM found 

that all 32 states with Federal oil and 

gas operations leases currently have 

laws or regulations to address hydraulic 

fracturing. Furthermore, since the 2015 

final rule, more companies are using 

state-level resources to ensure 

compliance with other applicable 

Federal and state-level regulations. This 

redundancy makes the BLM rule an 

unnecessary regulatory burden, 

irrespective of whether BLM even has 

the authority to regulate hydraulic 

fracturing. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1735 

Secretary of the Interior Ryan K. 

Zinke issued Secretarial Order No. 3349 

entitled, ‘‘American Energy 

Independence’’ on March 29, 2017, 

which, among other things, directed the 

BLM to proceed expeditiously to 

propose to rescind the 2015 final rule. 

Upon further review of the 2015 final 

rule, as directed by Executive Order 

13783, and Secretarial Order No. 3349, 

the BLM determined that the 2015 final 

rule unnecessarily burdens industry 

with compliance costs and information 

requirements that duplicate regulatory 

programs of many states and some 

tribes. As a result, on July 25, 2017 BLM 

proposed to rescind, in its entirety, the 

2015 final rule. Rescinding the 

hydraulic fracturing rule will reduce 

regulatory burdens by enabling oil and 

gas operations to operate under one set 

of regulations within each state or tribal 

lands, rather than two. 

• Waste Prevention, Production 

Subject to Royalties, and Resource 

Conservation; Delay and Suspension of 

Implementation Dates for Certain 

Requirements 

Executive Order 13783 required 

Interior to review the final rule entitled, 

‘‘Oil and Gas, Waste Prevention, 

Production Subject to Royalties, and 

Resource Conservation,’’ 81 FR 83008 

(Nov. 18, 2016), also known as the 

‘‘Venting and Flaring’’ rule. S.O. 3349 

also ordered the BLM to review the rule. 

During the review, the BLM found that 

parts of the rule imposed unnecessary 

burdens on industry. It published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register on 

October 5, 2017, seeking comment on 

temporarily suspending or delaying 

certain requirements until January 17, 

2019. 

A temporary suspension or delay, if 

implemented, would avoid compliance 

costs on operators for requirements that 

may be rescinded or significantly 

revised in the near future. For certain 

requirements in the 2016 rule that have 

yet to be implemented, the proposed 

rule would temporarily postpone the 

implementation dates. For certain 

requirements in the 2016 rule that are 

currently in effect, the proposed rule 

would temporarily suspend them. This 

would give the BLM sufficient time to 

review the 2016 final rule and consider 

revising or rescinding its requirements. 

This will also provide industry 

additional time to plan for and engineer 

responsive infrastructure modifications 

that will comply with the regulation. It 

will lower the cost of compliance and 

spread the cost over more time. 

• Revision or Rescission of the 2016 

Waste Prevention, Production Subject to 

Royalties, and Resource Conservation 

rule 

During the review of the Venting and 

Flaring rule, the BLM determined that 

the rule is inconsistent with the policy 

stated in E.O. 13783 that ‘‘it is in the 

national interest to promote clean and 

safe development of our nation’s vast 

energy resources, while at the same time 

avoiding regulatory burdens that 

unnecessarily encumber energy 

production, constrain economic growth, 

and prevent job creation.’’ Consistent 

with this finding, the BLM intends to 

issue a proposed rule that would 

eliminate overlap with the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) Clean Air Act authorities and 

clarify requirements related to the 

beneficial use of gas on Federal and 

Indian lands. 

• Resource Management Planning 

The BLM published the Planning 2.0 

Rule on December 12, 2016 (81 FR 

89580). The rule became effective on 

January 11, 2017. However, President 

Trump signed a resolution of 

disapproval under the Congressional 

Review Act (CRA), which was signed 

into law as Public Law 115–12 on 

March 27, 2017. Under the terms of the 

Congressional Review Act, the rule is 

‘‘treated as though such rule had never 

taken effect.’’ 5 U.S.C. 801(f). The BLM 

is publishing a rule to remove nullified 

language from the Code of Federal 

Regulations to conform the Code of 

Federal Regulations to the CRA 

resolution. OMB views actions under 

the CRA as deregulatory for purposes of 

E.O. 13771. Some commenters 

expressed concern that the nullified rule 

would have moved decisions to the 

BLM Director in Washington, DC and 

away from states and local communities 

that are most affected by land use 

decisions. 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

BOEM is committed to the 

Administration proposition that ‘‘A 

brighter future depends on energy 

policies that stimulate our economy, 

ensure our security, and protect our 

health.’’ In accordance with Executive 

Order 13783 of March 28, 2017, 

Promoting Energy independence and 

Economic Growth, BOEM is committed 

to the safe and orderly development of 

our offshore energy land and mineral 

resources, with the goal of avoiding 

regulatory burdens that unnecessarily 

encumber energy production, constrain 

economic growth, and prevent job 

creation. BOEM is committed to 

identifying regulatory and deregulatory 

opportunities and policies that lower 

costs and stimulate development. BOEM 

continues to strengthen U.S. energy 

security and energy independence. 

BOEM creates jobs, benefits local 

communities, and strengthens the 

economy by offering opportunities to 

develop the conventional and renewable 

energy and mineral resources of the 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). 

Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions 

BOEM is carefully analyzing two 

Interior rules related to offshore energy 

that are identified in E.O. 13795 

(Implementing an America-First 

Offshore Energy Strategy). To 

implement that Executive Order, 

Interior issued S.O. 3350, America-First 

Offshore Energy Strategy, which 

enhances opportunities for energy 

exploration, leasing, and development 

on the OCS; establishes regulatory 

certainty for OCS activities; and 

enhances conservation stewardship, 

thereby providing jobs, energy security, 

and revenue for the American people. 

That order also provides deadlines for 

review of the rules identified in the E.O. 

Specifically, S.O. 3350 directs BOEM to: 

• Immediately cease all activities to 

promulgate the ‘‘Offshore Air Quality 

Control, Reporting, and Compliance’’ 

proposed rule, published on April 5, 

2016 (81 FR 19717). As directed, BOEM 

also provided a report explaining the 

effects of not issuing a new rule 

addressing offshore air quality, and 

providing options for revising or 

withdrawing the proposed rule. BOEM 

withdrew the proposed rule and is now 

considering best options going forward. 

• Promptly review, in consultation 

with the Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), the 

final rule ‘‘Oil and Gas and Sulfur 

Operations on the Outer Continental 

Shelf—Requirements for Exploratory 

Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental 

Shelf,’’ published on July 15, 2016 (81 

FR 46478), for consistency with the 

policy set forth in section 2 of the 

Executive Order and provide a report 

summarizing the review and providing 

recommendations on whether to 

suspend, revise, or rescind the rule. In 

coordination with BSEE and 

consultation with stakeholders, BOEM 

will decide whether it should proceed 

with deregulatory options that could 

allow operators to continue operating 

later into the drilling season, providing 

jobs, strengthening the economy, and 

supporting the development of 

America’s energy reserves. 

BOEM has no significant regulatory 

actions planned for fiscal year 2018. 

Streamlining Renewable Energy 

Regulations 

Since renewable energy regulations 

were promulgated in 2009, BOEM has 

made substantial progress moving 

forward with the planning and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1736 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

implementation of seven lease sales, the 

issuance of twelve commercial leases, 

with a thirteenth in progress, and the 

processing of a number of significant 

project survey and site assessment 

plans. BOEM has worked closely with 

industry and solicited public input 

throughout the early stages of its 

program to help identify several 

regulatory improvements that: (1) 

Simplify and clarify requirements; (2) 

reduce the regulatory burden on 

industry by providing more flexibility in 

developing proposals and acquiring 

needed authorizations; (3) defer certain 

planning and development costs on 

industry; and (4) resolve contradictions 

and administrative inconsistencies. 

Overall, the proposed regulatory 

improvements are corrective, and will 

facilitate the efficient business 

development of renewable energy 

resources on the OCS. 

Compliance With Executive, Secretary, 

and Statutory Mandates 

BOEM will continue to be responsive 

to the various regulatory reform 

initiatives, including identifying and 

acting upon any regulations, orders, 

guidance, policies or any similar actions 

that could potentially burden the 

development or utilization of 

domestically produced energy sources. 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement 

The Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement’s (BSEE) 

mission is to promote offshore 

conservation, development and 

production of offshore energy resources 

while ensuring that offshore operations 

are safe and environmentally 

responsible. BSEE’s priorities in 

fulfillment of its mission are to: (1) 

Promote and regulate offshore energy 

development using the full range of 

authorities, policies, and tools to ensure 

safety and environmental responsibility; 

and (2) build and sustain the 

organizational, technical, and 

intellectual capacity within and across 

BSEE’s key functions in order to keep 

pace with offshore industry technology 

improvements, innovate in 

economically sound regulation and 

enforcement, and reduce risk through 

appropriate risk assessment and 

regulatory and enforcement actions. 

Consistent with the directions in 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) issued in 

March 2017 (E.O. 13783—Promoting 

Energy Independence and Economic 

Growth) and in April 2017 (E.O. 

13795—Implementing an America-First 

Offshore Energy Strategy), as well as 

with the President’s January 30, 2017 

E.O. on Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs, BSEE is 

reviewing existing regulations to 

determine whether they may potentially 

burden the development or use of 

domestically produced energy 

resources, constrain economic growth, 

or prevent job creation. BSEE is wellpositioned to help maintain the Nation’s 

position as a global energy leader and 

foster energy security and resilience for 

the benefit of the American people, 

while ensuring that any such activity is 

performed in a safe and 

environmentally sustainable manner. 

Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions 

BSEE has identified the following four 

deregulatory actions under E.O. 13771 

as high priorities: 

• Well Control and Blowout 

Prevention Systems Rule Revision 

In April 2016, BSEE issued a final 

rule entitled ‘‘Oil and Gas and Sulfur 

Operations in the Outer Continental 

Shelf-Blowout Preventer Systems and 

Well Control.’’ BSEE will propose a rule 

to reduce regulatory burdens and 

encourage job-creating development, 

while still ensuring safe and 

environmentally sustainable offshore 

operations. Among the changes it is 

considering are: 

Æ Revising the requirements for 

sufficient accumulator capacity and 

remotely-operated vehicle (ROV) 

capability to both open and close rams 

on subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs) 

(i.e., to only require capability to close 

the rams); 

Æ Revising the requirement to shut in 

platforms when a lift boat approaches 

within 500 feet; 

Æ Extending the 14-day interval 

between pressure testing of BOP 

systems to 21 Days in appropriate 

situations; 

Æ Clarifying that the requirement for 

weekly testing of two BOP control 

stations means testing one station (not 

both stations) per week; 

Æ Simplifying testing pressures for 

verification of ram closure; and 

Æ Revising or deleting the 

requirement to submit test results to 

BSEE District Managers within 72 

hours. 

• Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic 

Outer Continental Shelf Rule 

In July 2016, BSEE and BOEM jointly 

issued a final rule entitled ‘‘Oil and Gas 

and Sulfur Operations on the Outer 

Continental Shelf—Requirements for 

Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer 

Continental Shelf.’’ BSEE is reviewing 

its provisions in the joint rule to 

identify potential opportunities reduce 

regulatory burdens while still ensuring 

safe and environmentally sustainable 

offshore operations. Some of the 

revisions BSEE is considering are: 

Æ Eliminating the requirement for 

capture of water-based muds and 

cuttings; 

Æ Eliminating the requirement for a 

cap and flow system and containment 

dome that are capable of being located 

at the well site within 7 days of loss of 

well control; 

Æ Eliminating the reference to the 

expected return of sea ice from the 

requirements to be able to drill a relief 

well within 45 days of loss of well 

control; and 

Æ Eliminating the reference to 

equivalent technology from the mudline 

cellar requirement. 

BOEM and BSEE are also exploring 

joint options that would allow greater 

flexibility for operators to continue to 

drill later into the Arctic drilling season. 

If they are successful in implementing 

this strategy, exploration of the Nation’s 

Arctic oil and gas reserves will increase 

while providing appropriate safety and 

environmental protection. 

BOEM and BSEE will engage 

stakeholders before proposing 

rulemaking and the list of potential 

areas for proposed reform may be 

adjusted based on feedback received. 

• Production Safety Systems Rule 

In September 2016, BSEE issued a 

final rule entitled ‘‘Oil and Gas and 

Sulfur Operations on the Outer 

Continental Shelf-Oil and Gas 

Production Safety Systems.’’ BSEE is 

reviewing the rule to identify 

opportunities to reduce regulatory 

burdens while still ensuring safe and 

environmentally sustainable offshore 

operations. If BSEE identifies areas for 

deregulation, it plans to tier a proposed 

rule behind the Well Control Rule and 

Arctic rule in terms of potential burden 

reduction. 

In addition to the rules previously 

identified, BSEE is reviewing the 

remainder of its regulations to identify 

other requirements that could be 

modified to increase efficiency, 

streamline processes, reduce industry 

burden, and maximize energy resources 

while ensuring offshore operations are 

performed in a safe and 

environmentally sustainable manner. 

BSEE has no significant regulatory 

actions subject to E.O. 13771 planned 

for fiscal year 2018. 

Office of Natural Resources Revenue 

For the benefit of all Americans, the 

Office of Natural Resources Revenue 

(ONRR) collects, accounts for, and 

verifies natural resource and energy 

revenues due to States, American 

Indians, and the U.S. Treasury. This 

revenue goes to State governments, as 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1737 

well as several Federal funds that 

support projects at the local and 

national levels, including support for 

critical infrastructure projects and to 

develop public outdoor recreation areas. 

ONRR disburses 100% of revenue 

collected from resource extraction on 

American Indian lands back to the 

Indian Tribes and individual Indian 

landowners. 

Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions 

ONRR finalized the repeal of its 

Consolidated Federal Oil & Gas and 

Federal & Indian Coal Valuation Reform 

rule on September 6, 2017. ONRR plans 

one deregulatory action for fiscal year 

2018, the repeal of its rule on service of 

official correspondence. 

ONRR has no significant regulatory 

actions subject to E.O. 13771 planned 

for fiscal year 2018. 

ONRR also will seek ideas to reduce 

the Federal regulatory burden through 

advice received from the reinstatement 

of key committees that will assess and 

advise ONRR on royalty policies and 

regulatory actions related to natural 

resource and energy revenues. 

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). Under SMCRA, OSMRE has 

two principal functions—the regulation 

of surface coal mining and reclamation 

operations, and the reclamation and 

restoration of abandoned coal mine 

lands. In enacting SMCRA, Congress 

directed OSMRE to ‘‘strike a balance 

between protection of the environment 

and agricultural productivity and the 

Nation’s need for coal as an essential 

source of energy.’’ OSMRE seeks to 

develop and maintain a regulatory 

program that provides a safe, costeffective, and environmentally sound 

supply of coal to help support the 

Nation’s economy and local 

communities. 

Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions 

• Stream Protection. 

The Stream Protection rule was 

nullified under the Congressional 

Review Act. OSMRE will conform the 

Code of Federal Regulations to the 

Congressional action and will consider 

options to protect resources in a way 

that does not unnecessarily burden the 

American people. OSMRE estimates that 

this action will result in deregulatory 

cost savings of approximately $82 

million. See 82 FR 54924 (November 17, 

2017). 

OSMRE is reviewing additional 

actions to reduce burdens on coal 

development, including, for example, 

reviewing the state program amendment 

process to reduce the time it takes to 

formally amend an approved regulatory 

program. 

OSMRE has no significant regulatory 

actions planned for fiscal year 2018. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (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. FWS also provides 

opportunities for Americans to enjoy the 

outdoors and our shared natural 

heritage. 

FWS fulfills its responsibilities 

through a diverse array of programs that: 

• Protect and recover endangered and 

threatened species; 

• Monitor and manage migratory 

birds; 

• Enforce Federal wildlife laws and 

regulate international trade; 

• Conserve and restore wildlife 

habitat such as wetlands; 

• Help foreign governments conserve 

wildlife through international 

conservation efforts; 

• Distribute Federal funds to States, 

territories, and tribes for fish and 

wildlife conservation projects; and 

• Manage the more than 150 million 

acres of land and water from the 

Caribbean to the remote Pacific in 

National Wildlife Refuge System, which 

protects and conserves fish and wildlife 

and their habitats, and allows the public 

to engage in outdoor recreational 

activities. 

Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions 

During the next year, FWS regulatory 

priorities will include: 

• Regulations under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). 

FWS will take multiple regulatory 

actions under the ESA to prevent the 

extinction of and facilitate 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 us to prioritize our 

workload 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, non-profit organizations, and 

other diverse stakeholders and partners, 

with the goal of encouraging proactive 

conservation so that federal protections 

are not needed in the first place. The 

Workplan represents the conservation 

priorities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) based on our review of 

scientific information. In addition, FWS, 

jointly with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, will improve how the 

ESA is administered and reduce 

unneeded burdens. FWS will review 

opportunities to create efficiencies and 

streamline the consultation process and 

the listing and delisting process. 

b Regulations under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). 

In carrying out our responsibility to 

manage migratory bird populations, we 

issue annual migratory bird hunting 

regulations, which establish the 

frameworks (outside limits) for States to 

establish season lengths, bag limits, and 

areas for migratory game bird hunting. 

To become more efficient and timely, 

the FWS is reviewing public input and 

considering whether additional 

regulatory changes would be 

appropriate to reduce the burden on 

industry and allow applicants to 

proceed more quickly through the bald 

and golden eagle permit process. 

• Regulations to administer the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

(NWRS). 

In carrying out its statutory 

responsibility to provide wildlifedependent recreational opportunities on 

NWRS lands, FWS issues an annual rule 

to update the hunting and fishing 

regulations on specific refuges. 

• Regulations to carry out the 

Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration 

and Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish 

Restoration Acts (Acts). 

Under the Acts, the FWS distributes 

annual apportionments to States from 

trust funds derived from excise tax 

revenues and fuel taxes. FWS continues 

to work closely with state fish and 

wildlife agencies on how to use these 

funds to implement conservation 

projects. To strengthen its partnership 

with State conservation organizations, 

FWS is working on several rules to 

update and clarify our regulations. 

Planned regulatory revisions will help 

to reflect several new decisions agreed 

upon by state conservation 

organizations. 

• Regulations to carry out the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES) and the Lacey Act. 

In accordance with section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 13609 (Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation), 

FWS will update its CITES regulations 

to incorporate provisions resulting from 

the 16th and 17th Conference of the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1738 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

Parties to CITES. The revisions will help 

FWS more effectively promote species 

conservation and help U.S. importers 

and exporters of wildlife products 

understand how to conduct lawful 

international trade. 

FWS has no significant regulatory 

actions that are subject to E.O. 13771 

planned for fiscal year 2018. 

National Park Service 

The National Park Service (NPS) 

preserves the natural and cultural 

resources and values within 417 units of 

the National Park System encompassing 

nearly 84 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. 

Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions 

The NPS intends to issue a number of 

deregulatory actions in this regulatory 

period and no significant regulatory 

actions. 

Deregulatory Actions 

The NPS will undertake deregulatory 

actions under Executive Order 13771 

(‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs’’) that will reduce 

regulatory costs. Several of these actions 

also comply with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13563 (‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review’’) because they 

will remove or modify outdated and 

excessively complicated and 

burdensome regulations. 

• The NPS intends to issue a 

proposed rule that would revise existing 

regulations implementing the Native 

American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) to 

streamline requirements for museums 

and Federal agencies. The rule would 

describe the NAGPRA process in 

accessible language with clear time 

parameters, eliminate ambiguity, clarify 

terms, and improve efficiency. 

• The NPS will issue a final rule that 

removes an outdated reference to a 

document establishing environmental 

criteria for power transmissions lines 

that is no longer used by the NPS to 

evaluate applications for rights of way. 

• The NPS intends to issue a 

proposed rule containing technical and 

clarifying edits. This rule would remove 

obsolete regulations establishing 

different criminal penalties for violating 

NPS regulations in military parks and 

national historic sites. This rule would 

also clarify existing regulations to 

comply with recent decisions by the 

U.S. Supreme Court. This clarification 

would state that a motor vehicle 

operator may not be required to submit 

a blood test to measure blood alcohol 

and drug content without a search 

warrant. 

• The NPS intends to issue a 

proposed rule that would state that the 

NPS will not prohibit nor require a 

permit for or prohibit an individual 

from transporting a bow or crossbow 

that is not ready for immediate use 

across National Park System Units if the 

possession and transportation of the 

bow or crossbow is in compliance with 

state law. 

Additionally, enabling regulations are 

considered deregulatory under guidance 

to E.O. 13771. The NPS will undertake 

several enabling regulatory actions in 

the coming year that will provide new 

opportunities for the public to enjoy and 

experience certain areas within the 

National Park System. These include 

regulations authorizing (i) off-road 

vehicle use at Cape Lookout National 

Seashore (final rule) and Glen Canyon 

National Recreation Area (proposed 

rule); (ii) bicycling at Rocky Mountain 

National Park (final rule) and Pea Ridge 

National Military Park (proposed rule); 

and (iii) the launching of non-motorized 

vessels from Colonial National Historic 

Park (proposed rule). 

All of these actions will allow the 

public to use NPS-administered lands 

and waters in a manner that protects the 

resources and values of the National 

Park System. 

Regulatory Review 

Through S.O. 3349, American Energy 

Independence (Mar. 29, 2017), the U.S. 

Department of the Interior announced 

its intention to review all existing 

actions that potentially burden the 

development or utilization of 

domestically produced energy resources 

and suspend, revise, or rescind such 

agency actions as soon as practicable. In 

accordance with this Secretarial Order, 

the NPS will review the final rule 

entitled ‘‘General Provisions and NonFederal Oil and Gas Rights,’’ 81 FR 

77972 (November 4, 2016). 

The NPS intends to take a fresh look 

at a final rule on sport hunting and 

trapping in Alaska that published in 

October 2015 (80 FR 65325). This final 

rule amended 36 CFR 13, Subparts A, B, 

and F, to revise regulations for sport 

hunting and trapping in National 

Preserves in Alaska. The rule also 

updated the procedures for closing an 

area or restricting an activity in National 

Park Service areas in Alaska; updated 

subsistence regulations that are 

obsolete; prohibited the obstruction of 

persons lawfully engaged in hunting or 

trapping; and authorized the use of 

native species as bait for fishing. NPS 

will consider public comments and may 

revise the rule. See 82 FR 52868 

(November 15, 2017). 

The NPS intends to finalize a 

regulation allowing the free-distribution 

of message bearing items such as 

readable electronic media; clothing and 

accessories; buttons; pins; and bumper 

stickers. This will give visitors an 

additional channel of communication 

when visiting NPS-administered areas. 

Regulatory Actions 

Bureau of Reclamation 

The Bureau of Reclamation’s mission 

is to manage, develop, and protect water 

and related resources in an 

environmentally and economically 

sound manner in the interest of the 

American public. To accomplish this 

mission, we employ management, 

engineering, and science to achieve 

effective and environmentally sensitive 

solutions. Reclamation 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. We have continued to 

focus on increased security at our 

facilities. 

Deregulatory and regulatory actions 

The Bureau of Reclamation will 

publish no deregulatory or significant 

regulatory actions in fiscal year 2018. 

Its regulatory program focus in Fiscal 

Year 2018 is to publish a proposed 

nonsignificant amendment to 43 CFR 

part 429 to bring it into compliance with 

the requirements of 43 CFR part 5, 

Commercial Filming and Similar 

Projects and Still Photography on 

Certain Areas under Department 

Jurisdiction. Publishing this rule would 

implement the provisions of Public Law 

106–206, which directs the 

establishment of permits and reasonable 

fees for commercial filming and certain 

still photography activities on public 

lands. 

DOI—BUREAU OF LAND 

MANAGEMENT (BLM) 

Final Rule Stage 

64. Rescission of the 2015 BLM 

Hydraulic Fracturing Rule 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 25 U.S.C. 396d; 25 

U.S.C. 2107; 30 U.S.C. 189; 30 U.S.C. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1739 

306; 30 U.S.C. 359; 30 U.S.C. 1751; 43 

U.S.C. 1732(b); 43 U.S.C. 1733; 43 

U.S.C. 1740 

CFR Citation: 43 CFR 3160. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This Proposed Rule would 

rescind the Bureau of Land 

Management’s 2015 Final Rule, Oil and 

Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal 

and Indian Lands (2015 Final Rule). 

Consistent with the President’s January 

30, 2017, Executive Order on Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs, the Department of the Interior has 

been reviewing existing regulations to 

determine whether revisions or 

rescissions are appropriate to streamline 

the regulatory process and eliminate 

duplicative regulations. As part of this 

process, the Department has determined 

that the 2015 Final Rule does not reflect 

those policies and priorities, and 

therefore is proposing to rescind the 

2015 Final Rule. 

Statement of Need: Upon further 

review of the BLM’s 2015 hydraulic 

fracturing final rule, as directed by 

Executive Order 13783, and Secretarial 

Order No. 3349, the BLM believes that 

the 2015 final rule unnecessarily 

burdens industry with compliance costs 

and information requirements that are 

duplicative of regulatory programs of 

many states and some tribes. As a result, 

we are proposing to rescind, in its 

entirety, the 2015 final rule. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/25/17 82 FR 34464 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

09/25/17 

Final Action ......... 01/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Catherine Cook, 

Acting Division Chief, Fluid Minerals 

Division, Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Room 

2134 LM, 20 M Street SE, Washington, 

DC 20003, Phone: 202 912–7145, Email: 

ccook@blm.gov. 

RIN: 1004–AE52 

BILLING CODE 4334–63–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)— 

FALL 2017 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

The solemn duty of the Department of 

Justice is to uphold the Constitution and 

laws of the United States so that all 

Americans can live in peace and 

security. As the chief law enforcement 

agency of the United States government, 

the Department of Justice’s most 

fundamental mission is to protect 

people by enforcing the rule of law. To 

fulfill this mission, the Department is 

devoting the resources necessary and 

utilizing the legal authorities available 

to combat violent crime and terrorism, 

prosecute drug offenses, and enforce 

immigration laws. Because the 

Department of Justice is primarily a law 

enforcement agency and not a regulatory 

agency, it carries out its principal 

investigative, prosecutorial, and other 

enforcement activities through means 

other than the regulatory process. 

This year, the Department of Justice 

has substantially revised and improved 

its procedures for evaluating new 

regulatory actions and analyzing the 

costs that would be imposed. Executive 

Order 13771 (E.O. 13771), titled 

‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs,’’ 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 

2017), requires an agency, unless 

prohibited by law, to identify two 

existing regulations to be repealed when 

the agency publicly proposes for notice 

and comment or otherwise promulgates 

a new regulation. In furtherance of this 

requirement, section 2(c) of E.O. 13771 

requires the new incremental costs 

associated with new regulations, to the 

extent permitted by law, be offset by the 

elimination of existing costs associated 

with at least two prior regulations. 

Section 3(a) states that starting with 

fiscal year 2018, ‘‘the head of each 

agency shall identify, for each 

regulation that increases incremental 

cost, the offsetting regulations described 

in section 2(c) of [E.O. 13771], and 

provide the agency’s best approximation 

of the totals costs or savings associated 

with each new regulation or repealed 

regulation.’’ 

The Department does not anticipate 

publishing any new significant 

Regulatory actions during fiscal year 

2018 that would impose additional costs 

or burdens. Accordingly, none of the 

Department’s anticipated fiscal year 

2018 rulemaking actions would be 

subject to the two-for-one offset 

requirements of E.O. 13771. Instead, the 

Department has identified five 

Deregulatory actions (RIN 1117–AB42; 

RIN 1117–AB44; RIN 1117–AB46; RIN 

1121–AA85; and RIN 1125–AA25), 

along with one revision to an 

information collection, expected to be 

finalized during fiscal year 2018, The 

Department and its regulatory 

components also are already reviewing 

other possible regulatory changes to 

reduce regulatory burdens and to 

streamline existing regulations, though 

those initiatives are not expected to be 

promulgated in final form during fiscal 

year 2018. 

In addition to the new cost analyses 

being conducted pursuant to E.O. 

13771, the Department is actively 

carrying out the provisions of E.O. 

13777, ‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory 

Reform Agenda,’’ 82 FR 12285 (Mar. 1, 

2017). The Department’s Regulatory 

Reform Task Force, chaired by Associate 

Attorney General Rachel Brand, is 

actively working to evaluate existing 

Department regulatory actions and to 

make recommendations regarding their 

repeal, replacement, or modification in 

order to reduce unnecessary burdens. 

The Task Force published a public 

notice in the Federal Register on June 

28, 2017, to solicit comments on this 

goal and received over 30 

recommendations that are under 

consideration. 

The regulatory priorities of the 

Department include initiatives in the 

areas of federal grant programs, criminal 

law enforcement, immigration, and civil 

rights. These initiatives are summarized 

below. In addition, several other 

components of the Department carry out 

important responsibilities through the 

regulatory process. Although their 

regulatory efforts are not separately 

discussed in this overview of the 

regulatory priorities, those components 

have key roles in implementing the 

Department’s anti-terrorism and law 

enforcement priorities. 

Office of Justice Programs (OJP) 

OJP provides innovative leadership to 

federal, state, local, and tribal justice 

systems; by disseminating state-of-theart knowledge and practices; and 

providing financial assistance for the 

implementation of crime fighting 

strategies. OJP, through the Public 

Safety Officers’ Benefits (PSOB) 

Program, supports public safety officers 

by providing financial assistance to 

eligible officers who sustain qualifying 

line-of-duty injuries, and to the eligible 

survivors of officers killed in the line of 

duty. The program also provides 

educational assistance to certain 

survivors of public safety officers. 

In fiscal year 2018, OJP will 

promulgate a significant final rule 

amending and updating the regulations 

implementing the Public Safety Officers 

Benefits (PSOB) Program (RIN 1121– 

AA85). This rule will finalize two 

proposed rules to update and improve 

the OJP regulations implementing the 

PSOB Program, in order to incorporate 

several statutory changes enacted in 

recent years, and improve the efficiency 

of the PSOB Program claims process. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1740 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

The final rule makes conforming 

changes required by the Dale Long 

Public Safety Officers’ Benefits 

Improvement Act of 2012 pertaining, 

among other things, to members of a 

rescue squad or ambulance crew 

engaging in rescue activity or in the 

provision of emergency medical 

services. That Act also amended 

provisions relating to cases involving 

certain medical conditions and the 

payment offset scheme for the PSOB 

Program relative to the September 11th 

Victim Compensation Fund Program. 

The final rule also makes changes in 

response to perceived ambiguities and 

gaps in existing regulations, as well as 

opportunities to simplify and improve 

the program’s administration—for 

example, making explicit the agency’s 

authority to prescribe an online claim 

filing system, creating a process to 

facilitate the interaction between 

evidence gathering and claim 

processing, simplifying the process for 

claimant representatives to seek fees for 

their services, and updating various 

definitions. These changes are 

responsive to the public comments on 

the proposed rules as well as 

recommendations from an OIG Audit 

finalized in July 2015, and other 

internal reviews that identified the need 

to streamline the claims review process 

to reduce delays and increase 

transparency. 

In addition to the PSOB final rule, 

OJP will continue to review its existing 

regulations to streamline them, where 

possible. OJP is drafting the final rule 

for the OJJDP Formula Grant Program, 

for which OJP published a partial final 

rule in in early 2017. OJP anticipates 

that the final OJJDP Formula Grant 

Program rule would finalize certain 

substantive aspects of the proposed rule, 

and also streamline and improve the 

existing regulation by providing or 

revising definitions for clarity, and by 

deleting text that unnecessarily repeats 

statutory provisions, has been rendered 

obsolete by statutory changes, or that 

addresses matters already (or better) 

addressed in other places (e.g., other 

rules or the program solicitation). 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives (ATF) 

ATF issues regulations to enforce the 

Federal laws relating to the manufacture 

and commerce of firearms and 

explosives. ATF’s mission and 

regulations are designed, among other 

objectives, (1) to curb illegal traffic in, 

and criminal use of, firearms and 

explosives, and (2) to assist State, local, 

and other Federal law enforcement 

agencies in reducing crime and 

violence. ATF will continue, as a 

priority during fiscal year 2018, to seek 

modifications to its regulations 

governing commerce in firearms and 

explosives to fulfill these objectives. 

Among other regulatory reviews and 

initiatives, ATF plans to update its 

regulations requiring notification of 

stored explosive materials to require 

annual reporting (RIN 1140–AA51). 

This regulatory action is intended to 

increase safety for emergency first 

responders and the public. 

ATF plans to issue regulations to 

finalize the current interim rules 

implementing the provisions of the Safe 

Explosives Act (RIN 1140–AA00). The 

Department is also planning to finalize 

a proposed rule to codify regulations (27 

CFR part 771) governing the procedure 

and practice for proposed denial of 

applications for explosives licenses or 

permits and proposed revocation of 

such licenses and permits (RIN 1140– 

AA38). As proposed, this rule is a 

regulatory action that clarifies the 

administrative hearing processes for 

explosives licenses and permits. This 

rule promotes open government and 

disclosure of ATF’s procedures and 

practices for administrative actions 

involving explosive licensees or 

permittees. 

ATF also has begun a rulemaking 

process that amends 27 CFR part 447 to 

update the terminology in the ATF 

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). 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA) 

DEA is the primary agency 

responsible for coordinating the drug 

law enforcement activities of the United 

States and also 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 continuously evaluates new and 

emerging substances to determine 

whether such substances should be 

controlled under the CSA. During fiscal 

year 2018, in addition to initiating 

temporary scheduling actions to prevent 

imminent hazard to public safety, DEA 

will also consider petitions to control or 

reschedule various substances. Among 

other regulatory reviews and initiatives, 

DEA plans to update its regulations to 

implement provisions of the 

Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery 

Act of 2016 (RIN 1117–AB42) relating to 

the dispensing of narcotic drugs for the 

purpose of maintenance or 

detoxification treatment. 

In fiscal year 2018, DEA anticipates 

issuing no Regulatory actions that 

impose additional costs. Rather, DEA 

plans to publish four Deregulatory 

actions (RIN 1117–AB42; RIN 1117– 

AB43; RIN 1117–AB44; and RIN 1117– 

AB46). These deregulatory actions do 

not include non-rulemaking items, such 

as agency guidance and information 

collections, which do not appear in the 

Unified Agenda. Consistent with E.O. 

13771 and E.O. 13777, DEA anticipates 

reviewing existing regulations to 

identify those that are outdated, 

unnecessary, or ineffective. DEA will 

solicit public comments during such 

reviews, as appropriate, to engage with 

the affected DEA registrant community 

and members of the public. 

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 

BOP issues regulations to enforce the 

Federal laws relating to its mission of 

protecting society by confining 

offenders in the controlled 

environments of prisons and 

community-based facilities that are safe, 

humane, cost-efficient, and 

appropriately secure, and that provide 

work and other self-improvement 

opportunities to assist offenders in 

becoming law-abiding citizens. During 

the next 12 months, BOP will continue 

its ongoing efforts to develop regulatory 

actions aimed at: (1) Streamlining 

regulations, eliminating unnecessary 

language and improving readability; (2) 

improving inmate disciplinary 

procedures and sanctions, improving 

safety in facilities through the use of 

less-than-lethal force instead of 

traditional weapons; and (3) providing 

effective literacy programming which 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1741 

serves both general and specialized 

inmate needs. 

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. The 

immigration judges adjudicate 

approximately 180,000 cases each year 

to determine whether aliens should be 

ordered removed from the United States 

or should be granted some form of relief 

or protection from removal. The Board 

of Immigration Appeals (Board) has 

jurisdiction over appeals from the 

decisions of immigration judges, as well 

as other matters. Accordingly, the 

Attorney General has a continued role 

in the conduct of immigration 

proceedings, including removal 

proceedings and custody determinations 

regarding the detention of aliens 

pending completion of removal 

proceedings. The Attorney General also 

is responsible for civil litigation and 

criminal prosecutions relating to the 

immigration laws. 

In several pending rulemaking 

actions, the Department is working to 

revise and update the regulations 

relating to immigration proceedings in 

order to increase efficiencies and 

productivity, while also safeguarding 

due process. In particular, EOIR is 

planning to publish a final regulation to 

significantly reduce the current backlog 

of immigration cases, by amending the 

regulations governing the statutory 

annual limitation on cancellation of 

removal and suspension of deportation 

decisions to allow immigration judges 

and the Board to issue denials after the 

annual 4,000-grant statutory cap is 

reached, instead of the current 

regulatory requirement to reserve all 

decisions irrespective of the outcome 

(RIN 1125–AA25). EOIR is further 

working to finalize a jurisdiction and 

venue rule that will provide 

clarification regarding an immigration 

judge’s authority to conduct 

proceedings, how venue is determined, 

and what circuit court law applies (RIN 

1125–AA52). In particular, EOIR is 

developing mechanisms in this rule 

intended to streamline certain venue 

changes to achieve cost savings to the 

agency and increase due process to the 

parties. In addition, in response to 

Executive Order 13563, the Department 

is retrospectively reviewing EOIR’s 

regulations to eliminate regulations that 

unnecessarily duplicate DHS’s 

regulations and update outdated 

references to the pre-2003 immigration 

system (RIN 1125–AA71). As part of 

that review, EOIR also intends to revise 

a number of existing regulations, where 

needed, in response to Executive Order 

13768 to ensure the faithful and 

efficient execution of the immigration 

laws of the United States. 

EOIR is working on long-term plans to 

revise a number of existing regulations, 

as it moves forward with the next 

phases of its electronic case access and 

filing system to provide for the option 

of electronic submission of information, 

when practicable, as a substitute for 

paper. In 2013, EOIR published a final 

rule, Registry for Attorneys and 

Representatives (RIN 1125–AA39), 

establishing an electronic registration 

process for attorneys and accredited 

representatives practicing before 

immigration judges and the Board. That 

rule was the initial step in a multi-year, 

multi-phased initiative to make the 

transition to an electronic case access 

and filing system within EOIR. This 

endeavor is intended to comply with the 

Government Paperwork Elimination 

Act, Public Law 105–277 (‘‘GPEA’’), and 

the E-Government Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–347, Dec. 17, 2002 (‘‘E-Gov’’), 

to achieve the Department’s vision for 

improved immigration adjudication 

processing and to meet the public 

expectations for electronic government. 

The GPEA provides that, when 

practicable, Federal agencies will 

provide for the electronic submission of 

information. The E-Gov is intended to 

enhance OMB’s management and 

promotion of electronic government 

services and processes utilizing a broad 

framework of measures that require, 

amongst a number of initiatives, the use 

of internet-based and emerging 

information technologies to enhance 

citizen participating and access to 

Government information and services. 

EOIR anticipates considerable cost 

savings from the further expansion of its 

electronic filing systems including, but 

not limited to, the elimination of costs 

for managing and storing paper records; 

eliminating storage space; improving 

internal efficiencies and response times 

both internally and to the public 

through workflow automation and 

cutting labor expenses (time for 

printing, copying, filing, and document 

research using unsearchable paper); and 

lowering equipment expenses by 

reducing the need for printers and fax 

machines, and added maintenance cost. 

Civil Rights (CRT) 

CRT issues regulations to enforce 

Federal laws relating to discrimination 

in employment-related immigration 

practices, the coordination of 

enforcement of non-discrimination in 

federally assisted programs, and Federal 

laws relating to disability 

discrimination. 

The Department is reviewing its 

regulatory priorities and associated 

agenda pursuant to the regulatory 

reform provisions of Executive Orders 

13771 and 13777. As the Department 

continues to review its regulatory 

priorities, CRT does not plan to 

promulgate any new regulations in the 

areas outlined above over the next 12 

months. The Department is withdrawing 

four CRT rulemakings that were 

previously designated as Inactive: (1) 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability; Accessibility of Web 

Information and Services of Public 

Accommodations (RIN 1190–AA61); (2) 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability: Accessibility of Web 

Information and Services of State and 

Local Government (RIN 1190–AA65); (3) 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability by State and Local 

Governments and Public 

Accommodations: Accessibility of 

Medical Equipment and Furniture (RIN 

1190–AA66); and (4) Nondiscrimination 

on the Basis of Disability in State and 

Local Government Services; Next 

Generation 9–1–1 (RIN 1190–AA62). 

Pursuant to the regulatory reform 

provisions of Executive Orders 13771 

and 13777, CRT is undertaking an 

independent review of its guidance 

documents to determine whether any of 

those documents may be outdated, 

inconsistent, or duplicative. CRT is also 

reviewing comments relevant to its 

work that were submitted in response to 

a Notice published in the Federal 

Register by the Department’s Regulatory 

Reform Task Force on June 28, 2017. 

In addition, CRT plans to initiate a 

retrospective review of its existing 

regulations implementing titles II and III 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA). Accordingly, as part of the 

Department’s effort to implement 

Executive Orders 13777 and 13771, the 

Department plans to issue a Notice 

titled Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability; Review of Existing 

Regulations Implementing the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

and the ADA Standards for Accessible 

Design. This Notice will request public 

comment and information to help the 

Department identify any portions of the 

existing title II and title III ADA 

regulations and the ADA Standards for 

Accessible Design that, for example, 

may be outdated, unnecessary, 

ineffective, or excessively burdensome. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1742 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

The Department expects to publish the 

Notice during Fiscal Year 2018. 

DOJ—OFFICE OF JUSTICE 

PROGRAMS (OJP) 

Final Rule Stage 

65. Public Safety Officers’ Benefits 

Program Regulations 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3796; 42 

U.S.C. 3796c(a) 

CFR Citation: 28 CFR 32. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Public Safety Officers’ 

Benefits (PSOB) Programs provide death 

and education benefits to survivors of 

fallen law enforcement officers, 

firefighters, and other first responders, 

and disability benefits to officers 

catastrophically injured in the line of 

duty. This regulation will update the 

rules for this program regarding death 

and injuries from 9/11 events, make 

program changes to improve delivery of 

benefits, and implement certain 

provisions in section 1086 of Public 

Law 112–239. The separate PSOB 

proposed rule published on August 22, 

2016, (RIN: 1121–AA86) has been 

incorporated into this regulation. 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

necessary to update and improve the 

OJP regulations implementing the PSOB 

Program, in order to incorporate several 

statutory changes enacted in recent 

years, address some gaps in the 

regulations, and improve the efficiency 

of the PSOB Program claims process. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

authority for this rule is 34 U.S.C. 

subtitle I, ch. 101, subch. XI; 34 U.S.C. 

10221(a), 10225, 10226, 10251(a), 

10261(a)(4) & (b), 10272, 10286, 10287; 

sec. 1601, title XI, Public Law 90–351, 

82 Stat. 239; secs. 4 through 6, Public 

Law 94–430, 90 Stat. 1348; secs. 1 and 

2, Public Law 107–37, 115 Stat. 219. 

Alternatives: This rule addresses the 

needs identified above in the Statement 

of Need. The Department solicited 

comments on the language and 

approaches that it proposed, and will 

consider alternative regulatory language 

where it was suggested by commenters. 

The final rule will reflect the 

Department’s consideration of all 

alternatives suggested by commenters. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Department’s analysis indicates that the 

final rule will not be economically 

significant, that is, the rule will not have 

an annual effect on the economy of $100 

million, or adversely affect in a material 

way the economy, a sector of the 

economy, the environment, public 

health or safety or State, local, or tribal 

governments or communities. The 

Department anticipates that the rule will 

result in some additional transfer 

payments from approved claims (three 

claims totaling approximately $1 

million per year), but, aside from these 

(which are discounted in the costbenefit analysis), the rule will reduce 

costs to the government and all 

stakeholders by $100,000 to $200,000 

per year. The Department has 

determined that the benefits of the rule 

updating and improving the regulations, 

incorporating several statutory changes, 

addressing gaps in the regulations, and 

improving the efficiency of the PSOB 

Program claims process outweigh the 

costs of the rule. 

Risks: The PSOB Act requires the 

payment of benefits under the 

circumstances set forth in the Act, as 

implemented by the PSOB regulations. 

Failure to update and improve the 

regulations to incorporate statutory 

changes, address known gaps, and 

improve claim processing will impair 

the Department’s implementation of the 

program as required by the Act, and 

may cause confusion and impose 

unnecessary costs on claimants and 

public agencies involved in 

substantiating claims. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/15/16 81 FR 46019 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

09/13/16 

Final Action ......... 02/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Hope Janke, PSOB 

Director, Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, 810 7th Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20531, Phone: 202 514– 

6278, Email: askpsob@usdoj.gov. 

RIN: 1121–AA85 

BILLING CODE 4410–BP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

2017 Regulatory Plan 

Executive Summary: Good and Safe Jobs 

The Department of Labor’s mission is 

to foster, promote, and develop the 

welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, 

and retirees of the United States; 

improve working conditions; advance 

opportunities for profitable 

employment; and assure work-related 

benefits and rights. The Department is 

guided by the idea that employers must 

be held accountable for their legal 

obligations to their employees, while 

recognizing that the Department also 

has a duty to help employers 

understand and comply with the many 

laws and regulations affecting their 

workplaces. 

The Secretary of Labor has made 

protecting America’s employees a top 

priority. Under his leadership, the 

Department is committed to fully and 

fairly enforcing the laws under its 

jurisdiction. The vast majority of 

employers work hard to keep their 

workplaces safe and to comply with 

wage and pension laws. Acknowledging 

this, the Department is working to 

provide compliance assistance, to give 

employers the knowledge and tools they 

need to comply with their obligations in 

these areas. Compliance with the law is, 

however, mandatory. Employers that do 

not comply with the law will continue 

to see full enforcement. 

In addition to providing for workforce 

protections, the regulatory plan below 

also includes regulations designed to 

promote apprenticeship programs, with 

the goal of providing a way to ensure 

that workers are receiving the skills they 

need to get a job. Too many Americans 

see that jobs are available, but these jobs 

require skills that they do not have. By 

expanding apprenticeship programs we 

can help close this skills gap and route 

workers directly into good jobs. 

The Secretary of Labor’s Regulatory 

Plan for Accomplishing These 

Objectives 

In general, the Department will work 

to assist employees and employers to 

meet their needs in a helpful manner, 

with a minimum of rulemaking. 

The Department will roll back 

regulations that harm American workers 

and families—but we will do so while 

respecting the principles and 

institutions that make us who we are as 

Americans. 

Where regulatory actions are 

necessary, they will be accomplished in 

a thoughtful and careful manner. The 

Department seeks to achieve needed 

employee protections while limiting the 

burdens regulations place on employers. 

Regulatory actions taken by the 

Department will provide American 

employers with certainty about 

workforce rules. The Department’s 

regulatory plan will make employers’ 

obligations under current law clear, 

while respecting the rule of law. Where 

Congress has not spoken, the 

Department will not intrude. 

The proposals that follow are 

common-sense approaches in areas 

needing regulatory attention, presenting 

a balanced plan for protecting 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1743 

employees, aiding them in the 

acquisition of needed skills, and helping 

the regulated community to do its part. 

Section 1 of Executive Order (E.O.) 

13771 ‘‘Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs’’, 82 FR 

9339 (January 30, 2017) recognizes that 

‘‘it is essential to manage costs 

associated with the governmental 

imposition of private expenditures 

required to comply with Federal 

Regulations.’’ Consistent with the 

requirements of E.O. 13771, the 

Department’s Regulatory Agenda 

includes 23 deregulatory items. The 

count of E.O. 13771 deregulatory 

regulations excludes non-rulemakings, 

such as guidance or information 

collections, that will not appear in the 

Agenda. 

The Department’s Regulatory Priorities 

The Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) oversees a wide 

range of standards that are designed to 

reduce occupational deaths, injuries, 

and illnesses. OSHA is committed to the 

establishment of clear, common-sense 

standards to help accomplish this. The 

OSHA items discussed below are 

deregulatory in nature, in that they 

reduce burden, while maintaining 

needed worker protections. 

OSHA continues its work to protect 

workers from occupational exposures to 

Beryllium. Following the publication of 

a revised Beryllium standard in January 

2017, OSHA received evidence that 

exposure in the shipyards and 

construction is limited to a few 

operations and has information 

suggesting that requiring the ancillary 

provisions broadly may not improve 

worker protection and be redundant 

with overlapping protections in other 

standards. Accordingly, OSHA is 

seeking comment on, among other 

things, whether existing standards 

covering abrasive blasting in 

construction, abrasive blasting in 

shipyards, and welding in shipyards 

provide adequate protection for workers 

engaged in these operations. The 

comment period on OSHA’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on this 

subject ended on August 28, 2017. The 

agency will review the public comments 

and formulate its plan for next steps. 

OSHA intends to issue a proposal to 

reconsider, revise, or remove provisions 

of the May 12, 2016, Improve Tracking 

of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses final 

rule (81 FR 29624). OSHA reviewed the 

May 2016 final rule as part of its 

regulatory reform efforts and will 

propose changes intended to reduce 

unnecessary burdens while maintaining 

worker protections. The proposed rule 

will look at the electronic submission of 

injury and illness reports by employers. 

The preamble to the May 2016 final rule 

pointed to publication of the collected 

data as a method to improve workplace 

safety and health through the rule’s 

requirements. OSHA stated its intention 

not to publish personally identifiable 

information (PII) included on Forms 300 

and 301; OSHA Form 300A does not 

contain any PII. OSHA has now 

determined that it cannot guarantee the 

non-release of personally identifiable 

information. If OSHA were unable to 

publish the collected worker injury and 

illness data because it cannot guarantee 

the non-release of personally 

identifiable information, then the 

potential benefit of improved workplace 

safety and health through publication of 

the collected data would not be realized. 

OSHA also continues work on its 

Standards Improvements Projects (SIPs), 

with the plan to finalize SIP IV next. 

These are intended to remove or revise 

duplicative, unnecessary, and 

inconsistent safety and health 

standards. OSHA published three earlier 

final standards to remove unnecessary 

provisions, thus reducing costs or 

paperwork burden on affected 

employers. 

The Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA) administers 

federal job training and worker 

dislocation adjustment programs, 

federal grants to states for public 

employment service programs, and 

unemployment insurance benefits. 

Consistent with Sec. 4 of the 

President’s Executive Order on 

Expanding Apprenticeships in America, 

ETA will be proposing regulations to 

establish the framework for industryrecognized apprenticeship programs, a 

new industry-led initiative to promote 

innovation and opportunity in 

apprenticeship, and integrate this 

initiative with the existing Registered 

Apprenticeship system. 

Finally, the Wage and Hour Division 

(WHD) administers numerous laws that 

establish the minimum standards for 

wages and working conditions in the 

United States. WHD will propose an 

updated salary level for the exemption 

of executive, administrative and 

professional employees for overtime 

purposes. In developing the NPRM, the 

Department will be informed by the 

comments received in response to its 

recently published Request for 

Information (RFI). The comment period 

on that RFI ended on September 25, 

2017, and the agency is now in the 

process of reviewing these comments 

and formulating its NPRM. 

DOL—WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION 

(WHD) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

66. Request for Information Defining 

and Delimiting the Exemptions for 

Executive, Administrative, Professional, 

Outside Sales and Computer Employees 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 541. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department intends to 

issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) to determine what the salary 

level for exemption of executive, 

administrative and professional 

employees should be. In developing the 

NPRM, the Department will be informed 

by the comments received in response 

to the Request for Information. 

Statement of Need: 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. The 

Department’s NPRM will propose an 

updated salary level for exemption and 

seek the public’s view on the salary 

level and related issues. 

Summary of Legal Basis: These 

regulations are authorized by section 

13(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 

29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1). 

Alternatives: Alternatives will be 

developed in considering any proposed 

revisions to the current regulations. The 

public will be invited to provide 

comments on any 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 

Request for Information (RFI).07/26/17 82 FR 34616 

RFI Comment Period End.09/25/17 

NPRM .................. 10/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Melissa Smith, 

Director, Regulations, Legislation and 

Interpretations, Department of Labor, 

Wage and Hour Division, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW, Room S– 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1744 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

3502, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 

202 693–0406, Fax: 202 693–1387. 

RIN: 1235–AA20 

DOL—EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING 

ADMINISTRATION (ETA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

67. Apprenticeship Programs, Labor 

Standards for Registration, Amendment 

of Regulations 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 29. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department is revising 

title 29 CFR part 29, Labor Standards for 

the Registration of Apprenticeship 

Programs to establish guidelines for 

third parties to certify high-quality, 

industry recognized apprenticeship 

programs, and other conforming updates 

and governance modifications as 

appropriate. 

Statement of Need: Executive Order 

13801 (82 FR 28229), issued by the 

President on June 15, 2017, directed the 

Secretary of Labor (in consultation with 

the Secretaries of Education and 

Commerce) to consider proposing 

regulations under 29 U.S.C. 50 that 

would promote the development of 

apprenticeship programs by third 

parties. These third parties may include 

trade and industry groups, companies, 

non-profit organizations, unions, joint 

labor-management organizations, and 

other organizations. The Secretary has 

determined that the Department will 

issue new apprenticeship regulations to 

address the directives of the Executive 

Order. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The National 

Apprenticeship Act of 1937 (also known 

as the Fitzgerald Act), 29 U.S.C. 50, 

gives the Secretary broad power to 

promote, help create, and set standards 

for apprenticeship programs. The Act 

authorizes and directs the Secretary to 

formulate and promote the furtherance 

of labor standards necessary to 

safeguard the welfare of apprentices, to 

extend the application of such standards 

by encouraging the inclusion thereof in 

contracts of apprenticeship, to bring 

together employers and labor for the 

formulation of programs of 

apprenticeship, to cooperate with State 

agencies engaged in the formulation and 

promotion of standards of 

apprenticeship, and to cooperate with 

the Secretary of Education in 

accordance with section 17 of Title 20. 

Alternatives: ETA has no alternatives 

at this time. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Department’s preliminary estimate is an 

anticipated cost of $25 million for this 

regulatory action. 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 .................. 01/00/18 

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–AB85 

DOL—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND 

HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

68. Tracking of Workplace Injuries and 

Illnesses 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: OSHA intends to issue a 

proposal to reconsider, revise, or 

remove provisions of the Improve 

Tracking of Workplace Injuries and 

Illnesses final rule, 81 FR 29624 (May 

12, 2016). OSHA proposes to amend its 

recordkeeping regulation to remove the 

requirement to electronically submit to 

OSHA information form the OSHA 

Form 300 (Log of Work-Related Injuries 

and Illnesses) and OSHA Form 301 

(Injury and Illness Incident Report) for 

establishments with 250 or more 

employees which are required to 

routinely keep injury and illness 

records. Under the proposed rule, these 

establishments would be required to 

electronically submit only information 

from the OSHA Form 300A (Summary 

of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses). 

In addition, OSHA seeks comment on 

the costs and benefits of adding the 

Employer Identification Number (EIN) 

to the data collection to increase the 

likelihood that the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) would be able to match 

OSHA-collected data to BLS Survey of 

Occupational Injury and Illness (SOII) 

data and potentially reduce the burden 

on employers who are required to report 

injury and illness data both to OSHA 

(for the electronic recordkeeping 

requirement) and to BLS (for SOII). 

Statement of Need: The preamble to 

the May 2016 final rule pointed to 

publication of the collected data as a 

method to improve workplace safety 

and health through the rule’s 

requirements. OSHA stated its intention 

not to publish personally identifiable 

information (PII) included on Forms 300 

and 301; OSHA Form 300A does not 

contain any PII. OSHA has now 

determined that it cannot guarantee the 

non-release of personally identifiable 

information. If OSHA were unable to 

publish the collected worker injury and 

illness data because it cannot guarantee 

the non-release of personally 

identifiable information, then the 

potential benefit of improved workplace 

safety and health through publication of 

the collected data would not be realized. 

Summary of Legal Basis: OSHA is 

issuing this proposed rule pursuant to 

authority expressly granted by sections 

8 and 24 of the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act (the OSH Act or Act) (29 

U.S.C. 657 and 673). 

Alternatives: The alternative for the 

proposed changes contained in the 

NPRM is to retain the existing 

regulatory language, i.e., retaining the 

status quo. OSHA has concluded that 

the benefits of the proposed regulatory 

change outweigh the costs of those 

changes. OSHA will request public 

comment on feasible alternatives to the 

Agency’s proposal. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

removal of the case specific requirement 

reduces costs. OSHA estimates that the 

rule will have net economic cost savings 

of $6.5 million per year. The Agency 

believes that the loss in annual benefits, 

while unquantified, are significantly 

less than the annual cost savings, hence 

there are positive net benefits to this 

proposed rule. 

Risks: This rulemaking does not 

address new significant risks or estimate 

benefits and economic impacts of 

reducing such risks. Overall, this 

rulemaking is reasonably necessary 

under the OSH Act because it provides 

cost savings, or eliminates unnecessary 

requirements. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/17 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1745 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: State. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Amanda Edens, 

Director, Directorate of Technical 

Support and Emergency Management, 

Department of Labor, Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, 

Room N–3653, Washington, DC 20210, 

Phone: 202 693–2300, Fax: 202 693– 

1644, Email: edens.mandy@dol.gov. 

RIN: 1218–AD17 

DOL—OSHA 

Final Rule Stage 

69. Occupational Exposure to Beryllium 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 655(b); 29 

U.S.C. 657 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA) 

proposes to revoke the ancillary 

provisions for the construction and the 

shipyard sectors that OSHA adopted on 

January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2470), but retain 

the new lower permissible exposure 

limit (PEL) of 0.2 mg/m3 and the short 

term exposure limit (STEL) of 2.0 mg/m3

for each sector. OSHA will not enforce 

the January 9, 2017, shipyard and 

construction standards without further 

notice while this new rulemaking is 

underway. This proposal does not affect 

the general industry beryllium standard 

published on January 9, 2017. 

Statement of Need: After a review of 

the comments received and a review of 

the applicability of existing OSHA 

standards, OSHA proposed to revoke 

the ancillary provisions applicable to 

the construction and shipyard sectors 

June 27, 2017 (82 FR 29182), but to 

retain the new lower PEL of 0.2 mg/m3

and the STEL of 2.0 mg/m3 for those 

sectors. In the January 2017 final rule, 

OSHA reviewed the exposure data for 

abrasive blasting in construction and 

shipyards and welding in shipyards and 

determined that there is a significant 

risk of chronic beryllium disease (CBD) 

and lung cancer to workers in 

construction and shipyards based on the 

exposure levels observed. Because 

OSHA determined that there is 

significant risk of material impairment 

of health at the new lower PEL of 0.2 

mg/m3, the Agency continues to believe 

that it is necessary to protect workers 

exposed at this level. However, OSHA is 

now reconsidering the need for ancillary 

provisions in the construction and 

shipyards sectors, and is currently 

reviewing comments received in 

response to the proposal to finalize the 

rulemaking. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 29 U.S.C. 

655(b); 29 U.S.C. 657. 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In the 

NPRM, OSHA estimated that this 

proposed rule would yield a total 

annualized cost savings of $11.0 million 

using a 3 percent discount rate across 

the shipyard and construction sectors. 

In the NPRM, OSHA preliminarily 

concluded that there are no benefits 

(due to reducing the number of cases of 

CBD) as a result of revoking the 

ancillary provisions of the beryllium 

final standards for Construction and 

Shipyards. 

Risks: Not yet estimated. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Request for Information (RFI).11/26/02 67 FR 70707 

RFI Comment Period End.02/24/03 

SBREFA Report 

Completed.

01/23/08 

Initiated Peer Review of Health 

Effects and 

Risk Assessment.

03/22/10 

Complete Peer 

Review.

11/19/10 

NPRM .................. 08/07/15 80 FR 47565 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

11/05/15 

Notice of Public 

Hearing; Date 

02/29/2016.

12/30/15 80 FR 81475 

Notice of Public 

Hearing; Date 

Change 03/21/

2016.

02/16/16 81 FR 7717 

Final Rule ............ 01/09/17 82 FR 2470 

Final Rule; Delay 

of Effective 

Date.

02/01/17 82 FR 8901 

Final Rule; Proposed Further 

Delay of Effective Date.

03/02/17 82 FR 12318 

Final Rule; Further Delay of 

Effective Date.

03/21/17 82 FR 14439 

Final Rule; Further Delay of 

Effective Date 

Effective.

05/20/17 

NPRM (Construction and Shipyard).06/27/17 82 FR 29182 

NPRM (Construction and Shipyard) Comment 

Period End.

08/28/17 

Analyze Comments.01/00/18 

Action Date FR Cite 

Final Rule ............ 09/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: William Perry, 

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, Fax: 202 693–1678, 

Email: perry.bill@dol.gov. 

RIN: 1218–AB76 

DOL—OSHA 

70. Standards Improvement Project IV 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 655(b) 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: OSHA’s Standards 

Improvement Projects (SIPs) are 

intended to remove or revise 

duplicative, unnecessary, and 

inconsistent safety and health 

standards. The Agency has published 

three earlier final standards to remove 

unnecessary provisions (63 FR 33450, 

70 FR 1111 and 76 FR 33590), thus 

reducing costs or paperwork burden on 

affected employers. This latest project 

identified revisions to existing 

standards in OSHA’s recordkeeping, 

general industry, maritime, and 

construction standards, with most of the 

revisions to its construction standards. 

OSHA also proposed to remove from its 

standards the requirements that 

employers include an employee’s social 

security number (SSN) on exposure 

monitoring, medical surveillance, and 

other records in order to protect 

employee privacy and prevent identity 

fraud. 

Statement of Need: The Agency has 

proposed a fourth rule that identified 

unnecessary or duplicative provisions 

or paperwork requirements. 

Summary of Legal Basis: OSHA is 

conducting Phase IV of the Standards 

Improvement Project (SIP–IV) in 

response to the President’s Executive 

Order 13563, Improving Regulations 

and Regulatory Review (76 FR 38210). 

Alternatives: The main alternative 

OSHA considered for all of the 

proposed changes contained in the SIP– 

IV rulemaking was retaining the existing 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1746 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

regulatory language, i.e., retaining the 

status quo. In each instance, OSHA has 

concluded that the benefits of the 

proposed regulatory change outweigh 

the costs of those changes. In a few of 

the items, such as the proposed changes 

to the decompression requirements 

applicable to employees working in 

compressed air environments, OSHA 

has requested public comment on 

feasible alternatives to the Agency’s 

proposal. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Agency has estimated that one revision 

(updating the method of identifying and 

calling emergency medical services) 

may increase construction employers 

costs by about $28,000 per year while 

two provisions (reduction in the number 

of necessary employee x-rays and 

elimination of posting requirements for 

residential construction employers) 

provide estimated costs savings of $3.2 

million annually. The Agency has not 

estimated or quantified benefits to 

employees from reduced exposure to 

x-ray radiation or to employers for the 

reduced cost of storing digital x-rays 

rather than x-ray films, among others. 

The Agency has preliminarily 

concluded that the proposed revisions 

are economically feasible and do not 

have any significant economic impact 

on small businesses. The Preliminary 

Economic Analysis in this preamble 

provides an explanation of the 

economic effects of the proposed 

revisions. The cost savings from these 

revisions and eliminations of several 

OSHA requirements may be used to 

offset any costs incurred by employers 

from new rulemakings that are 

necessary to update employee 

protections. 

Risks: SIP rulemakings do not address 

new significant risks or estimate 

benefits and economic impacts of 

reducing such risks. Overall, SIP 

rulemakings are reasonably necessary 

under the OSH Act because they 

provide cost savings, or eliminate 

unnecessary requirements. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Request for Information (RFI).12/06/12 77 FR 72781 

RFI Comment Period End.02/04/13 

NPRM .................. 10/04/16 81 FR 68504 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

12/02/16 81 FR 86987 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

01/04/17 

Final Rule ............ 02/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Dean McKenzie, 

Director, Directorate of Construction, 

Department of Labor, Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, 

Room N–3468, Washington, DC 20210, 

Phone: 202 693–2020, Fax: 202 693– 

1689, Email: mckenzie.dean@dol.gov. 

RIN: 1218–AC67 

BILLING CODE 4510–HL–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(DOT) 

Introduction: Department Overview 

DOT has statutory responsibility for a 

wide range of regulations. For example, 

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, 

and motor transportation and vehicle 

safety. Finally, DOT has responsibility 

for developing policies that implement 

a wide range of regulations that govern 

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, and the use of 

aircraft and vehicles. 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 St. Lawrence Seaway 

Development Corporation (SLSDC). 

The Department’s Regulatory 

Philosophy and Initiatives 

The Department’s highest priority is 

safety. To achieve our safety goals 

responsibly and in accordance with 

principles of good governance, we 

embrace a regulatory philosophy that 

emphasizes transparency, stakeholder 

engagement, and regulatory restraint. 

Our goal is to allow the public to 

understand how we make decisions, 

which necessarily includes being 

transparent in the way we measure the 

risks, costs, and benefits of engaging 

in—or deciding not to engage in—a 

particular regulatory action. It is our 

policy to provide an opportunity for 

public comment on such actions to all 

interested stakeholders. Above all, 

transparency and meaningful 

engagement mandate that regulations 

should be straightforward, clear, and 

accessible to any interested stakeholder. 

• At DOT, transparency and 

stakeholder engagement take a number 

of different forms. For example, we 

publish a monthly report on our website 

that provides a summary and the status 

for all significant rulemakings that DOT 

currently has pending or has issued 

recently (https://

www.transportation.gov/regulations/ 

report-on-significant-rulemakings). This 

report provides the public with easy 

access to information about the 

Department’s regulatory activities that 

can be used to locate other publiclyavailable information in the 

Department’s regulatory docket at 

www.regulations.gov, or in the Federal 

Register. 

• We also seek public input through 

direct engagement. For example, we 

recently published a request asking the 

public to help us identify obstacles to 

infrastructure projects, Transportation 

Infrastructure: Notice of Review of 

Policy, Guidance, and Regulation, 82 FR 

26734 (June 8, 2017). We also published 

another notice requesting the public to 

help us identify rules that are good 

candidates for repeal, replacement, 

suspension, or modification, or other 

deregulatory action, 82 FR 45750 

(October 2, 2017). Finally, DOT has a 

long history of partnering with 

stakeholders to develop 

recommendations and consensus 

standards through advisory committees. 

Some committees meet regularly to 

provide advice, while others are 

convened on an ad hoc basis to address 

specific needs. Each OA, as well as 

OST, has at least one standing advisory 

committee. 

The Department’s regulatory 

philosophy also embraces the notion 

that there should be no more regulations 

than necessary. We emphasize 

consideration of non-regulatory 

solutions and have rigorous processes in 

place for continual reassessment of 

existing regulations. These processes 

provide that regulations and other 

agency actions are periodically 

reviewed and, if appropriate, are revised 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1747 

to ensure that they continue to meet the 

needs for which they were originally 

designed, and that they remain costeffective and cost-justified. 

For example, DOT regularly makes a 

conscientious effort to review its rules 

in accordance with the Department’s 

1979 Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures (44 FR 11034, Feb. 26, 

1979), Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review), 

Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 

section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. The Department follows a repeating 

10-year plan for the review of existing 

regulations. Information on the results 

of these reviews is included in the 

Unified Agenda. 

In addition, through three new 

Executive orders, President Trump 

directed agencies to further scrutinize 

their regulations and other agency 

actions. On January 30, 2017, President 

Trump signed Executive Order 13771, 

Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs. Under Section 2(a) of 

the Executive order, unless prohibited 

by law, whenever an executive 

department or agency publicly proposes 

for notice and comment or otherwise 

promulgates a new regulation, it must 

identify at least two existing regulations 

to be repealed. On February 24, 2017, 

President Trump signed Executive 

Order 13777, enforcing the Regulatory 

Reform Agenda. Under this Executive 

order, each agency must establish a 

Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF) to 

evaluate existing regulations, and make 

recommendations for their repeal, 

replacement, or modification. On March 

28, 2017, President Trump signed 

Executive Order 13783, Promoting 

Energy Independence and Economic 

Growth, requiring agencies to review all 

existing regulations, orders, guidance 

documents, policies, and other similar 

agency actions that potentially burden 

the development or use of domestically 

produced energy resources, with 

particular attention to oil, natural gas, 

coal, and nuclear energy resources. 

In response to the mandate in 

Executive Order 13777, the Department 

formed an RRTF consisting of senior 

career and non-career leaders, which 

has already conducted extensive 

reviews of existing regulations, and 

identified a number of rules to be 

repealed, replaced, or modified. The 

RRTF continues to conduct monthly 

reviews across all OAs to identify 

appropriate deregulatory actions. The 

RRTF also works to ensure that any new 

regulatory action is rigorously vetted 

and non-regulatory alternatives are 

considered. Further information on the 

RRTF can be found online at: https://

www.transportation.gov/regulations/ 

regulatory-reform-task-force-report. The 

priorities identified below reflect the 

RRTF’s work to implement the 

Department’s focus on reducing burdens 

and improving the effectiveness of all 

regulations. 

The Department’s Regulatory Priorities 

Four fundamental principles—safety, 

innovation, enabling investment in 

infrastructure, and reducing 

unnecessary regulatory burdens—are 

our top priorities. These priorities are 

grounded in our national interest in 

maintaining U.S. global leadership in 

safety, innovation, and economic 

growth. To accomplish our regulatory 

goals, we must create a regulatory 

environment that fosters growth in new 

and innovative industries without 

burdening them with unnecessary 

restrictions. At the same time, safety 

remains our highest priority; we must 

remain focused on managing safety risks 

and be sure that we do not regress from 

the successes already achieved. 

Accordingly, the regulatory plan laid 

out below reflects a careful balance that 

emphasizes the Department’s priority in 

fostering innovation while at the same 

time meeting the challenges of 

maintaining a safe, reliable, and 

sustainable transportation system. 

Safety. The success of our national 

transportation system requires us to 

remain focused on safety as our highest 

priority. Our regulatory plan reflects our 

commitment to safety through a 

balanced regulatory approach. Our goals 

are to deliver safety more efficiently and 

at a lower cost to the public by looking 

to market-driven solutions first. 

Innovation. Every mode of 

transportation is affected by 

transformative technology. Whether we 

are talking about automation, unmanned 

vehicles, or other emerging 

technologies, we are looking forward to 

new and promising frontiers that will 

change the way we move on the ground, 

in water, through the air, and into space. 

Our regulatory plan reflects the 

Administration’s commitment to 

fostering innovation by lifting barriers to 

entry and enabling innovative and 

exciting new uses of transportation 

technology. 

Enabling investment in Infrastructure. 

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 prioritizes regulatory action that 

streamlines the approval process and 

facilitates more efficient investment in 

infrastructure. To maintain global 

leadership and foster economic growth, 

this must be one of our highest 

priorities. 

Reducing unnecessary regulatory 

burdens. Finally, our Regulatory Plan 

reflects our commitment to reducing 

unnecessary regulatory burdens. Our 

priority rules include some deregulatory 

actions that we identified after a 

comprehensive review of all of the 

Department’s regulations. The Plan also 

reflects our policy of thoroughly 

considering non-regulatory solutions 

before taking regulatory action. When 

regulatory intervention is necessary, 

however, it is our policy to rely datadriven and risk-based analysis to craft 

the most effective and least burdensome 

solution to the problem. 

This Regulatory Plan identifies the 15 

pending rulemakings that reflect the 

Department’s commitment to safety, 

innovation, infrastructure, and reducing 

burdens. For example: 

• FAA will focus on regulatory 

activity to enable, safely and efficiently, 

the integration of unmanned aircraft 

systems (UAS) into the National 

Airspace System (NAS), and to enable 

expanded commercial space activities. 

• NHTSA will focus on reducing 

regulatory barriers to technology 

innovation, including the development 

of autonomous vehicles, and improving 

regulations on fuel efficiency. 

• FRA will focus on providing 

industry members regulatory relief 

through a rulemaking that allows for 

alternative compliance with FRA’s 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 

for the operation of Tier III passenger 

equipment. 

• FTA will focus on establishing 

Private Investment Project Procedures to 

encourage greater use of public-private 

partnerships and private investment in 

public transportation capital projects, 

and continue to focus on its statutorilymandated efforts to establish a 

comprehensive Public Transportation 

Safety Program to improve the safety of 

public transportation systems. 

• PHMSA will focus on pipeline 

safety as well as the movement of 

hazardous materials across multiple 

modes of transportation. 

At the same time, all OAs are 

prioritizing their regulatory and 

deregulatory actions accordance with 

E.O.s 13771 and 13563, to make sure 

they are providing the highest level of 

safety while eliminating outmoded and 

ineffective regulations and streamlining 

other existing regulations in an effort to 

promote economic growth, innovation, 

competitiveness, and job creation. Since 

each OA has its own area of focus, we 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1748 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

summarize the regulatory priorities of 

each below. 

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation 

OST oversees the regulatory process 

for the Department. OST implements 

the Department’s regulatory policies and 

procedures and is responsible for 

ensuring the involvement of 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 Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), Executive Order 

13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review), Executive Order 

13771 (Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs), Executive 

Order 13777 (Enforcing the Regulatory 

Reform Agenda), Executive Order 13873 

(Promoting Energy Independence and 

Economic Growth), DOT’s Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures, and other legal 

and policy requirements affecting 

rulemaking. In addition, OST has the 

lead role in matters concerning aviation 

economic rules, 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 process 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 is the lead office that works 

with the Office of Management and 

Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to get 

Administration approval to move 

forward with significant rules. 

OST also leads and coordinates the 

Department’s response to OMB’s 

intergovernmental review of other 

agencies’ significant rulemaking 

documents and to Administration and 

congressional proposals that concern 

the regulatory process. The Office of the 

General Counsel works closely with 

representatives of other agencies, OMB, 

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 Fiscal Year 2018, OST will 

continue its efforts to help coordinate 

the activities of several OAs that 

advance various departmental efforts 

that support the Administration’s 

initiatives on promoting safety, enabling 

innovation, investing in infrastructure, 

and reducing regulatory burdens. OST 

will also continue to provide significant 

support to the RRTF’s efforts to 

implement the Department’s regulatory 

reform policies. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

FAA is charged with safely and 

efficiently operating and maintaining 

the most complex aviation system in the 

world. Destination 2025, an FAA 

initiative that captures the agency’s 

vision of transforming the Nation’s 

aviation system by 2025, has proven to 

be an effective tool for pushing the 

agency to think about longer-term 

aspirations; FAA has established a 

vision that defines the agency’s 

priorities for the next five years. 

FAA has identified four major 

strategic initiatives where it will focus 

its efforts: (1) Risk-based Decision 

Making—Build on safety management 

principles to proactively address 

emerging safety risk by using consistent, 

data-informed approaches to make 

smarter, system-level, risk-based 

decisions; (2) NAS Initiative—Lay the 

foundation for the NAS of the future by 

achieving prioritized NextGen benefits, 

enabling the safe and efficient 

integration of new entrants (including 

UAS, supersonic aircraft, and 

commercial space flights) and deliver 

more efficient, streamlined air traffic 

management services; (3) Global 

Leadership—Improve safety, air traffic 

efficiency, and environmental 

sustainability across the globe through 

an integrated, data-driven approach that 

shapes global standards, enhances 

collaboration and harmonization, and 

better targets FAA resources and efforts; 

and (4) Workforce of the Future— 

Prepare FAA’s human capital for the 

future, by identifying, recruiting, and 

training a workforce with the 

leadership, technical, and functional 

skills to ensure the U.S. has the world’s 

safest and most productive aviation 

sector. 

• During Fiscal Year 2018, FAA’s 

regulatory priorities will be to enable 

transformative UAS and commercial 

space technologies by publishing two 

notices of proposed rulemaking (Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Over People, 2120– 

AK85 and Orbital Debris Mitigation 

Methods for Launch Vehicle Upper 

Stages, 2120–AK81), addressing the 

previously published Interim Final Rule 

on Registration and Marking 

Requirements for Small Unmanned 

Aircraft (2120–AK82), and publishing 

an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking seeking comment on UAS 

security-related issues (Safe and Secure 

Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems, (2120–AL26). The Operations 

of Small Unmanned Aircraft Over 

People is the long-awaited next 

regulatory step towards integrating UAS 

into the NAS. This rule would allow 

certain routine small UAS operations 

over people without a waiver or 

exemption. The Orbital Debris 

Mitigation Methods for Launch Vehicle 

Upper Stages proposal would update 

current regulations to reduce the 

amount of orbital debris that could 

potentially interfere with existing or 

future activities in orbit. 

• FAA’s top deregulatory priorities 

will be to issue two final rules. 

Transport Airplane Fuel Tank and 

System Lightning Protection, (2120– 

AK24) would amend certain 

airworthiness regulations regarding 

lightning protection of fuel tanks and 

systems, providing cost savings to 

industry stakeholders. Rotorcraft Pilot 

Compartment View (2120–AK91) would 

revise the testing requirements for pilot 

compartment view to alleviate the cost 

of the flight test and reduce 

administrative burdens on affected 

applicants. 

• Finally, FAA will focus on two 

rules responding to Airline Safety and 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Extension Act of 2010 requirements to 

address airline safety and pilot training 

improvements. The first would 

implement a statutory mandate to 

establishment an electronic pilot record 

database that air carriers would use for 

pre-employment checks on pilots (Pilot 

Records Database, 2120–AK31). The 

second rule would implement 

improvements to pilot training and 

professional development programs to 

address mentoring, leadership, and 

professional development of flight 

crewmembers (Professional 

Development, (2120–AJ87). 

• More information about these rules 

can be found in the DOT Unified 

Agenda. 

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 continually the 

quality and performance of our Nation’s 

highway system and its intermodal 

connectors. 

Consistent with this mission, in Fiscal 

Year 2018, the FHWA will continue 

with ongoing regulatory initiatives in 

support of its surface transportation 

programs. It will also work to 

implement legislation in the most costeffective way possible. Finally, it will 

pursue regulatory reform in areas where 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1749 

project development can be streamlined 

or accelerated, duplicative requirements 

can be consolidated, recordkeeping 

requirements can be reduced or 

simplified, and the decision-making 

authority of our State and local partners 

can be increased. 

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. 

FMCSA develops new and more 

effective safety regulations based on 

three core priorities: Raising the safety 

bar for entry into the industry, 

maintaining high standards of safety 

performance, and removing high-risk 

behavior. 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’s regulatory efforts for FY 

2018 will focus on efforts to streamline 

the grants program, remove regulatory 

burdens, and ease the transition into a 

transportation career for veterans. In 

addition, FMCSA will continue to 

coordinate efforts on the development of 

autonomous vehicle technologies and 

review existing regulations to identify 

changes that might be needed. 

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 performance information to aid 

prospective purchasers of vehicles, 

child restraints, and tires; and 

improving automotive fuel efficiency. 

NHTSA pursues policies that enable 

safety technologies and encourage the 

development of non-regulatory 

approaches when feasible in meeting its 

statutory mandates. NHTSA issues new 

standards and regulations or 

amendments to existing standards and 

regulations when appropriate. It ensures 

that regulatory alternatives reflect a 

careful assessment of the problem and a 

comprehensive analysis of the benefits, 

costs, and other impacts associated with 

the proposed regulatory action. Finally, 

NHTSA considers alternatives 

consistent with principles in applicable 

executive orders. 

NHTSA’s regulatory priorities for FY 

2018 include continuing to coordinate 

efforts on the development of 

autonomous vehicles and reducing 

regulatory barriers to technology 

innovation. NHTSA also plans to issue 

several rulemakings and other actions 

that increase safety and reduce 

economic burden, including some in 

response to statutory mandates. Most 

prominently, NHTSA anticipates 

issuing a request for comment on the 

barriers in existing regulation to 

deployment of automated vehicles, 

particularly those that affect vehicles 

that may have innovative designs. In 

addition, working with the 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

NHTSA plans to propose fuel efficiency 

standards for light vehicle model years 

(MYs) 2022 thru 2025 (Passenger Car 

and Light Truck Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy Standards MYs 2022–2025, 

RIN 2127–AL76). 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. To foster an 

environment for collaborative 

rulemaking, FRA established the 

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 

(RSAC). The purpose of RSAC is to 

develop consensus recommendations 

for regulatory action on issues FRA 

brings to it. Even in situations where 

RSAC consensus is not achieved, FRA 

benefits from receiving input from 

RSAC. In situations where RSAC 

participation would not be useful (e.g., 

a statutory mandate that leaves FRA 

with no discretion), FRA fulfils its 

regulatory role without RSAC’s input. 

The RSAC consultation process results 

in regulations that are likely to be better 

understood, more widely accepted, 

more cost-beneficial, and more correctly 

applied, because of stakeholder 

participation. 

FRA’s current regulatory program 

reflects 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, as well as actions under 

its general safety rulemaking authority, 

actions supporting a high-performing 

passenger rail network, and actions 

addressing the safe and effective 

movement of energy products. 

FRA’s regulatory priority for Fiscal 

Year 2018 will be to continue its work 

on a final rule containing RSACsupported actions that advance highperforming passenger rail by providing 

alternative ways to comply with 

passenger rail equipment standards 

(Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 

for the operation of Tier III passenger 

equipment, RIN 2130–AC46). This rule 

is expected to ease regulatory burdens 

on certain passenger rail operations 

which would allow the development of 

advanced technology and increase 

safety benefits. More information about 

this rule can be found in the DOT 

Unified Agenda. 

Federal Transit Administration 

FTA provides financial and technical 

assistance to local public transit 

systems, including buses, subways, light 

rail, commuter rail, trolleys and ferries. 

FTA also 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 addition to the Department-wide 

goals described above, FTA policy 

regarding regulations is to: 

• Ensure the safety of public 

transportation systems; 

• Provide maximum benefit to the 

Nation’s mobility through the 

connectivity of transportation 

infrastructure; 

• Provide maximum local discretion; 

• Ensure the most productive use of 

limited Federal resources; 

• Protect taxpayer investments in 

public transportation; and 

• Incorporate principles of sound 

management into the grant management 

process. 

In 2012, through MAP–21, Congress 

expanded FTA’s safety regulatory role 

by directing the Secretary to establish a 

comprehensive Public Transportation 

Safety Program to improve the safety of 

all public transportation systems that 

receive certain FTA funding. In 

December 2015, Congress passed the 

FAST Act, which reauthorized the PTSP 

and provided the Secretary with 

additional authority to ensure the safety 

of rail transit systems. This new 

authority requires implementation 

through the rulemaking process. 

FTA’s regulatory priorities for Fiscal 

Year 2018 are the Private Investment 

Project Procedures rulemaking (2132– 

AB27) and the Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan final rule (2132– 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1750 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

AB23), which is one element of the 

Public Transportation Safety Program. 

The Private Investment Project 

Procedures rulemaking would establish 

new, experimental procedures to 

encourage greater use of public-private 

partnerships and private investment in 

public transportation capital projects. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), FTA 

must issue a rule requiring operators of 

public transportation systems that 

receive financial assistance under 

Chapter 53 to develop and certify Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans. On 

February 5, 2016, FTA published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking outlining 

the requirements for Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans. 

FTA will be looking to finalize this rule 

in Fiscal Year 2018. More information 

about these rules can be found in the 

DOT Unified Agenda. 

Maritime Administration 

MARAD administers Federal laws and 

programs to improve and strengthen the 

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. Major program areas include the 

following: Maritime Security, Voluntary 

Intermodal Sealift Agreement, National 

Defense Reserve Fleet and the Ready 

Reserve Force, Cargo Preference, 

Maritime Guaranteed Loan Financing, 

United States Merchant Marine 

Academy, Mariner Education and 

Training Support, Deepwater Port 

Licensing, and Port and Intermodal 

Development. Additionally, MARAD 

administers the Small Shipyard Grants 

Program through which equipment and 

technical skills training are provided to 

America’s maritime workforce, with the 

aim of helping businesses to compete in 

the global marketplace while creating 

well-paying jobs at home. 

MARAD’s regulatory priorities for 

Fiscal Year 2018 will be to continue to 

support the objectives and priorities 

described above in addition to 

identifying new opportunities for 

deregulatory action. 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

PHMSA has responsibility for 

rulemaking under two programs. 

Through the Associate Administrator for 

the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety 

(OHMS), PHMSA administers regulatory 

programs under Federal hazardous 

materials transportation law. Through 

the Associate Administrator for the 

Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), PHMSA 

administers regulatory programs under 

the Federal pipeline safety laws. In 

addition, both offices administer 

programs under the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, as amended by 

the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 

PHMSA will continue to work toward 

improving safety related to 

transportation of hazardous materials by 

all transportation modes, including 

pipeline, while promoting economic 

growth, innovation, competitiveness, 

and job creation. PHMSA will 

concentrate on the prevention of highrisk incidents identified through 

PHMSA’s evaluation of transportation 

incident data. PHMSA will use all 

available Agency tools to assess data; 

evaluate alternative safety strategies, 

including regulatory strategies as 

necessary and appropriate; target 

enforcement efforts; and enhance 

outreach, public education, and training 

to promote safety outcomes. 

Further, PHMSA will continue to 

focus on streamlining its regulatory 

system and reducing regulatory 

burdens. PHMSA will evaluate existing 

rules to examine whether they remain 

justified; should be modified to account 

for changing circumstances and 

technologies; or should be streamlined 

or even repealed. PHMSA will continue 

to evaluate, analyze, and be responsive 

to petitions for rulemaking. PHMSA will 

review regulations, letters of 

interpretation, petitions for rulemaking, 

special permits, enforcement actions, 

approvals, international standards, and 

industry standards to identify 

inconsistencies, outdated provisions, 

and barriers to regulatory compliance. 

In Fiscal Year 2018, OHMS will focus 

on two priority rules. The first is 

designed to reduce risks related to the 

transportation of hazardous materials by 

rail. PHMSA aims to finalize a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, Hazardous 

Materials: Oil Spill Response Plans and 

Information Sharing for High-Hazard 

Flammable Trains (2137–AF08), that 

sought comment on expanding the 

applicability of comprehensive oil spill 

response plans for crude oil trains and 

require railroads to share information 

about high-hazard flammable train 

operations with State and tribal 

emergency response commissions to 

improve community preparedness. The 

second rule is designed to reduce the 

risk of transporting lithium batteries by 

air by addressing the unique challenges 

they pose (Hazardous Materials: 

Enhanced Safety Provisions for Lithium 

Batteries Transported by Aircraft, 2137– 

AF20). 

OPS will focus on two pipeline rules. 

The first will finalize a proposal to 

change the regulations covering 

hazardous liquid onshore pipelines 

related to High Consequence Areas for 

integrity management protections, 

repair timeframes, and reporting for all 

hazardous liquid gathering lines 

(Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous 

Liquid Pipelines, 2137–AE66). PHMSA 

also plans to seek public comment 

through an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking that would provide 

regulatory relief to certain pipeline 

operators that experience a reduction in 

allowable operating pressure due to 

construction that has occurred in the 

area (Pipeline Safety: Class Location 

Requirements, 2137–AF29). 

DOT—FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION (FAA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

71. +Pilot Records Database (HR 5900) 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 49 

U.S.C. 1155; 49 U.S.C. 40103; 49 U.S.C. 

40113; 49 U.S.C. 40119; 49 U.S.C. 

40120; 49 U.S.C. 41706; 49 U.S.C. 

44101; 49 U.S.C. 44111; 49 U.S.C. 44701 

to 44705; 49 U.S.C. 44709 to 44713; 49 

U.S.C. 44715 to 44717; 49 U.S.C. 44722; 

49 U.S.C. 45101 to 45105; 49 U.S.C. 

46105; 49 U.S.C. 46306; 49 U.S.C. 

46315; 49 U.S.C. 46316; 49 U.S.C. 

46504; 49 U.S.C. 46507; 49 U.S.C. 

47122; 49 U.S.C. 47508; 49 U.S.C. 47528 

to 47531 

CFR Citation: 14 CFR 118; 14 CFR 

121; 14 CFR 125; 14 CFR 135; 14 CFR 

91. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

implement a Pilot Records Database as 

required by Public Law 111–216 (Aug. 

1, 2010). Section 203 amends the Pilot 

Records Improvement Act by requiring 

the FAA to create a pilot records 

database that contains various types of 

pilot records. These records would be 

provided by the FAA, air carriers, and 

other persons who employ pilots. The 

FAA must maintain these records until 

it receives notice that a pilot is 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1751 

deceased. Air carriers would use this 

database to perform a record check on 

a pilot prior to making a hiring decision. 

Statement of Need: This rule 

implements a Pilot Records Database as 

required by Public Law 111–216. 

Section 203 of Public Law 111–216 

amends the Pilot Records Improvement 

Act (PRIA) by requiring the FAA to 

create a pilot records database that 

contains various types of pilot records. 

These records would be provided by the 

FAA, air carriers, and other persons 

who employ pilots. The FAA must 

maintain these records until it receives 

notice that a pilot is deceased. Air 

carriers would use this database to 

perform a record check on a pilot prior 

to making a hiring decision. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal 

basis for this rule is section 203 of the 

Airline Safety and Federal Aviation 

Administration Extension Act of 2010, 

Public Law 111–216, 124 Stat. 2348 

(2010). 

Alternatives: The ARC proposed a 

phased implementation as an alternative 

to PRD’s statutory requirement to enter 

all historical records dating from August 

1, 2005. Instead, within sixty days after 

the PRD launch date, air carriers and 

other persons would provide only the 

names, certificate numbers, and dates of 

birth of employees dating from the PRD 

launch date back to August 1, 2005. 

This information would be used to 

identify a pilot applicant’s previous 

employer(s). The hiring air carrier 

would then make a paper PRIA request 

to those previous employers to obtain 

any records from before the launch date 

of PRD. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

costs and benefits are to be determined. 

Risks: The risks are to be determined. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: Costs and 

benefits are not yet determined. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Bradley Palmer, 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20591, Phone: 202 267–7739, Email: 

bradley.palmer@faa.gov. 

RIN: 2120–AK31 

DOT—FAA 

72. +Orbital Debris Mitigation Methods 

for Launch Vehicle Upper Stages 

(Orbital Debris) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50903; 51 

U.S.C. 50904; 51 U.S.C. 50905 

CFR Citation: 14 CFR 401; 14 CFR 

415; 14 CFR 417; 14 CFR 431; 14 CFR 

437. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

update current orbital debris mitigation 

regulations to more closely align with 

the U.S. Government Orbital Debris 

Mitigation Standard Practices, and 

would update current launch collision 

avoidance regulations to match U.S. 

Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) 

practice. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is 

necessary because collisions between 

and with orbital debris (any artificial 

object left in orbit about the earth which 

no longer serves a useful purpose) are a 

growing concern. Historically-accepted 

practices have allowed these objects to 

accumulate in Earth orbit, and because 

more space faring nations are launching 

assets into space. If left unchecked, this 

accumulation can clutter useful orbits 

and present a hazard to operations onorbit. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal 

basis for this rulemaking is the 

Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 

(as codified and amended at 51 U.S.C.— 

Commercial Space Transportation, 

chapter 509, Commercial Space Launch 

Activities, 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923 (the 

Act)) which authorizes the Department 

of Transportation and thus the FAA, 

through delegations, to oversee, license, 

and regulate commercial launch and 

reentry activities, and the operation of 

launch and reentry sites as carried out 

by U.S. citizens or within the United 

States (51 U.S.C. 50904). The Act directs 

the FAA to exercise this responsibility 

consistent with public health and safety, 

safety of property, and the national 

security and foreign policy interests of 

the United States (51 U.S.C. 50905). The 

FAA is also responsible for encouraging, 

facilitating, and promoting commercial 

space launches by the private sector (51 

U.S.C. 50903). 

Alternatives: One alternative to the 

proposed action is to leave orbital debris 

as is, without any attempt to de-clutter 

the Earth orbit. This is not acceptable 

because debris in space travels at 

hypervelocities, and collision with a 

typical operational spacecraft of debris 

of five milimeters or larger will likely 

cause damage that ends the mission of 

the spacecraft. As of 2011, trackable 

objects (greater/equal to 10 cm) are 

estimated to be over 22,000. Recent 

projections of debris include 500,000 

objects between one and 10 cm, and 

more than tens of millions of objects 

smaller than one cm. The estimated rate 

of debris accumulation will grow 

significantly over the next 100 years if 

left unchecked, and the risk of future 

collisions between spacecraft and 

orbital debris will also increase. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed action has present value 

benefits greater than costs, when 

calculated over a 50-year period. The 

total costs are estimated to be presentvalue $30 million. The total benefits are 

estimated to be present value $31 

million. 

Risks: The risks to the proposed 

action are the potential technical 

difficulties to implement the proposed 

methods for dealing with debris by (1) 

natural decay, (2) controlled reentry, or 

(3) moving debris to a storage orbit. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Jennifer Bailey, 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20591, Phone: 202 267–9784, Email: 

jennifer.bailey@faa.gov. 

RIN: 2120–AK81 

DOT—FAA 

73. +Operations of Small Unmanned 

Aircraft Over People 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f); 49 

U.S.C. 40101; 49 U.S.C. 40103(b); 49 

U.S.C. 44701(a)(5); Pub. L. 112–95, sec. 

333 

CFR Citation: 14 CFR 107. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

address the performance-based 

standards and means-of-compliance for 

operation of small unmanned aircraft 

systems (UAS) over people not directly 

participating in the operation or not 

under a covered structure or inside a 

stationary vehicle that can provide 

reasonable protection from a falling 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1752 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

small unmanned aircraft. This rule 

would provide relief from certain 

operational restrictions implemented in 

the Operation and Certification of Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems final rule 

(RIN 2120–AJ60). 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking 

would permit the operation of small 

unmanned aircraft over people not 

directly participating in the operation or 

not under a covered structure or inside 

a stationary vehicle that can provide 

reasonable protection from a falling 

small unmanned aircraft. Currently, 

such operations are prohibited. This 

rule relieves restrictions and provides 

mitigations to protect people on the 

ground. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 333 

of Public Law 112–95 directs the 

Secretary of Transportation to determine 

whether ‘‘certain unmanned aircraft 

systems may operate safely in the 

national airspace system.’’ If the 

Secretary determines, pursuant to 

section 333, that certain unmanned 

aircraft systems may operate safely in 

the national airspace system, then the 

Secretary must ‘‘establish requirements 

for the safe operation of such aircraft 

system in the national airspace system.’’ 

This rulemaking is also promulgated 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1) and 

(2), which charge the FAA with issuing 

regulations: (1) To ensure the safety of 

aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; 

and (2) to govern the flight of aircraft for 

purposes of navigating, protecting and 

identifying aircraft, and protecting 

individuals and property on the ground. 

In addition, 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5) 

charges the FAA with prescribing 

regulations that the FAA finds necessary 

for safety in air commerce and national 

security. 

Alternatives: The FAA considered 

finalizing the micro UAS provisions 

originally proposed in the sUAS 

Operation and Certification notice of 

proposed rulemaking. The FAA also 

formulated an AFS–80 Working Group 

that developed recommendations for the 

agency. The agency was unable to adopt 

those recommendations in the sUAS 

Operation and Certification final rule, 

however, because they were outside the 

scope of what was proposed in the 

NPRM. Given the limitations of the 

micro UAS proposal in the NPRM and 

the comments received, and with the 

concurrence of the Office of the 

Secretary of Transportation and the 

Office of Management and Budget, it 

was determined that the best course of 

action was to withdraw the micro UAS 

provisions from the sUAS Operation 

and Certification rule and place them in 

a new notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Until 

the FAA has defined micro UAS (either 

in terms of properties, such as weight, 

or performance) we cannot quantify 

costs or benefits of the rule. However, as 

in the case of part 107 more generally, 

because this is an enabling provision 

that opens up market opportunities we 

expect the benefits will outweigh the 

costs since an entrepreneur will only 

voluntarily incur the costs in the 

expectation of returns that exceed those 

costs. It is not possible at this time to 

estimate benefits and costs resulting 

from level three or greater injury caused 

by operations conducted under this 

rule. 

Risks: If this rule is not implemented, 

operations over people not directly 

participating in the operation or not 

under a covered structure or inside a 

stationary vehicle that can provide 

reasonable protection from a falling 

small unmanned aircraft will continue 

to be prohibited. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Guido Hassig, 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 1 Airport 

Way, Rochester, NY 14624, Phone: 585– 

436–3880, Email: guido.hassig@faa.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 2120–AJ60 

RIN: 2120–AK85 

DOT—FAA 

Final Rule Stage 

74. +Pilot Professional Development 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5); 

Pub. L. 111–216, sec. 206 

CFR Citation: 14 CFR 121. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

April 20, 2015, NPRM. 

This rulemaking would amend the 

regulations for air carrier training 

programs under part 121. The action is 

necessary to ensure that air carriers 

establish or modify training programs to 

address mentoring, leadership and 

professional development of flight 

crewmembers in part 121 operations. 

This rulemaking is required by the 

Airline Safety and Federal Aviation 

Administration Act of 2010. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

amend the regulations for air carrier 

training programs under part 121. The 

action is necessary to ensure that air 

carriers establish or modify training 

programs to address mentoring, 

leadership and professional 

development of flight crewmembers in 

part 121 operations. This rulemaking is 

required by the Airline Safety and 

Federal Aviation Administration Act of 

2010. 

Statement of Need: On August 1, 

2010, the President signed the Airline 

Safety and Federal Aviation 

Administration Extension Act of 2010 

(Pub. L. 111–216). Section 206 of Public 

Law 111–216 directed the FAA to 

convene an aviation rulemaking 

committee (ARC) to develop procedures 

for each part 121 air carrier pertaining 

to mentoring, professional development, 

and leadership and command training 

for pilots serving in part 121 operations 

and to issue a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) based on the ARC 

recommendations. This NPRM is 

necessary to satisfy a requirement of 

section 206 of Public Law 111–216. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The FAA 

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 

general authority described in 49 U.S.C. 

106(f) and 44701(a) and the specific 

authority found in section 206 of Public 

Law 111–216, the Airline Safety and 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Extension Act of 2010 (49 U.S.C. 44701 

note), which directed the FAA to 

convene an aviation rulemaking 

committee (ARC) and conduct a 

rulemaking proceeding based on this 

ARC’s recommendations pertaining to 

mentoring, professional development, 

and leadership and command training 

for pilots serving in part 121 operations. 

Section 206 further required that the 

FAA include in leadership and 

command training, instruction on 

compliance with flightcrew member 

duties under 14 CFR 121.542. 

Alternatives: The Flight Crewmember 

Mentoring, Leadership, and Professional 

Development ARC presented 

recommendations to the FAA in its 

report dated November 2, 2010. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: For the 

timeframe 2015 to 2024 (millions of 

2013 dollars), the total cost saving 

benefits is $72.017 ($46.263 present 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1753 

value) and the total compliance costs is 

$67.632 ($46.774 present value). 

Risks: As recognized by the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the 

overall safety and reliability of the 

National Airspace System demonstrates 

that most pilots conduct operations with 

a high degree of professionalism. 

Nevertheless, a problem still exists in 

the aviation industry with some pilots 

acting unprofessionally and not 

adhering to standard operating 

procedures, including sterile cockpit. 

The NTSB has continued to cite 

inadequate leadership in the flight deck, 

pilots’ unprofessional behavior, and 

pilots’ failure to comply with the sterile 

cockpit rule as factors in multiple 

accidents and incidents including 

Pinnacle Airlines flight 3701 and Colgan 

Air, Inc. flight 3407. The FAA intends 

for this proposal to mitigate 

unprofessional pilot behavior which 

would reduce pilot errors that can lead 

to a catastrophic event. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/07/16 81 FR 69908 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/05/17 

Final Rule ............ 05/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Sheri Pippin, 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 15000 

Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, CA 

90261, Phone: 310 725–7342, Email: 

sheri.pippin@faa.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 2120–AJ00 

RIN: 2120–AJ87 

DOT—FAA 

75. +Transport Airplane Fuel Tank and 

System Lightning Protection 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 49 

U.S.C. 40113; 49 U.S.C. 44701; 49 U.S.C. 

44702; 49 U.S.C. 44704 

CFR Citation: 14 CFR 25. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 

18, 2016, Final. 

This rulemaking would establish 

design requirements for both normal 

conditions and possible failures of fuel 

tank structure and systems that could 

lead to fuel tank explosions, adding new 

maintenance requirements related to 

lightning protection features, and 

imposing specific requirements for 

airworthiness limitations in the 

instructions for continued 

airworthiness. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

amend certain airworthiness regulations 

for transport category airplanes 

regarding lightning protection of fuel 

tanks and systems by establishing 

design requirements for both normal 

conditions and possible failures of fuel 

tank structure and systems that could 

lead to fuel tank explosions, adding new 

maintenance requirements related to 

lightning protection features, and 

imposing specific requirements for 

airworthiness limitations in the 

instructions for continued 

airworthiness. It would also create 

performance-based standards for 

prevention of catastrophic fuel vapor 

ignition caused by lightning by 

regulating the risk due to both ignition 

sources and fuel tank flammability. This 

change would allow designers to take 

advantage of flammability reduction 

technologies whose effectiveness was 

not foreseen when earlier revisions to 

these rules were written. This change 

would also relieve some of the 

administrative burdens created by the 

current regulations. 

Statement of Need: The regulations as 

currently written to protect fuel tanks 

from the risk of catastrophic explosion 

due to lightning strikes is not always 

practical. The impracticality has led 

manufacturers to petition for 

exemptions from this section, which the 

FAA has granted with special 

conditions to achieve the intended level 

of safety of the rule. This exemption 

process has created an administrative 

burden on both industry and the FAA. 

This rulemaking proposes to amend 

those to remove the requirement for the 

prevention of lightning ignition sources 

and add a new, broader requirement for 

the prevention of ignition due to 

lightning. This new proposed 

requirement is intended to mitigate the 

risk of fuel tank ignition by considering 

both ignition sources and fuel tank 

flammability limits offered by existing 

regulations. The proposed amendments 

would re-state, in performance-based 

rules, the intention to prevent 

catastrophic fuel tank vapor ignition 

due to lightning, rather than focus solely 

on the prevention of ignition sources. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The FAA’s 

authority to issue rules regarding 

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 Subtitle VII, Part 

A, subpart III, section 44701, ’’General 

requirements.’’ Under that section, the 

FAA is charged with promoting safe 

flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by 

prescribing minimum standards 

required in the interest of safety for the 

design and performance of aircraft, 

regulations and minimum standards in 

the interest of aviation safety for 

inspecting, servicing, and overhauling 

aircraft, and regulations for other 

practices, methods, and procedures the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce. This regulation is 

within the scope of that authority 

because it prescribes safety standards 

for the design of transport category 

airplanes and requirements necessary 

for safety for the design, production, 

operation, and maintenance of those 

airplanes, and for other practices, 

methods, and procedures related to 

those airplanes. 

Alternatives: The FAA’s alternatives 

are to (1) leave the requirement as it 

currently exists (however this would not 

address the problem) or to (2) publish 

the rulemaking and reduce the number 

of applicants consistently seeking 

exemptions to compliance with sec. 

25.981 for fuel tank structural lightning. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

rule is a retrospective regulatory review 

rulemaking under Executive Order 

13563. This rule would be relieving for 

both government and industries with 

the estimated net benefits. We assess 

regulatory benefits based on resources 

saved for reducing regulatory burden on 

both industry and the FAA. The total 

combined savings would be about $610 

million or $451 million present value at 

a seven percent discount rate. The lower 

and the higher estimates of the total 

combined regulatory savings would be 

between $384 million and $836 million 

($283 million and $618 million present 

value at a 7 percent discount rate, 

respectively). The proposed rule would 

maintain achieved safety levels related 

to fuel tank structure and system 

lightning protection commensurate with 

the current requirements. 

Risks: If we don’t publish the rule, 

there is a risk of a continued paperwork 

burden for the public and the FAA. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/18/14 79 FR 75496 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

03/18/15 

Final Rule ............ 01/00/18 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1754 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: SB: N, IC: N, 

SLT: N Anticipated costs and benefits: 

The total combined savings would be 

about $610 million or $451 million 

present value at a 7% discount rate. The 

lower and the higher estimates of the 

total combined regulatory savings 

would be between $384 million and 

$836 million ($283 million and $618 

million present value at a 7% discount 

rate, respectively). 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Massoud Sadeghi, 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98055, Phone: 

425 227–2117, Email: 

massoud.sadeghi@faa.dot.gov. 

RIN: 2120–AK24 

DOT—FAA 

76. +Registration and Marking 

Requirements for Small Unmanned 

Aircraft 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 49 

U.S.C. 41703, 44101 to 44106, 44110– 

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 final rule amends the 

web-based aircraft registration process 

for the registration of small unmanned 

aircraft to facilitate compliance with the 

statutory requirement that an aircraft 

must be registered prior to operation. 

Accordingly, this final rule removes the 

requirement for owners who operate 

their model aircraft exclusively in 

compliance with the Special Rule for 

Model Aircraft to register their aircraft. 

Additionally, as this final rule requires 

small unmanned aircraft owners to 

externally display the unique identifier 

assigned by the FAA upon completion 

of the registration process, they will no 

longer be permitted to enclose the 

unique identifier in an aircraft 

compartment. 

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 to 44106 and 44110 to 

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 

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 

seven 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 nonmodelers, registration via part 47 in the 

paper-based 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 nonmodelers 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 seven 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1755 

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 ............ 02/00/18 

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: Sara Mikolop, 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20591, Phone: 202 267–7776, Email: 

sara.mikolop@faa.gov. 

RIN: 2120–AK82 

DOT—NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

77. +Rear Seat Belt Reminder System 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30101; 

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 571.208. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

October 1, 2014, Initiate. Final, 

Statutory, October 1, 2015, Final Rule. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard No. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash 

protection,’’ to require automobile 

manufacturers to install a seat belt 

reminder system for the front passenger 

and rear designated seating positions in 

passenger vehicles. The seat belt 

reminder system is intended to increase 

seat belt usage and thereby improve the 

crash protection of vehicle occupants 

who would otherwise have been 

unbelted. This rulemaking would 

respond in part to a petition for 

rulemaking submitted by Public Citizen 

and Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety, as well as to requirements in 

MAP–21. 

Statement of Need: Based on recent 

FARS data, there was an annual average 

of 1,695 rear-seat passenger vehicle 

occupants killed. Of these fatalities, 

1,151 rear-seat occupants (68 percent) 

were known to be unrestrained. 

According to recent NASS–GES data, 

there was an annual average of 46,927 

rear-seat occupants injured, of which 

15,290 (33 percent) were unrestrained. 

These unrestrained occupants who were 

killed or injured represent the rear-seat 

occupant target population. There was 

an annual average of 3,846 front 

outboard passenger seat occupant 

fatalities in the FARS data. Of these 

fatalities, 1,799 occupants (46.8 percent) 

were unrestrained. In addition, 

according to NASS–GES data, there was 

an annual average of 67,948 injured 

occupants in front outboard seating 

positions in crashes. Of those front 

outboard seat occupants injured, 20,369 

(30 percent) were unrestrained. These 

unrestrained occupants who were killed 

or injured in crashes represent the front 

outboard passenger seat occupant target 

population. 

Summary of Legal Basis: MAP–21 

required the Secretary to initiate a 

rulemaking proceeding to amend 

FMVSS No. 208 to provide a safety belt 

use warning system for designated 

seating positions in the rear seat. It 

directed the Secretary to either issue a 

final rule, or, if the Secretary 

determined that such an amendment 

did not meet the requirements and 

considerations of 49 U.S.C. 30111, to 

submit a report to Congress describing 

the reasons for not prescribing such a 

standard. 

Alternatives: The Agency considered 

several alternatives, including (1) 

requiring occupant detection for rear 

warning system; (2) requiring a SBRS for 

the front center seat; (3) system 

hardening from inadvertent and 

intentional defeat; and (4) awarding 

points through NCAP for rear SBRSs. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed rule would result in 42—64 

ELS and 33—50 ELS at 3 percent and 7 

percent discount rates, respectively. The 

estimated total cost is $163.3 million. 

Risks: The Agency believes there are 

no substantial risks to this rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/00/18 

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: Carla Rush, Safety 

Standards Engineer, Department of 

Transportation, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590, Phone: 202 366–4583, Email: 

carla.rush@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2127–AL37 

DOT—NHTSA 

78. +Passenger Car and Light Truck 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards MYS 2022–2025 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32902; 

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 531; 49 CFR 

533. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, April 

1, 2020, Publish Final Rule. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

address Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy (CAFE) standards for light 

trucks and for passenger cars for model 

years 2022–2025. 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 nonpassenger automobiles to achieve a 

combined fleet fuel economy of at least 

35 mpg by model year 2020. For model 

years 2021 to 2030, the average fuel 

economy required to be attained by each 

fleet of passenger and non-passenger 

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: Setting Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy standards 

passenger cars, light truck and mediumduty passenger vehicles will reduce fuel 

consumption, and will thereby improve 

U.S. energy independence and energy 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1756 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

security, which has been a national 

objective since the first oil price shocks 

in the 1970s. Transportation accounts 

for about 70 percent of U.S. petroleum 

consumption, and light-duty vehicles 

account for about 60 percent of oil use 

in the U.S. transportation sector. 

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. 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. 

Alternatives: NHTSA will present 

regulatory alternatives in the upcoming 

proposal. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

NHTSA will present estimated costs and 

benefits in the upcoming proposal. 

Risks: The agency believes there are 

no substantial risks to this rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice .................. 07/27/16 81 FR 49217 

NPRM .................. 03/00/18 

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: James Tamm, Fuel 

Economy Division Chief, Department of 

Transportation, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590, Phone: 202 493–0515, Email: 

james.tamm@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2127–AL76 

DOT—FEDERAL RAILROAD 

ADMINISTRATION (FRA) 

Final Rule Stage 

79. +Passenger Equipment Safety 

Standards Amendments 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 238. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

update existing safety standards for 

passenger rail equipment. Specifically, 

the rulemaking would add a new tier of 

passenger equipment safety standards 

(Tier III) to facilitate the safe 

implementation of nation-wide, 

interoperable, high-speed passenger rail 

service at speeds up to 220 mph. The 

Tier III standards require operations at 

speeds above 125 mph to be in an 

exclusive right-of-way without grade 

crossings. This rule would also establish 

crashworthiness and occupant 

protection performance requirements as 

an alternative to those currently 

specified for Tier I passenger trainsets. 

Additionally, the rule would increase 

from 150 mph to 160 mph the maximum 

speed for passenger equipment that 

complies with FRA’s Tier II standards. 

The rule is expected to ease regulatory 

burdens, allow the development of 

advanced technology, and increase 

safety benefits. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking 

would update existing safety standards 

for passenger rail equipment. 

Specifically, the rulemaking would add 

a new tier of passenger equipment safety 

standards (Tier III) to facilitate the safe 

implementation of nation-wide, 

interoperable, high-speed passenger rail 

service at speeds up to 220 mph. The 

Tier III standards require operations at 

speeds above 125 mph to be in an 

exclusive right-of-way without grade 

crossings. This rule would also establish 

crashworthiness and occupant 

protection performance requirements as 

an alternative to those currently 

specified for Tier I passenger trainsets. 

Additionally, the rule would increase 

from 150 mph to 160 mph the maximum 

speed for passenger equipment that 

complies with FRA’s Tier II standards. 

The rule is expected to ease regulatory 

burdens, allow the development of 

advanced technology, and increase 

safety benefits. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 

20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20302 and 

20303, 20306, 20701 and 20702, 21301 

and 21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; 

and 49 CFR 1.89. 

Alternatives: The alternatives FRA 

considered in establishing the proposed 

safety requirements for Tier III trainsets 

are the European and Japanese industry 

standards. However, as neither of those 

standards adequately address the safety 

concerns presented in the US rail 

environment, FRA rejected adopting 

either of them as a regulatory alternative 

suitable for interoperable equipment. 

FRA also considered the alternative of 

standalone HSR systems operating on an 

exclusive right-of-way (not physically 

connected to the general railroad 

system), utilizing passenger equipment 

that complies with European or other 

international standards but not 

necessarily with FRA’s proposed 

requirements. FRA rejected this 

alternative because a major tenet of this 

rule is to safely facilitate the 

implementation of nationwide, 

interoperable HSR service. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

rule would amend passenger equipment 

safety regulations. It adds a new 

equipment tier (‘‘Tier III’’) to facilitate 

the safe implementation of high-speed 

rail (up to 220 mph on dedicated rail 

lines) and establishes alternative 

crashworthiness performance standards 

to qualify passenger rail equipment for 

Tier I operations. This rule is 

deregulatory in nature. At the proposed 

rule stage, FRA estimated the total cost 

of the proposed rule to be between $4.59 

and $4.62 billion, discounted to 

between $3.13 and $3.16 billion at a 3 

percent discount rate, and between 

$1.94 and $1.96 billion at a 7 percent 

discount rate. The annualized costs 

were estimated to be $64.6–65.1 million 

at a 7 percent discount rate and $101.9– 

102.6 million at a 3 percent discount 

rate. FRA estimated the total benefits to 

be between $8.66 and $16.75 billion, 

discounted to between $6.05 and $11.27 

billion at a 3 percent discount rate, and 

between $3.85 and $7.06 billion at a 7 

percent discount rate. The annualized 

benefits were estimated to be $121.8– 

235.8 million at a 7 percent discount 

rate and $192–371.7 million at a 3 

percent discount rate. The benefits are 

derived by calculating the difference 

between the estimated equipment and 

infrastructure costs without the rule and 

the estimated costs of pursuing the same 

projects with the new rule in effect. The 

majority of the benefits are due to a rule 

modification that provides Tier III 

trainsets the ability to operate on shared 

track rather than build new, 

independent infrastructure into urban 

areas. FRA is currently evaluating the 

core assumptions that lead to such large 

benefits to ensure their accuracy. 

Risks: The risk is regulatory 

uncertainty for potential Tier III and 

Tier I alternative operations. Tier III 

operations could still be conducted, but 

would require a series of waivers, which 

are not as permanent as regulatory 

approval (and not as certain). Also, Tier 

I alternative trainsets would still require 

waivers for operation (same regulatory 

uncertainty as for Tier III). 

Timetable: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1757 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/06/16 81 FR 88006 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

02/06/17 

Final Rule ............ 06/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: State. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Elliott Gillooly, 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Railroad Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590, Phone: 202 366–4000, Email: 

elliott.gillooly@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2130–AC46 

DOT—FEDERAL TRANSIT 

ADMINISTRATION (FTA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

80. +Private Investment Project 

Procedures 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 112–141, sec. 

20013(b) 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 650. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking proposes 

new, experimental procedures to 

encourage greater use of public-private 

partnerships and private investment in 

public transportation capital projects 

(PIPP). The proposed PIPP is aimed 

specifically at increased project 

management flexibility, more 

innovation in funding, improved 

efficiency, timely project 

implementation, and new revenue 

streams. 

Statement of Need: The Federal 

Transit Administration is proposing 

new, experimental procedures to 

encourage increased project 

management flexibility, more 

innovation in project funding, improved 

efficiency, timely project 

implementation and new revenue 

streams. A primary goal is to address 

impediments to the greater use of 

public-private partnerships (P3s) and 

private investment in public 

transportation capital projects (Private 

Investment Project Procedures or PIPP). 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

20013(b)(1) of the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP– 

21), Public Law 1120141 (July 6, 2012), 

directed FTA to identify impediments 

in chapter 53 of title 49 of the U.S. 

Code, and any regulations or practices 

thereunder, and private investment in 

public transportation capital projects, 

and to develop and implement 

procedures on a project basis that 

address such impediments in a manner 

similar to the Special Experimental 

Project Number 15 of the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) 

commonly referred to as ‘‘SEP–15’’. 

Section 20013(b)(5) of MAP–21 requires 

the issuance of a rule to carry out the 

procedures and approaches developed 

under section 20013(b)(1). 

Alternatives: Promulgation of a 

regulation is required by statute to 

implement these procedures. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FTA 

has examined the potential economic 

impacts of this rulemaking and has 

determined that this rulemaking is not 

economically significant because it will 

not result in an effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more. This action is 

considered deregulatory and comments 

are requested regarding the costs savings 

of this action. 

Risks: The proposals set forth in this 

rule will not adversely affect the 

economy, interfere with actions taken or 

planned by other agencies, or generally 

alter the budgetary impact of any 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/31/17 82 FR 35500 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

09/29/17 

Analyzing Comments.12/00/17 

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: Chaya Koffman, 

Attorney Advisor, Department of 

Transportation, Federal Transit 

Administration, 200 New Jersey Avenue 

SE, Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 

366–4011, Email: chaya.koffman@

dot.gov. 

RIN: 2132–AB27 

DOT—FTA 

Final Rule Stage 

81. +Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plans 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5329(c) 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 673. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

establish requirements for States or 

recipients to develop and implement 

individual agency safety plans. The 

requirements of this rulemaking will be 

based on the principles and concepts of 

Safety Management Systems (SMS). 

SMS is the formal, top-down, 

organization-wide approach to 

managing safety risks and assuring the 

effectiveness of a transit agency’s safety 

risk controls. SMS includes systematic 

procedures, practices, and policies for 

managing hazards and risks. 

Statement of Need: The public 

transportation industry remains among 

the safest surface transportation modes 

in terms of total reported safety events, 

fatalities, and injuries. The National 

Safety Council (NSC) reports that in 

most locations around the nation, 

passengers on public transportation 

vehicles are 40 to 70 times less likely to 

experience an accident than drivers and 

passengers in private automobiles. 

Nonetheless, given the complexity of 

public transportation service, the 

condition and performance of transit 

equipment and facilities, turnover in the 

transit workforce, and the quality of 

procedures, training, and supervision, 

the public transportation industry 

remains vulnerable to catastrophic 

accidents. This Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes a 

minimal set of requirements for Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans that 

would carry out the several explicit 

statutory mandates in the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

Act (Pub. L. 112–141; July 6, 2012) 

(MAP–21), now codified at 49 U.S.C. 

5329(d), to strengthen the safety of 

public transportation systems that 

receive Federal financial assistance 

under chapter 53. This NPRM proposes 

requirements for the adoption of Safety 

Management Systems (SMS) principles 

and methods; the development, 

certification, and update of Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans; 

and the coordination of Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan 

elements with other FTA programs and 

proposed rules, as specified in MAP–21. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 

5329(d). 

Alternatives: MAP–21 requires the 

Department to issue this regulation. The 

NPRM will set forth FTA’s proposals for 

implementing the requirement for 

Public Transportation Safety Plans and 

solicit comments on alternatives to both 

the proposals therein and to regulation. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FTA 

has determined that this is an 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1758 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

‘‘economically significant’’ rule under 

Executive Order 12866, since it would 

cost approximately $111 million in the 

first year and $90 million per year 

thereafter. The average annual cost over 

a 20-year horizon period is $92 million. 

The benefits of the proposed rule are 

estimated at $775 million per year over 

the 20-year horizon period. 

Risks: The NPRM is merely a proposal 

for public comment, and would not 

impose any binding obligations. 

However, given that the safety program 

is new, there will likely be significant 

interest in any action FTA takes to 

implement the requirements of the 

program. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/05/16 81 FR 6344 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

04/05/16 

Final Rule ............ 02/00/18 

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: Candace Key, 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Transit Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590, Phone: 202 366–4000, Email: 

candace.key@dot.gov. 

Related RIN: Split from 2132–AB20, 

Related to 2132–AB22 

RIN: 2132–AB23 

DOT—PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS SAFETY 

ADMINISTRATION (PHMSA) 

Prerule Stage 

82. • +Pipeline Safety: Class Location 

Requirements 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et 

seq. 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 192. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking regards 

existing class location requirements, 

specifically as they pertain to actions 

operators are required to take following 

class location changes. 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. This request for public 

comment would be used to inform 

future regulatory or deregulatory efforts 

related to this topic. 

Statement of Need: Section 5 of the 

Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, 

and Job Creation Act of 2011 required 

the Secretary of Transportation to 

evaluate and issue a report on whether 

integrity management requirements 

should be expanded beyond highconsequence areas and whether such 

expansion would mitigate the need for 

class location requirements. PHMSA 

issued a Notice of Inquiry on this topic 

on August 1, 2013, and issued a report 

to Congress on its evaluation of this 

issue in April 2016. In that report, 

PHMSA decided to retain the existing 

class location requirements, but noted it 

would further examine issues related to 

pipe replacement requirements when 

class locations change due to population 

growth. PHMSA noted that it would 

further evaluate the feasibility and 

appropriateness of alternatives to 

address this issue following publication 

of the final rule, ‘‘Pipeline Safety: Safety 

of Gas Transmission Pipelines’’ (Docket 

No. PHMSA–2011–0023; RIN 2137– 

AE72). In line with that intent, section 

4 of the Protecting Our Infrastructure of 

Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 

2016 requires PHMSA to provide a 

report to Congress no later than 18 

months after the publication of the gas 

transmission final rule that reviews the 

types of benefits, including safety 

benefits, and estimated costs of the 

legacy class location regulations. 

Therefore, PHMSA is initiating this 

rulemaking to obtain public comment 

on whether the performance on 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 class location change 

requirements. 

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. secs. 60101 et seq.). 

Alternatives: In this rulemaking, 

PHMSA will solicit public opinion on 

alternatives to the current class location 

requirements, specifically those 

requirements causing operators to either 

reduce pressure, pressure test, or 

replace pipe when class locations 

change in areas due to population 

increases. One such alternative, as 

suggested by certain members of 

industry, could include the performance 

of integrity management measures on 

affected pipelines. PHMSA is soliciting 

and will evaluate and consider 

additional regulatory alternatives, 

including no action. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

PHMSA believes there is no cost to this 

rulemaking action, but we will solicit 

further information on the costs and 

benefits of the current class location 

requirements as they pertain to class 

location changes, as well as the costs 

and benefits of any alternatives. 

Risks: This rulemaking will provide 

PHMSA with additional information as 

to whether the performance of integrity 

management (or other alternatives) in 

lieu of the current regulatory 

requirements for reducing pressure, 

pressure testing, or replacing pipe when 

class locations change due to population 

growth will increase, decrease, or 

maintain the current level of risk. 

PHMSA notes that while performing 

alternatives to the current regulations 

might allow for an equivalent level of 

risk, there is a potential for greater 

consequences in an area where a class 

location has changed due to population 

increases along the pipeline. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 04/00/18 

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 

Satterthwaite, Department of 

Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590, Phone: 202 366–1319, Email: 

cameron.satterthwaite@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2137–AF29 

DOT—PHMSA 

Final Rule Stage 

83. +Pipeline Safety: Safety of 

Hazardous Liquid Pipelines 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1759 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et 

seq. 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 195. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

amend the Pipeline Safety Regulations 

to improve protection of the public, 

property, and the environment by 

closing regulatory gaps where 

appropriate; ensuring that operators are 

increasing the detection and 

remediation of unsafe conditions; and 

mitigating the adverse effects of 

hazardous liquid pipeline failures. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking 

addresses Congressional mandates in 

the 2011 Pipeline Reauthorization Act 

(sections 5, 8, 21, 29, 14) and 2016 

PIPES Act (sections 14 and 25); NTSB 

recommendations P–12–03 and P–12– 

04; and GAO recommendation 12–388. 

These statutory mandates and 

recommendations follow a number of 

high profile and high consequence 

accidents (e.g., 2010 Marshall, MI spill 

of almost one million gallons of crude 

oil into the Kalamazoo River). PHMSA 

is amending the hazardous liquid 

pipeline safety regulations to: (1) Extend 

reporting requirements to gravity lines 

that do not meet certain exceptions; (2) 

2xtend certain reporting requirements to 

all hazardous liquid gathering lines; (3) 

require inspections of pipelines in areas 

affected by extreme weather, natural 

disasters, and other similar events; (4) 

require periodic assessments of onshore 

transmission pipelines that are not 

already covered under the integrity 

management (IM) program 

requirements; (5) expand the use of leak 

detection systems on onshore hazardous 

liquid transmission pipelines to mitigate 

the effects of failures that occur outside 

of high consequence areas; (6) modify 

the IM repair criteria, both by expanding 

the list of conditions that require 

immediate remediation and 

consolidating the time frames for remediating all other conditions; (7) 

increase the use of inline inspection 

tools by requiring that any pipeline that 

could affect a high consequence area be 

capable of accommodating these devices 

within 20 years, unless its basic 

construction will not permit that 

accommodation; and (8) clarify other 

regulations to improve compliance and 

enforcement. The rule also requires 

safety data sheets and inspection of 

pipelines located at depths greater than 

150 feet under the surface of the water. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Congress 

established the current framework for 

regulating the safety of hazardous liquid 

pipelines in the Hazardous Liquid 

Pipeline Safety Act (HLPSA) of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–129). The HLPSA provided 

the Secretary of Transportation the 

authority to prescribe minimum Federal 

safety standards for hazardous liquid 

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 proposed 

alternatives to include offshore and 

gathering lines in the scope of 

provisions requiring assessments 

outside of HCAs and leak detection 

systems, revise the repair criteria for 

pipelines outside HCAs, and evaluated 

additional regulatory alternatives 

including no action. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Estimated annualized costs are $18 

million. Benefits are presented 

qualitatively and in terms of breakeven 

analysis based on reported 

consequences from past incidents. 

Risks: These changes will provide 

PHMSA additional data on pipelines to 

inform risk evaluation and reduce the 

probability and consequences of failures 

through increased inspections, leak 

detection, and other changes to 

managing pipeline risks. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 10/18/10 75 FR 63774 

Comment Period 

Extended.

01/04/11 76 FR 303 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/18/11 

Extended Comment Period 

End.

02/18/11 

NPRM .................. 10/13/15 80 FR 61610 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/08/16 

Final Rule ............ 04/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Cameron 

Satterthwaite, Department of 

Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590, Phone: 202 366–1319, Email: 

cameron.satterthwaite@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2137–AE66 

DOT—PHMSA 

84. +Pipeline Safety: Gas Transmission 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et 

seq. 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 192. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

amend the pipeline safety regulations to 

address integrity management 

principles for gas transmission 

pipelines. The rulemaking would 

address repair criteria for highconsequence areas (HCA) and non-HCA 

areas, assessment methods, validating 

and integrating pipeline data, risk 

assessments, knowledge gained through 

the integrity management program, 

corrosion control, change management, 

gathering lines, and safety features on 

launchers and receivers. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is 

in direct response to Congressional 

mandates in the 2011 Pipeline 

Reauthorization Act, specifically sec. 4 

(e) Gas IM plus 6 months), sec. 5(IM), 8 

(leak detection), 23(b)(2)(exceedance of 

MAOP); sec. 29 (seismicity). These 

statutory mandates and 

recommendations stem from a number 

of high profile and high consequence 

gas transmission and gathering pipeline 

incidents and changes in the industry 

since the establishment of existing 

regulatory requirements (e.g., San 

Bruno, CA explosion that killed eight 

people). 

Summary of Legal Basis: Congress has 

authorized Federal regulation of the 

transportation of gas by pipeline under 

the Commerce Clause of the U.S. 

Constitution. Authorization is codified 

in the Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 

secs. 60101 et seq.), a series of statutes 

that are administered by the DOT, 

PHMSA. PHMSA has used that 

authority to promulgate comprehensive 

minimum safety standards for the 

transportation of gas by pipeline. 

Alternatives: PHMSA considered 

alternatives to establishing a newly 

defined moderate consequence area and 

evaluated requiring assessments for all 

pipelines outside HCAs. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Preliminary estimates of annualized 

costs are in the range of $40 million; 

annualized benefits, including cost 

savings, are over $200 million. 

Risks: This rule addresses known 

risks to gas transmission and gathering 

including the ‘‘grandfather clause’’ 

(exemption for testing to establish 

maximum operating pressure for 

transmission lines) and new 

unregulated gathering lines that 

resemble transmission lines. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 08/25/11 76 FR 53086 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1760 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

11/16/11 76 FR 70953 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

12/02/11 

End of Extended 

Comment Period.

01/20/12 

NPRM .................. 04/08/16 81 FR 20721 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

06/08/16 

Final Rule ............ 08/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: SB–Y IC–N 

SLT–N; 

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–AE72 

DOT—PHMSA 

85. +Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill 

Response Plans and Information 

Sharing for High-Hazard Flammable 

Trains 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321; 49 

U.S.C. 5101 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 130; 49 CFR 

174; 49 CFR 171; 49 CFR 172; 49 CFR 

173. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

expand the applicability of 

comprehensive oil spill response plans 

(OSRP) based on thresholds of liquid 

petroleum oil that apply to an entire 

train consist. The rulemaking would 

also require railroads to share 

information about high-hazard 

flammable train operations with State 

and tribal emergency response 

commissions to improve community 

preparedness in accordance with the 

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation 

Act of 2015 (FAST Act). Finally, the 

rulemaking would incorporate by 

reference an initial boiling point test for 

flammable liquids for better consistency 

with the American National Standards 

Institute/American Petroleum Institute 

Recommend Practices 3000, 

‘‘Classifying and Loading of Crude Oil 

into Rail Tank Cars,’’ First Edition, 

September 2014. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is 

important to mitigate the effects of 

potential train accidents involving the 

release of flammable liquid energy 

products by increasing planning and 

preparedness. The proposals in this 

rulemaking are shaped by mandates in 

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation 

(FAST) Act of 2015, public comments, 

National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) Safety Recommendations, 

analysis of recent accidents, and input 

from stakeholder outreach efforts 

(including first responders). To this end, 

PHMSA will consider expanding the 

applicability of comprehensive oil spill 

response plans; clarifying the 

requirements for comprehensive oil 

spill response plans; requiring railroads 

to share additional information; and 

providing an alternative test method for 

determining the initial boiling point of 

a flammable liquid. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

authority of 49 U.S.C. 5103(b), which 

authorizes the Secretary of 

Transportation to ‘‘prescribe regulations 

for the safe transportation, including 

security, of hazardous materials in 

intrastate, interstate, and foreign 

commerce.’’ The Fixing America’s 

Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 

2015 also includes mandates for the 

information sharing notification 

requirements. The authority of 33 U.S.C. 

1321, the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act (FWPCA), which directs the 

President to issue regulations requiring 

owners and operators of certain vessels 

and onshore and offshore oil facilities to 

develop, submit, update, and in some 

cases, obtain approval of oil spill 

response plans. Executive Order 12777 

delegated responsibility to the Secretary 

of Transportation for certain 

transportation-related facilities. The 

Secretary of Transportation delegated 

the authority to promulgate regulations 

to PHMSA and provides FRA the 

approval authority for railroad OSRPs. 

Alternatives: In the NPRM, 

alternatives analyzed included ‘‘no 

change’’ and changing the applicability 

threshold to analyze the impact to 

affected entities. Under the ‘‘no change’’ 

alternative we would not proceed with 

any rulemaking on this subject and the 

current regulatory standards would 

remain in effect. DOT is continuing to 

research these topics and evaluate 

comment feedback prior to the final 

rule. DOT expects the highest ranked 

options will be low cost and most 

effective at improving planning and 

preparedness. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In the 

NPRM, PHMSA performed a breakeven 

analysis by identifying the number of 

gallons of oil that the NPRM would 

need to prevent from being spilled in 

order for its benefits to at least equal its 

estimated costs. Additional benefits may 

also be incurred due to ecological and 

human health improvements that may 

not be captured in the value of the 

avoided cost of spilled oil. In the NPRM 

PHMSA estimated the rule is costeffective if the requirements reduce the 

consequences of oil spills by 4.9 percent 

with ten-year costs estimated at 

$21,702,175 and annualized costs of 

$3,089,901(using a 7 percent discount 

rate). PHMSA faced data uncertainties 

that limited our ability to estimate the 

benefits of the proposed rule, and is 

continuing to analyze anticipated costs 

and benefits for the final rule. 

Risks: PHMSA expects this 

rulemaking to mitigate the effects of 

potential train accidents involving the 

release of flammable liquid energy 

products by increasing planning and 

preparedness. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 08/01/14 79 FR 45079 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

09/30/14 

NPRM .................. 07/29/16 81 FR 50067 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

09/27/16 

Final Rule ............ 07/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: HM–251B; 

SB–N, IC–N, SLT–N; 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Victoria Lehman, 

Transportation Specialist, Department 

of Transportation, Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, 

Phone: 202 366–8553, Email: 

victoria.lehman@dot.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 2137–AE91, 

Related to 2137–AF07. 

RIN: 2137–AF08 

DOT—PHMSA 

86. +Hazardous Materials: Enhanced 

Safety Provisions for Lithium Batteries 

Transported by Aircraft 

Priority: Other Significant. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1761 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 44701; 49 

U.S.C. 5103(b); 49 U.S.C. 5120(b) 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 172; 49 CFR 

173. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

amend the Hazardous Materials 

Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171– 

180) applicable to the transport of 

lithium cells and batteries by aircraft. 

The IFR contains three amendments: (1) 

a prohibition on the transport of lithium 

ion cells and batteries as cargo on 

passenger aircraft; (2) a requirement that 

lithium ion cells and batteries be 

shipped at not more than a 30 percent 

state of charge aboard cargo-only 

aircraft; and (3) a limitation on the use 

of alternative provisions for small 

lithium cell or battery shipments to one 

package per consignment or overpack. 

These amendments are consistent with 

three emergency amendments to the 

2015–2016 International Civil Aviation 

Organization Technical Instructions for 

the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods 

by Air (ICAO Technical Instructions). 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

necessary to address an immediate 

safety hazard and harmonize the US 

HMR with emergency amendments to 

the 2015–2016 edition of the 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization’s Technical Instructions 

for the Safe Transport of Dangerous 

Goods by Air (ICAO Technical 

Instructions). FAA research has shown 

that air transportation of lithium ion 

batteries poses a safety risk. We are 

issuing this rule to (1) prohibit the 

transport of lithium ion cells and 

batteries as cargo on passenger aircraft; 

(2) require all lithium ion cells and 

batteries to be shipped at not more than 

a 30 percent state of charge on cargoonly aircraft; and (3) limit the use of 

alternative provisions for small lithium 

cell or battery shipments under 49 CFR 

173.185(c). 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is 

published under the authority of the 

Federal Hazardous Materials 

Transportation Law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et 

seq. Section 5103(b) authorizes the 

Secretary of Transportation to prescribe 

regulations for the safe transportation, 

including security, of hazardous 

material in intrastate, interstate, and 

foreign commerce. This rule revises 

regulations for the safe transport of 

lithium batteries by air and the 

protection of aircraft operators and the 

flying public. 

Alternatives: In this rulemaking, 

PHMSA considered the following three 

alternatives: (1) PHMSA adopts all of 

the amendments presented in the rule; 

(2) a No Action alternative; and (3) a 

Partial Harmonization alternative. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based 

on the analysis described in this RIA, at 

the mean, PHMSA estimates the present 

value costs about $39.4 million over 10 

years and about $5.6 million annualized 

(at a seven percent discount rate). Based 

on the estimated average 10-year cost of 

$39.4 million discounted at seven 

percent and the average 10-year VSL 

value of $6.74 million discounted at 

seven percent, this rule would need to 

prevent more than 5.9 fatalities ($39.4 

million/$6.74 million) over the next 10 

years for the benefits to exceed the 

quantified costs. 

Risks: PHMSA expects the rule will 

improve safety for flight crews, air cargo 

operators, and the public as a result of 

the state of charge requirement and the 

consignment and overpack restriction 

by reducing the possibility of fire on 

cargo-only aircraft. Additionally, the 

rule will harmonize the prohibition of 

lithium ion batteries as cargo on 

passenger aircraft and eliminate the 

possibility of a package of lithium ion 

batteries causing or contributing to a fire 

in the cargo hold of a passenger aircraft. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 02/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: HM–224I;. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Kevin Leary, 

Transportation Specialist, Department 

of Transportation, Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, 

Phone: 202–366–8553, Email: 

kevin.leary@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2137–AF20 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

The primary missions of the 

Department of the Treasury are: 

• To promote prosperous and stable 

American and world economies, 

including promoting domestic economic 

growth and maintaining our Nation’s 

leadership in global economic issues, 

supervising national banks and thrift 

institutions, and helping to bring 

residents of distressed communities into 

the economic mainstream. 

• To manage the Government’s 

finances by protecting the revenue and 

collecting the correct amount of revenue 

under the Internal Revenue Code, 

overseeing customs revenue policies, 

financing the Federal Government and 

managing its fiscal operations, and 

producing our Nation’s coins and 

currency. 

• To safeguard the U.S. and 

international financial systems from 

those who would use these systems for 

illegal purposes or to compromise U.S. 

national security interests, while 

keeping them free and open to 

legitimate users. 

Consistent with these missions, most 

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, 13609, and 13771 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. 

Treasury is still in the process of 

evaluating its deregulatory and 

regulatory actions for FY 2018. At this 

time, Treasury anticipates possibly up 

to 25 deregulatory actions, and 2 

regulatory actions. Further information 

about these actions can be found in this 

Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda. 

I. 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; and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1762 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

(3) Prevent unfair and unlawful 

market activity for alcohol and tobacco 

products. 

As part of TTB’s ongoing efforts to 

modernize its regulations, TTB 

continuously seeks to identify changes 

in the industries it regulates, as well as 

new technologies available in 

compliance enforcement. TTB’s 

modernization efforts focus on removing 

outdated requirements and revising 

regulations to facilitate industry growth 

and reduce burdens where possible. At 

the same time, TTB must ensure that it 

collects the revenue due and protects 

consumers from deceptive labeling and 

advertising of alcohol beverages. 

In FY 2018, TTB will continue its 

multi-year Regulations Modernization 

effort by prioritizing projects that reduce 

regulatory burdens, provide greater 

industry flexibility, and streamline the 

regulatory system, consistent with 

Executive Orders 13771 and 13777. TTB 

rulemaking priorities also include 

proposing regulatory changes in 

response to petitions from industry 

members and other interested parties, 

and requesting comments on ways TTB 

may further reduce burden and support 

a level playing field for the regulated 

industry. Specifically, during the fiscal 

year, TTB plans to publish a 

deregulatory final rule, following a 

notice published in FY 2017, which 

reduces the number of reports submitted 

by certain regulated industry members. 

TTB also plans to publish for public 

comment proposed deregulatory 

changes to reduce the information it 

requires in connection with permit 

applications and to expand industry 

flexibility with regard to alcohol 

beverage container sizes (standards of 

fill). Some changes will require 

amending regulations and others will 

require only changes to the information 

collected on forms. Priority projects also 

include continuing the rulemaking 

issued in FY 2017 in response 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). 

None of the TTB rulemaking documents 

issued in FY 2018 are expected to be 

‘‘regulatory actions’’ as described in 

Executive Order 13771. 

This fiscal year TTB plans to give 

priority to the following deregulatory 

and regulatory measures: 

• Proposal To Streamline and 

Modernize Permit Application Process 

(RINs: 1513–AC46, 1513–AC47, 1513– 

AC48, and 1513–AC49, Modernization 

of Permit and Registration Application 

Requirements for Distilled Spirits 

Plants, Permit Applications for 

Wineries, Qualification Requirements 

for Brewers, and Permit Application 

Requirements for Manufacturers of 

Tobacco Products or Processed 

Tobacco, respectively). (Deregulatory) 

Consistent with E.O. 13771 and 

13777, in FY 2017, TTB engaged in a 

review of its regulations to identify any 

regulatory requirements that could 

potentially be eliminated, modified, or 

streamlined in order to reduce burdens 

on industry. Through four notices of 

proposed rulemaking, TTB intends to 

propose eliminating or streamlining 

various information requirements for 

application or qualification of distilled 

spirits plants, wineries, breweries, and 

manufacturers of tobacco products or 

processed tobacco. In addition, TTB 

continues to review comments it 

receives from the interested public, 

including industry members, through 

the Treasury Department’s Request for 

Information on deregulatory ideas 

(Docket No. TREAS–DO–2017–0012, 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 14, 2017), and TTB intends to 

address those related to application and 

qualification processes through these 

notices. 

• Proposed Revisions to the 

Regulations To Provide Greater 

Flexibility in the Use of Wine and 

Distilled Spirits Containers (RIN: 1513– 

AB56, Standards of Fill for Wine, and 

RIN: 1513–AC45, Standards of Fill for 

Distilled Spirits). (Deregulatory) 

In these two notices, TTB will address 

petitions requesting that it amend 

regulations governing wine and distilled 

spirits containers to provide for 

additional authorized ‘‘standards of 

fill.’’ (The term ‘‘standard of fill’’ 

generally relates to the size of 

containers, although the specific 

regulatory meaning is the authorized 

amount of liquid in the container, rather 

than the size or capacity of the container 

itself.) Rather than proposing the 

addition of new authorized sizes, 

however, TTB will propose to eliminate 

all but minimum and maximum 

standards of fill for distilled spirits 

containers, and all but a minimum 

standard of fill for wine containers. If 

implemented, this proposal would 

provide industry members greater 

flexibility in producing and sourcing 

containers and consumers broader 

purchasing options. This deregulatory 

action would also eliminate restrictions 

that inhibit competition and the 

movement of goods in domestic and 

international commerce, in addition to 

providing new opportunities for 

meeting consumer demand. 

• Revisions to the Regulations To 

Reduce Report Filing Frequency (RIN: 

1513–AC30, Changes to Certain 

Alcohol-Related Regulations Governing 

Bond Requirements and Tax Return 

Filing Periods). (Deregulatory) 

On December 18, 2015, President 

Obama signed into law the Protecting 

Americans from Tax Hikes Act (PATH 

Act), which is Division Q of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016. 

The PATH Act contains changes to 

certain statutory provisions that TTB 

administers in the Internal Revenue 

Code regarding excise tax return due 

dates and bond requirements for certain 

smaller excise taxpayers. These 

amendments took effect beginning in 

January 2017, and TTB published a 

temporary rule amending its regulations 

to implement these provisions. At the 

same time, TTB published in the 

Federal Register (82 FR 780) a notice of 

proposed rulemaking requesting 

comments on the amendments made in 

the temporary rule and proposing 

further amendments to the regulations 

governing reporting requirements for 

distilled spirits plants (DSPs) and 

breweries to reduce the regulatory 

burden on industry members who pay 

taxes and file tax returns annually or 

quarterly. Under the proposal, those 

industry members would also submit 

reports annually or quarterly, aligned 

with their filing of the tax return, rather 

than monthly as generally provided 

under current regulations. To be eligible 

for annual or quarterly filing, the DSP or 

brewery must reasonably expect to be 

liable for not more than $1,000 in excise 

taxes (in the case of annual filing) or 

$50,000 in excise taxes (in the case of 

quarterly filing) for the calendar year 

and must have been liable for not more 

than these respective amounts in the 

preceding calendar year. The reduced 

reporting frequency will reduce 

regulatory burdens on these smaller 

industry members. 

• Proposal to Modernize the Alcohol 

Beverage Labeling and Advertising 

Requirements (RIN: 1513–AB54). 

(Deregulatory) 

The Federal Alcohol Administration 

Act requires that alcohol beverages 

introduced in interstate commerce have 

a label issued and approved under 

regulations prescribed by the Secretary 

of the Treasury. In accordance with the 

mandate of Executive Order 13563 of 

January 18, 2011, regarding improving 

regulation and regulatory review, 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1763 

marketplace. As a result of this review, 

and further review in FY 2017 

consistent with Executive Orders 13771 

and 13777, regarding reducing 

regulatory burdens, in FY 2018, TTB 

plans to propose revisions to 

consolidate and modernize the 

regulations concerning the labeling 

requirements for wine, distilled spirits, 

and malt beverages. TTB anticipates that 

these regulatory changes will 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 also anticipates that this 

notice for public comment will give 

industry members another opportunity 

to provide comments and suggestions 

on any additional deregulatory 

measures in these areas. 

In FY 2018, TTB intends to bring to 

completion a number of rulemaking 

projects published as notices of 

proposed rulemaking in FY 2017 in 

response to industry member petitions 

to amend the TTB regulations: 

• Proposal to Amend the Regulations 

to Authorize the Use of Additional Wine 

Treating Materials (RIN: 1513–AB61). 

(Not significant) 

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, rulemaking may serve 

several purposes, including acceptance 

of exported wine made using those 

treatments in foreign markets. 

Administrative approval of a wine 

treatment does not guarantee acceptance 

in foreign markets of any wine so 

treated, and conducting rulemaking and 

adding wine treating materials and 

processes to TTB regulations through 

notice and comment rulemaking results 

in acceptance of the treated wines in 

certain foreign jurisdictions. TTB 

intends to reopen the comment period 

for the FY 2017 notice, as requested by 

industry members and, after 

consideration of the comments, issue a 

final rule. 

• Proposal to Amend the Regulations 

to Add New Grape Variety Names for 

American Wines (RIN: 1513–AC24). 

(Not significant) 

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. TTB intends to reopen 

the comment period for the FY 2017 

notice, as requested by industry 

members and, after consideration of the 

comments, issue a final rule. 

II. 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 2018, 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. The examples of 

these efforts described below are exempt 

from Executive Order 13771 as they are 

non-significant rules as defined by 

Executive Order. Examples of these 

efforts are described below. 

• Investigation of Claims of Evasion 

of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties. (Not significant) 

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. 

• Drawback. (Economically 

significant; not yet determined) 

Treasury and CBP plan to amend CBP 

regulations to implement changes to the 

drawback law contained in section 906 

of the Trade Facilitation and Trade 

Enforcement Act of 2015. These 

proposed changes to the regulations will 

liberalize the standard for substituting 

merchandise, simplify recordkeeping 

requirements, extend and standardize 

timelines for filing drawback claims, 

and require the electronic filing of 

drawback claims. 

• Enforcement of Copyrights and the 

Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 

(Significance not yet determined) 

Treasury and CBP plan to propose 

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. 

(Deregulatory) 

Treasury and CBP plans 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 

the speed, accuracy, and transparency of 

such rulings through the creation of an 

inter partes proceeding to replace the 

current ex parte process. 

III. 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 counter-terrorism 

financing 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 determined to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1764 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

have a high degree of usefulness in 

criminal, tax, or regulatory matters or in 

the conduct of intelligence or counterintelligence activities to protect against 

international terrorism. The BSA also 

authorizes requiring designated 

financial institutions to establish AML 

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, 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 to other Federal 

regulators; (3) managing the collection, 

processing, storage, and dissemination 

of data related to the BSA; (4) 

maintaining a government-wide access 

service to that same data and for 

network users with overlapping 

interests; (5) conducting analysis in 

support of policymakers, law 

enforcement, regulatory and intelligence 

agencies, and the financial sector; and 

(6) coordinating with and collaborating 

on anti-terrorism and AML initiatives 

with domestic law enforcement and 

intelligence agencies, as well as foreign 

financial intelligence units. 

FinCEN’s regulatory priorities for 

fiscal year 2018, include: 

• Technical Amendment to the 

Customer Due Diligence Requirements. 

(Not significant) 

On May 11, 2016, FinCEN issued 

Final Rules under the BSA to clarify and 

strengthen customer due diligence 

requirements for banks, brokers or 

dealers in securities, mutual funds, and 

futures commission merchants and 

introducing brokers in commodities. 

The rules contain explicit customer due 

diligence requirements and include a 

new regulatory requirement to identify 

beneficial owners of legal entity 

customers, subject to certain 

exemptions. The section of the rule 

detailing the training requirements for 

mutual funds was inadvertently omitted 

from the final rule. This technical 

amendment will rectify the inadvertent 

omission and will update several 

references and terminology. 

• Report of Foreign Bank and 

Financial Accounts. (Deregulatory) 

On March 10, 2016, FinCEN issued a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 

address requests from filers for 

clarification of certain requirements 

regarding the Report of Foreign Bank 

and Financial Accounts, including 

requirements with respect to employees, 

who have signature authority over, but 

no financial interest in, the foreign 

financial accounts of their employers. 

• Amendments to the Definitions of 

Broker or Dealer in Securities. 

(Regulatory) 

On April 4, 2016, FinCEN issued a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

proposing amendments to the regulatory 

definitions of broker or dealer in 

securities under the BSA’s regulations. 

The proposed changes would expand 

the current scope of the definitions to 

include funding portals and would 

require them to implement policies and 

procedures reasonably designed to 

achieve compliance with all of the 

BSA’s requirements that are currently 

applicable to brokers or dealers in 

securities. 

• Anti-Money Laundering Program 

Requirements for Banks Lacking a 

Federal Functional Regulator. 

(Regulatory) 

On August 25, 2016, FinCEN issued a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 

remove the AML program exemption for 

banks that lack a Federal functional 

regulator, including, but not limited to, 

private banks, non-federally insured 

credit unions, and certain trust 

companies. The proposed rule would 

prescribe minimum standards for AML 

programs and would ensure that all 

banks, regardless of whether they are 

subject to Federal regulation and 

oversight, are required to establish and 

implement AML programs. 

• Anti-Money Laundering Program 

and SAR Requirements for Investment 

Advisers. (Regulatory) 

On August 25, 2015, FinCEN 

published in the Federal Register a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 

solicit public comment on proposed 

rules under the BSA that would 

prescribe minimum standards for antimoney laundering programs to be 

established by certain investment 

advisers and to require such investment 

advisers to report suspicious activity to 

FinCEN. FinCEN is considering those 

comments and preparing a Final Rule. 

• Registration Requirements of Money 

Services Businesses. (Regulatory) 

FinCEN is considering issuing a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

amending the registration requirements 

for money services businesses. 

• Changes to the Travel and 

Recordkeeping Requirements for Funds 

Transfers and Transmittals of Funds. 

(Regulatory) 

FinCEN is considering regulatory 

changes that would require financial 

institutions to collect and maintain 

more information regarding funds 

transfers and transmittals of funds, as 

well as lower the existing recordkeeping 

threshold. 

• Changes to the Currency and 

Monetary Instrument Report (CMIR) 

Reporting Requirements. (Significance 

not yet determined) 

FinCEN will research, obtain, and 

analyze relevant data to validate the 

need for changes aimed at updating and 

improving the CMIR and ancillary 

reporting requirements. Possible areas of 

study to be examined could include 

current trends in cash transportation 

across international borders, 

transparency levels of physical 

transportation of currency, the 

feasibility of harmonizing data fields 

with bordering countries, and 

information derived from FinCEN’s 

experience with Geographic Targeting 

Orders. 

• 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. 

IV. 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 2018, the Fiscal 

Service will accord priority to the 

following regulatory projects: 

• Offset of Tax Refund Payments to 

Collect Past-Due Support. (Not 

significant) 

On December 30, 2015, the Fiscal 

Service published an Interim Final Rule, 

with request for comments, limiting the 

time period during which Treasury may 

recover certain tax refund offset 

collections from States to six months 

from the date of such collection. 

Previously, there was no time limit to 

recoup offset amounts that were 

collected from tax refunds to which the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1765 

1OCC, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System (Board), and Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (FDIC). 

debtor taxpayer was not entitled. The 

Fiscal Service anticipates publishing a 

Final Rule for this time limit for such 

recoupments in fiscal year 2018. 

• Management of Federal Agency 

Receipts, Disbursements and Operation 

of the Cash Management Improvements 

Fund. (Significance not yet determined) 

The Fiscal Service plans to publish a 

notice of proposed rulemaking to amend 

31 CFR part 206 governing the 

collection of public money, along with 

a request for public comments. This 

notice will propose implementing 

statutory authority which mandates that 

some or all nontax payments made to 

the Government, and accompanying 

remittance information, be submitted 

electronically. Receipt of such items 

electronically offers significant 

efficiencies and cost-savings to the 

government, compared to the receipt of 

cash, check or money order payments. 

• Payments by Banks and Other 

Financial Institutions of United States 

Savings Bonds and United States 

Savings Notes (Freedom Shares). (Not 

significant) 

The Fiscal Service plans to amend the 

savings bond payment regulations in 31 

CFR part 321 to formally add an option 

for paying agent financial institutions to 

digitally stamp payment information on 

paid bond images, instead of physically 

stamping the information on the original 

paid bonds. This change will not 

impose any new burden on banks or 

customers, and will align the regulation 

with current practice that has been 

implemented under waiver authority. 

The Fiscal Service also plans to amend 

the paper savings bond regulations to 

eliminate the current conversion and 

reissue transactions, which are 

expensive to process. 

V. 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 

2018 include the following regulatory 

actions: 

• Regulatory Capital Rules: Retention 

of Existing Transition Levels for Certain 

Regulatory Capital Adjustments and 

Deductions (12 CFR part 3). 

The banking agencies 1 issued a final 

rule that would extend the current 

treatment under the regulatory capital 

rules (capital rules) for certain 

regulatory capital deductions and risk 

weights and certain minority interest 

requirements as they apply to banking 

organizations that are not subject to the 

advanced approaches capital rules (nonadvanced approaches banking 

organizations). Specifically, for nonadvanced approaches banking 

organizations, the agencies extended the 

current regulatory capital treatment of: 

mortgage servicing assets; deferred tax 

assets arising from temporary 

differences that could not be realized 

through net operating loss carrybacks; 

significant investments in the capital of 

unconsolidated financial institutions in 

the form of common stock; nonsignificant investments in the capital of 

unconsolidated financial institutions; 

significant investments in the capital of 

unconsolidated financial institutions 

that are not in the form of common 

stock; and common equity tier 1 

minority interest, tier 1 minority 

interest, and total capital minority 

interest exceeding the capital rules’ 

minority interest limitations. The 

proposed rule was published on August 

25, 2017, 82 FR 40495. The final rule 

was issued on November 21, 2017, 82 

FR 55309. 

• Appraisal Threshold (12 CFR part 

34). 

The banking agencies plan to issue a 

final rule addressing comments received 

through the process of regulatory review 

required by the Economic Growth and 

Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1996 Amendments (EGRPRA), 

concerning the regulatory burden 

associated with appraisals. The 

rulemaking would expand the current 

exemption in the interagency rules for 

appraisals of commercial properties by 

increasing the appraisal threshold in 12 

CFR part 34 (and in the corresponding 

regulations of the FDIC and FRB), which 

is currently set at $250,000. The 

proposed rule was published on July 31, 

2017, 82 FR 35478. 

• Securities Transaction Settlement 

Cycle (12 CFR parts 12 and 151). 

The OCC and FDIC plan to issue a 

final rule to shorten the standard 

settlement cycle for certain securities 

purchased or sold by national banks, 

federal savings associations, and FDICsupervised institutions. The proposed 

rule was published on September 11, 

2017, 82 FR 42619. 

• Loans in Areas Having Special 

Flood Hazards-Private Flood Insurance 

(12 CFR part 22). 

The banking agencies, the Farm Credit 

Administration (FCA), and the National 

Credit Union Administration (NCUA) 

plan to issue a final rule to amend their 

regulations regarding loans in areas 

having special flood hazards to 

implement the private flood insurance 

provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood 

Insurance Reform Act of 2012. The 

proposed rule was published on 

November 7, 2016, 81 FR 78063. 

• Enhanced Cyber Risk Management 

Standards (12 CFR part 30). 

The banking agencies plan to issue a 

notice of proposed rulemaking setting 

forth enhanced cyber risk management 

standards for the largest and most 

interconnected financial organizations 

in the United States. The advance notice 

of proposed rulemaking was published 

on October 26, 2016, 81 FR 74315. 

• Incentive-Based Compensation 

Arrangements (12 CFR part 42). 

Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act (Pub. L. 111–203, July 21, 2010) 

(Dodd-Frank Act) requires the banking 

agencies, NCUA, Securities and 

Exchange Commission (SEC), and the 

Federal Housing Finance Agency 

(FHFA) to jointly prescribe regulations 

or guidance prohibiting any type of 

incentive-based payment arrangement, 

or any feature of any such arrangement, 

that the regulators determine encourages 

inappropriate risks by covered financial 

institutions by providing an executive 

officer, employee, director, or principal 

shareholder with excessive 

compensation, fees, or benefits, or that 

could lead to material financial loss to 

the covered financial institution. The 

Dodd-Frank Act also requires such 

agencies jointly to prescribe regulations 

or guidelines requiring each covered 

financial institution to disclose to its 

regulator the structure of all incentivebased compensation arrangements 

offered by such institution sufficient to 

determine whether the compensation 

structure provides any executive officer, 

employee, director, or principal 

shareholder with excessive 

compensation or could lead to material 

financial loss to the institution. The 

proposed rule was published on June 

10, 2016, 81 FR 37669. 

• Mandatory Contractual Stay 

Requirements for Qualified Financial 

Contracts (12 CFR parts 3, 47, and 50). 

The OCC plans to issue a final rule 

that mitigates potential negative impacts 

that could result from the disorderly 

resolution of certain systemically 

important national banks, Federal 

savings associations, Federal branches 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1766 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

and agencies, and the subsidiaries of 

these entities. A covered bank would be 

required to ensure that a covered 

qualified financial contract (i) contains 

a contractual stay-and-transfer provision 

analogous to the statutory stay-andtransfer provisions imposed under title 

II and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act 

and (ii) limits the exercise of default 

rights based on the insolvency of an 

affiliate of the covered bank. The 

proposed rule was published on August 

19, 2016, 81 FR 55381. 

• Net Stable Funding Ratio (12 CFR 

part 50). 

The banking agencies plan to issue a 

final rule to implement the Basel net 

stable funding ratio standards. These 

standards would require large, 

internationally active banking 

organizations to maintain sufficient 

stable funding to support their assets, 

generally over a one-year time horizon. 

The proposed rule was published on 

June 1, 2016, 81 FR 35123. 

• Qualifying Master Netting 

Agreement (12 CFR part 3). 

The OCC plans to finalize its interim 

final rule to amend the definition of 

‘‘qualifying master netting agreement’’ 

under its regulatory capital and 

liquidity coverage ratio rule, as well as 

under its lending limits rule applicable 

to national banks and FSAs. The interim 

final rule was published on December 

30, 2014, 79 FR 78287. 

• Community Reinvestment Act 

Regulations (12 CFR parts 25 and 195). 

The banking agencies issued a final 

rule to amend the home mortgage loan 

and consumer loan definitions in their 

regulations implementing the 

Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to 

conform to recent changes made by the 

CFPB to Regulation C, which 

implements the Home Mortgage 

Disclosure Act (HMDA) and make some 

additional technical revisions. The 

proposed rule was published on 

September 20, 2017, 82 FR 43910. The 

final rule was issued on November 24, 

2017, 82 FR 55734. 

• Proprietary Trading and Certain 

Interests in and Relationships with 

Covered Funds (12 CFR part 44). 

In light of the 2017 Treasury Report, 

the OCC expects to issue a proposed 

rule to amend certain provisions of part 

44. 

• Management Official Interlocks 

Asset Thresholds (12 CFR part 26). 

The OCC plans to issue a direct final 

rule, through joint action with the FRB 

and FDIC that would amend agency 

regulations interpreting the Depository 

Institution Management Interlocks Act 

(DIMIA) to increase the asset thresholds 

based on inflation or market changes. 

The current asset thresholds are set at 

$2.5 billion and $1.5 billion. 

• Customer Due Diligence (12 CFR 

part 21). 

The banking agencies plan to issue an 

interim final rule to clarify the 

applicability of recent amendments to 

the Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network (FinCEN) customer due 

diligence rules to the depository 

institutions under their supervision. 

FinCEN expanded its customer due 

diligence requirements for covered 

financial institutions, including banks, 

brokers or dealers in securities, mutual 

funds, and futures commission 

merchants and introducing brokers in 

commodities (FinCEN Rule). As part of 

that rulemaking, FinCEN amended the 

elements of the anti-money laundering 

program financial institutions must 

implement and maintain in order satisfy 

program requirements under 31 U.S.C. 

5318(h)(1) and the agencies are 

amending their anti-money laundering 

program rules to reference requirements 

in the FinCEN Rule. 

• Capital Simplification (12 CFR part 

3). 

The banking agencies issued a 

proposed rule to simplify the generally 

applicable capital framework with the 

goal of meaningfully reducing 

regulatory burden on community 

banking organizations while at the same 

time maintaining safety and soundness 

and the quality and quantity of 

regulatory capital in the banking system. 

The proposed rule was issued on 

October 27, 2017, 82 FR 49984. 

• Automated Valuation Models (parts 

34 and 164). 

The banking agencies, NCUA, FHFA, 

and the Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau (CFPB), in consultation with the 

Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) and the 

Appraisal Standards Board of the 

Appraisal Foundation, are required to 

promulgate regulations addressing 

quality-control standards required 

under the statute. Section 1473(q) of the 

Dodd-Frank Act requires that automated 

valuation models used to estimate 

collateral value in connection with 

mortgage origination and securitization 

activity, comply with quality-control 

standards designed to ensure a high 

level of confidence in the estimates 

produced by automated valuation 

models; protect against manipulation of 

data; seek to avoid conflicts of interest; 

require random sample testing and 

reviews; and account for other factors 

the agencies deem appropriate. The 

agencies plan to issue a proposed rule 

to implement the requirement to adopt 

quality-control standards. 

• Source of Strength (12 CFR part 47). 

The banking agencies plan to issue a 

proposed rule to implement section 

616(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 

616(d) requires that bank holding 

companies, savings and loan holding 

companies, and other companies that 

directly or indirectly control an insured 

depository institution serve as a source 

of strength for the insured depository 

institution. The appropriate federal 

banking agency for the insured 

depository institution may require that 

the company submit a report that would 

assess the company’s ability to comply 

with the provisions of the statute and its 

compliance. 

• Employment Contracts (12 CFR part 

163). 

The OCC plans to issue a proposed 

rule to remove the requirement that the 

board of directors of an FSA approve 

employment contracts with all 

employees and limit the approval 

requirement only to contracts with 

senior executives. 

• Receiverships for Uninsured 

Federal Branches and Agencies (12 CFR 

chapter I). 

The OCC plans to issue an advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking setting 

forth key issues to be addressed prior to 

the development of a framework for 

receiverships of uninsured federal 

branches and agencies. 

VI. Internal Revenue Service 

During Fiscal Year 2018, the IRS and 

Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy have the 

following regulatory priorities. The first 

priority is to implement, consistent with 

law, actions recommended in the 

Second Report pursuant to Executive 

Order 13789 to eliminate, or in other 

cases reduce, the burdens imposed on 

taxpayers by eight regulations that the 

Treasury has identified for review under 

Executive Order 13789. These 

deregulatory actions include: 

1. Withdrawal of proposed regulations 

under section 2704 regarding 

restrictions on liquidation of an interest 

for estate, gift, and generation-skipping 

transfer taxes. Proposed regulations 

were published on August 4, 2016. 

2. Withdrawal of proposed regulations 

under section 103 regarding the 

definition of political subdivision. 

Proposed regulations were published on 

February 23, 2016. 

3. Proposed amendment of regulations 

under section 7602 regarding the 

participation of attorneys described in 

section 6103(n) in a summons 

interview. Final regulations were 

published on July 14, 2016. 

4. Proposed removal of temporary 

regulations under section 707 

concerning treatment of liabilities for 

disguised sale purposes and review of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1767 

regulations under section 752 

concerning liabilities recognized as 

recourse partnership liabilities. 

Temporary and proposed regulations 

were published on October 5, 2016. 

5. Delay and proposed removal of 

documentation regulations under 

section 385 and review of other 

regulations under section 385. Final, 

temporary, and proposed regulations 

were published on October 21, 2016. 

6. Proposed modification of 

regulations under section 367 regarding 

the treatment of certain transfers of 

property to foreign corporations. Final 

regulations were published on 

December 16, 2016. 

7. Proposed modification of 

regulations under section 337(d) 

regarding certain transfers of property to 

regulated investment companies (RICs) 

and real estate investment trusts 

(REITs). Temporary and proposed 

regulations were published on June 8, 

2016. 

8. Proposed modification of 

regulations under section 987 on 

income and currency gain or loss with 

respect to a section 987 qualified 

business unit. Final regulations were 

published on December 8, 2016. 

The second priority is, in furtherance 

of the policies stated in Executive Order 

13789, Executive Order 13771, and 

Executive Order 13777, to undertake a 

comprehensive review, coordinated by 

the Treasury Regulatory Reform Task 

Force, of all tax regulations, regardless 

of when they were issued. This review 

will identify tax regulations that are 

unnecessary, create undue complexity, 

impose excessive burdens, or fail to 

provide clarity and useful guidance, and 

Treasury and the IRS will pursue, 

consistent with law, reform or 

revocation of those regulations. 

Included in the review are longstanding 

temporary or proposed regulations that 

have not expired or been finalized. As 

part of the process coordinated by the 

Treasury Regulatory Reform Task Force, 

the IRS Office of Chief Counsel has 

already identified over 300 regulations 

for potential revocation. These 

regulations remain in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) but are, to 

varying degrees, unnecessary, 

duplicative, or outdated, and force 

taxpayers to navigate unnecessarily 

complex or even confusing rules. 

Treasury and the IRS expect to begin the 

process of proposing to address these 

regulations in the fourth quarter of 2017. 

Treasury and the IRS are also seeking to 

streamline rules where possible and to 

repeal or revise regulations that have 

been superseded by statute or case law. 

The IRS and Treasury are also 

prioritizing implementation of the 

President’s Executive Order 13813, 

Promoting Healthcare Choice and 

Competition Across the United States. 

The Executive Order, among other 

things, directs Treasury and the 

Departments of Labor and Health and 

Human Services to consider proposing 

or revising regulations or guidance to 

expand the availability of short-term, 

limited-duration insurance and consider 

proposing or revising regulations or 

guidance to increase the usability of 

health reimbursement arrangements. 

An additional priority for the IRS is 

to publish final regulations under 

section 1101 of the Bipartisan Budget 

Act of 2015 (BBA) that are necessary to 

implement the new centralized 

partnership audit regime enacted in 

November 2015. Section 1101(g)(1) of 

the BBA provides that the new regime 

is generally effective for partnership tax 

years beginning after December 31, 

2017. 

Finally, Treasury and the IRS 

anticipate the need to undertake 

numerous regulatory actions to 

implement any new legislation enacted 

in the coming year, including the 

Administration’s current Tax Reform 

efforts. 

BILLING CODE 4810–25–S 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS (VA) 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

The Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) administers benefit programs that 

recognize the important public 

obligations to those who served this 

Nation. VA’s regulatory responsibility is 

almost solely confined to carrying out 

mandates of the laws enacted by 

Congress relating to programs for 

veterans and their 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. 

(1.) VA Regulatory Priorities 

RIN Title Summary of Rulemaking 

AO88 ................. Per Diem Paid to States for Care of Eligible Veterans in State Homes.This rulemaking would adopt as final, with changes, proposed amendments to 

VA’s regulations governing payment of per diem to State Veterans homes for 

nursing home care, domiciliary care, and adult day health care for eligible veterans. This rulemaking would also reorganize, update, and clarify State Veterans homes regulations, authorize greater flexibility in adult day health care 

programs, and establish regulations regarding domiciliary care, with clarifications regarding the care that State homes must provide to veterans in domiciliaries. 

AP46 .................. Prosthetic and Rehabilitative Items and 

Services.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its regulations related to providing prosthetic and rehabilitative items as medical services to veterans. These amendments would reorganize and update the current regulations. Substantively, these amendments would primarily clarify eligibility criteria 

for prosthetic and other rehabilitative items and services, and would define the 

types of items and services available to eligible veterans. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1768 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

RIN Title Summary of Rulemaking 

AP89 .................. Change in rates that VA pays for ambulance travel.This document proposes amendments to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

regulations concerning beneficiary travel. The revisions would update the regulations to conform to a statute that authorizes VA to pay the lesser of the actual 

cost of ambulance transportation or the amount determined by the ambulance 

travel fee schedule established by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, unless 

VA has entered into a contract for that ambulance transportation. 

AQ06 ................. Authority of Health Care Providers to 

Practice Telehealth.

To continue to provide high quality health care to veterans, the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending its regulations to allow VA health care providers who are licensed, registered, or certified in ‘‘a State’’ to practice their 

medical specialty in any State when they are acting within the scope of their 

VA employment, regardless of individual State licensure, registration, or certification restrictions, except for applicable State restrictions on the authority to 

prescribe and administer controlled substances. Through this rulemaking, 

health care providers would be able to provide health care services across 

State lines and in States where they do not hold a license, registration, or certification, which will increase VA’s capacity to use its current medical resources 

in varied health care delivery modalities, particularly through telehealth, increasing the number of patient encounters and increasing access to VA health care. 

This rule will allow VA health care providers to practice in accordance with their 

competencies, as reflected by their clinical privileges or scope of practice. In 

this rulemaking, VA will exercise Federal preemption of State licensure, registration, and certification laws only to the extent such State laws conflict with 

the health care provider’s ability to practice across state lines while acting within the scope of their VA employment. 

AQ08 ................. Reimbursement for Emergency Treatment.The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) revises its regulations concerning payment or reimbursement for emergency treatment for non-service-connected 

conditions at non-VA facilities to implement the requirements of a recent court 

decision. Specifically, this rulemaking expands eligibility for payment or reimbursement to include veterans who receive partial payment from a health-plan 

contract for non-VA emergency treatment and establishes a corresponding reimbursement methodology. This rulemaking also expands the eligibility criteria 

for veterans to receive payment or reimbursement for emergency transportation 

associated with the emergency treatment, in order to ensure that veterans are 

adequately covered when emergency transportation is a necessary part of their 

non-VA emergency treatment. 

(2.) Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

RIN Title 

Significantly 

reduce burdens 

on small 

businesses 

Summary of Rulemaking 

Multiple RINs ..... Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation to Adhere to 

Federal Acquisition.

No ..................... The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend and 

update its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) in phased increments 

to revise or remove any policy superseded by changes in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural guidance 

internal to VA into the VAAM, and to incorporate any new agency 

specific regulations or policies. These changes seek to streamline 

and align the VAAR with the FAR and remove outdated and duplicative requirements and reduce burden on contractors. The VAAM 

incorporates the VAAR as well as internal agency acquisition policy. VA will rewrite certain parts of the VAAR and VAAM, and as 

VAAR parts are rewritten, will publish it in the FEDERAL REGISTER. 

To minimize the number of rules published, VA will combine relatable topics. 

VA’s most recent report on its 

retrospective review of regulations can 

be found at: http://vaww.va.gov/ORPM/ 

docs/RegMgmt_VA_EO13563_VA_

OIRA_Status_Report.pdf 

VA 

Proposed Rule Stage 

87. Prosthetic and Rehabilitative Items 

and Services 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 38 

U.S.C. 1162; 38 U.S.C. 1701; 38 U.S.C. 

1707; 38 U.S.C. 1710; 38 U.S.C. 1714; 38 

U.S.C. 1717; 38 U.S.C. 3901 

CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.120; 38 CFR 

17.122; 38 CFR 17.150; 38 CFR 17.153; 

38 CFR 17.3200 to 17.3250 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its 

regulations related to providing 

prosthetic and rehabilitative items as 

medical services to veterans. These 

amendments would reorganize and 

update the current regulations. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1769 

Substantively, these amendments would 

primarily clarify eligibility criteria for 

prosthetic and other rehabilitative items 

and services, and would define the 

types of items and services available to 

eligible veterans. 

Statement of Need: VA proposes to 

amend its regulations related to 

providing prosthetic and rehabilitative 

items as medical services to veterans. 

These amendments would clarify 

eligibility criteria for prosthetic and 

other rehabilitative items and services, 

and define the types of items and 

services available to eligible veterans. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 

1710 authorizes VA to provide, among 

other things, medical services to 

veterans when VA determines that they 

are needed. ‘‘Medical services’’ is 

defined in 38 U.S.C. 1701(6)(F) to 

include the following specific items and 

services: wheelchairs, artificial limbs, 

trusses, and similar appliances; special 

clothing made necessary by the wearing 

of prosthetic appliances; and such other 

supplies or services as the Secretary 

determines to be reasonable and 

necessary. Section 1710(a) authorizes 

VA to furnish hospital care and medical 

services ‘‘which the Secretary 

determines to be needed.’’ In this 

regulation, VA is addressing the scope 

of items and services that may be 

provided as medical services under 

sections 1701(6)(F) and 1710(a). 

Alternatives: VA considered the 

consequences of taking no action. If VA 

made no changes at all to its regulations, 

however, they would remain 

inconsistent with our current practices. 

The current regulations also include a 

limited list of examples of prosthetic 

items and services that are provided, 

which can be misinterpreted as an 

exhaustive list. The proposed rule 

includes a broader and non-exhaustive 

list, which provides more clarity to 

Veterans about the benefits to which 

they are entitled. The eligibility for such 

items under the current regulation 

would also be inconsistent with VA’s 

authority to provide prosthetics under 

Public Law 104–262, section 103(a). VA 

considered updating its internal policies 

instead of its regulations. Because the 

changes in this rulemaking would 

impact and limit Veterans’ benefits, a 

change to existing regulations was 

deemed necessary. We also could have 

made substantive updates to existing 

regulations rather than create a new 

section for the provision of these 

benefits. However, that would have 

been cumbersome and confusing, and 

would not have allowed us to 

adequately describe the eligibility for, 

and provision of, these benefits. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: VA has 

determined that there are transfers 

associated with this rulemaking. The 

cumulative five-year savings are 

estimated to be $85 million. The 

government will transfer $85 million 

less to eligible veterans. 

There are no new collections of 

information associated with this 

rulemaking. However, there is a 

proposed discontinuance of use of VA 

Form 10–2520, which is part of an 

existing collection under 2900–0188. 

The estimated burden elimination is 47 

annual hours, which results in an 

information collection costs savings to 

the public (vendor) in the amount of 

$1,121.42. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/16/17 82 FR 48018 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

12/15/17 

Final Action ......... 08/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Penny Nechanicky, 

National Program Director for Prosthetic 

and Sensory Aids Service (10P4RK), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 

Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 

20420, Phone: 202 461–0337, Email: 

penny.nechanicky@va.gov. 

RIN: 2900–AP46 

VA 

88. Revise and Streamline VA 

Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Principles (VAAR Case 2014–V005, 

Parts 812 and 813) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c) 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 1.3; 48 CFR 812; 

48 CFR 813; 48 CFR 852 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend and 

update its VA Acquisition Regulation 

(VAAR) in phased increments to revise 

or remove any policy superseded by 

changes in the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural 

guidance internal to VA into the VAAM, 

and to incorporate any new agency 

specific regulations or policies. These 

changes seek to streamline and align the 

VAAR with the FAR and remove 

outdated and duplicative requirements 

and reduce burden on contractors. The 

VAAM incorporates the VAAR as well 

as internal agency acquisition policy. 

VA will rewrite certain parts of the 

VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts 

are rewritten, will publish it in the 

Federal Register. To minimize the 

number of rules published, VA will 

combine relatable topics. This Proposed 

Rule will revise VAAR parts 812 and 

813, as well as affected part 852. 

Statement of Need: The Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to 

revise the VAAR to add new policy or 

regulatory requirements and to remove 

any guidance that is applicable only to 

VA’s internal operating processes or 

procedures. FAR 1.302, Limitations, 

requires that agency acquisition 

regulations shall be limited only to 

those necessary to implement the FAR 

policies and procedures within the 

agency and to any additional 

information needed to supplement the 

FAR to satisfy the specific needs of the 

agency. The needed changes include 

proposing to delete paragraphs when 

adequately addressed in the FAR, add 

new subsections to clarify that FAR 

applies to specific parts, and to remove 

sections such as the section that deals 

with internal procedures for obtaining a 

waiver to tailor solicitations, to be 

inconsistent with customary 

commercial practice. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 40 U.S.C. 

121(c), 41 U.S.C. 1707. 

Alternatives: The revised VAAR will 

have 47 parts, grouped into 19 packages. 

VA did consider grouping all of the 

parts into one package, which would 

have resulted in one regulatory action. 

However, this approach or alternative 

was tried several years ago and the 

project ended up being terminated 

because of the complexity, time spent 

correcting errors, legal review, and 

inconsistency amongst the acquisition 

offices and other agencies. Another 

alternative would be to do nothing, 

which would undermine VA’s mission 

of simplifying the acquisition process 

and making it easier for potential 

vendors to do business with the VA. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There 

are no transfer costs, savings and/or 

information collection burden costs/

savings associated with this rulemaking. 

VA is merely adding existing and 

current regulatory requirements to the 

VAAR parts and removing any guidance 

that is applicable only to VA’s internal 

operation processes or procedures and 

placing that guidance in the Veterans 

Affairs Acquisition Manual (VAAM). 

Risks: 

Timetable: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1770 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, 

Senior Procurement Analyst (003A2A), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Procurement Policy and Warrant 

Management Services, 425 I Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202 632– 

5276, Email: ricky.clark@va.gov. 

RIN: 2900–AP58 

VA 

89. Revise and Streamline VA 

Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Principles (VAAR Case 2014–V004, 

Parts 811 and 832) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c) 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 801; 48 CFR 

811; 48 CFR 832; 48 CFR 852; 48 CFR 

1.3. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend and 

update its VA Acquisition Regulation 

(VAAR) in phased increments to revise 

or remove any policy superseded by 

changes in the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural 

guidance internal to VA into the VAAM, 

and to incorporate any new agency 

specific regulations or policies. These 

changes seek to streamline and align the 

VAAR with the FAR and remove 

outdated and duplicative requirements 

and reduce burden on contractors. The 

VAAM incorporates the VAAR as well 

as internal agency acquisition policy. 

VA will rewrite certain parts of the 

VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts 

are rewritten, will publish it in the 

Federal Register. To minimize the 

number of rules published, VA will 

combine relatable topics. This Proposed 

Rule will revise VAAR parts 811 and 

832, as well as affected parts 801, 852 

and 870. 

Statement of Need: Included in the 

proposed changes to streamline the 

VAAR, implementing and 

supplementing the FAR where required, 

and removing internal agency guidance 

in keeping with the FAR principles 

concerning agency acquisition 

regulations, are removing a significant 

portion of subpart 811.1, Selecting and 

Developing Requirements Documents, 

as it includes information that is 

redundant to the FAR. In addition, we 

propose to add a new section to 

implement the Office of Management 

and Budget’s (OMB) Memorandum M– 

11–32, dated September 14, 2011, and to 

encourage making payments to small 

business contractors within 15 days of 

receipt of invoice. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 40 U.S.C. 

121(c), 41 U.S.C. 1707, 48 CFR 1.3. 

Alternatives: The revised VAAR will 

have 47 parts, grouped into 19 packages. 

VA did consider grouping all of the 

parts into one package, which would 

have resulted in one regulatory action. 

However, this approach or alternative 

was tried several years ago and the 

project ended up being terminated 

because of the complexity, time spent 

correcting errors, legal review, and 

inconsistency amongst the acquisition 

offices and other agencies. Another 

alternative would be to do nothing, 

which would undermine VA’s mission 

of simplifying the acquisition process 

and making it easier for potential 

vendors to do business with the VA. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There 

are no transfer costs or savings 

associated with this rulemaking. VA is 

merely adding existing and current 

regulatory requirements to the VAAR 

and removing any guidance that is 

applicable only to VA’s internal 

operation processes or procedures. This 

proposed rule impacts 7 existing 

information collection requirements 

associated with 6 Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) control number 

approvals. The total incremental savings 

of this information collection is 

estimated to be $50,660.00. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, 

Senior Procurement Analyst (003A2A), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Procurement Policy and Warrant 

Management Services, 425 I Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202 632– 

5276, Email: ricky.clark@va.gov. 

RIN: 2900–AP81 

VA 

90. Beneficiary Travel 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101; 38 

U.S.C. 111; 38 U.S.C. 111A; E.O. 11302; 

E.O. 13520 

CFR Citation: 38 CFR 70.1; 38 CFR 

70.2; 38 CFR 70.4; 38 CFR 70.10 to 70.30 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule proposes 

amendments to the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA) regulations 

concerning beneficiary travel. The 

revisions would update the regulations 

to conform to amendments to the 

statutes that authorize beneficiary travel 

benefits, and would also reorganize and 

clarify the current regulations. VA is 

also proposing to modify certain 

provisions to establish new VA policies 

and procedures to expand travel 

benefits for veterans and other 

beneficiaries in several areas, including 

for veterans and donors undergoing 

organ transplants, those being 

transferred between facilities, and for 

veterans with terminal illnesses. 

Statement of Need: VA proposes to 

amend its regulations concerning 

beneficiary travel. The revisions would 

update the regulations to conform to a 

statute authorizing VA to pay the lesser 

of the actual cost of ambulance 

transportation or the amount 

determined by the ambulance travel fee 

schedule established by Centers for 

Medicare and Medicaid, unless VA has 

entered into a contract for that 

ambulance transportation. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 

111 authorizes VA to provide 

beneficiary travel benefits to eligible 

veterans who need to travel for 

examination, treatment, or care. We 

propose to amend the relevant 

regulations to conform to changes made 

by Pub. L. 112–56 and 112–154, 

permitting VA to pay the lesser of the 

actual cost ambulance transportation or 

the amount determined by the fee 

schedule established under section 

1834(l) of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 1395m(l)), unless VA has entered 

into a contract for that transportation. 

Alternatives: VA considered the 

consequences of taking no action. We 

concluded, however, that taking doing 

so would cause VHA to continue to pay 

non-emergency medical transportation 

(NEMT) market rates, which are up to 

25% higher than Medicare, based on 

several variables including the location 

of the VA Medical Center. VA 

considered alternatives such as seeking 

a national contract for BT NEMT 

services. However, it became apparent 

that taking this action would dampen 

current market-based pricing schemes 

and the pricing schemes would likely 

remain above Medicare rates. Moreover, 

creating a market of this type would not 

permit VA to avail itself of any cost 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1771 

savings. VA believes that a rulemaking, 

rather than a policy document, is the 

appropriate mechanism to change its 

payment rates for non-emergency 

medical transportation because this 

change affects the rights and obligations 

of the public. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: VA has 

determined that there are no transfer 

costs associated with this rulemaking. 

However, there are transfers estimated 

at $47 million in FY 2018 and $252.4 

million over a five year period (FY 

2018–2022). The government will save 

money as a result of VA making 

transport payments under the CMS 

methodology instead of utilizing noncontract special mode transportation 

payments, the CMS methodology 

payments are less. There are no other 

ancillary costs associated with this 

rulemaking. There are no provisions 

constituting a collection or reduction of 

information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. Therefore, we expect no 

increased and/or decreased PRA costs. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Mike Davis, Director 

Member Services (10NF), Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 404 

828–5691, Email: mike.davis2@va.gov. 

RIN: 2900–AP89 

VA 

91. • Revise and Streamline VA 

Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Principles (VAAR Case 2015–V010) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 40 

U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3) 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 831; 48 CFR 

833; 48 CFR 852; 48 CFR 871; 48 CFR 

1.301 to 1.303. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend and 

update its VA Acquisition Regulation 

(VAAR) in phased increments to revise 

or remove any policy superseded by 

changes in the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural 

guidance internal to VA into the VAAM, 

and to incorporate any new agency 

specific regulations or policies. These 

changes seek to streamline and align the 

VAAR with the FAR and remove 

outdated and duplicative requirements 

and reduce burden on contractors. The 

VAAM incorporates the VAAR as well 

as internal agency acquisition policy. 

VA will rewrite certain parts of the 

VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts 

are rewritten, will publish it in the 

Federal Register. To minimize the 

number of rules published, VA will 

combine relatable topics. This proposed 

rulemaking revises VAAR parts 831, 

833, 852 and 871. 

Statement of Need: Included in the 

proposed changes to streamline the 

VAAR, implementing and 

supplementing the FAR where required, 

and removing internal agency guidance 

in keeping with the FAR principles 

concerning agency acquisition 

regulations, are clarifying that the cost 

principles apply to the negotiation of 

prices under fixed-price contracts as 

well as to costs under cost 

reimbursement contracts, and to 

contracts with educational institutions 

as well as those with commercial and 

non-profit organizations; Adding a 

definition section; And, adding 

language that pursuant to Public Law 

114–328, the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) will also hear 

cases related to size, status, and 

ownership and control challenges under 

the VA Veterans First Contracting 

Program. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 

501, 40 U.S.C. 121(c), 41 U.S.C. 

1121(c)(3), 41 U.S.C. 1707, 48 CFR 301– 

1.304 

Alternatives: The revised VAAR will 

have 47 parts, grouped into 19 packages. 

VA did consider grouping all of the 

parts into one package, which would 

have resulted in one regulatory action. 

However, this approach or alternative 

was tried several years ago and the 

project ended up being terminated 

because of the complexity, time spent 

correcting errors, legal review, and 

inconsistency amongst the acquisition 

offices and other agencies. Another 

alternative would be to do nothing, 

which would undermine VA’s mission 

of simplifying the acquisition process 

and making it easier for potential 

vendors to do business with the VA. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There 

are no transfers associated with this 

rulemaking. VA is merely adding 

existing and current regulatory 

requirements to the VAAR and 

removing any guidance that is 

applicable only to VA’s internal 

operation processes or procedures. 

There are no provisions constituting a 

collection or reduction of information 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Therefore, we expect no increased and/ 

or decreased PRA costs. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Rafael Taylor, Senior 

Procurement Analyst (003A2A), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Procurement Policy and Warrant 

Management Services, 425 I Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202 382– 

2787, Email: rafael.taylor@va.gov. 

RIN: 2900–AQ02 

VA 

92. • Revise and Streamline VA 

Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Principle (VAAR Case 2016–V002, Parts 

829, 846 and 847) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5214(a); 26 

U.S.C. 5271; 26 U.S.C. 7510; 40 U.S.C. 

121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1303(a)(2) 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 829; 48 CFR 

846; 48 CFR 847; 48 CFR 852; 48 CFR 

870; 48 CFR 1.301 to 1.304 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend and 

update its VA Acquisition Regulation 

(VAAR) in phased increments to revise 

or remove any policy superseded by 

changes in the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural 

guidance internal to VA into the VAAM, 

and to incorporate any new agency 

specific regulations or policies. These 

changes seek to streamline and align the 

VAAR with the FAR and remove 

outdated and duplicative requirements 

and reduce burden on contractors. The 

VAAM incorporates the VAAR as well 

as internal agency acquisition policy. 

VA will rewrite certain parts of the 

VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts 

are rewritten, will publish it in the 

Federal Register. To minimize the 

number of rules published, VA will 

combine relatable topics. This Proposed 

Rule revises VAAR parts 829, 846, 847, 

as well as affected parts 852 and 870. 

Statement of Need: Included in the 

proposed changes to streamline the 

VAAR, implementing and 

supplementing the FAR where required, 

and removing internal agency guidance 

in keeping with the FAR principles 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1772 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

concerning agency acquisition 

regulations, are adding definitions; in 

section 829.303, application of State and 

local taxes to Government contractors 

and subcontractors, delegating to the 

Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA), 

without power of redelegation, the 

authority to make the determination 

prescribed in FAR 29.303(a); and in new 

clause 852.246–71, Rejected Goods, 

clarifying a contractor’s obligations to 

remove goods rejected by the 

Government. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 26 U.S.C. 

5214(a), 5271, 7510; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 

U.S.C. 1303(a)(2), 48 CFR 1.301–1.304 

Alternatives: The revised VAAR will 

have 47 parts, grouped into 19 packages. 

VA did consider grouping all of the 

parts into one package, which would 

have resulted in one regulatory action. 

However, this approach or alternative 

was tried several years ago and the 

project ended up being terminated 

because of the complexity, time spent 

correcting errors, legal review, and 

inconsistency amongst the acquisition 

offices and other agencies. Another 

alternative would be to do nothing, 

which would undermine VA’s mission 

of simplifying the acquisition process 

and making it easier for potential 

vendors to do business with the VA. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There 

are no transfers associated with this 

rulemaking. VA is merely adding 

existing and current regulatory 

requirements to the VAAR and 

removing any guidance that is 

applicable only to VA’s internal 

operation processes or procedures. 

There are no provisions constituting a 

collection or reduction of information 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Therefore, we expect no increased and/ 

or decreased PRA costs. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Rafael Taylor, Senior 

Procurement Analyst (003A2A), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Procurement Policy and Warrant 

Management Services, 425 I Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202 382– 

2787, Email: rafael.taylor@va.gov. 

RIN: 2900–AQ04 

VA 

93. • Revise and Streamline VA 

Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Principle (VAAR Case 2016–V003, Parts 

844 and 845) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 40 

U.S.C. 121(c) 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 844; 48 CFR 

845; 48 CFR 1.301 to 1.304. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend and 

update its VA Acquisition Regulation 

(VAAR) in phased increments to revise 

or remove any policy superseded by 

changes in the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural 

guidance internal to VA into the VAAM, 

and to incorporate any new agency 

specific regulations or policies. These 

changes seek to streamline and align the 

VAAR with the FAR and remove 

outdated and duplicative requirements 

and reduce burden on contractors. The 

VAAM incorporates the VAAR as well 

as internal agency acquisition policy. 

VA will rewrite certain parts of the 

VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts 

are rewritten, will publish it in the 

Federal Register. To minimize the 

number of rules published, VA will 

combine relatable topics. This proposed 

rulemaking revises VAAR parts 844 and 

845. 

Statement of Need: Included in the 

proposed changes to streamline the 

VAAR, implementing and 

supplementing the FAR where required, 

and removing internal agency guidance 

in keeping with the FAR principles 

concerning agency acquisition 

regulations, are adding the requirement, 

before a contracting officer consents to 

a subcontract where other than the 

lowest price is the basis for selection, 

that the contractor has substantiated the 

selection as offering the greatest value to 

the Government; And, requiring that 

contractor purchasing system reviews 

focus special attention, on policies and 

procedures pertaining to the Veterans 

First Contracting Program, 

Documentation of commercial item 

determinations to ensure compliance 

with the definition of commercial item 

in FAR 2.101, and for acquisitions 

involving electronic parts, whether the 

contractor has implemented a 

counterfeit electronic part detection and 

avoidance system to ensure that 

counterfeit electronic parts do not enter 

the supply chain. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 

501, 40 U.S.C. 121(c), 48 CFR 1.301 to 

1.304. 

Alternatives: The revised VAAR will 

have 47 parts, grouped into 19 packages. 

VA did consider grouping all of the 

parts into one package, which would 

have resulted in one regulatory action. 

However, this approach or alternative 

was tried several years ago and the 

project ended up being terminated 

because of the complexity, time spent 

correcting errors, legal review, and 

inconsistency amongst the acquisition 

offices and other agencies. Another 

alternative would be to do nothing, 

which would undermine VA’s mission 

of simplifying the acquisition process 

and making it easier for potential 

vendors to do business with the VA. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There 

are no transfers associated with this 

rulemaking. VA is merely adding 

existing and current regulatory 

requirements to the VAAR and 

removing any guidance that is 

applicable only to VA’s internal 

operation processes or procedures. This 

action contains no provisions 

constituting a collection of information 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 to 3521). 

Therefore, we expect no increased and/ 

or decreased PRA costs. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Rafael Taylor, Senior 

Procurement Analyst (003A2A), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Procurement Policy and Warrant 

Management Services, 425 I Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202 382– 

2787, Email: rafael.taylor@va.gov. 

RIN: 2900–AQ05 

VA 

94. Authority of Health Care Providers 

To Practice Telehealth 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 38 

U.S.C. 1701 (note); 38 U.S.C. 1709A; 38 

U.S.C. 1712A (note); 38 U.S.C. 1722B; 

38 U.S.C. 7301; 38 U.S.C. 7330A; 38 

U.S.C. 7401 to 7403; 38 U.S.C. 7406 

(note) 

CFR Citation: 38 FR 17.417. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) proposed to amend its 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1773 

medical regulations by standardizing 

the delivery of care by VA health care 

providers through telehealth. The rule 

would ensure that VA health care 

providers provide the same level of care 

to all beneficiaries, irrespective of the 

State or location in a State of the health 

care provider or the beneficiary. This 

rule would achieve important Federal 

interests by ensuring the availability of 

mental health, specialty, and general 

clinical care for all beneficiaries. 

Statement of Need: VA proposes to 

amend its medical regulations by 

standardizing the delivery of care by VA 

health care providers through 

telehealth. This rule would ensure that 

VA health care providers provide the 

same level of care to all beneficiaries, 

irrespective of the State or location in a 

State of the VA health care provider or 

the beneficiary. This rule would achieve 

important Federal interests by 

increasing the availability of mental 

health, specialty, and general clinical 

care for all beneficiaries. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 

7301(b) establishes the general functions 

of VHA within VA, and establishes that 

its primary function is to ‘‘provide a 

complete medical and hospital service 

for the medical care and treatment of 

veterans, as provided in this title and in 

regulations prescribed by the Secretary 

[of Veterans Affairs (Secretary)] 

pursuant to this title.’’ In carrying out 

this function, VHA must ensure that 

patient care is appropriate and safe and 

its health care providers meet or exceed 

generally accepted professional 

standards for patient care. In addition, 

because VA is a national health care 

provider, VHA must ensure that 

beneficiaries receive the same high level 

of care and access to care no matter 

where, in a State, a beneficiary or health 

care provider is located at the time the 

health care is provided. 

Alternatives: VA considered the 

consequences of taking no regulatory 

action. Doing so would leave VA 

telehealth providers vulnerable to 

adverse action, such as discipline or 

termination of licenses by their state 

licensing boards if they provide services 

to beneficiaries in States in which the 

providers are not licensed, registered, 

certified, or located. Under those 

circumstances, VA has found that some 

of its medical providers cannot 

effectively practice telehealth, which 

limit’s VA’s ability to provide care to 

Veterans, particularly in remote, rural, 

or medically underserved areas. VA’s 

only remedy for that issue is to 

supersede state law, and the appropriate 

mechanism to do so is in rulemaking. 

By superseding state law in this 

rulemaking, VA will ensure greater 

access to care for Veterans and 

beneficiaries. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: VA 

anticipates minimal (transfer) costs to 

VA as a result of this rulemaking. 

However, VA’s ability to leverage 

existing resources to expand telehealth 

under an expanded authority will result 

in (transfer) savings to VA. These 

savings to VA will offset the anticipated 

minimal costs to VA. This rulemaking 

contains no provisions constituting a 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 to 3521). Therefore, we 

expect no increased and/or decreased 

PRA costs. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/02/17 82 FR 45756 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

11/01/17 

Final Action ......... 05/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: State. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

E.O. 13132. 

Agency Contact: Kevin Galpin, 

Executive Director, Telehealth Services 

(10P8), Department of Veterans Affairs, 

810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20420, Phone: 404 771–8794, Email: 

kevin.galpin@va.gov. 

RIN: 2900–AQ06 

VA 

95. • Revise and Streamline VA 

Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Principles (VAAR Case 2014–V008) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 40 

U.S.C. 121(c) 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 801, 825, 836, 

842, 846 and 852. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend and 

update its VA Acquisition Regulation 

(VAAR) in phased increments to revise 

or remove any policy superseded by 

changes in the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural 

guidance internal to VA into the VAAM, 

and to incorporate any new agency 

specific regulations or policies. These 

changes seek to streamline and align the 

VAAR with the FAR and remove 

outdated and duplicative requirements 

and reduce burden on contractors. The 

VAAM incorporates the VAAR as well 

as internal agency acquisition policy. 

VA will rewrite certain parts of the 

VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts 

are rewritten, will publish it in the 

Federal Register. To minimize the 

number of rules published, VA will 

combine relatable topics. 

Statement of Need: The rulemaking 

would update the VAAR to current FAR 

titles, requirements, and definitions; it 

would correct inconsistencies and 

removes redundancies and duplicate 

material already covered by the FAR; it 

would also delete outdated material or 

information and appropriately 

renumbers VAAR text, clauses, and 

provisions where required to comport 

with FAR format, numbering and 

arrangement. All amendments, 

revisions, and removals have been 

reviewed and concurred with by an 

Integrated Product Team of agency 

stakeholders. Codified acquisition 

regulations may be amended and 

revised only through rulemaking. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 40 U.S.C. 

121(c); and 48 CFR 1.301 to 1.304. 

Alternatives: The revised VAAR will 

have 47 parts, grouped into 19 packages. 

VA did consider grouping all of the 

parts into one package, which would 

have resulted in one regulatory action. 

However, this approach or alternative 

was tried several years ago and the 

project ended up being terminated 

because of the complexity, time spent 

correcting errors, legal review, and 

inconsistency amongst the acquisition 

offices and other agencies. Another 

alternative would be to do nothing, 

which would undermine VA’s mission 

of simplifying the acquisition process 

and making it easier for potential 

vendors to do business with the VA. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There 

are no transfer costs or savings 

associated with this rulemaking. The 

total estimated annual cost savings to 

respondents as a result of this 

rulemaking is estimated to be 

$82,685.00. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, 

Senior Procurement Analyst (003A2A), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Procurement Policy and Warrant 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1774 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

Management Services, 425 I Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202 632– 

5276, Email: ricky.clark@va.gov. 

RIN: 2900–AQ18 

VA 

96. • Revise and Streamline VA 

Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Principles (VAAR Case 2014–V006) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Not subject 

to, not significant. 

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

U.S.C. 1707; 38 U.S.C. 8127 to 8128 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR Ch 8; 48 CFR 

817; 48 CFR 852. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend and 

update its VA Acquisition Regulation 

(VAAR) in phased increments to revise 

or remove any policy superseded by 

changes in the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural 

guidance internal to VA into the VAAM, 

and to incorporate any new agency 

specific regulations or policies. These 

changes seek to streamline and align the 

VAAR with the FAR and remove 

outdated and duplicative requirements 

and reduce burden on contractors. The 

VAAM incorporates the VAAR as well 

as internal agency acquisition policy. 

VA will rewrite certain parts of the 

VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts 

are rewritten, will publish it in the 

Federal Register. To minimize the 

number of rules published, VA will 

combine relatable topics. 

Statement of Need: The rulemaking 

would update the VAAR to current FAR 

titles, requirements, and definitions; it 

would correct inconsistencies and 

removes redundancies and duplicate 

material already covered by the FAR; it 

would also delete outdated material or 

information and appropriately 

renumbers VAAR text, clauses, and 

provisions where required to comport 

with FAR format, numbering and 

arrangement. All amendments, 

revisions, and removals have been 

reviewed and concurred with by an 

Integrated Product Team of agency 

stakeholders. Codified acquisition 

regulations may be amended and 

revised only through rulemaking. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Authority: 

41 U.S.C. 1303; 48 CFR 1.301 to 1.304; 

41 U.S.C. 1707; and 38 U.S.C. 8127 and 

8128. 

Alternatives: The revised VAAR will 

have 47 parts, grouped into 19 packages. 

VA did consider grouping all of the 

parts into one package, which would 

have resulted in one regulatory action. 

However, this approach or alternative 

was tried several years ago and the 

project ended up being terminated 

because of the complexity, time spent 

correcting errors, legal review, and 

inconsistency amongst the acquisition 

offices and other agencies. Another 

alternative would be to do nothing, 

which would undermine VA’s mission 

of simplifying the acquisition process 

and making it easier for potential 

vendors to do business with the VA. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There 

are no transfer costs, savings and/or 

information collection burden costs/

savings associated with this rulemaking. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Rafael Taylor, Senior 

Procurement Analyst (003A2A), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Procurement Policy and Warrant 

Management Services, 425 I Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202 382– 

2787, Email: rafael.taylor@va.gov. 

RIN: 2900–AQ19 

VA 

97. • Revise and Streamline VA 

Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Principles (VAAR Case 2015–V011) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Not subject 

to, not significant. 

Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 40 

U.S.C. 121(c) 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR Ch 8. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend and 

update its VA Acquisition Regulation 

(VAAR) in phased increments to revise 

or remove any policy superseded by 

changes in the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural 

guidance internal to VA into the VAAM, 

and to incorporate any new agency 

specific regulations or policies. These 

changes seek to streamline and align the 

VAAR with the FAR and remove 

outdated and duplicative requirements 

and reduce burden on contractors. The 

VAAM incorporates the VAAR as well 

as internal agency acquisition policy. 

VA will rewrite certain parts of the 

VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts 

are rewritten, will publish it in the 

Federal Register. To minimize the 

number of rules published, VA will 

combine relatable topics. 

Statement of Need: The rulemaking 

would update the VAAR to current FAR 

titles, requirements, and definitions; it 

would correct inconsistencies and 

removes redundancies and duplicate 

material already covered by the FAR; it 

would also delete outdated material or 

information and appropriately 

renumbers VAAR text, clauses, and 

provisions where required to comport 

with FAR format, numbering and 

arrangement. All amendments, 

revisions, and removals have been 

reviewed and concurred with by an 

Integrated Product Team of agency 

stakeholders. Codified acquisition 

regulations may be amended and 

revised only through rulemaking. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Authority: 

38 U.S.C. 501; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); and 48 

CFR 1.301 to 1.304. 

Alternatives: The revised VAAR will 

have 47 parts, grouped into 19 packages. 

VA did consider grouping all of the 

parts into one package, which would 

have resulted in one regulatory action. 

However, this approach or alternative 

was tried several years ago and the 

project ended up being terminated 

because of the complexity, time spent 

correcting errors, legal review, and 

inconsistency amongst the acquisition 

offices and other agencies. Another 

alternative would be to do nothing, 

which would undermine VA’s mission 

of simplifying the acquisition process 

and making it easier for potential 

vendors to do business with the VA. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There 

are no transfer costs or savings 

associated with this rulemaking. The 

total estimated annual cost to 

respondents as a result of this 

rulemaking is estimated to be 

$565,000.00. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: LeStancia N. Spaght, 

Senior Procurement Analyst (003A2A), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Procurement Policy and Warrant 

Management Services, 425 I Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202 632– 

5331. 

RIN: 2900–AQ20 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1775 

VA 

98. • Revise and Streamline VA 

Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Principles (VAAR Case 2015–V012) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Not subject 

to, not significant. 

Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 40 

U.S.C. 121(c) and 3304(a) 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR Ch 8. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend and 

update its VA Acquisition Regulation 

(VAAR) in phased increments to revise 

or remove any policy superseded by 

changes in the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural 

guidance internal to VA into the VAAM, 

and to incorporate any new agency 

specific regulations or policies. These 

changes seek to streamline and align the 

VAAR with the FAR and remove 

outdated and duplicative requirements 

and reduce burden on contractors. The 

VAAM incorporates the VAAR as well 

as internal agency acquisition policy. 

VA will rewrite certain parts of the 

VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts 

are rewritten, will publish it in the 

Federal Register. To minimize the 

number of rules published, VA will 

combine relatable topics. 

Statement of Need: The rulemaking 

would update the VAAR to current FAR 

titles, requirements, and definitions; it 

would correct inconsistencies and 

removes redundancies and duplicate 

material already covered by the FAR; it 

would also delete outdated material or 

information and appropriately 

renumbers VAAR text, clauses, and 

provisions where required to comport 

with FAR format, numbering and 

arrangement. All amendments, 

revisions, and removals have been 

reviewed and concurred with by an 

Integrated Product Team of agency 

stakeholders. Codified acquisition 

regulations may be amended and 

revised only through rulemaking. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Authority: 

38 U.S.C. 501; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 

U.S.C. 1121(c)(3); 41 U.S.C. 3304(a); 48 

CFR 1.301 to 1.304. 

Alternatives: The revised VAAR will 

have 47 parts, grouped into 19 packages. 

VA did consider grouping all of the 

parts into one package, which would 

have resulted in one regulatory action. 

However, this approach or alternative 

was tried several years ago and the 

project ended up being terminated 

because of the complexity, time spent 

correcting errors, legal review, and 

inconsistency amongst the acquisition 

offices and other agencies. Another 

alternative would be to do nothing, 

which would undermine VA’s mission 

of simplifying the acquisition process 

and making it easier for potential 

vendors to do business with the VA. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There 

are no transfer costs, savings and/or 

information collection burden costs/

savings associated with this rulemaking. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, 

Senior Procurement Analyst (003A2A), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Procurement Policy and Warrant 

Management Services, 425 I Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202 632– 

5276, Email: ricky.clark@va.gov. 

RIN: 2900–AQ21 

VA 

Final Rule Stage 

99. Per Diem Paid to States for Care of 

Eligible Veterans in State Homes 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501 

and 1710; 38 U.S.C. 1741 to 1743; 38 

U.S.C. 1745; 38 U.S.C. 7104 and 7105; 

42 U.S.C. 1395(cc) 

CFR Citation: 38 CFR 51. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

adopt as final, to include any changes as 

a result of public comments, the 

proposed rule that published on June 

17, 2015, at 80 FR 34793. This 

rulemaking reorganizes, updates, and 

clarifies State Veterans homes 

regulations, authorizes greater flexibility 

in adult day health care programs, and 

establishes regulations regarding 

domiciliary care, with clarifications 

regarding the care that State homes must 

provide to veterans in domiciliaries. 

Statement of Need: The 

reorganization would improve 

consistency and clarity throughout these 

State home programs. Currently, we 

require States to operate these programs 

exclusively using a medical supervision 

model. We expect that these liberalizing 

changes will result in an increase in the 

number of States that have adult day 

health care programs. Moreover, the 

regulations governing per diem for State 

home hospitals will be eliminated 

because there are no longer any State 

home hospitals. 

Summary of Legal Basis: VA pays per 

diem to State homes for three types of 

care provided to eligible veterans: 

Nursing home care, domiciliary care, 

and adult day health care. The statutory 

authority for these payment programs is 

set forth at 38 U.S.C. 1741–43 and 1745. 

Alternatives: VA considered the 

consequences of taking no action. Under 

VA’s State home per diem program, VA 

partners States to provide nursing home, 

domiciliary, and adult day health 

services to Veterans. The states and 

organizations that represent them have 

advised VA for many years that certain 

of VA’s regulations are outdated, 

confusing, do not conform with best 

practices in extended care services, or 

are otherwise in need of updating. In 

particular, they have repeatedly 

requested that VA establish regulatory 

guidance about the domiciliary care 

program, and change standards relating 

to medical supervision of the Adult Day 

Health Care program. Taking no action 

would result in VA being unable to 

make the needed changes to these 

programs to respond to these concerns 

of stakeholders. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: VA has 

determined that there are both transfer 

savings and costs associated with this 

rulemaking. As a result of the newly 

increased ADHC services, the 

government will spend $700,162 less in 

transfers in FY 2017 and $4,531,095 less 

over a five year period. The cost 

avoidance is based on a high end 

volume estimate. This final rulemaking 

contains provisions constituting 

collections of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 to 3521). However, there are 

no increased and/or decreased PRA 

costs. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/17/15 80 FR 34793 

NPRM; Correction 

and Clarification.

06/24/15 80 FR 36305 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

08/17/15 

Final Action ......... 05/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Richard Allman, 

Chief Consultant, Geriatrics and 

Extended Care Services, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 

461–6750. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1776 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

RIN: 2900–AO88 

VA 

100. Revise and Streamline VA 

Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Principles (VAAR Case 2014–V001, 

Parts 803, 814 and 822) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 38 

U.S.C. 501; 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3) 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 801; 48 CFR 

802; 48 CFR 803; 48 CFR 812; 48 CFR 

814; 48 CFR 822; 48 CFR 852; 48 CFR 

1.301 to 1.304. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend and 

update its VA Acquisition Regulation 

(VAAR) in phased increments to revise 

or remove any policy superseded by 

changes in the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural 

guidance internal to VA into the VAAM, 

and to incorporate any new agency 

specific regulations or policies. These 

changes seek to streamline and align the 

VAAR with the FAR and remove 

outdated and duplicative requirements 

and reduce burden on contractors. The 

VAAM incorporates the VAAR as well 

as internal agency acquisition policy. 

VA will rewrite certain parts of the 

VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts 

are rewritten, will publish it in the 

Federal Register. To minimize the 

number of rules published, VA will 

combine relatable topics. This Proposed 

Rule revises VAAR parts 803, 814 and 

822, as well as affected parts 801, 802, 

812 and 852. 

Statement of Need: Included in the 

proposed changes to streamline the 

VAAR, implementing and 

supplementing the FAR where required, 

and removing internal agency guidance 

in keeping with the FAR principles 

concerning agency acquisition 

regulations, are removing an 

information collection burden from the 

VAAR because it is based on an 

outdated practice in providing bid 

envelopes. We propose to add 

additional definitions to ensure a 

common understanding and meaning of 

terms related to debarment and 

suspensions in the department. We are 

proposing to update the policy 

governing improper business practices 

and personal conflicts of interests and to 

clarify the language regarding the 

prohibition of contractors from making 

reference in its commercial advertising 

regarding VA contracts to avoid 

implying that the Government approves 

or endorses products or services. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 

501, 40 U.S.C. 121(c), 41 U.S.C. 

1121(c)(3), 41 U.S.C. 1707, 48 CFR 301– 

1.304. 

Alternatives: The revised VAAR will 

have 47 parts, grouped into 19 packages. 

VA did consider grouping all of the 

parts into one package, which would 

have resulted in one regulatory action. 

However, this approach or alternative 

was tried several years ago and the 

project ended up being terminated 

because of the complexity, time spent 

correcting errors, legal review, and 

inconsistency amongst the acquisition 

offices and other agencies. Another 

alternative would be to do nothing, 

which would undermine VA’s mission 

of simplifying the acquisition process 

and making it easier for potential 

vendors to do business with the VA. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: VA has 

determined that there are notransfer 

costs and/or savings associated with this 

rulemaking. VA is merely adding 

existing and current regulatory 

requirements to these VAAR parts and 

removing any guidance that is 

applicable only to VA’s internal 

operation processes or procedures and 

placing that guidance in the Veterans 

Affairs Acquisition Manual (VAAM). 

Although this action contains 

provisions constituting collections of 

information at 48 CFR 814.201–6(a) and 

852.214–70, under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 to 3521), no new or 

proposed revised collections of 

information are associated with this 

rule. 

The information collection 

requirements for 48 CFR 814.201–6(a) 

and 852.214–70 are currently approved 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), have been assigned OMB 

control number 2900–0593, and are 

being proposed for removal and 

discontinuance. This will remove the 

annual burden of 2 hours on the 

estimated 640 respondents annually and 

have an information collection burden 

savings of $50.66. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/17/17 82 FR 22635 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

07/17/17 

Final Action ......... 01/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, 

Senior Procurement Analyst (003A2A), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Procurement Policy and Warrant 

Management Services, 425 I Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202 632– 

5276, Email: ricky.clark@va.gov. 

RIN: 2900–AP50 

VA 

101. Revise and Streamline VA 

Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Principles (VAAR Case 2014–V002, 

Parts 816 and 828) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c) 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 816; 48 CFR 

828; 48 CFR 852; 48 CFR 1.3. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend and 

update its VA Acquisition Regulation 

(VAAR) in phased increments to revise 

or remove any policy superseded by 

changes in the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural 

guidance internal to VA into the VAAM, 

and to incorporate any new agency 

specific regulations or policies. These 

changes seek to streamline and align the 

VAAR with the FAR and remove 

outdated and duplicative requirements 

and reduce burden on contractors. The 

VAAM incorporates the VAAR as well 

as internal agency acquisition policy. 

VA will rewrite certain parts of the 

VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts 

are rewritten, will publish it in the 

Federal Register. To minimize the 

number of rules published, VA will 

combine relatable topics. This proposed 

rule revises VAAR parts 816 and 828, as 

well as affected part 852. 

Statement of Need: Included in the 

changes to streamline the VAAR, 

implementing and supplementing the 

FAR where required, and removing 

internal agency guidance in keeping 

with the FAR principles concerning 

agency acquisition regulations, are 

adding a section on consignment 

agreements which defines and describes 

the consignment agreement acquisition 

method used for satisfying the need for 

immediate and on-going requirements; 

removing the section, Letters of 

Availability, as that procurement 

method is no longer in use in VA. Also, 

revising the section, Insurance Under 

Fixed-Price Contracts, to clarify the 

provision prescription for when 

insurance is required for solicitations 

when utilizing term or continuing fixed 

priced contracts for ambulance, 

automobile and aircraft service. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1777 

Summary of Legal Basis: 40 U.S.C. 

121(c), 41 U.S.C. 1707, 48 CFR 1.3. 

Alternatives: The revised VAAR will 

have 47 parts, grouped into 19 packages. 

VA did consider grouping all of the 

parts into one package, which would 

have resulted in one regulatory action. 

However, this approach or alternative 

was tried several years ago and the 

project ended up being terminated 

because of the complexity, time spent 

correcting errors, legal review, and 

inconsistency amongst the acquisition 

offices and other agencies. Another 

alternative would be to do nothing, 

which would undermine VA’s mission 

of simplifying the acquisition process 

and making it easier for potential 

vendors to do business with the VA. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: VA has 

determined there are no transfer costs or 

savings associated with this rulemaking. 

VA is merely adding existing and 

current regulatory requirements to the 

VAAR and removing any guidance that 

is applicable only to VA’s internal 

operation processes or procedures and 

placing that guidance in the Veterans 

Affairs Acquisition Manual (VAAM). 

This rule contains provisions 

constituting collections of information 

at 48 CFR 828.306 and 852.228–71, 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3521). However, this regulation does not 

add any new or proposes any new 

revisions for the collection of 

information. The information collection 

requirements for 48 CFR 828.306 and 

852.228–71 are currently approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) and were assigned the OMB 

control number of 2900–0590. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/13/17 82 FR 13418 

NPRM; Correction 04/04/17 82 FR 16332 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

05/12/17 

Final Action ......... 05/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, 

Senior Procurement Analyst (003A2A), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Procurement Policy and Warrant 

Management Services, 425 I Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202 632– 

5276, Email: ricky.clark@va.gov. 

RIN: 2900–AP82 

VA 

102. • Reimbursement for Emergency 

Treatment 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501 

CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.1002; 38 CFR 

17.1003; 38 CFR 17.1005. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) plans to revise its 

regulations concerning payment or 

reimbursement for emergency treatment 

for non-service-connected conditions at 

non-VA facilities to implement the 

requirements of a recent court decision. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking 

will clarify eligibility for payment or 

reimbursement to include veterans who 

receive partial payment from a healthplan contract for non-VA emergency 

treatment and establishes a 

corresponding reimbursement 

methodology. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 

1725 authorizes VA to reimburse 

veterans for the reasonable value of 

emergency treatment for non-service 

connected conditions furnished in a 

non-VA facility, if certain criteria are 

met. One requirement is that the veteran 

must be personally liable for the 

emergency treatment. As originally 

enacted in 1999, the statute provided 

that a veteran is personally liable if the 

veteran has no entitlement to care or 

services under a health-plan contract, 

and no other contractual or legal 

recourse against a third party that 

would, in part or in whole, extinguish 

such liability to the provider. 38 U.S.C. 

1725(b)(3)(B) and (C) (1999). 

In Staab v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 

50 (2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims (the Court) reversed a 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the Board) 

decision denying a claim under section 

1725. The Board had applied 17.1002(f) 

to conclude that partial payment of the 

emergency treatment by the veteran’s 

health-plan contract barred VA 

reimbursement. On appeal, the veteran 

challenged 17.1002(f) as inconsistent 

with section 1725. The Court agreed, 

and in a precedential decision, held 

invalid and set aside 17.1002(f) and 

remanded the case. 

Alternatives: This rulemaking is a 

result of a court order invalidating 38 

CFR 17.1002(f). This rulemaking will 

amend the pertinent VA regulations to 

comply with the holding of this Court 

decision. It will make other 

amendments that are also needed to 

ensure consistent application of its 

authority to reimburse Veterans for 

emergency treatment in light of the 

court order. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: VA has 

determined that there are transfers costs 

associated with this rulemaking. Total 

transfer costs are estimated to be from 

a low estimate of $45.0 million to a high 

estimate of $97.3 million in FY 2018 

and a low estimate of $234.4 million to 

a high estimate of $517.7 million over 

a five year period. This rule contains no 

provisions constituting a collection of 

information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

to 3521). 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 11/00/17 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Joseph Duran, 

Deputy Director (10NB3), Department of 

Veterans Affairs, Chief Business Office, 

Veteran Health Administration, 3773 

Cherry Creek North Drive, Denver, CO 

80209, Phone: 303 372–4629, Email: 

joseph.duran2@va.gov. 

RIN: 2900–AQ08 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY (EPA) 

Statement of Priorities 

Overview 

The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) administers the laws 

enacted by Congress and signed by the 

President to protect people’s health and 

the environment. In carrying out these 

statutory mandates, the EPA works to 

ensure that all Americans are protected 

from significant risks to human health 

and the environment where they live, 

learn and work; that national efforts to 

reduce environmental risk are based on 

the best available scientific information; 

that Federal laws protecting human 

health and the environment are 

enforced fairly and effectively; that 

environmental protection is an integral 

consideration in U.S. policies 

concerning natural resources, human 

health, economic growth, energy, 

transportation, agriculture, industry, 

and international trade, and these 

factors are similarly considered in 

establishing environmental policy; that 

all parts of society—communities, 

individuals, businesses, and State, local 

and tribal governments—have access to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1778 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

accurate information sufficient to 

effectively participate in managing 

human health and environmental risks; 

that environmental protection 

contributes to making our communities 

and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and 

economically productive; and, that the 

United States plays a leadership role in 

working with other nations to protect 

the global environment. 

To accomplish its goals in the coming 

year, the EPA will use regulatory 

authorities, along with grant- and 

incentive-based programs, technical and 

compliance assistance and tools, and 

research and educational initiatives to 

address its statutory responsibilities. All 

of this work will be undertaken with a 

strong commitment to science, law and 

transparency. 

Highlights of EPA’s Regulatory Plan 

EPA’s more than forty years of 

protecting public health and the 

environment demonstrates our nation’s 

commitment to reducing pollution that 

can threaten the air we breathe, the 

water we use, and the communities we 

live in. This Regulatory Plan contains 

information on some of our most 

important upcoming regulatory and 

deregulatory actions. As always, our 

Semiannual Regulatory Agenda contains 

information on a broader spectrum of 

EPA’s upcoming regulatory actions. 

Improving Air Quality 

The Agency will continue to deploy 

existing regulatory tools where 

appropriate and warranted. Using the 

Clean Air Act, EPA will work with 

States to accurately measure air quality 

and ensure that more Americans are 

living and working in areas that meet air 

quality standards. EPA will continue to 

develop standards, as directed by the 

Clean Air Act, for both mobile and 

stationary sources, to reduce emissions 

of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, 

nitrogen oxides, toxics, and other 

pollutants. 

Electric Utility Sector Greenhouse Gas 

Rules. The EPA will continue its review 

of the Clean Power Plan suite of actions 

issued by the previous administration 

affecting fossil fuel-fired electric 

generating units (EGUs). On October 23, 

2015, the EPA issued a final rule that 

established first-ever standards for 

States to follow in developing plans to 

reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions 

from existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs. On 

the same day, the EPA issued a final 

rule establishing CO2 emissions 

standards for newly constructed, 

modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel 

fired EGUs. The Agency will reevaluate 

whether these rules and alternative 

approaches are appropriately grounded 

in EPA’s statutory authority and 

consistent with the rule of law. EPA will 

assess whether these rules or alternative 

approaches would appropriately 

promote cooperative federalism and 

respect the authority and powers that 

are reserved to the States; whether these 

rules and alternative approaches affect 

the Administration’s dual goals of 

protecting public health and welfare, 

while also supporting economic growth 

and job creation; and whether these 

rules or alternative approaches 

appropriately maintain the diversity of 

reliable energy resources and encourage 

the production of domestic energy 

sources to achieve energy independence 

and security. 

Light-duty Vehicle Mid-Term 

Evaluation. In 2012, as part of a joint 

rulemaking, the EPA and the 

Department of Transportation’s National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) finalized separate sets of 

standards under their respective 

statutory authorities. The EPA set GHG 

emission standards (including standards 

for emissions of CO2, NOx, methane, 

and air conditioning refrigerants) for 

Model Year (MY) 2017–2025 passenger 

cars and light-trucks under Clean Air 

Act (CAA) section 202(a). NHTSA sets 

national CAFE standards under the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(EPCA) for MY 2017–2021 light-duty 

vehicles and issued augural standards 

for MY 2022–2025. The 2012 joint 

rulemaking establishing these standards 

included a regulatory requirement for 

the EPA to conduct a Mid-Term 

Evaluation of the GHG standards 

established for MY 2022–2025. In July 

2016, the EPA, NHTSA, and the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

released for public comment a jointly 

prepared Draft Technical Assessment 

Report, which examined a range of 

issues relevant to GHG emissions and 

CAFE standards for MY 2022–2025. 

Under the 2012 joint rulemaking 

regulations, no later than April 1, 2018, 

the EPA Administrator must determine 

whether the GHG standards established 

under the 2012 joint rule for MY 2022– 

2025 are appropriate under CAA section 

202(a) in light of the record then before 

the Administrator. Given that CO2 

makes up the vast majority of the GHGs 

that the EPA regulates under section 

202(a), and given that the technologies 

available for regulating CO2 emissions 

do so by improving fuel economy 

(which NHTSA regulates under EPCA), 

NHTSA’s views regarding their CAFE 

standards is an appropriate 

consideration in EPA’s determination 

regarding what GHG standards would be 

appropriate under the CAA. 

In accordance with the schedule set 

forth in the EPA’s regulations, the EPA 

intends to make a Final Determination 

regarding the appropriateness of the MY 

2022–2025 GHG standards no later than 

April 1, 2018. As a part of this process, 

the EPA is examining a wide range of 

factors, such as developments in 

powertrain technology, vehicle 

electrification, light-weighting and 

vehicle safety impacts, the penetration 

of fuel efficient technologies in the 

marketplace, consumer acceptance of 

fuel efficient technologies, trends in fuel 

prices and the vehicle fleet, 

employment impacts, and many others. 

New Source Review and Title V 

Permitting Programs Reform. The CAA 

establishes a number of permitting 

programs designed to carry out the goals 

of the Act. The EPA directly implements 

some of these programs through its 

regional offices, but most are carried out 

by States, local agencies, and approved 

tribes. New Source Review (NSR) is a 

preconstruction permitting program that 

ensures that the addition of new and 

modified sources does not significantly 

degrade air quality. NSR permits are 

legal documents that the facility 

owners/operators must abide by. The 

permit specifies what construction is 

allowed, what emission limits must be 

met, and often how the emissions 

source may be operated. There are three 

types of NSR permits: (1) Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) (CAA 

part C) permits, which are required for 

new major sources or a major source 

making a major modification in an 

attainment area; (2) Nonattainment NSR 

(NNSR) (CAA part D) permits, which are 

required for new major sources or major 

sources making a major modification in 

a nonattainment area; and (3) Minor 

source permits (CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C)). 

CAA title V requires major sources of 

air pollutants, and certain other sources, 

to obtain and operate in compliance 

with an operating permit. Sources with 

these ‘‘title V permits’’ are required by 

the CAA to certify compliance with the 

applicable requirements of their permits 

at least annually. Regulations governing 

the Title V program are found at 40 CFR 

part 70—State Operating Permit 

Programs. 

To improve program effectiveness and 

reduce compliance burden, the EPA will 

examine permitting programs reforms, 

such as the timely issuance of permits, 

the facilitation of flexibility in 

permitting in a nationally consistent 

manner (including but not limited to 

plant-wide applicability limits (PALs) 

and alternative operating scenarios), and 

the simplification of CAA permitting 

requirements by evaluating and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1779 

pursuing appropriate actions related to 

actual-to-projected-actual applicability 

test, project netting rulemaking, 

debottlenecking, and routine 

maintenance, repair, and replacement. 

The EPA plans to complete the 

following actions: GHG Significant 

Emission Rate rulemaking, which will 

provide a significance threshold for 

GHG emissions to determine when a 

best available control technology 

(BACT) analysis is required; improve 

the technical tools used to streamline air 

quality modeling by issuing final PM2.5

and Ozone Significant Impact Levels 

(SILs) Guidance, and final Modeled 

Emissions Rates for Precursors (MERPs) 

Guidance; and title V Permitting 

Program Petition Provisions 

Modification. 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) Implementation 

Revisions. 

On October 1, 2015, the EPA signed 

a notice of final rulemaking that revised 

the 8-hour primary and secondary 

Ozone NAAQS. The primary standard 

was lowered from 0.075 parts per 

million (ppm) to a level of 0.070 ppm. 

The EPA also revised the secondary 

standard by making it identical in all 

respects to the revised primary 

standard. 

Subsequently, stakeholders have 

recommended that the EPA further 

revise the exceptional event rule and 

associated guidance to allow for greater 

state flexibility in flagging and 

excluding exceptional events in the data 

set used to determine compliance with 

the NAAQS. Exceptional events are 

unusual or naturally occurring events 

that can affect air quality but are not 

reasonably controllable using 

techniques that tribal, State, or local air 

agencies may implement in order to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. 

Exceptional events include wildfires, 

stratospheric ozone intrusions, and 

volcanic and seismic activities. In 

September 2016, the EPA finalized 

revisions to the Exceptional Events rule 

to establish criteria and procedures for 

use in determining exceptional events 

influenced air quality monitoring data. 

In addition, the EPA intends to 

finalize necessary guidance (e.g., 

updated exceptional events guidance 

and guidance on Significant Impact 

Levels (SILs) and Model Emission Rates 

for Precursors (MERPs), as well as to 

finalize its 2015 Ozone NAAQS 

Implementation rule. 

Improving Water Quality 

Since the enactment of the Clean 

Water Act and the Safer Drinking Water 

Act, tremendous progress has been 

made toward ensuring that Americans 

have safe water to drink and generally 

improving the quality of the Nation’s 

waters. While progress has been made, 

numerous challenges remain in such 

areas as nutrient loadings, storm water 

runoff, invasive species and drinking 

water contaminants. These challenges 

can only be addressed by working with 

our State and tribal partners to develop 

new and innovative strategies in 

addition to the more traditional 

regulatory approaches. EPA plans to 

address the following challenging issues 

in rulemakings. 

Waters of the U.S. The Clean Water 

Act (CWA) seeks ‘‘to restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the Nation’s 

waters.’’ Among other provisions, the 

CWA regulates the discharge of 

pollutants into ‘‘navigable waters,’’ 

defined in the CWA as ‘‘the waters of 

the United States.’’ The question of 

what is a ‘‘water of the United States’’ 

is one that has generated substantial 

interest and uncertainty, especially 

among states, small businesses, the 

agricultural communities, and 

environmental organizations, because it 

relates to the extent of jurisdiction for 

Federal and relevant State regulations. 

The EPA and the Department of the 

Army have promulgated a series of 

regulations defining ‘‘waters of the 

United States.’’ The scope of ‘‘waters of 

the United States’’ as defined by prior 

regulations has been subject to litigation 

in several U.S. Supreme Court cases, 

most recently in its 2006 Rapanos 

decision. Subsequently, the EPA and the 

Corp of Engineers issued the ‘‘Clean 

Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the 

United States.’ ’’ (2015 WOTUS Rule.) 

On October 9, 2015, the Sixth Circuit 

stayed the 2015 WOTUS rule 

nationwide pending further action of 

the court. 

On July 27, 2017, the EPA and the 

Army issued a proposed rulemaking to 

repeal the 2015 WOTUS rule and 

reinstate the regulations in place prior 

to its issuance. As indicated in the 

proposed withdrawal, the agencies are 

implementing clarifying changes in two 

steps to provide as much certainty as 

possible as quickly as possible to the 

regulated community and the public 

during the development of the ultimate 

replacement rule. In Step 1, the agencies 

are seeking to establish the legal status 

quo in the Code of Federal Regulations, 

by recodifying the regulation that was in 

place prior to issuance of the 2015 

WOTUS Rule. Currently, these prior 

regulations are being implemented 

under the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Sixth Circuit’s stay of the 2015 rule. In 

step 2, the agencies plan to propose a 

new definition that would replace the 

prior regulations and the approach in 

the 2015 Clean Water Rule. In 

determining the possible new 

approaches, EPA and the Corps of 

Engineers are considering a definition 

for ‘‘navigable water’’ in a manner 

consistent with the plurality opinion of 

Justice Antonin Scalia in the Rapanos 

decision as instructed by Executive 

Order 13778, ‘‘Restoring the Rule of 

Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth 

by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United 

States’ Rule.’’ 

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

Standards for the Steam Electric Power 

Generating Point Source Category. On 

November 3, 2015, under the authority 

of the CWA, the EPA issued a final rule 

amending the Effluent Limitations 

Guidelines (ELG) and Standards for the 

Steam Electric Power Generating Point 

Source Category (i.e., 2015 Steam 

Electric ELG). The amendments 

addressed and contained limitations 

and standards on various waste streams 

at steam electric power plants: fly ash 

transport water, bottom ash transport 

water, flue gas mercury control 

wastewater, flue gas desulfurization 

(FGD) wastewater, gasification 

wastewater, and combustion residual 

leachate. EPA recently received two 

administrative petitions for 

reconsideration of the Steam Electric 

ELG rule, one from the Utility Water Act 

Group (a petitioner in the litigation) and 

one from the Small Business 

Administration Office of Advocacy. In a 

letter dated April 12, 2017, 

Administrator Pruitt informed the 

petitioners of his decision that it is 

appropriate and in the public interest to 

reconsider the rule. On April 25, 2017, 

EPA published a Federal Register notice 

issuing an administrative stay of the 

compliance dates in the rule that have 

not yet passed, pending judicial review, 

under section 705 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act. In addition, because 

Section 705 of the APA authorizes an 

Agency to postpone the effective date of 

an action pending judicial review, EPA 

issued a proposed rule on June 6, 2017 

to postpone certain compliance dates in 

the rule in the event that the litigation 

ends, and while the Agency is 

undertaking reconsideration. On August 

11, 2017 the Administrator announced 

his decision to conduct a rulemaking to 

potentially revise the new, more 

stringent BAT effluent limitations and 

pretreatment standards for existing 

sources in the 2015 rule that apply to 

bottom ash transport water and flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD) wastewater. In 

light of the reconsideration, EPA views 

that it is appropriate to postpone 

impending deadlines as a temporary, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1780 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

stopgap measure to prevent the 

unnecessary expenditure of resources 

until it completes reconsideration of the 

2015 rule. Thus, the Administrator 

signed a final rule on September 9, 2017 

postponing the earliest compliance 

dates for the BAT effluent limitations 

and PSES for bottom ash transport water 

and FGD wastewater in the 2015 Rule, 

from November 1, 2018 to November 1, 

2020. This rule also withdraws EPA’s 

notification of Postponement of Certain 

Compliance Dates under Section 705 of 

the Administrative Procedures Act that 

was published on April 25, 2017. 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations for Lead and Copper. The 

Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) reduces 

risks to drinking water consumers from 

lead and copper that can enter drinking 

water as a result of corrosion of 

plumbing materials. The LCR requires 

water systems to sample at taps in 

homes with leaded plumbing materials. 

Depending upon the sampling results, 

water systems must take actions to 

reduce exposure to lead and copper 

including corrosion control treatment, 

public education, and lead service line 

replacement. The LCR was promulgated 

in 1991 and, overall, has been effective 

in reducing the levels of lead and 

copper in drinking water systems across 

the country. However, lead crises in 

Washington, DC, and in Flint, Michigan, 

and the subsequent national attention 

focused on lead in drinking water in 

other communities have underscored 

significant challenges in the 

implementation of the current rule, 

including a rule structure that, for many 

systems, only compels protective 

actions after public health threats have 

been identified. Key challenges include 

the rule’s complexity; the degree of 

flexibility and discretion it affords 

systems and primacy states with regard 

to optimization of corrosion control 

treatment; compliance sampling 

practices, which in some cases, may not 

adequately protect from lead exposure; 

and limited specific focus on key areas 

of concern such as schools. There is a 

compelling need to modernize and 

strengthen implementation of the rule— 

to strengthen its public health 

protections and to clarify its 

implementation requirements to make it 

more effective and more readily 

enforceable. EPA is evaluating the costs 

and benefits of the potential revisions 

and assessing whether the benefits 

justify the costs. 

Cleaning Up Communities and 

Advancing Sustainable Development 

EPA’s regulatory program recognizes 

the progress in environmental 

protection and incorporates new 

technologies and approaches that allow 

us to provide for an environmentally 

sustainable future more efficiently and 

effectively. 

Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) 

Review. On April 17, 2015, the EPA 

promulgated a final rule that establishes 

minimum national criteria under 

subtitle D of the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) for Coal 

Combustion Residuals (CCR) landfills 

and surface impoundments at active 

coal fired power plants. The rule 

regulates surface impoundments and 

landfills that are actively accruing CCR, 

inactive surface impoundments still 

containing CCRs, and water both at 

operating power plants actively burning 

coal and those that burned coal in the 

past but have transitioned to use of an 

alternate fuel source. The requirements 

of the rule included: Location 

restrictions (floodplains, wetlands, 

unstable areas, etc.); design criteria 

(liners, structural integrity criteria); 

operating criteria (e.g., run-on and 

runoff controls, inspections, fugitive 

dust controls); groundwater monitoring 

and corrective action; closure and postclosure care (e.g., final cover systems, 30 

years of groundwater monitoring); and 

recordkeeping. At the time the final CCR 

rule was issued under subtitle D of 

RCRA, the EPA did not have the 

authority to enforce these criteria nor 

was the EPA authorized to approve state 

permit programs, as is the case for 

municipal solid waste landfills. Instead, 

the requirements of the CCR rule are 

directly applicable to owner/operators 

of facilities where disposal units are 

located and can be enforced via citizen 

suit or under the ‘‘imminent and 

substantial danger’’ authority of RCRA 

section 7002. Owner/operators are 

required under the rule to place 

notifications in their operating record, 

on their website, and in some instances 

provide notice to the directors of 

appropriate State agencies documenting 

the measures taken to comply with the 

rule. 

The 2015 CCR Rule does not make a 

final Bevill regulatory determination as 

to whether CCRs warrant regulation as 

a hazardous waste under subtitle C of 

RCRA, but instead defers a final 

regulatory determination until the EPA 

has more information on specific 

matters influencing the risks posed by 

CCRs. 

Subsequent to the promulgation of the 

2015 CCR Rule, various environmental 

and industry groups submitted to the 

DC Circuit seven separate petitions for 

review, which were consolidated into a 

single action. On June 16, 2016, in 

response to the EPA’s unopposed 

motion for voluntary remand of certain 

issues, the DC Circuit issued an order 

remanding with vacatur to the EPA 

specific provisions of the rule for further 

consideration, and remanding without 

vacatur other issues. The EPA will 

consider the provisions remanded by 

the DC Circuit, as well as the issues 

raised in the 2017 petition and other 

implementation issues subsequently 

raised by stakeholders. 

Reconsideration of the Accidental 

Release Prevention Regulations Under 

Clean Air Act. Both EPA and the 

Occupational Safety & Health 

Administration (OSHA) issued 

regulations, as required by the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990, in response 

to a number of catastrophic chemical 

accidents occurring worldwide that had 

resulted in public and worker fatalities 

and injuries, environmental damage, 

and other community impacts. OSHA 

published the Process Safety 

Management (PSM) standard (29 CFR 

part 1910.119) in 1992. EPA modeled 

the Risk Management Program (RMP) 

regulation after OSHA’s PSM standard 

and published the RMP rule in two 

stages—a list of regulated substances 

and threshold quantities in 1994; and 

the RMP final regulation, containing 

risk management requirements, in 1996. 

Both the OSHA PSM standard and the 

EPA RMP regulation aim to prevent, or 

minimize the consequences of, 

accidental chemical releases to workers 

and the community. 

On January 13, 2017, the EPA 

amended the RMP regulations in order 

to (1) reduce the likelihood and severity 

of accidental releases, (2) improve 

emergency response when those 

releases occur, and (3) enhance State 

and local emergency preparedness and 

response in an effort to mitigate the 

effects of accidents. 

Having considered the objections to 

the RMP Amendments rule raised in 

various petitions, the EPA subsequently 

delayed the effective date of the RMP 

Amendments rule to February 19, 2019, 

in order to give the EPA time to 

reconsider the rule. Prior to the rule 

becoming effective, the EPA plans to 

take comment on specific issues to be 

reconsidered and consider possible 

regulatory actions to revise the RMP 

amendments. 

Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Management System: Disposal of Coal 

Combustion Residues from Electric 

Utilities: Remand Rule. The EPA is 

planning to modify the final rule on the 

disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals 

(CCR) as solid waste under subtitle D of 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act issued on April 17, 2015 

(80 FR 21302). As a result of a 

settlement agreement on this final rule, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1781 

the EPA is addressing specific technical 

issues remanded by the court. Further, 

the Water Infrastructure Improvements 

for the Nation Act of 2016 established 

new statutory provisions applicable to 

CCR units, including authorizing States 

to implement the CCR rule through an 

EPA-approved permit program and 

authorizing the EPA to enforce the rule. 

The EPA is considering amending 

certain performance standards in the 

CCR rule to offer additional flexibility to 

State permitting authorities with 

approved programs. 

Clean Water Act Hazardous 

Substances Spill Prevention. As a result 

of a consent decree, the EPA is pursuing 

a rulemaking for the prevention of 

hazardous substance discharges under 

the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA 

hazardous substances and their 

associated reportable quantities (RQs) 

are identified in 40 CFR parts 116 and 

117, respectively. The EPA will assess 

the consequences of hazardous 

substance discharges into the Nation’s 

waters, and evaluate the costs and 

benefits of potential preventive 

regulatory requirements for facilities 

handling such substances. 

Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and 

Preventing Pollution 

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) to protect individuals, 

families, and the environment from 

potential risks of pesticides and other 

chemicals. Using sound science as a 

compass, the Agency will continue to 

satisfy its overall directives under these 

authorities and highlights the following 

efforts underway in FY 2018: 

Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety 

for the 21st Century Act 

Implementation. Enacted on June 22, 

2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical 

Safety for the 21st Century Act amended 

TSCA with immediate effect. The 

Agency is working aggressively to carry 

out the requirements of the new law. 

Among other things, EPA is now 

required to evaluate existing chemicals 

purely on the basis of the health risks 

they pose—including risks to vulnerable 

groups and to workers who may use 

chemicals daily as part of their jobs. If 

unreasonable risks are found, EPA must 

then take steps to eliminate these risks. 

In June 2017, EPA released scope 

documents for the initial ten chemicals 

for risk evaluation under the amended 

law. These documents identify what 

uses of the chemicals will be evaluated 

and how the risk evaluation will be 

conducted. In FY 2018, EPA will 

publish and take public comment on 

Problem Formulation documents which 

will refine the current scope of the risk 

evaluations prior to publication the 

draft risk evaluations in FY 2019. 

EPA is also now required to 

systematically prioritize and evaluate 

chemicals on a specific and enforceable 

schedule. Within a few years, EPA’s 

chemicals program will have to assess at 

least 20 chemicals at a time, beginning 

another chemical review as soon as one 

is completed. In June 2017, EPA 

promulgated final framework 

regulations addressing the procedures 

that EPA will employ to prioritize 

chemicals under TSCA for risk 

evaluation, as well as the procedures 

that EPA will follow to evaluate the 

risks of chemicals procedures. EPA also 

promulgated a final rule, per statutory 

requirements, to require chemical 

manufacturers to report on TSCA 

chemicals they have manufactured 

(including imported) within the past 10 

years. Although the framework 

regulations did not formally establish an 

approach to identify how chemicals will 

be selected as candidates for low- or 

high-priority designation, EPA will 

initiate a stakeholder process in FY 

2018 with the objective of identifying 

approaches for bringing TSCA 

chemicals into the prioritization 

process. EPA will subsequently 

determine whether to amend the 

procedural regulations in consideration 

of the information obtained during the 

stakeholder process. 

The new law also authorizes EPA 

cover a portion of its annual TSCA 

program costs by collecting user fees 

from chemical manufacturers and 

processors when they: Submit test data 

for EPA review, submit a 

premanufacture notice for a new 

chemical or a notice of new use, 

manufacture or process a chemical 

substance that is the subject of a risk 

evaluation, or request that EPA conduct 

a chemical risk evaluation. The proposal 

and finalization of a fees rule is an EPA 

priority in FY 2018. 

Finally, the new law requires EPA to 

promulgate by June 22, 2018 a final rule 

that establishes reporting requirements 

to facilitate the update of the inventory 

of the supply, trade, and use of mercury 

in the United States. EPA will issue a 

proposed rule in early FY 2018 and 

promulgate the final rule on or before 

the statutory deadline. 

Reconsideration of Pesticide Safety 

Requirements. In FY 2017, EPA 

solicited comments this spring on 

regulations that may be appropriate for 

repeal, replacement, or modification in 

keeping with Executive Order 13777, 

entitled ‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory 

Reform Agenda.’’ EPA also held a public 

meeting of the Pesticide Program 

Dialogue Committee in May 2017 that 

included session specifically devoted to 

receiving public feedback on potential 

pesticide regulatory reform 

opportunities for EPA’s Regulatory 

Reform Task Force to consider. 

Although many commenters expressed 

their support for EPA’s pesticide safety 

regulations, EPA also received 

comments that suggested specific 

changes to the January 4, 2017, 

Certification of Pesticide Applicators 

final rule (amending the requirements at 

40 CFR 171) and to the November 2, 

2015, Worker Protection Standard final 

rule (which amended the regulations at 

40 CFR 170). EPA expects to publish 

separate Notices of Proposed 

Rulemaking in FY 2018 to solicit public 

input on revisions to these rules. 

Annual Regulatory Costs 

Section 3 of Executive Order 13771 

(82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) calls on 

agencies to ‘‘identify for each regulation 

that increases incremental cost, the 

offsetting regulations . . . and provide 

the agency’s best approximation of the 

total costs or savings associated with 

each new regulation or repealed 

regulation.’’ Each action in EPA’s fall 

2017 Regulatory Plan and Semiannual 

Regulatory Agenda contains information 

about whether an action is anticipated 

to be ‘‘regulatory’’ or ‘‘deregulatory’’ in 

fulfilling this executive directive. Based 

on current schedules and expectations 

regarding whether or not regulatory 

actions are subject to Executive Order 

12866 and hence Executive Order 

13771, in fiscal year 2018, EPA is 

planning on finalizing over 30 

deregulatory actions and fewer than 10 

regulatory actions. EPA expects the 

combined cost savings of its planned 

deregulatory actions to far outweigh the 

costs of its planned regulatory actions. 

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. This Plan includes the following 

rules that may be of particular interest 

to small entities: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1782 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

Rulemaking title 

Regulatory 

Identifier No. 

(RIN) 

Financial Responsibility Requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b) for Classes of Facilities in the Hard Rock Mining Industry.2050–AG61 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Regulatory Revisions ........................................................... 2040–AF15 

EPA—OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION 

(OAR) 

Prerule Stage 

103. • State Guidelines for Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions From Existing Electric 

Utility Generating Units 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411 Clean 

Air Act 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Clean Power Plan 

(CPP), 80 FR 64662 (October 23, 2015), 

was promulgated under section 111 of 

the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. 7411. Due 

to concerns about the EPA’s legal 

authority and record, 27 states and a 

number of other parties sought judicial 

review of the CPP in the D.C. Circuit. 

State of West Virginia v. EPA, No. 15– 

1363 (and consolidated cases) (D.C. 

Cir.). On February 9, 2016, the Supreme 

Court stayed implementation of the CPP 

pending judicial review. Following full 

merits briefing, oral argument was held 

before the D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, 

on September 27, 2016. That case is 

currently pending in the D.C. Circuit. 

On March 28, 2017, President Trump 

issued Executive Order 13783 

establishing a national policy in favor of 

energy independence, economic growth 

and the rule of law. The Executive 

Order specifically directed the EPA to 

review and, if appropriate, initiate 

reconsideration proceedings to suspend, 

revise or rescind the CPP. The EPA has 

now conducted its review of the CPP, as 

directed by the Executive Order, and 

has concluded that ‘‘suspension, 

revision, or rescission of [the CPP] may 

be appropriate’’ on the basis of the 

agency’s reinterpretation of the statutory 

provisions underlying the CPP. On 

October 10, 2017, the Administrator 

signed a Federal Register notice 

proposing to repeal the CPP. In light of 

that proposed repeal, the EPA will be 

signing, in the near future, an advanced 

notice of proposed rulemaking that will 

solicit information on systems of 

emission reduction and provide notice 

of the agency’s interest in developing a 

rule similarly intended to reduce carbon 

dioxide emissions from existing fossilfueled electric utility generating units 

and to solicit information for the agency 

to consider in developing such a rule. 

Statement of Need: The EPA has 

conducted its initial review of the CPP, 

as directed by Executive Order 13783, 

and has concluded that ‘‘suspension, 

revision, or rescission of [the CPP] may 

be appropriate’’ on the basis of the 

agency’s proposed reinterpretation of 

the statutory provisions underlying the 

CPP. In light of the EPA’s proposed 

repeal of the CPP, the agency will issue 

an advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking providing notice that the 

agency is considering whether it is 

appropriate to propose a replacement 

rule similarly intended to reduce carbon 

dioxide emissions from existing fossilfueled electric generating units and will 

solicit information on the development 

of such a proposal. The EPA will fully 

consider all submitted information 

before initiating a rulemaking effort. 

Summary of Legal Basis: CAA section 

111, 42 U.S.C. 7411, provides the legal 

framework and basis for a potential 

replacement rule that the Agency is 

considering developing. 

Alternatives: Not yet determined. If 

the EPA determines, based on responses 

to the ANPRM, that it should undertake 

a rulemaking for a replacement for the 

CPP, then the Agency will consider 

alternatives as it develops a proposed 

rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet 

determined. If the EPA determines, 

based on responses to the ANPRM, that 

it should undertake a rulemaking for a 

replacement for the CPP, then the 

Agency will assess the costs and 

benefits as it develops a proposed rule. 

Risks: Not yet determined. If the EPA 

determines, based on responses to the 

ANPRM, that it should undertake a 

rulemaking for a replacement for the 

CPP, then the Agency will assess the 

risks to the extent feasible as it develops 

a proposed rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 11/00/17 

NPRM .................. 06/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

State, Tribal. 

Energy Effects: Statement of Energy 

Effects planned as required by Executive 

Order 13211. 

Agency Contact: Nick Hutson, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, D243–01, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

Phone: 919 541–2968, Fax: 919 541– 

4991, Email: hutson.nick@epa.gov. 

Steve Fruh, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 109 

T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code D243– 

01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

Phone: 919 541–2837, Fax: 919 541– 

4991, Email: fruh.steve@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2060–AT67 

EPA—OAR 

Proposed Rule Stage 

104. Oil and Natural Gas Sector: 

Emission Standards for New, 

Reconstructed, and Modified Sources 

Reconsideration 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

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

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411 Clean 

Air Act 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On June 3, 2016, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

finalized ‘‘Oil and Natural Gas Sector: 

Emission Standards for New, 

Reconstructed, and Modified Sources’’ 

(2016 OOOOa rule). The EPA received 

five petitions for reconsideration on the 

2016 OOOOa rule. By a letter dated 

April 18, 2017, the Administrator 

announced the convening of a 

proceeding for reconsideration of the 

fugitive emission requirements at well 

sites and compressor station sites in the 

2016 OOOOa rule. On June 5, 2017, the 

EPA granted reconsideration of 

additional requirements in that rule, 

specifically the well site pneumatic 

pumps standards and the certification of 

closed vent system design and capacity 

by a professional engineer. This action 

is the reconsideration proposal. 

Statement of Need: On June 3, 2016, 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) finalized the ‘‘Oil and Natural Gas 

Sector: Emission Standards for New, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1783 

Reconstructed, and Modified Sources’’ 

(2016 OOOOa rule). The EPA received 

five petitions for reconsideration on the 

2016 OOOOa rule. By a letter dated 

April 18, 2017, the Administrator 

announced the convening of a 

proceeding for reconsideration of the 

fugitive emission requirements at well 

sites and compressor station sites in the 

2016 OOOOa rule. On June 5, 2017, the 

EPA granted reconsideration of 

additional requirements in that rule, 

specifically the well site pneumatic 

pumps standards and the certification of 

closed vent system design and capacity 

by a professional engineer. This action 

is the reconsideration proposal. This 

proposal will solicit comments and/or 

information from the public regarding 

the Agency’s proposed requirements 

and options under consideration. The 

reconsidered rule is anticipated to 

streamline certain areas of the rule in an 

effort to reduce burden and improve 

implementation. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

reconsideration of the 2016 OOOOa rule 

is an exercise of the EPA’s authority 

under section 307(d)(7)(B) and section 

301(a) of the Clean Air Act. 

Alternatives: For the 2016 OOOOa 

reconsideration proposal, we anticipate 

soliciting comment on a number of 

provisions for which we plan to provide 

alternatives, including the potential for 

alternatives to certification of closed 

vent system design capacity by a 

professional engineer and the potential 

for alternatives and improved criteria 

for the alternative means of emissions 

limitation pathway for affected facilities 

to use emerging technologies or existing 

state or local programs to comply with 

the rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

reconsideration is anticipated to be an 

economically significant action and will 

become effective 60 days following 

promulgation. This reconsideration is 

anticipated to address controversial 

technical and legal issues. 

Risks: We do not anticipate any risks 

to health related to this action. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/00/18 

Final Rule ............ 09/00/19 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Sectors Affected: 211111 Crude 

Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction; 

221210 Natural Gas Distribution; 

211112 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction; 

486110 Pipeline Transportation of 

Crude Oil; 486210 Pipeline 

Transportation of Natural Gas. 

Agency Contact: Amy Hambrick, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Mail Code E143–05, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

Phone: 919 541–0964, Fax: 919 541– 

0516, Email: hambrick.amy@epa.gov. 

Lisa Thompson, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air and 

Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, 

Mail Code E143–05, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541–9775, 

Email: thompson.lisa@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2060–AT54 

EPA—OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

(OCSPP) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

105. Pesticides; Certification of 

Pesticide Applicators Rule; 

Reconsideration of the Minimum Age 

Requirements 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. 

Federal Insecticide Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 171. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: EPA promulgated a final 

rule to amend the Certification of 

Pesticide Applicators regulations at 40 

CFR 171 on January 4, 2017 (82 FR 952). 

On June 2, 2017, EPA delayed the 

effective date of this final rule (82 FR 

25529) and initiated reconsideration 

proceedings in accordance with the 

Presidential directives as expressed in 

the memorandum of January 20, 2017, 

from the Assistant to the President and 

Chief of Staff, entitled ‘‘Regulatory 

Freeze Pending Review,’’ and the 

principles identified in Executive Order 

13790, entitled ‘‘Promoting Agriculture 

and Rural Prosperity in America.’’ In 

addition, per Executive Order 13777, 

EPA solicited comments this spring on 

regulations that may be appropriate for 

repeal, replacement or modification as 

part of the Regulatory Reform Agenda 

efforts. EPA received comments specific 

to the certification rule. In consideration 

of these comments, EPA will solicit 

public input on revisions to the rule. 

Statement of Need: Per Executive 

Order 13777, EPA solicited comments 

this spring on regulations that may be 

appropriate for repeal, replacement or 

modification as part of the Regulatory 

Reform Agenda efforts. EPA received 

comments suggesting specific changes 

to the final rule to amend the 

Certification of Pesticide Applicators 

regulations at 40 CFR 171 (published on 

January 4, 2017 (82 FR 952)) and are 

being considered within the Regulatory 

Agenda efforts. In consideration of these 

comments, EPA will solicit public input 

on revisions to the rule. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 7 U.S.C. 136 

to 136y of the Federal Insecticide 

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. 

Alternatives: Not yet determined. EPA 

will consider alternatives as it develops 

the proposed rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet 

determined. EPA will assess the costs 

and benefits of the potential regulatory 

changes as it develops the proposed 

rule. 

Risks: Not yet determined. EPA will 

evaluate risks to the extent feasible as it 

develops the proposed rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 09/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Additional Information: Docket 

#:TBD. TBD. 

Sectors Affected: 924110 

Administration of Air and Water 

Resource and Solid Waste Management 

Programs; 111 Crop Production; 561710 

Exterminating and Pest Control 

Services; 424910 Farm Supplies 

Merchant Wholesalers; 561730 

Landscaping Services; 111421 Nursery 

and Tree Production; 444220 Nursery, 

Garden Center, and Farm Supply Stores; 

424690 Other Chemical and Allied 

Products Merchant Wholesalers; 541690 

Other Scientific and Technical 

Consulting Services; 325320 Pesticide 

and Other Agricultural Chemical 

Manufacturing; 926140 Regulation of 

Agricultural Marketing and 

Commodities; 541712 Research and 

Development in the Physical, 

Engineering, and Life Sciences (except 

Biotechnology); 115112 Soil 

Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating; 

115210 Support Activities for Animal 

Production; 115310 Support Activities 

for Forestry; 321114 Wood Preservation. 

URL For More Information: https://

www.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety. 

URL For Public Comments: TBD. 

Agency Contact: Kevin Keaney, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Mail Code 7506P, Washington, DC 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1784 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

20460, Phone: 703 305–7666, Email: 

keaney.kevin@epa.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 2070–AJ20 

RIN: 2070–AK37 

EPA—OCSPP 

106. • Pesticides; Agricultural Worker 

Protection Standard; Reconsideration 

of Several Requirements 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 to 136y 

Federal Insecticide Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 170. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: EPA published a final rule 

to amend the Worker Protection 

Standard (WPS) regulations at 40 CFR 

170 on November 2, 2015 (80 FR 67496). 

Per Executive Order 13777, EPA 

solicited comments this spring on 

regulations that may be appropriate for 

repeal, replacement or modification as 

part of the Regulatory Reform Agenda 

efforts. EPA received comments 

suggesting specific changes to the 2015- 

revised WPS requirements which are 

being considered within the Regulatory 

Agenda efforts. In consideration of those 

comments, EPA will solicit public input 

on revisions to the rule. 

Statement of Need: Per Executive 

Order 13777, EPA solicited comments 

this spring on regulations that may be 

appropriate for repeal, replacement or 

modification as part of the Regulatory 

Reform Agenda efforts. EPA received 

comments suggesting specific changes 

to the 2015-revised WPS requirements 

and are being considered within the 

Regulatory Agenda efforts. In 

consideration of those comments, EPA 

will solicit public input on revisions to 

the rule. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 7 U.S.C. 136 

to 136y of the Federal Insecticide 

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 

Alternatives: Not yet determined. EPA 

will consider alternatives as it develops 

the proposed rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet 

determined. If EPA determines that the 

existing rule should be amended based 

on responses to the ANPRM, EPA will 

assess the costs and benefits of the 

potential regulatory changes as it 

develops a proposed rule. 

Risks: Not yet determined. EPA will 

assess the costs and benefits of the 

potential regulatory changes as it 

develops the proposed rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 09/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: State, 

Tribal. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Additional Information: Docket 

#:TBD. None. 

Sectors Affected: 111 Crop 

Production; 813312 Environment, 

Conservation and Wildlife 

Organizations; 115115 Farm Labor 

Contractors and Crew Leaders; 113210 

Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest 

Products; 813311 Human Rights 

Organizations; 813930 Labor Unions 

and Similar Labor Organizations; 

111421 Nursery and Tree Production; 

541690 Other Scientific and Technical 

Consulting Services; 813319 Other 

Social Advocacy Organizations; 325320 

Pesticide and Other Agricultural 

Chemical Manufacturing; 115114 

Postharvest Crop Activities (except 

Cotton Ginning); 541712 Research and 

Development in the Physical, 

Engineering, and Life Sciences (except 

Biotechnology); 115112 Soil 

Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating; 

11511 Support Activities for Crop 

Production; 115310 Support Activities 

for Forestry; 113110 Timber Tract 

Operations. 

URL For More Information: https://

www.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety. 

URL For Public Comments: TBD. 

Agency Contact: Nancy Fitz, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Mail Code 7506P, Washington, DC 

20460, Phone: 703 305–7385, Fax: 703 

308–3259, Email: fitz.nancy@epa.gov. 

Ryne Yarger, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460, Phone: 703 605–1193, Email: 

yarger.ryne@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2070–AK43 

EPA—OFFICE OF LAND AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

107. Clean Water Act Hazardous 

Substances Spill Prevention 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 

1321(j)(1)(C) 

CFR Citation: Undetermined. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, June 

16, 2018, Sign by no later than June 16, 

2018 & within 15 days thereafter 

transmit to the Federal Register. 

Final, Judicial, August 29, 2019, Sign 

by no later than 14 months after 

publication of NPRM (currently 

tentative August 29, 2019) and within 

15 days transmit to FR. 

Abstract: As a result of a consent 

decree, the EPA is embarking on a 

rulemaking for the prevention of 

hazardous substance discharges under 

section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water 

Act (CWA). Section 311(j)(1)(C) reads, in 

part: ‘‘. . . as soon as practicable after 

October 18, 1972, and from time to time 

thereafter, the President shall issue 

regulations . . . establishing 

procedures, methods, and equipment 

and other requirements for equipment to 

prevent discharges of . . . hazardous 

substances from . . . onshore facilities 

. . . and to contain such discharges 

. . .’’ The CWA hazardous substances 

and their associated reportable 

quantities (RQs) are identified in 40 CFR 

parts 116 and 117, respectively. The 

EPA will assess the consequences of 

hazardous substance discharges into the 

nation’s waters, and evaluate the costs 

and benefits of potential preventive 

regulatory requirements for facilities 

handling such substances. 

Statement of Need: Section 

311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) reads, in part: ‘‘. . . as soon as 

practicable after October 18, 1972, and 

from time to time thereafter, the 

President shall issue regulations . . . 

establishing procedures, methods, and 

equipment and other requirements for 

equipment to prevent discharges of . . . 

hazardous substances from . . . onshore 

facilities . . . and to contain such 

discharges . . .’’. 

Summary of Legal Basis: In 2015, the 

EPA was sued for failure to conduct a 

rulemaking for chemicals under the 

CWA 311(j)(1)(C). This litigation was 

settled and a consent decree was file 

with the court in February 2016 

(Environmental Justice Health Alliance 

for Chemical Policy Reform v. U.S. 

EPA). The EPA is conducting this 

rulemaking in accordance with the 

consent decree and intends to issue a 

proposed rule by June 2018. 

Alternatives: The EPA is in the 

process of evaluating options and 

alternatives to fulfill its obligations 

under the CWA 311(j)(1)(C) and the 

consent decree. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

information is not yet available. 

Risks: This information has yet to be 

determined. 

Timetable: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1785 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/00/18 

Final Rule ............ 09/00/19 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Sectors Affected: 72 Accommodation 

and Food Services; 924 Administration 

of Environmental Quality Programs; 56 

Administrative and Support and Waste 

Management and Remediation Services; 

312 Beverage and Tobacco Product 

Manufacturing; 325 Chemical 

Manufacturing; 111 Crop Production; 61 

Educational Services; 311 Food 

Manufacturing; 316 Leather and Allied 

Product Manufacturing; 423 Merchant 

Wholesalers, Durable Goods; 424 

Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable 

Goods; 212 Mining (except Oil and Gas); 

327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product 

Manufacturing; 211 Oil and Gas 

Extraction; 322 Paper Manufacturing; 

324 Petroleum and Coal Products 

Manufacturing; 326 Plastics and Rubber 

Products Manufacturing; 54 

Professional, Scientific, and Technical 

Services; 44–45 Retail Trade; 115 

Support Activities for Agriculture and 

Forestry; 313 Textile Mills; 48–49 

Transportation and Warehousing; 221 

Utilities; 493 Warehousing and Storage; 

321 Wood Product Manufacturing. 

Agency Contact: Stacey Yonce, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Land and Emergency 

Management, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Mail Code 5104A, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564– 

2288, Email: yonce.stacey@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2050–AG87 

EPA—OLEM 

108. Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Management System: Disposal of Coal 

Combustion Residues From Electric 

Utilities: Remand Rule 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906 and 

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: Final, Judicial, June 

14, 2019, Issue a final rule 3 years after 

settlement agreement date (6/14/2016). 

Abstract: The EPA is publishing a 

proposed rule to modify the final Coal 

Combustion Residuals (CCR) Disposal 

Rule, published April 17, 2015. Issues 

covered by this proposal will include 

the height limitation of the vegetative 

slopes of dikes; the type and magnitude 

of non-groundwater releases that would 

require a facility to comply with some 

or all of the corrective action procedures 

set forth in the final CCR rule; and 

adding boron to the list of contaminants 

in Appendix IV of the final CCR rule 

that trigger the corrective action 

requirements under the final rule. These 

proposed changes would address 

specific technical issues consistent with 

a settlement agreement to resolve issues 

raised in litigation of the final CCR rule. 

Further, the Agency is considering 

provisions that establish alternative 

performance standards for owners and 

operators of CCR units located in states 

that have approved CCR permit 

programs, as well as other potential 

revisions based on comments received 

since the date of the final CCR rule and 

petitions for rulemaking that were 

granted on September 13, 2017. 

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). The rule was 

challenged by several different parties, 

including a coalition of regulated 

entities and a coalition of public interest 

environmental organizations. Several of 

the claims, a subset of the provisions 

challenged by the industry and 

environmental petitioners, were settled. 

As part of that settlement, on April 18, 

2016, the EPA requested the court to 

remand these claims back to the 

Agency. On June 16, 2016, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit granted the EPA’s 

motion. One claim was the subject of a 

rulemaking completed on August 5, 

2016 (81 FR 51802). This proposed rule 

includes the remaining claims that were 

remanded back to the EPA. 

In addition, in December 2016, the 

Water Infrastructure Improvements for 

the Nation (WIIN) Act established new 

statutory provisions applicable to CCR 

units, including authorizing states to 

implement the CCR rule through an 

EPA-approved permit program and 

authorizing the EPA to enforce the rule. 

On September 13, 2017, EPA granted 

separate petitions for rulemaking 

submitted by the Utilities Solid Waste 

Activities group and AEP Puerto Rico 

LP. In light of the legislation and 

petitions for rulemaking, the EPA is 

considering making additional changes 

to the CCR rule to provide as much 

flexibility to the state programs as 

possible, consistent with the WIIN Act. 

The rulemaking also includes proposed 

amendments related to implementation 

of the WIIN Act. 

Summary of Legal Basis: As part of 

the settlement discussed above, the EPA 

committed to make best efforts to take 

final action on the remaining claims by 

June 14, 2019. 

Alternatives: According to the terms 

of the settlement agreement discussed 

above, the Agency must provide public 

notice and opportunity for comment on 

these issues. Each of these settlementrelated amendments is fairly narrow in 

scope and we have not identified any 

significant alternatives for analysis. 

Regarding other potential amendments, 

one alternative would be not to include 

these additional issues in the CCR 

Remand proposal since they are not 

subject to a deadline. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Although cost and benefit estimates are 

not available at this time, it is possible 

to speak to the general impact of the 

proposed rule amendments on regulated 

entities. The general impact of the rule 

should be considered in relation to the 

2015 CCR final rule, which it would 

amend. Considered in that way, all but 

one of the settlement-related 

amendments would result in cost 

savings to regulated entities. The 

impacts of one settlement-related 

amendment are already included in the 

analysis of the 2015 CCR final rule’s 

costs and benefits, and thus will not 

result in a change. Regarding the WIIN 

Act implementation issues, the 

proposed amendments are estimated to 

result in efficiencies in the 

implementation of the CCR rule, which 

would lead to additional cost savings. 

Risks: As compared with the risks to 

human health and the environment that 

were presented in the 2015 CCR final 

rule, the proposed amendments 

discussed in this action are not expected 

to impact the overall conclusions in the 

2015 final rule. As a result, the Agency 

believes these amendments, if finalized 

as proposed, would be protective of 

human health and the environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/18 

Final Rule ............ 06/00/19 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Sectors Affected: 221112 Fossil Fuel 

Electric Power Generation. 

Agency Contact: Mary Jackson, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Land and Emergency 

Management, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Mail Code 5304P, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1786 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308– 

8453, Email: jackson.mary@epa.gov. 

Alexander Livnat, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Land and 

Emergency Management, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 

5304P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 

703 308–7251, Fax: 703 605–0595, 

Email: livnat.alexander@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2050–AG88 

EPA—OLEM 

109. • Accidental Release Prevention 

Requirements: Risk Management 

Programs Under the Clean Air Act; 

Reconsideration of Amendments 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412(r) 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 68. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) published in 

the Federal Register on January 13, 

2017 a final rule to amend the Risk 

Management Program regulations under 

the Clean Air Act. Prior to the rule 

becoming effective, the EPA is 

considering petitions for 

reconsideration of this final rule; 

planning to take comment on specific 

issues to be reconsidered and 

considering possible regulatory actions 

to revise the Risk Management Program 

amendments. 

Statement of Need: On January 13, 

2017, the EPA issued a final rule 

amending 40 CFR part 68, the chemical 

accident prevention provisions under 

section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). The 

amendments addressed various aspects 

of risk management programs, including 

prevention programs at stationary 

sources, emergency response 

preparedness requirements, information 

availability, and various other changes 

to streamline, clarify, and otherwise 

technically correct the underlying rules. 

Collectively, this rulemaking is known 

as the ‘‘Risk Management Program 

Amendments.’’ In a letter dated 

February 28, 2017, a group known as the 

‘‘RMP Coalition,’’ submitted a petition 

(‘‘RMP Coalition Petition’’) for 

reconsideration of the Risk Management 

Program (RMP) Amendments, as 

provided for in the CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B) (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B)). 

On March 13, 2017, the Chemical Safety 

Advocacy Group (‘‘CSAG’’) also 

submitted a petition for reconsideration 

and stay. On March 14, 2017, the EPA 

received a third petition for 

reconsideration and stay from the State 

of Louisiana, joined by Arizona, 

Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, 

Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, 

Wisconsin, and West Virginia. The 

petitions from CSAG and the 11 states 

also requested that the EPA delay the 

various compliance dates of the RMP 

Amendments. Having considered the 

objections raised in these petitions, the 

Administrator determined that the 

criteria for reconsideration have been 

met for at least one of the objections. 

The EPA subsequently published 

proposed and final rules to delay the 

effective date of the RMP Amendments 

rule to February 19, 2019, in order to 

give the EPA time to conduct a 

reconsideration proceeding. Prior to the 

RMP Amendment rule becoming 

effective, the EPA is planning to take 

comment on specific issues to be 

reconsidered and considering possible 

regulatory actions to revise the RMP 

amendments. 

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 will prepare a 

notice of proposed rulemaking that will 

provide the RMP Coalition, CSAG, the 

states, and the public an opportunity to 

comment on the issues raised in the 

petitions that meet the standard of the 

CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), as well as any 

other matter we believe will benefit 

from additional comment. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

RMP Reconsideration rule may result in 

an overall burden reduction. In 

reconsidering the RMP Amendments, in 

addition to considering the issues raised 

by petitioners, EPA must also consider 

the impacts of recent Executive Orders 

that require agencies to consider options 

for regulatory reduction and regulatory 

reform (i.e., Executive Order 13771 on 

Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs of January 30, 2017, 

Executive Order 13777 on Enforcing the 

Regulatory Reform Agenda of February 

24, 2017, and Executive Order 13783 on 

Promoting Energy Independence and 

Economic Growth). If EPA were to 

finalize modifications resulting in 

regulatory reduction consistent with 

these Executive orders, the 

reconsideration rule could result in a 

burden reduction of some or all of the 

total costs associated with the RMP 

Amendments final rule (i.e., up to 

$131.2 million annualized, 3 percent 

discount rate and $131.8 million 

annualized, 7 percent discount rate). 

Risks: The RMP rule addresses risks 

from accidental air releases of chemicals 

that could cause acute harm to human 

health and the environment. According 

to the EPA’s RMP National Database, 

approximately 150 such accidental 

releases occur each year in the U.S. The 

average annual cost of RMP accidents is 

approximately $275 million. However, 

this monetized value of accident 

impacts omits many important 

categories of accident impacts including 

lost productivity, the costs of emergency 

response, transaction costs, property 

value impacts in the surrounding 

community, and environmental 

impacts. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical 

Manufacturing; 49313 Farm Product 

Warehousing and Storage; 42491 Farm 

Supplies Merchant Wholesalers; 311511 

Fluid Milk Manufacturing; 311 Food 

Manufacturing; 221112 Fossil Fuel 

Electric Power Generation; 311411 

Frozen Fruit, Juice, and Vegetable 

Manufacturing; 49311 General 

Warehousing and Storage; 31152 Ice 

Cream and Frozen Dessert 

Manufacturing; 311612 Meat Processed 

from Carcasses; 211112 Natural Gas 

Liquid Extraction; 32519 Other Basic 

Organic Chemical Manufacturing; 42469 

Other Chemical and Allied Products 

Merchant Wholesalers; 49319 Other 

Warehousing and Storage; 322 Paper 

Manufacturing; 42471 Petroleum Bulk 

Stations and Terminals; 32411 

Petroleum Refineries; 311615 Poultry 

Processing; 49312 Refrigerated 

Warehousing and Storage; 22132 

Sewage Treatment Facilities; 11511 

Support Activities for Crop Production; 

22131 Water Supply and Irrigation 

Systems. 

URL For More Information: https://

www.epa.gov/rmp. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1787 

Agency Contact: Jim Belke, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Land and Emergency 

Management, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Mail Code 5104A, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564– 

8023, Fax: 202 564–8444, Email: 

belke.jim@epa.gov. 

Kathy Franklin, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Land and 

Emergency Management, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 

5104A, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 

202 564–7987, Fax: 202 564–2625, 

Email: franklin.kathy@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2050–AG95 

EPA—OFFICE OF WATER (OW) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

110. National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations for Lead and Copper: 

Regulatory Revisions 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

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

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

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 Lead and Copper Rule 

(LCR) reduces risks to drinking water 

consumers from lead and copper that 

can enter drinking water as a result of 

corrosion of plumbing materials. The 

LCR requires water systems to sample at 

taps in homes with leaded plumbing 

materials. Depending upon the sampling 

results, water systems must take actions 

to reduce exposure to lead and copper 

including corrosion control treatment, 

public education and lead service line 

replacement. The LCR was promulgated 

in 1991 and, overall, has been effective 

in reducing the levels of lead and 

copper in drinking water systems across 

the country. However, lead crises in 

Washington, DC, and in Flint, Michigan, 

and the subsequent national attention 

focused on lead in drinking water in 

other communities, have underscored 

significant challenges in the 

implementation of the current rule, 

including a rule structure that, for many 

systems, only compels protective 

actions after public health threats have 

been identified. Key challenges include 

the rule’s complexity; the degree of 

flexibility and discretion it affords 

systems and primacy states with regard 

to optimization of corrosion control 

treatment; compliance sampling 

practices, which in some cases, may not 

adequately protect from lead exposure; 

and limited specific focus on key areas 

of concern such as schools. There is a 

compelling need to modernize and 

strengthen implementation of the rule— 

to strengthen its public health 

protections and to clarify its 

implementation requirements to make it 

more effective and more readily 

enforceable. EPA is evaluating the costs 

and benefits of the potential revisions 

and assessing whether the benefits 

justify the costs. 

Statement of Need: The Lead and 

Copper Rule (LCR) reduces risks to 

drinking water consumers from lead and 

copper that can enter drinking water as 

a result of corrosion of plumbing 

materials. The LCR requires water 

systems to sample at taps in homes with 

leaded plumbing materials. Depending 

upon the sampling results, water 

systems must take actions to reduce 

exposure to lead and copper including 

corrosion control treatment, public 

education and lead service line 

replacement. The LCR was promulgated 

in 1991 and, overall, has been effective 

in reducing the levels of lead and 

copper in drinking water systems across 

the country. However, lead crises in 

Washington, DC, and in Flint, Michigan, 

and the subsequent national attention 

focused on lead in drinking water in 

other communities, have underscored 

significant challenges in the 

implementation of the current rule, 

including a rule structure that, for many 

systems, only compels protective 

actions after public health threats have 

been identified. Key challenges include 

the rule’s complexity; the degree of 

flexibility and discretion it affords 

systems and primacy states with regard 

to optimization of corrosion control 

treatment; compliance sampling 

practices, which in some cases, may not 

adequately protect from lead exposure; 

and limited specific focus on key areas 

of concern such as schools. There is a 

compelling need to modernize and 

strengthen implementation of the rule— 

to strengthen its public health 

protections and to clarify its 

implementation requirements to make it 

more effective and more readily 

enforceable. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

1412(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA) (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) includes 

a general authority for EPA to establish 

maximum contaminant level goals 

(MCLGs) and national primary drinking 

water regulations (NPDWRs). The first 

NPDWR for Lead and Copper was 

issued in 1991 (56 FR 26460, June 7, 

1991). Section 1412(b)(9) of the SDWA 

(42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) requires EPA, at 

least every six years, to review and 

revise, as appropriate, each national 

primary drinking water regulation. Any 

revision of a national primary drinking 

water regulation must be promulgated 

in accordance with Section 1412, except 

that each revision must maintain, or 

provide for greater protection of the 

health of persons. This rulemaking will 

revise EPA’s existing Lead and Copper 

Rule pursuant to Section 1412(b)(9). 

EPA’s goal for the LCR revisions is to 

improve the effectiveness of public 

health protections while maintaining a 

rule that can be implemented in a cost 

effective manner by the 68,000 drinking 

water systems that are covered by the 

rule. 

Alternatives: TBD. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD. 

Risks: Lead can cause serious health 

problems if too much enters your body 

from drinking water or other sources. It 

can cause damage to the brain and 

kidneys, and can interfere with the 

production of red blood cells that carry 

oxygen to all parts of your body. The 

greatest risk of lead exposure is to 

infants, young children, and pregnant 

women. Scientists have linked the 

effects of lead on the brain with lowered 

IQ in children. Adults with kidney 

problems and high blood pressure can 

be affected by low levels of lead more 

than healthy adults. Lead is stored in 

the bones, and it can be released later 

in life. During pregnancy, the child 

receives lead from the mother’s bones, 

which may affect brain development. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/00/18 

Final Rule ............ 02/00/20 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Sectors Affected: 924110 

Administration of Air and Water 

Resource and Solid Waste Management 

Programs; 221310 Water Supply and 

Irrigation Systems. 

URL For More Information: http://

water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ 

lcr/index.cfm. 

Agency Contact: Jeffrey Kempic, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, 4607M, Washington, DC 

20460, Phone: 202 564–4880, Email: 

kempic.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

Lisa Christ, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460, Phone: 202 564–8354, Email: 

christ.lisa@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2040–AF15 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1788 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

EPA—OW 

111. Second Action: Definition of 

‘Waters of the United States’ 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR parts 110; 112; 

116; 117; 122; 230; 232; 300; 302; and 

40. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Environmental 

Protection Agency and the Department 

of the Army (‘‘the agencies’’) are 

publishing this proposed rule as a 

second step in a comprehensive, twostep process to revise the definition of 

‘‘waters of the United States’’ consistent 

with the Executive Order signed on 

February 28, 2017. This follows the first 

step which is seeking to recodify the 

preexisting definition of ‘‘waters of the 

United States.’’ In this second step, the 

agencies are conducting a substantive 

re-evaluation and revision of the 

definition of ‘‘waters of the United 

States’’ in accordance with Executive 

Order 13778, Restoring the Rule of Law, 

Federalism, and Economic Growth by 

Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United 

States’ Rule.’’ 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking 

action responds to the February 28, 

2017, Presidential Executive Order 

entitled Restoring the Rule of Law, 

Federalism, and Economic Growth by 

Reviewing the Waters of the United 

States’ Rule. To meet the objectives of 

the E.O., the EPA and Department of the 

Army (agencies) are engaged in an 

expeditious two-step rulemaking 

process. This action follows the first 

step which is seeking to recodify the 

pre-existing definition of waters of the 

United States. In this second step, the 

agencies are conducting a 

reconsideration of the definition of 

waters of the United States consistent 

with the Executive Order. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The rule is 

proposed under the Clean Water Act, 33 

U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq. 

Alternatives: Alternatives have not yet 

been developed at this time. The 

Executive order. directs the agencies to 

consider a defining ‘‘waters of the 

United States’’ consistent with Justice 

Scalia’s opinion in Rapanos. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: An 

economic analysis analyzing anticipated 

costs and benefits will be developed for 

the rulemaking at the time of proposal. 

Risks: The agencies will be able to 

analyze the risks of the proposed 

rulemaking once policy decisions have 

been made. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/00/18 

Final Rule ............ 06/00/19 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Donna Downing, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Mail Code 4502T, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566– 

2428, Email: cwawotus@epa.gov. 

Rose Kwok, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 

4502T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 

202 566–0657, Email: cwawotus@

epa.gov 

RIN: 2040–AF75 

EPA—OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION 

(OAR) 

Final Rule Stage 

112. Renewable Fuel Volume Standards 

for 2018 and Biomass Based Diesel 

Volume (BBD) for 2019 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under PL 104– 

4. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Clean Air Act 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 80. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: 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. Standards are to be set for four 

different categories of renewable fuels: 

cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, 

advanced biofuel, and total renewable 

fuel. The statute requires that the 

standards be finalized by November 30 

of the year prior to the year in which the 

standards would apply. In the case of 

biomass-based diesel, the statute 

requires applicable volumes to be set no 

later than 14 months prior to the year 

for which the requirements would 

apply. 

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 statute requires that the 

standards be finalized by November 30 

of the year prior to the year in which the 

standards would apply. In the case of 

biomass-based diesel, the statute 

requires applicable volumes to be set no 

later than 14 months prior to the year 

for which the requirements would 

apply. 

Summary of Legal Basis: CAA section 

211(o). 

Alternatives: Volume Standards for 

the Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

were proposed for 2018 and for Biomass 

Based Diesel for 2019. The Proposal also 

sought comments on alternative 

volumes, both lower or higher, than 

what the Agency proposed. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs 

and benefits of this rulemaking are 

highly complex given the nature of the 

program and the standards being 

categorically nested under a total 

volume standard. Costs were based on a 

number of illustrative assumptions. 

Illustrative analyses of the four separate 

hypothetical scenarios are included in 

the proposed rulemaking. Illustrative 

Costs for the proposed 40 million gallon 

reduction in the advanced biofuel 

category ranged from: (1) Soybean 

Biodiesel Scenario—$(45)–$(33) million 

dollars; Brazilian Sugarcane Ethanol 

Scenario—$(61)–(23) million dollars; 

CNG/LNG Biogas Scenario—$(2)—2 

million dollars; Corn Fiber Derived 

Ethanol Scenario—$(70)—$(36) million 

Dollars. 

Risks: This is a statutory rulemaking. 

Environmental assessments are 

primarily addressed under another 

section of the CAA (Section 204). Refer 

to last 204 report and/or the original 

RIA under the 2010 rulemaking for 

these assessments. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/21/17 82 FR 34206 

Notice .................. 10/04/17 82 FR 46174 

NODA Comment 

Period End.

10/19/17 

Final Rule ............ 12/00/17 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: 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: David Korotney, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, N27, Ann 

Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214–4507, 

Email: korotney.david@epa.gov. 

Paul Argyropoulos, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1789 

Radiation, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Mail Code 6401A, Washington, DC 

20460, Phone: 202 564–1123, Email: 

argyropoulos.paul@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2060–AT04 

EPA—OAR 

113. Repeal of Carbon Pollution 

Emission Guidelines for Existing 

Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 

Generating Units 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411 Clean 

Air Act 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On April 4, 2017, the EPA 

announced it is reviewing the Clean 

Power Plan (CPP), found at 40 CFR part 

60, subpart UUUU. This action proposes 

to withdraw the CPP on grounds that it 

exceeds the statutory authority provided 

under section 111 of the Clean Air Act. 

Statement of Need: The EPA has 

conducted its initial review of the CPP, 

as directed by Executive Order 13783, 

and has concluded that suspension, 

revision, or rescission of [the CPP] may 

be appropriate on the basis of the 

agency’s proposed reinterpretation of 

the statutory provisions underlying the 

CPP. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The EPA 

proposes to return to a reading of CAA 

section 111(a)(1) (and its constituent 

term, best system of emission reduction) 

as being limited to emission reduction 

measures that can be applied to or at an 

individual stationary source. The EPA 

believes that this interpretation is 

consistent with the CAA’s text, context, 

structure, purpose, and legislative 

history, as well as with the Agency’s 

historical understanding and exercise of 

its statutory authority. 

Alternatives: Not yet determined. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Repealing the CPP could lead to up to 

$33 billion dollars in avoided 

compliance costs in 2030. EPA presents 

a wide range of analysis scenarios meant 

to address numerous concerns and 

uncertainties associated with the 

previous approach to analyzing costs 

and benefits in the Clean Power Plan. 

Risks: The CPP as originally finalized 

raised concerns that it would necessitate 

changes to a state’s energy policy, such 

as a grid-wide shift from coal-fired to 

natural gas-fired generation, and from 

fossil fuel-fired generation to renewable 

generation and that it exceeded the 

agency’s statutory authority. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/16/17 82 FR 48035 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

12/15/17 

Notice .................. 11/08/17 82 FR 51787 

Final Rule ............ 10/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

State, Tribal. 

Agency Contact: Peter Tsirigotis, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Mail Code D205–01, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

Phone: 888 627–7764, Email: airaction@

epa.gov. 

RIN: 2060–AT55 

EPA—OFFICE OF LAND AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM) 

Final Rule Stage 

114. Financial Responsibility 

Requirements Under Cercla Section 

108(B) For Classes of Facilities in the 

Hardrock Mining Industry 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 320. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, 

December 1, 2016, Court Order: NPRM. 

Final, Judicial, December 1, 2017, 

Court Order: Final. 

Abstract: Section 108(b) of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, 

establishes certain authorities 

concerning financial responsibility 

requirements. In 2009, the Agency 

published a notice that identified 

classes of facilities within the hardrock 

mining industry as those for which 

financial responsibility requirements 

will be first developed. 

Statement of Need: EPA is under 

court order to sign for publication by 

December 1, 2017 a notice of its final 

action on such regulations under section 

108(b) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

108(b) of CERCLA establishes certain 

regulatory authorities concerning 

financial responsibility requirements. 

Specifically, the statutory language 

addresses the promulgation of 

regulations that would require classes of 

facilities to establish and maintain 

evidence of financial responsibility 

consistent with the degree and duration 

of risk associated with the production, 

transportation, treatment, storage, or 

disposal of hazardous substances. The 

Administrator shall establish the level 

of financial responsibility to protect 

against the level of risk that the 

Administrator in his discretion believes 

is appropriate based on the payment 

experience of the Fund, commercial 

insurers, courts settlements and 

judgments, and voluntary claims 

satisfactions. 

Alternatives: The EPA received public 

comments on the need for final CERCLA 

financial responsibility requirements as 

outlined in the proposed rule in light of 

existing financial responsibility 

requirements imposed by state and 

federal regulatory authorities, as well as 

comments on the methods for 

calculating financial responsibility and 

the availability of financial 

responsibility instruments. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

EPA would expect that the primary 

costs of a final rule to be in the form of 

commissions and fees paid by facilities 

for procuring required financial 

instruments. The EPA would also 

expect to incur administrative and 

oversight costs for implementing a final 

rule. 

Risks: EPA’s CERCLA section 108(b) 

rules are intended to address the risks 

associated with the production, 

transportation, treatment, storage or 

disposal of hazardous substances. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice .................. 07/28/09 74 FR 37213 

NPRM .................. 01/11/17 82 FR 3388 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

03/02/17 82 FR 12333 

Final Rule ............ 12/00/17 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Additional Information: Docket 

#:EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0781. Split 

from RIN 2050–AG56. 

Sectors Affected: 212 Mining (except 

Oil and Gas); 331 Primary Metal 

Manufacturing. 

URL For More Information: https://

www.epa.gov/superfund/superfundfinancial-responsibility. 

URL For Public Comments: https://

www.regulations.gov/search

Results?rpp=25&po=0&s=EPA-HQSFUND-2015-0781&fp=true&ns=true. 

Agency Contact: Barbara Foster, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Land and Emergency 

Management, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Mail Code 5304P, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1790 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308– 

7057, Email: foster.barbara@epa.gov. 

Scott Palmer, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Land and 

Emergency Management, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 

5305P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 

703 308–8621, Email: palmer.scott@

epa.gov. 

RIN: 2050–AG61 

EPA—OFFICE OF WATER (OW) 

Final Rule Stage 

115. Definition of ‘‘Waters of the United 

States’’—Recodification of Pre-Existing 

Rule 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 110; 40 CFR 

112; 40 CFR 116 and 117; 40 CFR 122; 

40 CFR 230; 40 CFR 232; 40 CFR 300; 

40 CFR 302; 40 CFR 401. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Environmental 

Protection Agency and the Department 

of the Army (‘‘the agencies’’) published 

this proposed rule to initiate the first 

step in a comprehensive, two-step 

process to revise the definition of 

‘‘waters of the United States’’ consistent 

with the Executive Order signed on 

February 28, 2017. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking 

action responds to the February 28, 

2017, Presidential Executive Order 

entitled Restoring the Rule of Law, 

Federalism, and Economic Growth by 

Reviewing the Waters of the United 

States’ Rule. To meet the objectives of 

the E.O., the agencies are engaged in a 

comprehensive two-step rulemaking 

process. Under the first step of this 

rulemaking process, the agencies are 

seeking to recodify the regulatory text 

that was in place prior to the 2015 Clean 

Water Rule and that is currently in place 

as a result of the stay ordered by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth 

Circuit. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The rule is 

proposed under the Clean Water Act, 33 

U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq. 

Alternatives: In this first step, the 

agencies have proposed as an interim 

action to repeal the 2015 definition of 

waters of the United States and codify 

the legal status quo that is being 

implemented now under the Sixth 

Circuit stay of the 2015 definition of 

waters of the United States and that was 

in place for decades prior to the 2015 

rule. This rule would result in the 

recodification of what is in place under 

the Court stay (i.e., the regulation as it 

existed prior to the 2015 rule) so that 

the rules are clear and certain while 

agencies engage in a second rulemaking 

to reconsider the definition. As a result, 

the agencies did not propose any 

alternatives for this proposed rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

agencies estimated the avoided costs 

and forgone benefits of repealing the 

2015 rule. Annual avoided costs range 

from $162.2 to $313.9 million for the 

low end scenario and $242.4 to $476.2 

million for the high end scenario (at 

2016 price levels). All of the forgone 

benefit categories were not fully 

quantified in the economic analysis for 

the proposed rule (noted with $B). The 

annual forgone benefits range from 

$33.6 + $B to $44.5 to $B for the low 

end scenario and $55.0 + $B to $72.8 + 

$B in the high-end scenario. The 

economic analysis can be found in the 

docket for the proposed rulemaking. 

Risks: Because the proposed rule 

maintains the status quo, there are no 

environmental or health risks associated 

with this effort. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/27/17 82 FR 34899 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

08/22/17 82 FR 39712 

Final Rule ............ 04/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

EPA–HQ–OW–2017–0203. 

URL For More Information: https://

www.epa.gov/wotus-rule/proposed-ruledefinition-waters-united-statesrecodification-pre-existing-rules. 

URL For Public Comments: https://

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPAHQ-OW-2017-0203. 

Agency Contact: Donna Downing, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Mail Code 4502T, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566– 

2428, Email: cwawotus@epa.gov. 

Rose Kwok, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 

4502T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 

202 566–0657, Email: cwawotus@

epa.gov. 

RIN: 2040–AF74 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION (EEOC) 

Statement of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Priorities 

The mission of the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC, 

Commission, or Agency) is to ensure 

equality of opportunity in employment 

by vigorously enforcing and educating 

the public about the following Federal 

statutes: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964, as amended (prohibits 

employment discrimination on the basis 

of race, color, sex (including 

pregnancy), religion, or national origin); 

the Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended 

(makes it illegal to pay unequal wages 

to men and women performing 

substantially equal work under similar 

working conditions at the same 

establishment); the Age Discrimination 

in Employment Act of 1967, as amended 

(prohibits employment discrimination 

based on age of 40 or older); Titles I and 

V of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, as amended, and sections 501 and 

505 of the Rehabilitation Act, as 

amended (prohibit employment 

discrimination based on disability); 

Title II of the Genetic Information 

Nondiscrimination Act (prohibits 

employment discrimination based on 

genetic information and limits 

acquisition and disclosure of genetic 

information); and section 304 of the 

Government Employee Rights Act of 

1991 (protects certain previously 

exempt state and local government 

employees from employment 

discrimination on the basis of race, 

color, religion, sex, national origin, age, 

or disability). 

The EEOC has authority to issue 

legislative regulations under the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act, 

Title I of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, and Title II of the 

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination 

Act (GINA). Under Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act, EEOC’s authority to issue 

legislative regulations is limited to 

procedural, record keeping, and 

reporting matters. 

Three items are identified in this 

Regulatory Plan. On August 22, 2017, 

the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia ordered the EEOC to 

reconsider its regulations under the 

ADA and GINA related to incentives 

and employer-sponsored wellness 

plans. See AARP v. EEOC, Civ. Action 

No. 16–2113 (D.D.C. Aug. 22, 2017). In 

accordance with the court’s ruling, the 

EEOC will consider and take actions to 

cure defects in the rules. In addition, the 

EEOC’s Fall 2017 Regulatory Agenda 

contains a longstanding item titled 

‘‘Federal Sector Equal Employment 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1791 

Opportunity Process.’’ In July 2012, the 

Commission published a final rule 

containing 15 discrete changes to 

various parts of the Federal sector EEO 

complaint process, and indicated that 

the rule was the Commission’s initial 

step in a broader review of the Federal 

sector EEO process. On February 6, 

2015, the Commission issued an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) (80 FR 6669), that 

sought public input on additional issues 

associated with the Federal sector EEO 

process. The EEOC’s Fall 2017 

Regulatory Agenda states that an NPRM 

is expected to be issued by March 2018. 

Based on the information currently 

available, we anticipate that most of the 

changes will have no cost and will 

benefit users of the process by 

correcting or clarifying the 

requirements. Any cost that might result 

would only be borne by the Federal 

Government. Furthermore, any revisions 

would not affect risks to public health, 

safety, or the environment. 

Executive Order 13771 Statement 

EEOC does not anticipate finalizing 

any regulatory or deregulatory actions 

subject to Executive Order 13771 in the 

next 12 months. One significant rule— 

‘‘Federal Sector Equal Employment 

Opportunity Process’’—falls within an 

exception for regulations that affect only 

other Federal agencies and are related to 

personnel matters, this matter is at the 

proposed rule stage. In addition, the two 

rules related to wellness programs 

under the ADA and GINA are significant 

under E.O. 12866, but are not expected 

to be finalized in the next 12 months. 

Consistent with section 4(c) of 

Executive Order 12866, this statement 

was reviewed and approved by the 

Chair of the Agency. The statement has 

not been reviewed or approved by the 

other members of the Commission. 

EEOC 

Proposed Rule Stage 

116. Federal Sector Equal Employment 

Opportunity Process 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 206(d); 29 

U.S.C. 633a; 29 U.S.C. 791; 29 U.S.C. 

794; 42 U.S.C. 2000e–16; E.O. 10577; 

E.O. 11222; E.O. 11478; E.O. 12106; 

Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978; 42 

U.S.C. 2000ff–6(e) 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1614. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: In July 2012, the 

Commission published a final rule 

containing 15 discrete changes to 

various parts of the Federal sector EEO 

complaint process, and indicated that 

the rule was the Commission’s initial 

step in a broader review of the Federal 

sector EEO process. On February 6, 

2015, the Commission issued an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) (80 FR 6669), that 

sought public input on additional issues 

associated with the Federal sector EEO 

process. 

Statement of Need: Any proposals 

contained in an NPRM would be aimed 

at making the process more fair and 

efficient. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorizes 

EEOC ‘‘to issue such rules, regulations, 

orders, and instructions as it deems 

necessary and appropriate to carry out 

its responsibilities under . . . section 

[717].’’ 42 U.S.C. 2000e–16(b). 

Alternatives: The EEOC will consider 

all alternatives offered by public 

commenters. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based 

on the information currently available, 

we anticipate that most of the changes 

will have no cost and will benefit users 

of the process by correcting or clarifying 

the requirements. Any cost that might 

result would only be borne by the 

Federal Government. 

Risks: Any proposed revisions would 

not affect risks to the public health, 

safety, or the environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 02/06/15 80 FR 6669 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

04/07/15 

NPRM .................. 03/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Kathleen Oram, 

Acting Assistant Legal Counsel, Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, 

131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 

20507, Phone: 202 663–4681, Fax: 202 

663–6034, Email: kathleen.oram@

eeoc.gov. 

Gary Hozempa, Senior Attorney 

Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, 

131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 

20507, Phone: 202 663–4666, Fax: 202 

653–6034, Email: gary.hozempa@

eeoc.gov. 

RIN: 3046–AB00 

EEOC 

117. • Amendments to Regulations 

Under the Americans With Disabilities 

Act 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101 et 

seq. 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1630. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule amends the 

regulations to implement the equal 

employment provisions of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

to address the interaction between title 

I of the ADA and inducements and/or 

penalties as part of wellness programs 

offered by employers. On August 22, 

2017, the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia ordered the EEOC 

to reconsider its regulations under the 

ADA related to incentives and 

employer-sponsored wellness plans. See 

AARP v. EEOC, Civ. Action No. 16–2113 

(D.D.C. Aug. 22, 2017). In accordance 

with the court’s ruling, the EEOC will 

consider and take actions to cure defects 

in the rule. The final rule was published 

on May 17, 2016 (81 FR 31125) and 

completed in the fall 2016 agenda as 

RIN 3046–AB01. 

Statement of Need: The revision to 29 

CFR 1630.14(d) is needed in accordance 

with the District Court’s ruling noted 

above. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The ADA 

requires the EEOC to issue regulations 

implementing title I of the Act. The 

EEOC initially issued regulations in 

1991 on the law’s requirements and 

prohibited practices with respect to 

employment and issued amended 

regulations in 2011 to conform to 

changes to the ADA made by the ADA 

Amendments Act of 2008. The EEOC 

again issued regulations in May 2016 to 

address the interaction between title I of 

the ADA and wellness programs. The 

U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia ordered the EEOC to 

reconsider these regulations in August 

2017. These new revisions are based on 

the court’s order, as well as the statutory 

requirement to issue regulations to 

implement title I of the ADA. 

Alternatives: The EEOC will consider 

all alternatives offered by the public 

commenters. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based 

on the information currently available, 

the Commission does not anticipate that 

the rule will impose additional costs on 

employers, beyond minimal costs to 

train human resource professionals. The 

regulation does not impose any new 

employer reporting or recordkeeping 

obligations. We anticipate that the 

changes will benefit entities covered by 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1792 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

title I of the ADA by clarifying 

employers’ obligations under the ADA. 

Risks: The rule imposes no new or 

additional risks to employers. The rule 

does not address risks to public safety 

or the environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/00/18 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

10/00/18 

Final Action ......... 10/00/19 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Agency Contact: Christopher 

Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel, 

Office of Legal Counsel, Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, 

131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 

20507, Phone: 202 663–4665, TDD 

Phone: 202 663–7026, Fax: 202 653– 

6034, Email: christopher.kuczynski@

eeoc.gov. 

Joyce Walker-Jones, Senior Attorney 

Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, 

131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 

20507, Phone: 202 663–7031, Fax: 202 

653–6034, Email: joyce.walker-jones@

eeoc.gov. 

Related RIN: Previously reported as 

3046–AB01. 

RIN: 3046–AB10 

EEOC 

118. • Amendments to Regulations 

Under the Genetic Information 

Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2000ff 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1635. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule amends the 

regulations on the Genetic Information 

Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 to 

address inducements to employees’ 

spouses or other family members who 

respond to questions about their current 

or past medical conditions on health 

risk assessments (HRA). On August 22, 

2017, the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia ordered the EEOC 

to reconsider its regulations under GINA 

related to incentives and employersponsored wellness plans. See AARP v. 

EEOC, Civ. Action No. 16–2113 (D.D.C. 

Aug. 22, 2017). In accordance with the 

court’s ruling, the EEOC will consider 

and take actions to cure defects in the 

rule. The final rule was published on 

May 17, 2016 (81 FR 31143) and 

completed in the fall 2016 agenda as 

RIN 3046–AB02. 

Statement of Need: The revision to 29 

CFR 1635.8 is needed in accordance 

with the District Court’s ruling noted 

above. 

Summary of Legal Basis: GINA, 

section 211, 42 U.S.C. 2000ff-10, 

requires the EEOC to issue regulations 

implementing title II of the Act. The 

EEOC issued regulations on November 

9, 2010. In May 2016, the EEOC issued 

an amendment to the regulations which 

dealt with the interaction between title 

II of GINA and wellness programs. The 

U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia ordered the EEOC to 

reconsider these regulations in August 

2017. These new revisions are based on 

the court order, as well as the statutory 

requirement. 

Alternatives: The EEOC will consider 

all alternatives offered by public 

commenters. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based 

on the information currently available, 

the Commission does not anticipate that 

the rule will impose additional costs on 

employers, beyond minimal costs to 

train human resource professionals. The 

regulation does not impose any new 

employer reporting or recordkeeping 

obligations. We anticipate that the 

changes will benefit entities covered by 

title II of GINA by clarifying employers’ 

obligations under GINA. 

Risks: The rule imposes no new or 

additional risks to employers. The rule 

does not address risks to public safety 

or the environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/00/18 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

10/00/18 

Final Action ......... 10/00/19 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Agency Contact: Christopher 

Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel, 

Office of Legal Counsel, Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, 

131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 

20507, Phone: 202 663–4665, TDD 

Phone: 202 663–7026, Fax: 202 653– 

6034, Email: christopher.kuczynski@

eeoc.gov. 

Kerry Leibig, Senior Attorney 

Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, 

131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 

20507, Phone: 202 663–4516, Fax: 202 

653–6034, Email: kerry.leibig@eeoc.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 3046–AB02 

RIN: 3046–AB11 

BILLING CODE 6570–01–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION (GSA) 

Regulatory Plan—October 2017 

The mission of GSA is to deliver the 

best value in real estate, acquisition, and 

technology services to government and 

the American people by: 

• Providing centralized procurement 

services for the federal government by 

offering billions of dollars of products, 

services, and facilities that federal 

agencies need to serve the public. 

• Helping federal agencies build and 

acquire office space, products and other 

workspace services. 

• Overseeing the preservation of 

historic federal properties. 

• Creating and maintaining 

Governmentwide policies for travel and 

property management to promote 

efficient government operations. 

• Providing tools, equipment, and 

non-tactical vehicles to the U.S. 

military. 

• Providing state and local 

governments with law enforcement 

equipment, firefighting and rescue 

equipment, and disaster recovery 

products and services. 

• Offering free access to and 

information about government programs 

with the following websites: 

• USA.gov, official portal to federal 

government information; 

• gobiernoUSA.gov, Spanish 

counterpart of USA.gov; 

• publications.USA.gov, Federal 

Citizen Information Center; 

• Consumer protection on USA.gov, 

consumer action website; 

• Consumer protection in Spanish on 

goviernoUSA.gov; 

• kids.gov, official kids portal for the 

U.S. government. 

• Providing free telephone assistance 

through the National Contact Center at 

800–FED–INFO, with email and online 

assistance to the public. 

GSA’s Regulatory Philosophy and 

Principles 

The Agency’s rulemaking program 

strives to be responsive, efficient, and 

transparent. 

Executive Order 13777, ‘‘Enforcing 

the Regulatory Reform Agenda’’ 

(February 24, 2017), required GSA to 

appoint a Regulatory Reform Officer to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1793 

oversee the implementation of 

regulatory reform initiatives and 

policies and establish a Regulatory 

Reform Task Force (Task Force) to 

review and evaluate existing regulations 

and make recommendations to the 

agency head regarding their repeal, 

replacement, or modification, consistent 

with applicable law. 

These reform initiatives and policies 

include Executive Order 13771, 

‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs’’ (January 30, 2017), 

section 6 of Executive Order 13563, 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’ (January 18, 2011), and 

Executive Order 12866. 

In addition, GSA implements and 

supplements FAR requirements through 

the General Services Administration 

Acquisition Regulation (GSAR). 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, et seq. The GSAR 

implements contract clauses, 

solicitation provisions, and forms that 

control the relationship between GSA 

and contractors and prospective 

contractors. 

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive 

Order 13563 ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review’’ (2011), the GSA 

retrospective review and analysis final 

and updated regulations plan can be 

found at www.gsa.gov/

improvingregulations. 

Listed below are the important rules 

planned that require a Regulatory 

Flexibility Act analysis or are 

considered significant and/or highly 

visible. 

Regulation 

Identifier No. Title 

Proposed Rule Stage 

3090–AJ64 ....... General Services Administration Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2015–G506; Construction Manager as Constructor Contracting 

3090–AJ84 ....... General Services Administration Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2016–G511; Information and Information Systems Security 

3090–AJ85 ....... General Services Administration Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2016–G515; Cyber Incident Reporting 

3090–AJ88 ....... Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC); FPISC Case 2017–001; Fees for Governance, Oversight, and 

Processing of Environmental Reviews and Authorizations 

Final Rule Stage 

3090–AJ41 ....... General Services Administration Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2013–G502; Federal Supply Schedule Contracting (Administrative Changes) 

3090–AJ63 ....... General Services Administration Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2015–G503; Construction Contract Administration 

3090–AJ65 ....... General Services Administration Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2015–G505; Architect-Engineer Selection Procedures

3090–AJ67 ....... General Services Administration Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2015–G512; Unenforceable Commercial Supplier Agreement Terms 

3090–AJ75 ....... General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); GSAR 2016–G506; Federal Supply Schedule, Order-Level 

Materials 

3090–AJ82 ....... General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2015–G502; Submission and Distribution of 

Federal Supply Schedules (FSS) Price Lists 

3090–AJ83 ....... General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2016–G509; Updates to the Issuance of GSA’s 

Acquisition Policy 

3090–AJ86 ....... General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); GSAR 2017–G502; Transition to Small Business Administration (SBA) Mentor-Portege Program 

3090–AJ87 ....... General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); GSAR 2017–G503; Remove Duplicative Responsibility Determination Guidance 

3090–AJ89 ....... Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); FTR Case 2017–301; Transportation Network Companies (TNC), Innovative Mobility Technology Companies, and Reporting Travel, Transportation, and Relocation Costs 

3090–AJ90 ....... General Services Administration Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2017–G506; Clause and Provision Designation Corrections 

3090–AJ91 ....... General Services Administration Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2017–G507, Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Contractor 

Teaming Arrangements 

Completed Actions 

3090–AJ69 ....... Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); FTR Case 2016–301, Clarification of Payment In Kind for Speakers at Meetings and Conferences 

Dated: September 29, 2017. 

Allison Fahrenkopf Brigati, 

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 (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 2014 Strategic 

Plan. The Agency’s mission is to ‘‘Drive 

advances in science, technology, 

aeronautics, and space exploration to 

enhance knowledge, education, 

innovation, economic vitality, and 

stewardship of the Earth.’’ The FY 2014 

Strategic Plan, (available at http://

www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/ 

2014 NASA Strategic Plan.pdf), guides 

NASA’s program activities through a 

framework of the following three 

strategic goals: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1794 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

• Strategic Goal 1: Expand the 

frontiers of knowledge, capability, and 

opportunity in space. 

• Strategic Goal 2: Advance 

understanding of Earth and develop 

technologies to improve the quality of 

life on our home planet. 

• Strategic Goal 3: Serve the 

American public and accomplish our 

mission by effectively managing our 

people, technical capabilities, and 

infrastructure. 

In the decades since Congress enacted 

the National Aeronautics and Space Act 

of 1958, NASA has challenged its 

scientific and engineering capabilities in 

pursuing its mission, generating 

tremendous results and benefits for 

humankind. NASA will continue to 

push scientific and technical boundaries 

in pursuit of these goals. 

NASA’s Regulatory Philosophy and 

Principles 

The Agency’s rulemaking program 

strives to be responsive, efficient, and 

transparent. As noted in Executive 

Order 13609, ‘‘Promoting International 

Regulatory Cooperation’’ (May 1, 2012), 

international regulatory cooperation, 

consistent with domestic law and 

prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can 

be an important means of promoting 

public health, welfare, safety, and our 

environment as well as economic 

growth, innovation, competitiveness, 

and job creation. 

NASA, along with the Departments of 

State and Commerce and Defense, 

engages 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 the Administration’s 

Export Control Reform effort that 

resulted in a complete overhaul of the 

U.S. Munitions List and fundamental 

changes to the Commerce Control List. 

New controls have facilitated transfers 

of goods and technologies to allies and 

partners while helping prevent transfers 

to countries of national security and 

proliferation concerns. 

Executive Order 13777, ‘‘Enforcing 

the Regulatory Reform Agenda’’ 

(February 24, 2017), required NASA to 

appoint a Regulatory Reform Officer to 

oversee the implementation of 

regulatory reform initiatives and 

policies and establish a Regulatory 

Reform Task Force (Task Force) to 

review and evaluate existing regulations 

and make recommendations to the 

agency head regarding their repeal, 

replacement, or modification, consistent 

with applicable law. NASA is doing this 

work primarily through its work as a 

signatory to Federal Acquisition 

Regulatory 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, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration, under their 

several statutory authorities. 

These reform initiatives and policies 

include Executive Order 13771, 

‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs’’ (January 30, 2017), 

section 6 of Executive Order 13563, 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’ (January 18, 2011), and 

Executive Order 12866. 

In addition, NASA implements and 

supplements FAR requirements through 

the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS), 48 

CFR chapter 18. As a result of the 

ongoing review, evaluation, and 

recommendations of the FAR Task 

Force and internal Agency discussions, 

NASA has identified priority regulatory 

and deregulatory actions that reduce 

costs to the public by eliminating 

unnecessary, ineffective, and 

duplicative regulations. 

The Agency has focused its regulatory 

resources on the most serious 

acquisition, health, and personnel and 

readiness risks as discussed below. 

NASA will revise the NASA FAR 

Supplement to clarify policy for 

applying Earned Value Management 

System (EVMS) requirements to 

contracts, task and delivery orders and 

to revise the EVMS dollar threshold as 

follows: Clarify that EVMS requirements 

are applicable to all contracts, task and 

delivery orders that are cost or fixedprice incentive fee, have a value of $20 

million or more, including options, have 

a period of performance of 18 months or 

longer, and contain developmental work 

scope; raise the dollar threshold from 

$50 million to $100 million for 

requiring EVMS compliance reviews; 

remove the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) designation 

from the American National Standards 

Institute/Electronic Industries Alliance 

Standard 748, Earned Value 

Management Systems (ANSI/EIA–748), 

which was revised to EIA–748, in March 

2013 Tech America Standard 

publication; clarify the contractor’s and 

Government’s role in identifying and 

approving over-target baseline or overtarget schedule, and; clarify that EVMS 

requirements are to flow down to 

subcontracts. 

NASA will also amend the NFS to 

implement revisions to the voucher and 

invoice submittal and payment process. 

These revisions are necessary in order 

for NASA to comply with the Office of 

Management and Budget issued 

Memorandum M–15–19, Improving 

Government Efficiency and Saving 

Taxpayer Dollars through Electronic 

Invoicing, which directed federal 

agencies to transition to electronic 

invoicing for appropriate federal 

procurement by the end of the fiscal 

year 2018. 

BILLING CODE 7510–13–P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION (NARA) 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

Overview 

The National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA) primarily issues 

regulations directed to other Federal 

agencies and to the public. These 

regulations include records 

management, information services, 

access to and use of NARA holdings, 

and grant programs. 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 

Governmentwide regulations 

concerning information security 

classification, control, and 

declassification programs. NARA 

regulations directed to the public 

address access to, and use of, our 

historically valuable holdings, including 

archives, donated historical materials, 

Nixon Presidential materials, and 

Presidential records. NARA also issues 

regulations relating to the National 

Historical Publications and Records 

Commission (NHPRC) grant programs. 

NARA has two regulatory priorities 

for fiscal year 2018, which are included 

in The Regulatory Plan. The first 

priority is a substantial revision to 

NARA’s National Industrial Security 

Program (NISP) regulations at 32 CFR 

2004. The NISP regulations govern 

release of classified information to 

contractors and other entities that enter 

agreements with the Federal 

Government involving access to 

classified information. Although we are 

proposing to substantially revise the 

regulation, the proposed revisions 

would affect only minor changes to the 

program’s requirements for contractors 

and other entities. The proposed 

changes primarily include new sections 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1795 

setting out agency obligations in the 

course of implementing the program 

that reflect already-existing 

requirements for industry contained in 

the National Industrial Security Program 

Operating Manual (NISPOM), and 

streamline or clarify other sections of 

the regulation. In addition, a small 

portion of the proposed revisions add 

requirements from Executive Order 

13587 to implement the insider threat 

program. 

The second priority this fiscal year is 

a new regulation for the Office of 

Government Information Services 

(OGIS). The Open Government Act of 

2007 (Pub. L. 110–175, 121 Stat. 2524), 

amended the Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended), 

and created OGIS within the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). OGIS is finalizing regulations, 

pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 2104, to clarify, 

elaborate upon, and specify the 

procedures in place for Federal agencies 

and public requesters who seek OGIS’s 

services within the FOIA system. The 

regulation will describe one of the areas 

in which OGIS carries out its role as the 

Federal FOIA Ombudsman by working 

with Federal agencies to provide an 

alternative to litigation in resolving 

FOIA disputes. 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

Statement of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Priorities 

Fall 2017 Unified Agenda 

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 conduct background 

investigations for prospective 

employees and security clearances 

across government, with hundreds of 

thousands of cases each year. 

• 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. 

OPM’s Regulatory Philosophy and 

Principles 

Executive Order 13777, ‘‘Enforcing 

the Regulatory Reform Agenda’’ 

(February 24, 2017), required OPM to 

appoint a Regulatory Reform Officer to 

oversee the implementation of 

regulatory reform initiatives and 

policies and establish a Regulatory 

Reform Task Force (Task Force) to 

review and evaluate existing regulations 

and make recommendations to the 

agency head regarding their repeal, 

replacement, or modification, consistent 

with applicable law. 

These reform initiatives and policies 

include Executive Order 13771, 

‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs’’ (January 30, 2017), 

section 6 of Executive Order 13563, 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’ (January 18, 2011), and 

Executive Order 12866. 

A fully searchable e-Agenda is 

available for viewing in its entirety at 

www.reginfo.gov. Agenda information is 

also available at www.regulations.gov, 

the government-wide website for 

submission of comments on proposed 

regulations. Our fall 2017 agenda 

follows. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Hickman, (202) 606–1973 or 

stephen.hickman@opm.gov. 

BILLING CODE 6325–44–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION (PBGC) 

Statement of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Priorities 

The Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation (PBGC) is a federal 

corporation created under title IV of the 

Employee Retirement Income Security 

Act (ERISA) to guarantee the payment of 

pension benefits earned by nearly 40 

million workers and retirees in nearly 

24,000 private-sector defined benefit 

plans. PBGC receives no tax revenues. 

Operations 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. PBGC administers two insurance 

programs—one for single-employer 

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 

employers. 

• Multiemployer Program. The 

multiemployer program covers 

collectively bargained plans involving 

more than one unrelated employer. 

PBGC provides financial assistance (in 

the form of a loan) to the plan if the plan 

is unable to pay benefits at the 

guaranteed level. The guarantee is 

structured differently from, and is 

generally significantly smaller than, the 

single-employer guarantee. 

At the end of fiscal year (FY) 2017, 

PBGC had a deficit of $11 billion in its 

single-employer insurance program and 

$65 billion in its multiemployer 

insurance program. While the financial 

position of the single-employer program 

is likely (but not certain) to continue to 

improve, the multiemployer program is 

likely to run out of funds by the end of 

2025. If that happens, PBGC will not 

have the money to pay benefits at the 

current guaranteed levels to 

multiemployer plan participants whose 

plans run out of money. 

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 defined benefit plans. 

So, 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: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1796 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

• To encourage the continuation and 

maintenance of voluntary private 

pension plans; 

• To provide for the timely and 

uninterrupted payment of pension 

benefits; and 

• To keep premiums at the lowest 

possible levels. 

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 for the fiscal 

year are: 

• To enhance the retirement security 

of workers and retirees; 

• To implement statutory changes 

through regulatory actions that ease 

compliance burdens and achieve 

maximum net benefits; 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. PBGC’s most 

important actions are: 

Missing participants. A major focus of 

PBGC’s current efforts is to finalize rules 

to simplify and revise the existing 

missing participants program to help 

connect more participants with their 

lost retirement savings. As authorized 

by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 

(PPA), the revised program will cover 

terminating defined contribution plans, 

defined benefit plans of small 

professional-service employers that are 

not covered by title IV of ERISA, and 

multiemployer plans, in addition to 

terminating single-employer defined 

benefit plans. The program will save 

retirement plans time and money in 

dealing with the benefits of missing 

participants. And a centralized search 

directory and periodic searching by 

PBGC will make finding lost benefits 

much easier. PBGC expects many more 

workers and retirees will be reunited 

with their retirement dollars. PBGC 

published a proposed rule on September 

20, 2016, received 14 comments, and 

intends to publish a final rule early in 

FY 2018. (See RIN 1212–AB13.) 

Mergers and Transfers Between 

Multiemployer Plans. The 

Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 

2014 (MPRA) established new options 

(plan partitions and mergers) for 

trustees of multiemployer plans that 

will potentially run out of money to 

apply to PBGC for technical or financial 

assistance. This action primarily will 

prescribe guidance to facilitate mergers 

of certain financially troubled 

multiemployer plans pursuant to 

MPRA, thereby reducing plan costs and 

significantly benefitting plan 

participants. Mergers are a way some 

plans can preserve and protect benefits 

earned by workers. Such plans could 

stabilize or increase their base of 

contributing employers, combine plan 

assets for more efficient investing, and 

reduce plan administrative costs. PBGC 

published a proposed rule on June 6, 

2016, received 10 comments, and 

intends to publish a final rule early in 

FY 2018. (See RIN 1212–AB31.) 

Rethinking Existing Regulations 

Most of PBGC’s regulatory/

deregulatory actions are the result of its 

ongoing retrospective review program to 

identify and ameliorate inconsistencies, 

inaccuracies, and requirements made 

irrelevant over time. PBGC undertook a 

review of its multiemployer plan 

regulations and has identified rules in 

which it can reduce burden and clarify 

guidance. For example, PBGC plans to 

propose reductions in actuarial 

valuation requirements for certain small 

terminated multiemployer pension 

plans, notice requirements on plan 

sponsors of plans terminated by mass 

withdrawal, and reporting and 

disclosure requirements on sponsors of 

insolvent plans (‘‘Terminated and 

Insolvent Multiemployer Plans and 

Duties of Plan Sponsors’’ RIN 1212– 

AB38). Another proposal would 

simplify how multiemployer plans 

calculate withdrawal liability where 

changes in contributions or benefits are, 

by statute, to be disregarded in that 

calculation (‘‘Methods for Computing 

Withdrawal Liability’’ RIN 1212–AB36). 

PBGC plans to propose a 

‘‘housekeeping’’ rulemaking project to 

make miscellaneous technical 

corrections, clarifications, and 

improvements to PBGC’s regulations, 

such as the reportable events regulation 

(particularly addressing duplicative 

active participant reduction event 

reporting) and the regulation on annual 

financial and actuarial information 

reporting (‘‘Miscellaneous Corrections, 

Clarifications, and Improvements’’ RIN 

1212–AB34). PBGC expects to undertake 

periodic rulemaking projects like this 

that deal with minor technical and 

clarifying issues. The ‘‘Benefit 

Payments’’ proposal (RIN 1212–AB27) 

would make clarifications and codify 

policies in PBGC’s benefit payments and 

valuation regulations involving payment 

of lump sums, entitlement to a benefit, 

changes to benefit form, partial benefit 

distributions, and valuation of plan 

assets. PBGC’s regulatory review also 

identified a need to update the rules for 

administrative review of agency 

decisions (RIN 1212–AB35). 

Multiple proposed rulemakings 

would update PBGC’s regulations and 

policies to ensure that the actuarial and 

economic content remains current. 

PBGC plans to publish proposed rules 

that would amend its benefit valuation 

and asset allocation regulations by 

updating its valuation assumptions and 

methods. Chief among the modifications 

PBGC is considering at this time are to 

interest and mortality assumptions 

under the asset allocation regulation 

(RIN 1212–AA55), and the methodology 

for setting interest assumptions under 

the benefit payments regulation (RIN 

1212–AB41). 

Small Businesses 

PBGC takes into account the special 

needs and concerns of small businesses 

in making policy. Many plans PBGC 

insures are sponsored by small 

businesses. PBGC is considering several 

proposed actions that will have a 

positive impact on small businesses, 

notably its ‘‘Missing Participants’’ final 

rule discussed above. This rule would 

benefit small businesses by simplifying 

and streamlining current requirements, 

better coordinating with requirements of 

other agencies, and providing more 

options for sponsors of terminating noncovered plans (i.e., defined contribution 

plans and plans of small professionalservice employers). The ‘‘Terminated 

and Insolvent Multiemployer Plans and 

Duties of Plan Sponsors’’ proposal also 

discussed above would reduce valuation 

and reporting burdens primarily on 

small multiemployer plans, which 

generally are comprised of small 

employers. 

Open Government and Increased Public 

Participation 

PBGC encourages public participation 

in the regulatory process. For example, 

PBGC highlights when there are 

opportunities to comment on proposed 

rules and requests for information on its 

‘‘Retirement Matters’’ blog and in its 

‘‘What’s New for Employers and 

Practitioners’’ updates. PBGC’s current 

efforts to reduce regulatory burden in 

the projects discussed above are in 

substantial part a response to public 

comments. Most recently, PBGC asked 

for feedback on its regulatory planning 

and review of existing regulations by 

way of a Request for Information (RFI) 

published on July 26. A number of 

individuals and organizations 

responded, and PBGC is actively 

considering the comments, some of 

which are already reflected in this Fall 

agenda. PBGC encourages comments on 

an on-going basis as we continue to look 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1797 

for ways to further improve PBGC’s 

regulations. 

BILLING CODE 7709–02–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 carrying out this mission, SBA strives 

to improve the economic environment 

for small businesses, including those 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 

business by lenders that participate in 

SBA’s programs, and 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 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review;’’ Executive Order 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review;’’ and the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. SBA’s program offices 

are particularly invested in finding ways 

to reduce the burden imposed by the 

Agency’s core activities in its loan, 

grant, innovation, and procurement 

programs. 

On January 30, 2017, President Trump 

issued E.O. 13771, ‘‘Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs,’’ 82 FR 9339, which establishes 

principles for prioritizing an agency’s 

regulatory and deregulatory actions. 

E.O. 13771 was followed by E.O. 13777, 

‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory Agenda,’’ 82 

FR 12285 (February 24, 2017), which 

identified processes for agencies to 

follow in overseeing their regulatory 

programs. This Agenda was prepared in 

accordance with both E.O. 13771 and 

E.O. 13777, and SBA will continue to 

work internally, as well as with the 

Office of Management and Budget, to 

fully integrate the executive orders and 

implementing OMB principles into the 

SBA rulemaking processes. As part of 

that effort, SBA issued a Request for 

Information in the Federal Register 

requesting public input on which SBA 

regulations should be repealed, 

replaced, or modified because they are 

obsolete, unnecessary, ineffective or 

burdensome. 82 FR 38617 (August 15, 

2017). In addition, SBA’s Office of 

Advocacy is hosting a series of small 

business roundtables in order to hear 

firsthand from small businesses facing 

regulatory burdens. For more 

information on these roundtables, 

please visit https://www.sba.gov/ 

advocacy/regulatory-reform. 

Based on the requirements of E.O. 

13771 and OMB guidance, SBA 

currently anticipates that 3 of the 29 

rulemakings that will appear in the 

Agency’s Regulatory Agenda will be 

regulatory actions and 1 will be a 

deregulatory action. All other 

rulemakings are either not subject to 

E.O. 13771 or there is insufficient 

information at this stage to determine 

whether they are regulatory or 

deregulatory actions. SBA continues to 

work on assessing the incremental cost 

savings of these Agenda items, which do 

not include non-rulemakings, such as 

guidance documents, or information 

collections. 

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 Procedures 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 while leveraging 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 three strategic goals: 

(1) Growing businesses and creating 

jobs; (2) serving as the voice for small 

business; and (3) building an SBA that 

meets the needs of today’s and 

tomorrow’s small businesses. In order to 

achieve these goals SBA will, among 

other objectives, focus on: 

• Expanding access to capital through 

SBA’s extensive lending network; 

• Ensuring Federal contracting goals 

are met or exceeded by collaborating 

across the Federal Government to 

expand opportunities for small 

businesses and strengthen the integrity 

of the Federal contracting data and 

certification process; 

• Strengthening SBA’s relevance to 

high growth entrepreneurs and small 

businesses to more effectively drive 

innovation and job creation; and 

• Mitigating risk and improving 

program oversight. 

The regulations reported in SBA’s 

semi-annual regulatory agenda and plan 

are intended to facilitate achievement of 

these goals and objectives. Over the next 

twelve months, SBA’s highest priorities 

will be to implement the following three 

regulations. 

E.O. 13771 Designation—Regulatory 

Action 

(1) SBA Express Loan Program; Export 

Express Program (RIN 3245–AG74); 

This rule will propose to amend the 

regulations for the SBA Express and 

Export Express loan programs. Current 

regulations, as well as policy and 

procedural guidance, provide an 

extensive framework for the delivery of 

SBA’s 7(a) guaranteed loans through 

participating private sector lenders. 

These requirements add time and 

expense for lenders who must not only 

comply with their primary banking 

regulator but also with the SBA program 

requirements. SBA is authorized to 

reduce some of its requirements for 

small dollar loans ($350,000 or less) and 

permit lenders to apply many of their 

conventional underwriting rules 

instead. This proposed regulation will 

solicit public comment on the terms and 

conditions that would apply to these 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1798 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

reduced requirements. The rule will 

also propose to not require certain SBA 

mandated forms, which in some 

instances may be redundant, and 

increase costs for lenders to deliver 

loans to small businesses. Since cost is 

an important consideration for lenders 

when assessing the benefits of 

participating in SBA programs, 

streamlining program requirements 

should increase lender participation, 

particularly for community banks, credit 

unions and other mission based lenders 

that generally serve rural communities 

and underserved populations with small 

loans. In addition, SBA continues to 

explore the economic feasibility of the 

RISE After Disaster Act of 2015 

Recovery Opportunity Loan Program. 

E.O. 13771 Designation—Other Actions 

(2) Women’s Business Center Program 

(RIN 3245–AG02). 

SBA’s Women’s Business Center 

Program is authorized by section 29 of 

the Small Business Act. The program 

provides financial assistance to private 

nonprofit organizations to conduct 5- 

year projects for the benefit of small 

business concerns owned and 

controlled by women. There are 

currently no regulations that govern the 

administration, management or 

oversight of the WBC program, 

including the statutorily required 

regulations related to disclosure of 

certain information during a financial 

audit of the non-profit organization. By 

finalizing the proposed rule that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 22, 2016 (81 FR 83718), this 

rule will resolve the regulatory gap and 

provide standardized and transparent 

guidance for program participants. 

This final rule will codify the program 

requirements and procedures for WBCs 

as outlined in statute, including: 

• Eligibility criteria for selection as a 

WBC; 

• use of Federal funds; 

• standards for WBCs to effectively 

carry out program duties and 

responsibilities; 

• use and disclosure of client data as 

stipulated in statute; 

• conditions for receipt of 

supplemental funding to provide 

services in a declared major disaster 

area; and 

• requirements for reporting on 

financial and programmatic 

performance. 

The rule will streamline the policy 

and procedural requirements of the 

WBC Program, which are currently 

included in the Program Announcement 

and Notice of Award (NOA). In 

addition, certain amendments to 

government-wide grant requirements 

will be incorporated. 

(3) Women-Owned Small Business 

and Economically Disadvantaged 

Women-Owned Small Business— 

Certification (RIN 3245–AG75). 

SBA is proposing to amend its 

regulations to implement amendments 

to the Women-Owned Small Business 

(WOSB) and Economically 

Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small 

Business (EDWOSB) Federal Contract 

Program that were authorized by section 

825 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act of 2015. Based on 

this authority, SBA is proposing to 

create a certification program for its 

WOSB and EDWOSB contracting 

program. 

The current WOSB and EDWOSB 

contracting program permits firms to 

self-certify for the program or to be 

certified by a third party certifier (TPC). 

The program currently requires firms to 

submit documentation to an SBAmaintained electronic document 

repository. SBA regulations currently 

require that contracting officers must 

check the repository for every WOSB or 

EDWOSB contract awardee. 

The proposed rule will create an SBA 

certification process, in addition to the 

certifications issued by TPCs. This will 

create an SBA certification option for 

WOSB and EDWOSBs similar to other 

SBA contracting programs. SBA’s 

proposed rule will also contain 

provisions for increased oversight in 

order to ensure continuing eligibly of 

certified program participants. 

The creation of an SBA certification 

program will remove the selfcertification option, and also remove the 

requirement that contracting officers 

review repository documents of WOSB 

and EDWOSB contract awardees. This 

shift of responsibilities to SBA will 

enable contracting officers to focus more 

on awarding awards, which should lead 

to an increased number of set-aside or 

sole source contracts for WOSBs and 

EDWOSBs. 

SBA 

Proposed Rule Stage 

119. SBA Express Loan Program; 

Export Express Program 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory. 

Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 636(a)(31) 

and (35) 

CFR Citation: 13 CFR 120. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

August 21, 2016, RISE After Disaster Act 

of 2015, Public Law 114–88, section 

2106. 

Section 2106 requires SBA to 

promulgate rules to carry out the 

Recovery Opportunity Loan Program not 

later than 270 days (August 21, 2016) 

after enactment of the RISE After 

Disaster Act of 2015. 

Abstract: SBA plans to issue a 

proposed regulation for the SBA Express 

loan program, codified in section 

7(a)(31) of the Small Business Act. The 

SBA Express loan program reduces the 

number of Government mandated forms 

and procedures, streamlines the 

processing and reduces the cost of 

smaller, less complex SBA loans. 

Particular features of the SBA Express 

loan program include: (1) SBA Express 

loans carry a maximum SBA guaranty of 

50 percent; (2) SBA Express lenders use, 

to the maximum extent practicable, 

their own documentation, analyses, 

policies and procedures; and (3) a 

response to an SBA Express loan 

application will be given within 36 

hours. SBA also plans to propose 

regulations for the Export Express 

Program codified at 7(a)(35) of the Small 

Business Act. The Export Express 

Program, made permanent by the Small 

Business Jobs Act, makes guaranteed 

financing available for export 

development activities. SBA continues 

to explore the economic feasibility of 

the RISE After Disaster Act of 2015 

Recovery Opportunity Loan Program. 

Statement of Need: This action is 

necessary to provide regulatory 

guidance for SBA Express and Export 

Express loans authorized by statute. 

Current regulatory guidance provides an 

extensive framework for the delivery of 

SBA’s 7(a) guaranteed loans through 

participating private sector lenders. In 

general, the requirements add time and 

expense for lenders who must comply 

first with their primary regulator rules, 

and then consider the additional burden 

of any SBA program requirements. The 

required use of certain SBA mandated 

forms is in many cases redundant, 

increasing costs for lenders to deliver 

loans to small businesses. For the SBA 

Express and Export Express 7(a) loans 

Congress has authorized SBA to reduce 

specific requirements and instead 

permit lenders on small dollar loans 

($350,000 or less for SBA Express and 

$500,000 or less for Export Express) to 

apply many of their conventional 

underwriting rules and to use their own 

documentation. This regulation will 

detail the reduced requirements for 

these guaranteed loans. It is necessary to 

provide clear and succinct regulatory 

guidance for lenders to encourage 

participation in extending smaller dollar 

loans, and to ensure their ability to 

comply, and extend credit with 

confidence in their ability to rely on 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1799 

payment by SBA of the guaranty if 

necessary. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The SBA 

Express loans are authorized in Section 

7(a)(31) of the Small Business Act and 

Export Express loans were made 

permanent by the Small Business Jobs 

Act and are authorized in Section 

7(a)(35) of the Small Business Act. 

Alternatives: The SBA has provided 

guidance on the SBA Express and 

Export Express loans in SOP 50 10 

Lender and Development Company 

Programs. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: While 

the number of lenders and loans should 

increase, SBA anticipates no additional 

cost from this regulatory action because 

the Express programs have been in use 

and performing for over 5 years. 

Portfolio performance including 

prepayment, default and recovery 

behaviors is already being captured in 

the 7(a) program’s annual subsidy 

calculation. 

Lenders who participate in the SBA 

Express program agree to accept a lower 

guaranty of 50 percent on loans of 

$350,000 or less in return for delegated 

authority and the ability to use forms, 

procedures and policies that they 

already follow for similarly sized nonSBA guaranteed commercial loans. This 

removes the additional layer of 

documents and permits a lender to 

move more quickly to a decision and 

funding of small dollar small business 

loans. Cost to deliver is an important 

consideration for lenders when 

assessing the benefits of participating 

with SBA programs. Streamlined rules 

result in increased lender participation, 

particularly for community banks, credit 

unions and other mission based lenders 

who generally serve more of rural 

communities and underserved 

populations with small loans. While 

SBA does not have specific statistics, 

cost savings to the lender generally 

trickle down to the small business 

applicant. Further, providing plain 

language regulatory guidance for the 

SBA Express program will reduce 

improper payment risk for lenders and 

SBA, by ensuring that lenders are fully 

informed and understand the program 

requirements. 

The Export Express program provides 

lenders with a 75–90 percent guaranty, 

as well as the authority to use their own 

forms, procedures and policies to the 

extent possible to reduce redundancy in 

documentation, time and costs 

associated with underwriting export 

loans up to and including $500,000. 

Risks: The risk of not having 

regulations may impact the number of 

improper payments and/or denial of 

guarantee for lenders due to 

misinterpretation of program 

requirements. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Dianna L. Seaborn, 

Director, Office of Financial Assistance, 

Small Business Administration, 409 

Third Street SW, Washington, DC 

20416, Phone: 202 205–3645, Email: 

dianna.seaborn@sba.gov. 

RIN: 3245–AG74 

SBA 

120. Women-Owned Small Business 

and Economically Disadvantaged 

Women-Owned Small Business— 

Certification 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113–291, sec. 

825; 15 U.S.C. 637(m) 

CFR Citation: 13 CFR 127. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Section 825 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2015 (NDAA), Public Law 113– 

291, 128 Stat. 3292, Dec. 19, 2014, 

included language requiring that 

women-owned small business concerns 

and economically disadvantaged 

women-owned small business concerns 

are certified by a Federal agency, a State 

government, the Administrator, or 

national certifying entity approved by 

the Administrator as a small business 

concern owned and controlled by 

women. This rule will propose the 

standards and procedures for 

participation in this certification 

program. This rule will also propose to 

revise the procedures for continuing 

eligibility, program examinations, 

protest and appeals. The proposed 

revisions will reflect public comments 

that SBA received in response to the 

Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking that the agency issued in 

December 2016 to solicit feedback on 

implementation of the program. Finally, 

SBA is planning to continue to utilize 

new technology to improve its 

efficiency and decrease small business 

burdens, and therefore, the new 

certification procedures will be based 

on an electronic application and 

certification process. 

Statement of Need: Proposed rule to 

implement statutory requirement to 

certify Women Owned Small Business 

Concerns (WOSBs) for purposes of 

receiving set aside and sole source 

contracts under the WOSB program. 

Summary of Legal Basis: These 

proposed regulations implement section 

825 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 

Public Law 113–291, 128 Stat. 3292 

(December 19, 2014) (2015 NDAA). 

Alternatives: The proposed 

regulations are required to implement 

specific statutory provisions which 

require promulgation of implementing 

regulations. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

benefit of the proposed regulation is a 

significant improvement in the 

confidence of contracting officers to 

make federal contract awards to eligible 

firms. Under the existing system, the 

burden of eligibility compliance was 

placed upon the awarding contracting 

officer. Under this new proposed rule, 

the burden is placed upon SBA. This 

will encourage more contracting officers 

to set-aside opportunities for WOSB 

Program participants as the validation 

process will be controlled by SBA in 

both the System for Award Management 

and the Dynamic Small Business 

Search. 

Risks: There is always a slight risk 

that an agency will award a set aside 

contract to a firm that is ineligible. 

Certification of firms prior to award will 

lessen this risk. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 12/18/15 80 FR 78984 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

02/16/16 

NPRM .................. 01/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Kenneth Dodds, 

Director, Office of Policy, Planning and 

Liaison, Small Business Administration, 

409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 

20416, Phone: 202 619–1766, Fax: 202 

481–2950, Email: kenneth.dodds@

sba.gov. 

RIN: 3245–AG75 

SBA 

Final Rule Stage 

121. Office of Women’s Business 

Ownership: Women’s Business Center 

Program 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 656 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1800 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

CFR Citation: 13 CFR 131. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: SBA’s Office of Women’s 

Business Ownership (OWBO) oversees a 

network of SBA-funded Women’s 

Business Centers (WBCs) throughout the 

United States and its territories. WBCs 

provide management and technical 

assistance to small business concerns 

both nascent and established, with a 

focus on such businesses that are owned 

and controlled by women, or on women 

planning to start a business, especially 

women who are economically or 

socially disadvantaged. The training and 

counseling provided by the WBCs 

encompass a comprehensive array of 

topics, such as finance, management 

and marketing in various languages. 

This rule will codify the requirements 

and procedures that govern the delivery, 

funding and evaluation of the 

management and technical assistance 

provided under the WBC Program. The 

rule will address, among other things, 

the eligibility criteria for selection as a 

WBC, use of Federal funds, standards 

for effectively carrying out program 

duties and responsibilities, the 

requirements for reporting on financial 

and programmatic performance, and 

provisions regarding the collection and 

use of the individual WBC client data. 

Statement of Need: There are 

currently no regulations that codify the 

legislative authority of the Agency to 

administer the Women’s Business 

Center (WBC). The Program started as a 

pilot in 1988 and a regulation governing 

its operations was never promulgated 

after it became a Program in 2007. The 

Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. 

L. 111–240) amended Section 29(n) of 

the Small Business Act (the Act), 15 

U.S.C. 656, to direct the SBA 

Administrator to issue regulations to 

establish standards for requiring 

disclosures during a financial audit. In 

order to meet this legislative 

requirement, SBA must issue 

regulations for the WBC program. 

This rule finalizes proposed 

regulatory language that would codify 

this legislative authority as well as 

streamline the policy and procedural 

requirements of the Program currently 

included in the Program Announcement 

and Notice of Award (NOA). This rule 

also incorporates flexibilities allowable 

during disasters enacted under the RISE 

After Disaster Act. Changes made with 

the publication of 2 CFR part 200 and 

other federal grant requirements 

enforced over the past 28 years have 

been incorporated. Once final, the rule’s 

implementation would result in 

standardization and transparency to 

Program delivery. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The WBC 

Program was created under the 

authority of Title II of the Women’s 

Business Ownership Act of 1988 (Pub. 

L. 100–533). The WBC Program 

authority is now codified in section 29 

of the Act. Section 29(n)(3) of the Small 

Business Act (the Act) directs the SBA 

Administrator to issue regulations to 

establish standards for requiring 

disclosures during a financial audit. 

Note, since its creation, the WBC 

Program has changed through a number 

of Pub. L.s that have turned the WBC 

Program from a Demonstration into a 

permanent program. Laws that have 

impacted the Program include: The 

Women’s Business Development Act of 

1991 (Pub. L. 102–191); The Women’s 

Business Centers Sustainability Act of 

1999 (Pub. L. 106–165): U.S. Troop 

Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina 

Recovery, and Iraq Accountability 

Appropriations Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 

110–28); The Small Business Jobs Act of 

2010 (Pub. L. 111–240); and the RISE 

After Disaster Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114– 

88). 

Alternatives: The alternative to not yet 

publish regulations, and continue to 

rely on grant documents to implement 

the WBC Program, is not one that SBA 

would like to exercise. Because the 

statute specifically requires SBA to 

publish regulations for the WBC 

Program, exercising this alternative 

would not be compliant. SBA believes 

that issuing regulations for the WBC 

Program would establish and ensure 

long-lasting consistency in Program 

implementation. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: SBA 

analyzed the costs and benefits 

associated with both the application 

process to become funded as a WBC and 

the on-going operations for currently 

funded WBCs, as the populations are 

different for the application process and 

the existing WBCs. 

This proposed rule could theoretically 

affect all nonprofit entities as the statute 

requires that an entity be organized as 

a nonprofit in order to participate. 

According to the IRS, for tax year 2010, 

there were over 269,000 entities that 

filed returns as a 501(c)(3). As the 

application process is voluntary and 

does not require a nonprofit entity to 

apply, the vast majority of nonprofits 

would not be affected. Over the past 5 

years, there were a total of 133 new 

applications submitted for the WBC 

Program averaging 25–35 applications 

per year. The SF 424 (Application for 

Federal Assistance) on grants.gov does 

not include a field for revenue size. 

Based on the majority of the entities 

being small, SBA can presume that the 

majority of the Applicant Organizations 

are also small. It is projected that a 

grants writer would take approximately 

20 hours to complete and submit the 

required application forms through 

grants.gov. For a grants writer at an 

average of $30 per hour, this would cost 

approximately $600. These estimates are 

based on the burden statements 

associated with the grants.gov 

application forms and anecdotal 

information from Applicant 

Organizations to the WBC Program. 

Therefore, the SBA has determined that 

the application section of the proposed 

rule would not have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

There are currently 110 entities that 

participate in the WBC Program, all of 

which are small entities. However, the 

SBA has determined that the impact on 

these entities affected by the rule will 

not be significant. The rule codifies 

current policies and procedures that are 

already achieved through a Cooperative 

Agreement with the SBA. It does not 

include new reporting requirements. 

Rather it standardizes existing policies 

to ensure transparency and consistency 

which in theory will reduce the cost to 

both the WBC participants and SBA. A 

WBC participating in the WBC Program 

submits a Federal Financial Report and 

attachments twice a year. The estimated 

burden for these reports is 2 hours twice 

a year. The annual submission of a work 

plan is substantially less than the 

Application and is only to update any 

changes from the initial Application. 

The estimate for these forms on an 

annual basis is a total of 14 hours. For 

a grants writer at $30 per hour, the 

annual estimated cost would be $420. 

Risks: SBA believes that this rule 

minimizes financial risk to the Agency 

and the program. The increased 

transparency of the program, including 

standard definitions and requirements, 

would help WBC Program participants 

comply with applicable laws and 

statutes. The regulations would codify 

the actions the Agency is authorized to 

take when a non-federal entity does not 

comply with the program. This in turn 

reduces the risk that funds allocated to 

the non-federal entities would be 

misused, and therefore minimizes a 

financial risk to the Agency. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 04/22/15 80 FR 22434 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

06/22/15 

NPRM .................. 11/22/16 81 FR 83718 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/23/17 

Final Rule ............ 03/00/18 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1801 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Bruce D. Purdy, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office 

of Women’s Business Ownership, Small 

Business Administration, Washington, 

DC 20416, Phone: 202 205–7532, Email: 

bruce.purdy@sba.gov. 

RIN: 3245–AG02 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–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 

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. 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 

(plan) represent issues of major 

importance to the Agency. Through our 

regulatory plan, we intend to: 

A. Update the medical criteria used to 

evaluate disability applications to keep 

pace with medicine, science, 

technology, and workforce changes; 

B. Ensure quality decisions while 

carefully reducing the hearings backlog, 

improving the disability appeals 

process, and improving the integrity of 

the disability determinations process; 

C. Update SSA disability evaluation 

criteria, and ensure the accuracy of SSA 

claimant and beneficiary data; 

D. Protect SSA claimants and 

beneficiaries through representative and 

representative payee rules and 

standards; 

E. Combat Social Security fraud and 

impose civil monetary penalties for 

specific violations of the Social Security 

Act, while also increasing overpayment 

collection thresholds for OASI and DI 

benefit payments to be consistent with 

SSI; and 

F. Update our Freedom of Information 

Act and Privacy and Disclosure rules. 

Regulatory Reform 

We designate all of the proposed 

regulations in this plan as ‘‘fully or 

partially exempt’’ under Executive 

Order 13771. In compliance with the 

Administration’s Regulatory Reform 

efforts, as prescribed by Executive Order 

13771 and Executive Order 13777, SSA 

is committed to engaging in regulatory 

activity only when strictly necessary 

and to reducing regulatory burden 

wherever possible. Accordingly, our 

Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan 

include only those regulatory activities 

needed to administer our Social 

Security benefits and payments 

programs. Moreover, the Agenda 

includes de-regulatory items to remove 

outdated regulatory sections from the 

Code of Federal Regulations. Finally, we 

remain committed to innovate in ways 

that ease burdens on the public even 

outside the realm of formal deregulation, such as through developing 

online reporting and application tools. 

II. Regulations in the Prerule Stage 

Our regulation in the prerule stage 

will: 

• Help protect our claimants and 

beneficiaries by asking for advance 

input on which types of previous 

criminal histories, if any, should 

preclude someone from serving as an 

organizational representative payee (RIN 

0960–AH79). 

III. Regulations in the Proposed Rule 

Stage 

Our regulations will: 

• Comprehensively update the 

medical listings for evaluating 

musculoskeletal disorders (RIN 0960– 

AG38); 

• Selectively update the medical 

listings for evaluating digestive, 

cardiovascular, and skin disorders (RIN 

0960–AG65); 

• Ensure the accuracy of the data we 

collect by codifying our authority to 

access and use electronic payroll data 

(RIN 0960–AH88); 

• Propose to impose deadlines on 

when claimant representatives must file 

fee petitions, to mandate standardized 

registration for all individuals wishing 

to be representatives, and will propose 

to add educational requirements for 

direct pay non-attorney representatives 

(RIN 0960–AI22); 

• Clarify our rules regarding the 

redetermination of entitlement when 

fraud or similar fault is involved. (RIN 

0960–AI10); 

• Impose that SSA can assess the 

maximum allowable civil monetary 

penalty for certain violations of the 

Social Security Act (RIN 0960–AH91 

and 0960–AI04); 

• Update our Freedom of Information 

act policies to reflect recent legislation 

(RIN 0960–AI07); and 

• Allow SSA to create two new 

categories of Privacy Act exemptions, 

enabling the retention of important 

records (RIN 0960–AH97 and 0960– 

AI08). 

IV. Regulations in the Final Rule Stage 

Our regulation in the final rule stage 

will: 

• Make permanent the Attorney 

Advisor program, helping to reduce the 

hearings backlog (RIN 0960–AI23). 

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 

Prerule Stage 

122. Investigative Policies for 

Organizational Representative Payees 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This ANPRM will solicit 

public input about whether and how we 

should strengthen our investigative 

policies and practices for organizational 

representative payees. Currently, we 

obtain and verify an Employer 

Identification Number for organizational 

representative payee applicants. We do 

not collect and verify the Social 

Security numbers of anyone in these 

organizations, and we do not conduct a 

criminal background investigation on 

any individual in these organizations. 

We are considering how we should treat 

organizational representative payee 

applicants who employ individuals 

convicted of certain crimes. 

Statement of Need: Under our current 

policy, we prohibit persons convicted of 

certain crimes from serving as a 

representative payee. We believe this 

policy helps to protect beneficiaries 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1802 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

from persons whose criminal history 

indicates they may pose an increased 

risk of exploiting vulnerable 

individuals. We believe a similar bar 

policy should apply to individuals 

employed by organizational payees. 

Given the complexities of applying a 

criminal bar policy to individuals 

employed by organizational payees, we 

need public input on how to apply such 

a policy. 

Summary of Legal Basis: N/A 

ANPRM. 

Alternatives: None. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: N/A. 

This is a solicitation for public input. 

We do not anticipate that any proposal 

we formulate from this ANPRM will 

impose a cost on members of the public. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 05/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Eric Ice, Social 

Insurance Specialist, Social Security 

Administration, Office of Income 

Security Programs, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

Phone: 410 966–3233, Email: 

eric.ice.ssa.gov. 

Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social 

Security Administration, Office of 

Regulations and Reports Clearance, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 965–7102, 

Email: brian.rudick@ssa.gov 

RIN: 0960–AH79 

SSA 

Proposed Rule Stage 

123. Revised Medical Criteria for 

Evaluating Musculoskeletal Disorders 

(3318P) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 

U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 42 

U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 

42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42 U.S.C. 421(i); 42 

U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 

U.S.C. 1381a; 42 U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 

1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b 

CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Sections 1.00 and 101.00, 

Musculoskeletal System, of appendix 1 

to subpart P of part 404 of our 

regulations describe those 

musculoskeletal system disorders that 

we consider severe enough to prevent a 

person from doing any gainful activity, 

or that cause marked and severe 

functional limitations for a child. We 

propose to revise the criteria in these 

sections to reflect our adjudicative 

experience, advances in medical 

knowledge and treatment of 

musculoskeletal disorders, and 

comments from medical experts. 

Statement of Need: We propose to 

revise the criteria in the Listing of 

Impairments (listings) that we use to 

evaluate claims involving 

musculoskeletal disorders in adults and 

children under titles II and XVI of the 

Social Security Act (Act). These 

proposed revisions reflect our 

adjudicative experience, advances in 

medical knowledge and treatment of 

musculoskeletal disorders, 

recommendations from medical experts, 

and comments we received in response 

to a final rule with request for public 

comments that we published in 

November 2001. 

These rules are necessary to evaluate 

claims for Social Security disability 

benefits. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Administrative—not required by statute 

or court order. 

Alternatives: We considered 

continuing to use our current criteria. 

However, we believe these proposed 

revisions are necessary to ensure that 

our criteria reflect advances in medical 

knowledge and treatment since we last 

revised these rules. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Anticipated costs and benefits—not yet 

determined. 

Risks: We expect the public and 

adjudicators to support the removal and 

clarification of ambiguous terms and 

phrases, and the addition of specific, 

demonstrable functional criteria for 

determining listing-level severity of all 

musculoskeletal disorders. 

We expect adjudicators to support the 

change in the framework of the text 

because it makes the guidance in the 

introductory text and listings easier to 

access and understand. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: Includes 

Retrospective Review under E.O. 13563. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Michael Goldstein, 

Social Insurance Specialist, Social 

Security Administration, Office of 

Medical Policy, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Woodlawn, MD 21235–6401, 

Phone: 410 966–2733 Email: 

michael.j.goldstein@ssa.gov. 

Cheryl A. Williams, Director, Social 

Security Administration, Office of 

Medical Policy, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

Phone: 410 965–1020, Email: 

cheryl.a.williams@ssa.gov. 

Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social 

Security Administration, Office of 

Regulations and Reports Clearance, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 965–7102, 

Email: brian.rudick@ssa.gov. 

RIN: 0960–AG38 

SSA 

124. Update to the Comprehensive 

Medical Listings—Revised Medical 

Criteria for Evaluating Digestive 

Disorders, Cardiovascular Disorders, 

and Skin Disorders 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 

U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 42 

U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 

42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42 U.S.C. 421(i); 42 

U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 

U.S.C. 1381a; 42 U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 

1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b 

CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Sections 4.00 and 104.00, 

Cardiovascular Systems; Sections 5.00 

and 105.00, Digestive Systems; and 

sections 8.00 and 108.00, Skin 

Disorders, of appendix 1 to subpart P of 

part 404 of our regulations describe 

those disorders that we consider severe 

enough to prevent a person from doing 

any gainful activity, or that cause 

marked and severe functional 

limitations for a child claiming 

Supplemental Security Income 

payments under title XVI. We are 

proposing to revise the criteria in these 

sections to ensure that the medical 

evaluation criteria are up-to-date and 

consistent with the latest advances in 

medical knowledge and treatment. 

Statement of Need: These rules are 

necessary to evaluate claims for Social 

Security disability benefits. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 4.00 

and 104.00, Cardiovascular Systems; 

Sections 5.00 and 105.00, Digestive 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1803 

Systems; and Sections 8.00 and 108.00, 

Skin Disorders, of appendix 1 to subpart 

P of part 404 of our regulations. 

This proposed rule is not required by 

statute or court order. 

Alternatives: We considered 

continuing to use our current criteria. 

However, we believe these proposed 

revisions are necessary because of 

advances in medical, technology, and 

treatment since we last revised these 

rules. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Ensuring that the medical evaluation 

criteria are up-to-date and consistent 

with the latest advances in medical 

knowledge, technology, and treatment 

will provide for accurate disability 

evaluations. 

Costs: None. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 12/12/07 72 FR 70527 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

02/11/08 

NPRM .................. 04/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: Includes 

Retrospective Review under E.O. 13563. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Cheryl A. Williams, 

Director, Social Security 

Administration, Office of Medical 

Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, Phone: 410 

965–1020, Email: cheryl.a.williams@

ssa.gov. 

Joanna Firmin, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Social Security 

Administration, Office of Medical 

Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, Phone: 410 

965–7782, Email: joanna.firmin@

ssa.gov. 

Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social 

Security Administration, Office of 

Regulations and Reports Clearance, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 965–7102, 

Email: brian.rudick@ssa.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 0960–AG74, 

Related to 0960–AG91 

RIN: 0960–AG65 

SSA 

125. Minimum Monthly Withholding 

Amount for Recovery of Title II Benefit 

Overpayments (3752P) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3716; 31 

U.S.C. 3720A; 42 U.S.C. 404; 42 U.S.C. 

405(a); 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 

1320b–17 

CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.502. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The numbers below present 

the estimated effects on OASDI 

overpayment collections of a regulatory 

proposal to increase the minimum 

monthly benefit withholding from $10 

to 10 percent of the benefit payable for 

the month. Debtors could still pay less 

if the negotiated amount would allow 

for repayment of the debt in 36 months. 

Under the proposed regulation, we 

estimate that previously negotiated 

withholding schedules would remain in 

place. For fiscal years 2013 through 

2017, we estimate an increase in 

overpayment collections of $137 

million; and for fiscal years 2013 

through 2022, we estimate an increase 

in overpayment collections of $644 

million. 

Statement of Need: We propose to 

change the minimum monthly 

withholding amount for recovery of title 

II benefit overpayments to reflect the 

increase in the average monthly title II 

benefit since we established the current 

minimum of $10 in 1960. By changing 

this amount from $10 to 10 percent of 

the monthly benefit payable, we would 

recover overpayments more effectively 

and better fulfill our stewardship 

obligations to the Federal Old-Age and 

Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the 

Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 42 U.S.C. 

902(a)(5). 

Alternatives: None. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

numbers below present the estimated 

effects on OASDI overpayment 

collections of a regulatory proposal to 

increase the minimum monthly benefit 

withholding from $10 to 10 percent of 

the benefit payable for the month. 

Debtors could still pay less if the 

negotiated amount would allow for 

repayment of the debt in 36 months. 

The estimate is based on the historical 

record of overpayment collections over 

the period January 2002 to December 

2011, prepared for us by the Office of 

Quality Performance. We used this file 

of individual-level data to compute 

what the collections would have been 

had the 10-percent minimum been put 

in place at the beginning of this period. 

We used the same record to ascertain 

the growth in incurred debt over time, 

which we then projected to the fiscal 

year 2013–22 period. 

The proposal is effective for partialwithholding agreements, negotiated 

after the effective date of the change 

assumed to be July 1, 2013. Under the 

proposed regulation, withholding 

schedules negotiated before that date 

would remain in place. For fiscal years 

2013 through 2017, we estimate an 

increase in overpayment collections of 

$137 million; and for fiscal years 2013 

through 2022 we estimate an increase in 

overpayment collections of $644 

million. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Schelli Collins, 

Social Insurance Specialist, Social 

Security Administration, Office of 

Income Security Programs, 6401 

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 965–1954. 

Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social 

Security Administration, Office of 

Regulations and Reports Clearance, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 965–7102, 

Email: brian.rudick@ssa.gov. 

RIN: 0960–AH42 

SSA 

126. Removing Ability To Communicate 

in English as a Vocational Factor 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 

U.S.C. 405(a) to 405(b); 42 U.S.C. 405(d) 

to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 

421(a); 42 U.S.C. 421(h) to (j); 42 U.S.C. 

422(c); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 425; 42 

U.S.C. 902(a)(5) 

CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1564, Part 

404 Subpart P Appendix; 20 CFR 

416.964. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: We propose to revise 

existing disability evaluation rules 

relating to the ability to communicate in 

English. Specifically, we will clarify 

that an inability to communicate in 

English is not tantamount to illiteracy or 

inadequate verbal communication. 

Rather, an inability to communicate 

adequately verbally or in writing in any 

language will be the effective standard. 

The proposed revisions will reflect 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1804 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

current research, analysis of our 

disability program data, Federal agency 

data about workforce participation, and 

comments we received from the public 

in response to an Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. 

Statement of Need: These changes 

would modernize our disability program 

consistent with current research and 

data about disability and workforce 

participation. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 42 U.S.C. 

902(a)(5). Multiple sections of the Social 

Security Act. No aspect is required by 

statute or court order. 

Alternatives: Undetermined at this 

time. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: No 

costs on the public are anticipated as a 

result of this proposed rule. Benefits 

include more consistent and appropriate 

evaluations of vocational factors by 

eliminating the false equivalence 

between an inability to communicate in 

English and illiteracy. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Daniel O’Brien, 

Director, Social Security 

Administration, Office of Ticket 

Operations and Provider Support, Office 

of Employment Support Programs, 6401 

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 597–1632. 

William P. Gibson, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social 

Security Administration, Office of 

Regulations and Reports Clearance, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 966–9039, 

Email: william.gibson@ssa.gov. 

RIN: 0960–AH86 

SSA 

127. Use of Electronic Payroll Data To 

Improve Program Administration 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: Bipartisan Budget 

Act of 2015 sec. 824 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: We propose to implement 

the Commissioner’s access to and use of 

the information held by payroll 

providers. The Agency will use this data 

to help administer the disability and SSI 

programs and prevent improper 

payments. 

Statement of Need: In accordance 

with the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, 

section 824; the Commissioner of Social 

Security has the authority to enter into 

an information exchange with a payroll 

or data provider, allowing us to 

efficiently administer monthly 

insurance and supplemental security 

income benefits, while preventing 

improper payments. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Bipartisan 

Budget Act of 2015, section 824. 

Alternatives: None. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

costs below represent estimated costs to 

the Agency for implementation of this 

rule: 

FY18: $7,305,164. 

FY19: $1,753,675. 

FY20: $1,753,675. 

FY21: $1,753,675. 

FY22: $1,753,675. 

Risks: To be determined. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Elizabeth Teachey, 

Director, Social Security 

Administration, SSA: OISP/OEMP/

DHSLT, 6401 Security Boulevard, 

Woodlawn, MD 21235, Phone: 410 965– 

9145, Email: elizabeth.teachey@ssa.gov. 

Eric Skidmore, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Social Security 

Administration, Office of Income 

Security Programs, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, 

Phone: 410 597–1833, Email: 

eric.skidmore@ssa.gov. 

RIN: 0960–AH88 

SSA 

128. Newer and Stronger Penalties 

(Conforming Changes) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: Bipartisan Budget 

Act of 2015, sec. 813; 42 U.S.C. 

1320a–8 

CFR Citation: 20 CFR 498. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Section 813 of the BBA 

establishes civil monetary penalties in 

section 1129 of the Social Security Act 

against individuals in a position of trust 

that make false statements, 

misrepresentations, or omissions in 

connection with obtaining or retaining 

SSA benefits or payments. Section 813 

also establishes a new felony for 

conspiracy to commit Social Security 

fraud, increases felony penalties for 

individuals in positions of trust who 

defraud the SSA, and disqualifies 

individuals from receiving benefits 

during a trial work period if they are 

assessed a civil monetary penalty for 

concealing work activity. 

Statement of Need: Upon enactment 

of the BBA on November 2, 2015, civil 

monetary penalties for individuals in a 

position of trust took effect 

immediately. Imposing penalties against 

individuals in a position of trust assists 

in deterring fraud and maintaining the 

integrity of SSA’s disability programs. 

The regulations at 20 CFR 498 should be 

updated to reflect the BBA’s provisions. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 813 

of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. 

Alternatives: none. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: SSA 

projects no anticipated costs on the 

public with completing this regulatory 

action. Costs for the agency are as yet 

undetermined, but are expected to be 

mostly administrative in nature. 

Benefits include strengthening our civil 

monetary assessment processes. 

Risks: No risk is anticipated since this 

regulatory action reflects statutory 

requirements and authority. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Kathi Moore, 

Director, OPRD, DCBFM/OFPO, Social 

Security Administration, Office of 

Financial Policy and Operations, 6401 

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 965–0624. 

RIN: 0960–AH91. 

SSA 

129. Privacy Act Exemption: Personnel 

Security and Suitability Program Files 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 522a; 5 

U.S.C. 553 

CFR Citation: 20 CFR 401.85. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This NPRM will propose to 

create a Security and Suitability Files 

system to cover any additional security 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1805 

and suitability related information 

generated by SSA that is not sent to the 

Office of Personnel Management. We 

will use the information we collect to 

conduct background investigations and 

establish that applicants or incumbents, 

either employed by SSA or working for 

SSA under contract, are suitable for 

employment with us. Additionally, the 

NPRM will propose to remove two 

unused systems listed in our 

regulations. 

Statement of Need: We are required to 

amend our Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) when a new system of records is 

instituted within the agency that 

exempts certain records from disclosure. 

Here, we are creating a new system of 

records and an exemption to disclosure 

of some of those records, necessitating 

a new system of records disclosure in 

our CFR. 

This update will replace the two 

following systems of records currently 

reflected in 401.85: 

(iii) Pursuant to subsection (k)(5) of 

the Privacy Act: 

(A) The Investigatory Material 

Compiled for Security and Suitability 

Purposes System, SSA; and, 

(B) The Suitability for Employment 

Records, SSA. 

Summary of Legal Basis: In 

accordance with the Privacy Act (5 

U.S.C. 552a), and Subsection (k)(5) of 

the Privacy Act, we are issuing public 

notice of our intent to establish a new 

system of records. 

Alternatives: There is no alternative. 

Failure to amend our CFR, while using 

a new system of records, would be 

contrary to the statutory authority and 

intent of 5 U.S.C. 552. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There 

are no anticipated costs. We stand to 

benefit through better administrative 

efficiency by updating the systems we 

use for accurately tracking investigatory 

employment records. 

Risks: Violation of the Privacy Act 

and OMB requirements. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Pamela Carcirieri, 

Division Director, Social Security 

Administration, Office of General 

Counsel––Policy Disclosure, 6401 

Security Boulevard, Woodlawn, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 965–0355, 

Email: pamela.carcirieri@ssa.gov. 

William P. Gibson, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social 

Security Administration, Office of 

Regulations and Reports Clearance, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 966–9039, 

Email: william.gibson@ssa.gov. 

RIN: 0960–AH97 

SSA 

130. References to Social Security and 

Medicare in Electronic 

Communications 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: Bipartisan Budget 

Act of 2015, sec. 814; 42 U.S.C. 1320b– 

10 

CFR Citation: 20 CFR 498. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Section 814 of the BBA 

clarifies that electronic and internet 

communications are included in the 

prohibitions against misusing SSA’s 

names, symbols and emblems to convey 

the false impression that such items are 

approved, endorsed, or authorized by 

SSA, as stated in Section 1140 of the 

Social Security Act. In addition, it treats 

each dissemination, viewing, or 

accessing of a communication as a 

separate violation. 

Statement of Need: Section 814 of the 

BBA took effect upon enactment. 

However, our regulations do not 

currently reflect this statutory change. 

Imposing penalties against individuals 

in a position of trust assists in deterring 

fraud and maintaining the integrity of 

SSA’s disability programs. The 

regulations at 20 CFR 498 should be 

updated to reflect the BBA’s provisions. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal 

basis for this action is section 814 of the 

Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which 

went into effect on November 2, 2015. 

42 U.S.C. 1320b–10 

Alternatives: None. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There 

are no anticipated costs associated with 

this regulatory action. However, the 

benefit of this regulatory action is that 

it will clarify the applicability of section 

1140 to electronic and internet 

communications and minimize 

unnecessary litigation as to the 

applicability of the section 1140 statute. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Ranju Shrestha, 

Chief Counsel to the Inspector General, 

Social Security Administration, 6401 

Security Blvd., Woodlawn, MD 21235, 

Phone: 410 966–4440, Email: 

ranju.shrestha@ssa.gov. 

RIN: 0960–AI04 

SSA 

131. Availability of Information and 

Records to the Public 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114–185, 

FOIA Reform Act of 2016, 5 U.S.C. 552 

CFR Citation: 20 CFR 402. 

Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, 

December 27, 2016, FOIA Reform Act 

2016. Other, Statutory, 12/27/2016, 

FOIA Reform Act 2016 

Abstract: Revisions of our FOIA 

regulations will address the 

requirements of the FOIA Improvement 

Act of 2016 and ensure that our 

regulations are consistent with all 

applicable laws. 

Statement of Need: Revisions of our 

FOIA regulation will address the 

requirements of the FOIA Improvement 

Act of 2016 and ensure that our 

regulations are consistent with all 

applicable laws. 

Summary of Legal Basis: FOIA Reform 

Act of 2016, 5 U.S.C. 552. 

Alternatives: None. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There 

are no anticipated costs to the 

implementation of the statutory 

requirements. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Monica Chyn, 

Division Director, Social Security 

Administration, Office of General 

Counsel, Office of Privacy and 

Disclosure, 6401 Security Boulevard, 

Woodlawn, MD 21235, Phone: 410 965– 

0817, Email: c.t.monica.chyn@ssa.gov. 

RIN: 0960–AI07 

SSA 

132. Privacy Act Exemption: Social 

Security Administration Violence and 

Reporting System (SSAVERS) 

Priority: Other Significant. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1806 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a 

CFR Citation: 20 CFR 401.85. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This NPRM will propose to 

create the Social Security 

Administration Violence Evaluation and 

Reporting System (SSAvers) to cover 

information we collect about employees, 

contractors, and members of the public 

who are allegedly involved in, or 

witness incidents of workplace or 

domestic violence. 

Statement of Need: This NPRM will 

propose to create a new system of 

records entitled ‘Social Security 

Administration Violence Evaluation and 

Reporting System (SSAvers)’ to cover 

any information we collect about 

employees, contractors, and members of 

the public who are allegedly involved 

in, or witness incidents of workplace or 

domestic violence. It is required for 

compliance with the Privacy Act. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Privacy 

Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a). 

Alternatives: None. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There 

are no anticipated costs to the operation 

of this system. 

Risks: There are no risks for the 

operation of this system of records. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Pamela Carcirieri, 

Division Director, Social Security 

Administration, Office of General 

Counsel—Policy Disclosure, 6401 

Security Boulevard, Woodlawn, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 965–0355, 

Email: pamela.carcirieri@ssa.gov. 

RIN: 0960–AI08 

SSA 

133. Redeterminations When There Is a 

Reason to Believe Fraud or Similar 

Fault Was Involved in an Individual’s 

Application for Benefits 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) 

and 1129(l) of the Social Security Act; 

42 U.S.C. 405(u); 42 U.S.C. 1383(E)(7); 

42 U.S.C. 1320a–8(l) 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: We are clarifying our rules 

regarding the redetermination of the 

entitlement or eligibility of individuals 

when there is reason to believe fraud or 

similar fault was involved in the 

individual’s application for benefits. We 

intend to clarify how and when we 

redetermine the entitlement, and the 

administrative review process when we 

decide to terminate benefits. 

Statement of Need: Over time, our 

business processes evolved to support 

our statutory redetermination authority. 

We are now codifying the basic 

parameters for redetermination, 

including relevant definitions, 

clarification of notice and 

redetermination procedures, as well as a 

process for administratively reviewing 

redetermination termination and 

overpayment assessment decisions 

under secs. 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of the 

Act, in order to provide the public the 

opportunity for comment under the 

Administrative Procedures Act while 

providing our customers and their 

representatives the ability to find our 

redetermination process within our 

regulatory text. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 

205(u), 1129(l), and 1631(e)(7) of the 

Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. 405(u)(1), 

1320a–8(l), and 1383(e)(7). 206(d) of 

Public Law 103–296, the Social Security 

Independence and Program 

Improvements Act of 1994, 108 Stat. 

1464, 1509. 

Alternatives: We could continue to 

manage our redetermination processes 

and procedures under our statutory 

authority and sub-regulatory guidances. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Without enumerated regulations, we 

may experience additional litigation 

alleging lack of due process and 

violation of the Administrative 

Procedures Act. 

Risks: Without enumerated 

regulations, we may experience 

litigation alleging lack of due process 

and violation of the Administrative 

Procedures Act. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Lindsay Norris, 

Attorney, Social Security 

Administration, Office of General 

Counsel, Office of Program Law, 6401 

Security Boulevard, Woodlawn, MD 

21235, Phone: 410 966–4970, Email: 

lindsay.norris@ssa.gov. 

William P. Gibson, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social 

Security Administration, Office of 

Regulations and Reports Clearance, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 966–9039, 

Email: william.gibson@ssa.gov. 

RIN: 0960–AI10 

SSA 

134. • Changes to the Requirements for 

Claimant Representation 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 406 

CFR Citation: 20 CFR part 404 

Subpart R; 20 CFR part 404 Subpart O; 

20 CFR 404.1717(a)(3); 20 CFR 

416.1517(a)(3). 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: We propose to make 

changes to the requirements for 

representing claimants. Specifically, we 

plan to impose a deadline(s) on when 

representatives must file their fee 

petitions and all supporting documents 

and to prohibit representatives from 

merely stating their intent to file a fee 

petition. We also propose to mandate 

registration and use of a prescribed form 

(SSA–1696) from all representatives 

who are or wish to be appointed as a 

representative. Additionally, we 

proposed to add educational 

requirements at the Associate’s level for 

direct pay non-attorney representatives. 

Statement of Need: This regulation 

will address procedures we intend to 

implement regarding how we handle 

representatives, which improves our 

administrative efficiency. We will 

change to the representative fee petition 

and alleviate a significant workload 

burden on Office of Hearings Operations 

(OHO) and Operations. We will 

mandate representative registration and 

completion of Form SSA–1696, critical 

requirements for our implementation of 

the Registration, Appointment and 

Services for Representatives system 

(RASR). We will add educational 

requirements for non-attorneys who 

seek direct fee payment. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 42 U.S.C 

902(a)(5), 42 U.S.C. 406. 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We are 

in the early planning stage and data 

gathering for this rulemaking. 

Anticipated costs and benefits are too 

early to formally project, but we expect 

no more than a de minimis costs, if any, 

at this time. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1807 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 09/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Daniel O’Brien, 

Director, Social Security 

Administration, Office of Ticket 

Operations and Provider Support, Office 

of Employment Support Programs, 6401 

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 597–1632. 

RIN: 0960–AI22 

SSA 

Final Rule Stage 

135. • Making Permanent the Attorney 

Advisor Program 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 

42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b 

CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.942; 20 CFR 

416.1442. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Agency is making 

permanent the Attorney Advisory 

Program to continue reducing the 

hearings backlog and enhance the 

service we provide to the public. 

Specifically, the attorney advisor 

initiative is an integral tool that permits 

some attorney advisors to develop 

claims, including holding prehearing 

conferences, and, in cases in which the 

documentary record clearly establishes 

a fully favorable decision is warranted, 

issue fully favorable decisions before a 

hearing is conducted. 

Statement of Need: Given the historic 

nature of the disability hearings backlog, 

the agency will prioritize scheduling 

more hearing faster while ensuring 

quality decisions. Permanency of the 

attorney advisor program gives the 

agency a way for some attorney advisors 

to develop claims, including holding 

pre-hearing conferences, and in some 

cases issue fully favorable decisions 

before a hearing is conducted. 

Summary of Legal Basis: None. 

Alternatives: None. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Any 

costs associated with this program 

would be administrative and are 

expected to be minimal to zero. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Direct Final Rule 02/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Patrick McGuire, 

Acting Director Program Analysis Staff, 

Social Security Administration, 5107 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041, 

Phone: 703 605–7109, Email: 

patrick.mcguire@ssa.gov. 

Brian J Rudick, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social 

Security Administration, Office of 

Regulations and Reports Clearance, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 965–7102, 

Email: brian.rudick@ssa.gov. 

RIN: 0960–AI23 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION 

(FAR) 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) is the principal set of rules 

governing the acquisition process for 

acquiring goods and services from 

planning, through contract formation, 

and contract administration. It regulates 

the activities of Executive Branch 

government personnel in carrying out 

that process. 

The FAR was issued pursuant to the 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy 

Act of 1974. The FAR Council 

membership consists of: The 

Administrator for Federal Procurement 

Policy and the Secretary of Defense, the 

Administrator of National Aeronautics 

and Space; and the Administrator of 

General Services. Statutory authority to 

issue and maintain the FAR resides with 

the Secretary of Defense, the 

Administrator of General Services, and 

the Administrator of the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

subject to the approval of the 

Administrator of Federal Procurement 

Policy. It was established to codify 

uniform policies for acquisition of 

supplies and services by agencies. 

Statutory authorities to issue and revise 

the FAR have been delegated to the 

procurement executives in the 

Department of Defense (DoD), the 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). The FAR 

System is codified at Title 48, Chapter 

1 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

The FAR Council’s Regulatory 

Philosophy and Principles 

Executive Order 13777, ‘‘Enforcing 

the Regulatory Reform Agenda’’ 

(February 24, 2017), required GSA to 

appoint a Regulatory Reform Officer to 

oversee the implementation of 

regulatory reform initiatives and 

policies and establish a Regulatory 

Reform Task Force (Task Force) to 

review and evaluate existing regulations 

and make recommendations to the 

agency head regarding their repeal, 

replacement, or modification, consistent 

with applicable law. 

These reform initiatives and policies 

include Executive Order 13771, 

‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs’’ (January 30, 2017), 

section 6 of Executive Order 13563, 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’ (January 18, 2011), and 

Executive Order 12866. 

All of the FAR Council’s rulemakings 

are based on requirements of executive 

orders, laws, and other agency 

rulemakings that are based on laws, 

Office of Management and Budget 

policy guidance or GAO 

recommendations. The Council dose 

very little discretionary rulemaking. 

Dated: September 19, 2017. 

William Clark, 

Director, Office of Government-wide 

Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition 

Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy. 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

FAR 

Proposed Rule Stage 

136. • Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR); FAR Case 2018–002, Protecting 

Life in Global Health Assistance 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Other. 

Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 

U.S.C. 137; 51 U.S.C. 20113 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 2; 48 CFR 37; 

48 CFR 52. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: DoD, GSA, and NASA are 

proposing to amend the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 

implement Presidential Memorandum, 

entitled the Mexico City Policy, issued 

on January 13, 2017, in accordance with 

the Department of State’s 

implementation plan dated May 9, 2017. 

This rule would extend requirements of 

the memorandum and plan to new 

funding agreements for global health 

assistance furnished by all departments 

or agencies. This expanded policy will 

cover global health assistance to include 

funding for international health 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1808 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

programs, such as those for HIV/AIDS, 

maternal and child health, malaria, 

global health security, and certain 

family planning and reproductive 

health. 

Statement of Need: Protecting Life in 

Global Health Assistance. This case 

implements Presidential Memorandum, 

entitled the Mexico City Policy, issued 

on January 13, 2017. This rule would 

extend requirements of the 

memorandum. The expanded policy 

will cover global health assistance to 

include funding for international health 

programs, such as those for HIV/AIDS, 

maternal and child health, malaria, 

global health security, and certain 

family planning and reproductive 

health. (FAR Case 2018–002). 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/00/18 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

09/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Michael O. Jackson, 

Procurement Analyst, DOD/GSA/NASA 

(FAR), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, 

DC 20405, Phone: 202 208–4949, Email: 

michaelo.jackson@gsa.gov. 

RIN: 9000–AN62 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

FALL 2017 STATEMENT OF 

REGULATORY PRIORITIES 

CFPB Purposes and Functions 

The Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection (CFPB or Bureau) was 

established in 2010 as an independent 

bureau of the Federal Reserve System by 

the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111– 

203, 124 Stat. 1376) (Dodd-Frank Act). 

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the 

CFPB has rulemaking, supervisory, 

enforcement, and other authorities 

relating to consumer financial products 

and services. Among these are the 

consumer financial protection 

authorities that transferred to the CFPB 

from seven Federal agencies on the 

designated transfer date, July 21, 2011. 

These authorities include the ability to 

issue regulations under more than a 

dozen Federal consumer financial laws. 

As provided in section 1021 of the 

Dodd-Frank Act, the purpose of the 

CFPB is to implement and enforce 

Federal consumer financial laws 

consistently for the purpose of ensuring 

that all consumers have access to 

markets for consumer financial products 

and services and that such markets are 

fair, transparent, and competitive. The 

CFPB is authorized to exercise its 

authorities for the purpose of ensuring 

that, with respect to consumer financial 

products and services: 

(1) Consumers are provided with 

timely and understandable information 

to make responsible decisions about 

financial transactions; 

(2) Consumers are protected from 

unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and 

practices and from discrimination; 

(3) Outdated, unnecessary, or unduly 

burdensome regulations are regularly 

identified and addressed in order to 

reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens; 

(4) Federal consumer financial law is 

enforced consistently, without regard to 

status of a person as a depository 

institution, in order to promote fair 

competition; and 

(5) Markets for consumer financial 

products and services operate 

transparently and efficiently to facilitate 

access and innovation. 

CFPB Regulatory Priorities 

The CFPB’s regulatory priorities for 

the period from November 1, 2017, to 

October 31, 2018, include continuing 

rulemaking activities to (1) Implement 

statutory directives; (2) address market 

failures, facilitate fair competition 

among financial service providers, and 

improve consumer understanding; and 

(3) modernize, clarify, and streamline 

consumer financial regulations to 

reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens. 

Bureau Regulatory Efforts To Implement 

Statutory Directives 

Much of the Bureau’s rulemaking 

work is focusing on implementing 

directives mandated in the Dodd-Frank 

Act and other statutes. As part of these 

rulemakings, the Bureau is working to 

achieve the consumer protection 

objectives of the statutes while 

minimizing regulatory burden on 

financial services providers and 

facilitating a smooth implementation 

process for both industry and 

consumers. 

For example, the Bureau is continuing 

efforts to facilitate implementation of 

critical consumer protections under the 

Dodd-Frank Act that guard against 

mortgage market practices that 

contributed to the nation’s most 

significant financial crisis in several 

decades. Since 2013, the Bureau has 

issued regulations as directed by the 

Dodd-Frank Act to implement certain 

protections for mortgage originations 

and servicing, integrate various Federal 

mortgage disclosures, and amend 

mortgage reporting requirements under 

the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act 

(HMDA). The Bureau is conducting 

follow-up rulemakings as warranted to 

address issues that have arisen during 

the implementation process for these 

rules and to provide greater clarification 

and certainty to financial services 

providers. As discussed below, the 

Bureau has begun the preparation of 

reports assessing significant rules 

implementing provisions of the DoddFrank Act. 

The Bureau is also working to 

implement section 1071 of the DoddFrank Act, which amends ECOA to 

require financial institutions to report 

information concerning credit 

applications made by women-owned, 

minority-owned, and small businesses. 

This rulemaking could provide critical 

information about how these 

businesses—which are critical engines 

for economic growth—access credit. The 

Bureau held a public hearing on this 

subject in spring 2017, and released a 

white paper summarizing preliminary 

research on the small business lending 

market. In May 2017, the Bureau also 

issued a Request for Information seeking 

public comment on, among other things, 

the types of credit products offered and 

the types of data currently collected by 

lenders in this market and the potential 

complexity, cost of, and privacy issues 

related to, small business data 

collection. The information received 

will help the Bureau determine how to 

implement the rule effectively and 

minimize burdens on lenders. 

Addressing Market Failures, Facilitating 

Fair Competition Among Financial 

Services Providers, and Improving 

Consumer Understanding 

The Bureau is considering rules in 

places where there are substantial 

market failures that make it difficult for 

consumers to engage in informed 

decision making and otherwise protect 

their own interests. In addition, the 

Dodd-Frank Act directs the Bureau to 

focus on activities that promote fair 

competition among financial services 

providers, which itself has substantial 

benefits for consumers. 

For example, the Bureau released a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in June 

2016, building on several years of 

research documenting consumer harms 

from practices related to payday loans, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1809 

auto title loans, and other similar credit 

products. In particular, the Bureau is 

concerned that product structure, lack 

of underwriting, and certain other 

lender practices are interfering with 

consumer decision making with regard 

to such products and trapping large 

numbers of consumers in extended 

cycles of debt that they do not expect. 

The Bureau is also concerned that 

certain lenders’ payment collection 

practices are causing substantial harm to 

consumers, including substantial 

unexpected fees and heightened risk of 

losing their checking accounts. The 

Bureau received more than one million 

comments in response to the proposal 

and is carefully considering how best to 

address concerns raised in the proposal 

in a manner consistent with the 

Bureau’s objectives under the DoddFrank Act. 

The Bureau is also engaged in 

rulemaking activities regarding the debt 

collection market, which continues to 

be a top source of complaints to the 

Bureau. The Bureau is concerned that, 

because consumers cannot choose their 

debt collectors or ‘‘vote with their feet,’’ 

consumers have less ability to protect 

themselves from harmful practices. In 

January 2017, the Bureau published the 

results of a survey of consumers about 

their experiences with debt collection. 

The Bureau has also received 

encouragement from industry to engage 

in rulemaking to resolve conflicts in 

case law and address issues of concern 

under the Fair Debt Collection Practices 

Act (FDCPA), such as the application of 

the 40-year-old statute to modern 

communication technologies. The 

Bureau released an outline of proposals 

under consideration in July 2016, 

concerning practices by companies that 

are ‘‘debt collectors’’ under the FDCPA, 

in advance of convening a panel under 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) in 

conjunction with the Office of 

Management and Budget and the Small 

Business Administration’s Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy to consult with 

representatives of small businesses that 

might be affected by the rulemaking. 

The Bureau expects to release a 

proposed rule in late 2017 concerning 

FDCPA collectors’ communications 

practices and consumer disclosures. The 

Bureau intends to follow up separately 

at a later time about concerns regarding 

information flows between creditors and 

FDCPA collectors and about potential 

rules to govern creditors that collect 

their own debts. 

The Bureau is also engaged in policy 

analysis and further research initiatives 

in preparation for a potential 

rulemaking regarding overdraft 

programs on checking accounts. After 

several years of research, the Bureau 

believes that there are consumer 

protection concerns with regard to these 

programs. Consumers do not shop based 

on overdraft fee amounts and policies, 

and the market for overdraft services 

does not appear to be competitive. 

Under the current regulatory regime 

consumers can opt in to permit their 

financial institution to charge fees for 

ATM and point-of-sale debit overdrafts, 

but the complexity of the system may 

complicate consumer decision making. 

Despite widespread use of disclosure 

forms, the regime produces substantially 

different opt-in rates across different 

depository institutions and the Bureau’s 

supervisory and enforcement work 

indicates that some institutions are 

aggressively steering consumers to opt 

in. The CFPB is engaged in consumer 

testing of revised opt-in forms and 

considering whether other regulatory 

changes may be warranted to enhance 

consumer decision making. 

In addition, the Bureau is continuing 

rulemaking activities that will ensure 

meaningful supervision of non-bank 

financial services providers in order to 

create a more level playing field for 

depository and non-depository 

institutions. Under section 1024 of the 

Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB is authorized 

to supervise ‘‘larger participants’’ of 

markets for various consumer financial 

products and services as defined by 

Bureau rule. The Bureau has defined the 

threshold for larger participants in 

several markets in past rulemakings, 

and is now working to develop a 

proposed rule that would define nonbank ‘‘larger participants’’ in the market 

for personal loans, including consumer 

installment loans and vehicle title loans. 

The Bureau is also considering whether 

rules to require registration of these or 

other non-depository lenders would 

facilitate supervision, as has been 

suggested to the Bureau by both 

consumer advocates and industry 

groups. 

The Bureau’s October 2016, 

rulemaking concerning prepaid 

financial products also advanced 

fairness and consistency objectives by 

creating a uniform disclosure regime 

and providing basic protections similar 

to those enjoyed by users of debit cards 

and credit cards. In April 2017, the 

Bureau extended the general effective 

date of the rule to April 1, 2018. In June 

2017, the Bureau issued a proposal that 

would make targeted changes to the 

2016 prepaid rule to reduce 

implementation and compliance 

burdens on the industry and ensure 

consumer understanding of and access 

to these products. The Bureau expects to 

issue a final rule in fall 2017. 

Modernizing, Streamlining, and 

Clarifying Consumer Financial 

Regulations 

The Bureau’s third group of activities 

concerns modernizing, streamlining, 

and clarifying consumer financial 

regulations and other activities to 

reduce unwarranted regulatory burden 

and facilitate consumer-friendly 

innovation and increased access to 

consumer financial markets as directed 

by the Dodd-Frank Act. Since most of 

the Federal consumer financial laws 

that the Bureau administers were 

enacted in the 1960s and 1970s, there is 

often substantial demand for these 

activities from both industry and 

consumer advocates alike. 

The Bureau is also beginning work 

this fall on the first in a series of reviews 

of existing regulations that it inherited 

from other agencies through the transfer 

of authorities under the Dodd-Frank 

Act. The Bureau had previously sought 

feedback on the inherited rules as a 

whole, and identified and executed 

burden reduction projects from that 

undertaking. The Bureau has largely 

completed those initial projects and 

believes that the next logical step is to 

review individual regulations—or 

portions of large regulations—in more 

detail to identify opportunities to clarify 

ambiguities, address developments in 

the marketplace, or modernize or 

streamline provisions. The Bureau notes 

that other Federal financial services 

regulators have engaged in these types 

of reviews over time and believes that 

such an initiative would be a natural 

complement to its work to facilitate 

implementation of new regulations. 

For its first review, the Bureau 

expects to focus primarily on Subparts 

B and G of Regulation Z, which 

implement TILA with respect to openend credit generally and credit cards in 

particular. As part of this general effort, 

the Bureau is considering rules to 

modernize the Bureau’s database of 

credit card agreements to reduce burden 

on issuers that submit credit card 

agreements to the Bureau and make the 

database more useful for consumers and 

the general public. The Credit Card 

Accountability Responsibility and 

Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act) 

requires credit card issuers to post their 

credit card agreements to their internet 

site, and submit those agreements to the 

Bureau to be posted on an internet site 

maintained by the Bureau. The Bureau 

believes an improved submission 

process and database would be more 

efficient for both industry and the 

Bureau and would allow consumers and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1810 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

2For example, the Controlling the Assault of NonSolicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 

(CAN–SPAM Act) (15 U.S.C. 7701–7713) and the 

Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse 

Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6101–6108). 

3For example, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (106 

Stat. 2776, codified in scattered sections of the U.S. 

Code, particularly 42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.) and the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA) (codified in relevant part at 42 U.S.C. 17021, 

17301–17305). 

the general public to access and analyze 

information more easily. 

In addition to these rulemaking 

activities noted in the Unified Agenda, 

the Bureau is conducting other activities 

to modernize, streamline, and clarify 

consumer financial regulatory activities. 

For example, section 1022(d) of the 

Dodd-Frank Act specifically directs the 

Bureau to assess the effectiveness of 

significant rules five years after they are 

implemented, including seeking public 

comment. The Bureau has sought public 

comment on three significant rules: The 

remittance rule, the ability to repay rule, 

and the RESPA mortgage servicing rule. 

The Bureau is currently reviewing those 

comments as part of its work to develop 

the reports mandated by section 1022(d) 

of the Dodd-Frank Act. The findings in 

these reports will help the Bureau and 

the public evaluate the 

recommendations the Bureau received 

and inform the Bureau’s decisions 

whether adjustments to rules are 

warranted. The Bureau has also added 

items to its long-term regulatory agenda, 

including a potential rulemaking to 

modernize Regulation E, which 

implements the Electronic Fund 

Transfer Act (EFTA), and to address 

issues of concern in connection with 

data aggregators, either under existing 

regulatory regimes such as EFTA and 

the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) or 

under the Dodd-Frank Act more 

generally. The Bureau believes that 

technological and market developments 

may warrant rulemaking under EFTA 

and FCRA to clarify the application of 

existing statutes and regulations, 

modernize and streamline those laws, 

and address emerging consumer 

protection concerns. The Bureau 

continues to look at other methods of 

modernizing, streamlining, and 

clarifying its regulations, consistent 

with the goal of reducing overall 

regulatory burden. 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–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, among other things, the CPSC: 

• Develops mandatory product safety 

standards or bans when other efforts are 

inadequate to address a safety hazard, or 

where required by statute; 

• obtains repair, replacement, 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 directed otherwise by 

congressional mandate, when deciding 

which of these approaches to take in 

any specific case, the 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, among other factors, the 

following criteria, when deciding the 

level of priority for any particular 

project: 

• Frequency and severity of injury; 

• causality of injury; 

• chronic illness and future injuries; 

• costs and benefits of Commission 

action; 

• unforeseen nature of the risk; 

• vulnerability of the population at 

risk; 

• probability of exposure to the 

hazard; and 

• additional criteria that warrant 

Commission attention. 

Significant Regulatory Actions 

Currently, the Commission is not 

considering taking action in the next 

twelve months on any rules that would 

constitute a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under the definition of the term 

in Executive Order 12866. 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC) 

Statement of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Priorities 

I. Regulatory and Deregulatory 

Priorities 

Background 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC 

or Commission) is an independent 

agency charged by its enabling statute, 

the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC 

Act), with protecting American 

consumers from ‘‘unfair methods of 

competition’’ and ‘‘unfair or deceptive 

acts or practices’’ in the marketplace. 

The Commission strives to ensure that 

consumers benefit from a vigorously 

competitive marketplace. The 

Commission’s work is rooted in a belief 

that competition, based on truthful and 

non-misleading information about 

products and services, provides 

consumers the best choice of products 

and services at the lowest prices. 

The Commission pursues its goal of 

promoting competition in the 

marketplace through two different but 

complementary approaches. Through its 

consumer protection activities, the 

Commission seeks to ensure that 

consumers receive accurate, truthful, 

and non-misleading information in the 

marketplace. At the same time, to 

ensure that consumers have a choice of 

products and services at competitive 

prices and quality, the marketplace 

must be policed for anticompetitive 

business practices and to prohibit 

anticompetitive mergers. These two 

complementary missions make the 

Commission unique insofar as it is the 

nation’s only Federal agency with this 

combination of statutory authority to 

protect consumers. 

The Commission is also charged with 

the responsibility of issuing and 

enforcing regulations under a number of 

statutes, including 16 trade regulation 

rules promulgated pursuant to the FTC 

Act and numerous regulations issued 

pursuant to certain credit, financial and 

marketing practice statutes 2 and energy 

laws.3 The Commission also has 

adopted a number of voluntary industry 

guides. Most of the regulations and 

guides pertain to consumer protection 

matters and are intended to ensure that 

consumers receive the information 

necessary to evaluate competing 

products and make informed purchasing 

decisions. 

For the remainder of the Background 

section, the Commission sets out a brief 

overview of its ongoing law enforcement 

efforts, followed by a more detailed list 

of current regulatory reform-related 

initiatives and other focus areas. 

(A) Law Enforcement Mission 

The Commission is, first and 

foremost, a law enforcement agency. It 

pursues its mandate to enhance 

competition and protect consumers 

primarily through case-by-case 

enforcement of the FTC Act and other 

statutes. This includes: 

(1) Consumer Protection Enforcement. 

The agency has continued to pursue its 

long-standing consumer protection 

mission by filing or obtaining 

settlements in 56 consumer protection 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1811 

4Amended Second Partial Stipulated Order for 

Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgment, FTC 

v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., No. 3:15– 

md–2672 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2017), available at 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/ 

170517_volkwagen_ftc_final_order_.pdf; see also 

related proposed consent decree between the 

United States Department of Justice and the State 

of California and Volkswagen at https://

www.justice.gov/opa/file/871306/download. 

5Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order and 

Preliminary Injunction, FTC and State of North 

Dakota v. Sanford Health, Sanford Bismarck, and 

Mid Dakota Clinic, P.C., No. 1:17–cv–00133–DLH– 

CSM (W.D. N.D. June 22, 2017), available at https:// 

www.ftc.gov/es/system/files/documents/cases/ 

1710019sanfordfedcomplaint.pdf. 

6Complaint for Injunctive and Other Equitable 

Relief, FTC v. Shire ViroPharma, Inc., No. 1:17–cv– 

00131–UNA (D. Del. May 25, 2017), available at 

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/casesproceedings/121-0062/shire-viropharma. 

matters in district court, reaching 21 

administrative consent agreements 

related to consumer protection, and 

distributing over $91 million in redress 

to more than two million consumers in 

2017. 

One recent example is the FTC’s 

enforcement action along with its law 

enforcement partners, the U.S. 

Department of Justice and the 

Environmental Protection Agency, to 

compensate consumers who were 

harmed by Volkswagen both because the 

company allegedly unfairly sold cars 

with illegal defeat-emissions-testing 

devices and deceptively advertised 

these cars with claims that they were 

‘‘clean.’’ Under the Commission’s 2.0 

liter and 3.0 liter settlements, 

Volkswagen will offer consumers more 

than $11 billion in compensation.4 This 

is the largest consumer refund program 

in the FTC’s history. 

The Western Union Company 

(Western Union), a global money 

services business headquartered in 

Englewood, Colorado, agreed to pay 

$586 million to settle FTC and 

Department of Justice charges that the 

company allowed scammers to use its 

money transfer system to collect money 

from their victims. The FTC alleged that 

the company’s failures, including not 

taking effective action against complicit 

agents, resulted in hundreds of millions 

of dollars in fraudulent transfers since 

2004. As part of this global settlement, 

the FTC also required Western Union to 

implement an effective anti-fraud 

program. The Department of Justice and 

the FTC will use the $586 million 

payment to provide redress to defrauded 

consumers. 

In a historic decision, an Illinois 

federal court ordered Dish Network to 

pay $280 million in civil penalties and 

to stop alleged violations of the FTC’s 

Telemarketing Sales Rule and other 

federal and state laws. The Department 

of Justice filed charges on behalf of the 

FTC and four states against the satellite 

TV provider. Dish allegedly made 

millions of illegal calls, including to 

numbers on the Do Not Call Registry, 

and used unscrupulous tactics to 

generate programming sales. The court 

also ordered Dish to ensure its 

marketing practices comply with the 

law. The civil penalties include a 

record-setting $168 million to the 

federal government, with the remainder 

going to the states. 

(2) Competition Enforcement. In 

FY2017, the agency pursued 29 law 

enforcement actions, including 20 

merger challenges and 9 non-merger 

challenges. 

In the Draft Kings/FanDuel matter, the 

parties abandoned their planned merger 

after the Commission sought a 

preliminary injunction in federal 

district court. The combination of the 

two largest daily fantasy sports sites, 

DraftKings and FanDuel, would have 

controlled more than ninety percent of 

the U.S. market for paid daily fantasy 

sports contests, the FTC alleged. The 

FTC has also successfully negotiated 

merger settlements requiring 

divestitures in a variety of industries, 

including pharmaceuticals, agricultural 

chemicals, animal vaccines, and others. 

The FTC, jointly with the Office of the 

Attorney General of North Dakota, filed 

a complaint in federal court to block 

Sanford Health’s proposed acquisition 

of Mid Dakota Clinic, alleging that the 

deal would violate antitrust law by 

significantly reducing competition for 

adult primary care physician services, 

pediatric services, obstetrics and 

gynecology services, and general surgery 

physician services in the greater 

Bismarck, North Dakota and Mandan, 

North Dakota metropolitan area.5

According to the complaint, Sanford 

and Mid Dakota are each other’s closest 

rivals in the four-county BismarckMandan region of North Dakota, an area 

with a population of 125,000. The 

agencies seek a temporary restraining 

order and preliminary injunction to stop 

the deal and to maintain the status quo 

pending an administrative trial on the 

merits of the case. 

The agency also continues to focus on 

non-merger enforcement. For example, 

the agency brought a case against 

ViroPharma Inc. alleging it engaged in 

sham petitioning to delay the market 

entry of generic competitors.6 The 

Commission also continues to challenge 

anticompetitive reverse payment 

agreements between branded and 

generic pharmaceutical mergers after a 

favorable ruling from the Supreme Court 

in FTC v. Actavis supported the 

agency’s antitrust enforcement in this 

area. In January 2017, the Commission 

filed a stipulated injunction in federal 

court in which Malinckrodt ARD Inc., 

formerly Questcor Pharmaceuticals, 

Inc., agreed to settle Commission 

charges that it monopolized the market 

for adrenocorticotropic hormone 

(ACTH) drugs. These drugs are typically 

the last line of defense in treating 

infantile spasms, a rare and serious 

seizure disorder. According to the 

Commission’s complaint, the company 

purchased the rights to develop 

Synacthen Depot, a drug that threatened 

the firm’s existing monopoly in the U.S. 

market. The Commission charged that 

the company undertook this acquisition 

to prevent any other company from 

using the Synacthen assets to develop a 

synthetic ACTH drug in the United 

States, thereby preserving Questcor’s 

monopoly and allowing it to raise and 

maintain extremely high prices. 

Questcor raised its prices from $40 a 

vial to more than $34,000 a vial between 

2001 and 2017, when it faced no 

competition for this critical infant 

medicine. To resolve this matter, 

Malinckrodt ARD Inc. agreed to grant a 

license to Synacthen Depot to a 

Commission-approved licensee and to 

pay $100 million. 

(B) Regulatory Reform-Related 

Initiatives 

In addition to consumer protection 

and competition enforcement matters, 

the agency is leading several regulatory 

reform initiatives under the leadership 

of Acting Chairman Ohlhausen. Her 

priorities in this regard are threefold: 

Promoting economic liberty, reforming 

regulation, and increasing agency 

transparency: 

(1) Economic Liberty Task Force. In 

February 2017, Acting Chairman 

Ohlhausen established an FTC 

Economic Liberty Task Force to 

collaborate with state leaders and other 

stakeholders on occupational licensing 

reform. Nearly thirty percent of 

American jobs require a license today, 

up from less than five percent in the 

1950s. For some professions, licensing 

is necessary to protect the public against 

legitimate health and safety concerns. 

But, many more occupations could be 

practiced safely and effectively with 

fewer, or no, licensing requirements. 

In many situations, the expansion of 

occupational licensing threatens 

economic liberty. Unnecessary licensing 

restrictions erect significant barriers and 

impose costs that cause real harm to 

American workers, employers, 

consumers, and the economy as a 

whole, with no measurable benefits to 

consumers or society. These restrictions 

can: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1812 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

7See Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews for further 

information about specific rule reviews. 

8See Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations 

for further information. 

• Close the door on job opportunities 

for people who are ready to work, 

especially the nation’s most 

economically disadvantaged citizens; 

• prevent workers from marketing 

their skills to employers and consumers; 

• reduce entrepreneurship and 

business innovation, insulating current 

service providers from new forms of 

competition; and 

• Stifle price, quality, and service 

competition among professionals, which 

hurts all consumers. 

This Task Force has submitted 

comments on a state bill to reduce 

licensing requirements; launched a new 

website (www.ftc.gov/econliberty); and 

conducted dozens of interviews with a 

variety of stakeholders. On July 27, 

2017, the Task Force hosted a 

roundtable in Washington, DC, that 

highlighted approaches that make it 

easier for workers in state-licensed 

occupations to offer their services across 

state lines or move between states. The 

agency announced a second public 

roundtable to occur on November 7, 

2017, to examine the economic and 

legal aspects of occupational licensing 

regulations. The FTC’s Economic 

Liberty Task Force will continue 

working with state partners and other 

interested stakeholders to bring greater 

attention to these important issues. 

Occupational licensing reform is good 

for competition, workers, consumers, 

and the American economy. 

(2) Regulatory Reform and Agency 

Streamlining. Excessive regulation and 

bureaucracy create significant burdens 

on the public, while diverting resources 

from the agency’s core mission to 

protect consumers and promote 

competition. Acting Chairman 

Ohlhausen directed staff to find ways to 

streamline agency information requests, 

add transparency, and lighten regulatory 

burdens. In June 2017, the agency also 

announced proposals to minimize or 

eliminate certain regulations that may 

no longer be in the public interest, 

including the 1966 Picture Tube Rule 

and the 1959 Textile Rule.7 In July 2017, 

the FTC announced several reforms 

within the Bureau of Consumer 

Protection that will streamline 

information requests and improve 

transparency in Commission 

investigations, while preserving the 

agency’s ability to conduct thorough 

investigations. On September 15, 2017, 

the Commission announced the 

streamlining of requirements under the 

Fur, Textile and Wool Labeling Rules as 

part of the regulatory reform agenda. 83 

FR 43690 (Sept. 19, 2017). Effective 

October 19, 2017, these three rules were 

updated to require the public in most 

instances to submit via the FTC’s 

website any requests to obtain, update, 

or cancel registered identification 

numbers (RN) used on fur, textile and 

wool product labels. Use of the webbased RN system streamlines the 

application process for participating 

businesses and greatly increases the 

agency’s efficiency in delivering RN 

services to the public. Further 

streamlining will occur as the FTC 

continues its regular, systematic reviews 

of all rules and guides, assessing their 

costs and benefits to consumers and 

businesses.8

(C) Increasing Agency Transparency 

Under the Acting Chairman’s 

direction, the FTC is exploring 

additional ways to provide practical 

guidance on how the FTC Act applies to 

data security. The agency is building on 

existing business guidance materials, 

including Start with Security, a nutsand-bolts brochure that distills the 

lessons learned from FTC cases down to 

ten fundamental concepts applicable to 

and manageable by companies of any 

size. Since 2002, approximately 60 

companies have settled FTC cases 

alleging that they engaged in deceptive 

or unfair practices that unreasonably 

put consumers’ personal data at risk. 

The FTC’s law enforcement experience 

informs the agency’s educational 

materials for businesses. 

Businesses have asked the 

Commission to keep the guidance 

coming, which is why the Acting 

Chairman launched a new initiative, 

Stick with Security. Starting in late July 

2017 and going into the fall, agency staff 

is publishing a weekly Business Blog 

post focusing on each of the ten Start 

with Security principles. 

Other Ongoing Focus Areas 

As set out below, the Commission is 

focused on helping small business 

owners avoid scams and protect their 

systems and customer data from threats, 

balancing the privacy and safety 

impacts of emerging technologies with 

consumer benefits, and assisting 

military consumers. 

(1) Consumer Privacy. As the nation’s 

top enforcer on the consumer privacy 

beat, the FTC works to ensure that 

consumers can take advantage of the 

benefits of a dynamic and ever-changing 

digital marketplace without 

compromising their privacy. The FTC 

achieves that goal through civil law 

enforcement, policy initiatives, and 

consumer and business education. For 

example, the FTC’s unparalleled 

experience in consumer privacy 

enforcement has addressed practices 

offline, online, and in the mobile 

environment by large, well-known 

companies and lesser-known players 

alike. 

In June 2017, the Commission and the 

National Highway Traffic and Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) together 

sponsored the Connected Cars 

workshop, which examined the privacy 

and safety impacts of automated and 

connected motor vehicle technologies 

along with consumer benefits. Modern 

motor vehicles increasingly are being 

equipped with technologies that enable 

them to access information via the 

internet and gather, store and transmit 

data for entertainment, performance and 

safety purposes. Automated vehicles, 

vehicles with Vehicle-to-Vehicle 

Communications technology, and other 

connected vehicles (i.e. with some form 

of wireless connectivity) can provide 

important benefits to consumers and 

have the potential to revolutionize 

motor vehicle safety. At the same time, 

these automated and connected vehicles 

are expected to generate an enormous 

amount of data, some of which will be 

personal and sensitive, such as real time 

precise geolocation data and the 

contents of driver communications that 

result when drivers connect their 

mobile phones to a vehicle’s computer 

system. The workshop brought together 

a variety of stakeholders, including 

industry representatives, consumer 

advocates, academics, and government 

regulators, to discuss various issues 

related to connected and automated 

vehicles that collect data. They included 

the types of data vehicles with wireless 

interfaces collect, store, transmit, and 

share; potential benefits and challenges 

posed by such data collection; the 

privacy and security practices of vehicle 

manufacturers; the role of the FTC, 

NHTSA, and other government agencies 

regarding privacy and security issues 

related to connected vehicles; and selfregulatory standards that might apply to 

privacy and security issues related to 

connected vehicles. 

Building on the success of its two 

previous PrivacyCon events held in 

2016 and 2017, the Commission 

announced a call for presentations for 

its third PrivacyCon, which will take 

place on February 28, 2018. The 2018 

event will focus on economic questions 

including how to quantify the harms 

that result from companies’ failure to 

secure consumer information, and how 

to balance the costs and benefits of 

privacy-protective technologies and 

practices. As part of this initiative, the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1813 

9Cross-Device Tracking: An FTC Staff Report 

(January 2017), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ 

documents/reports/cross-device-tracking-federaltrade-commission-staff-report-january-2017/ftc_

cross-device_tracking_report_1-23-17.pdf. 

10FTC Study, Patent Assertion Entity Activity 

(Oct. 2016), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ 

documents/reports/patent-assertion-entity-activityftc-study/p131203_patent_assertion_entity_activity_

an_ftc_study.pdf. 

11Press Release, FTC and DOJ Issue Updated 

Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of 

Intellectual Property (Jan. 13, 2017), https://

www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/01/ 

ftc-doj-issue-updated-antitrust-guidelines-licensingintellectual. 

12See The FTC’s Merger Remedies 2006–2012: A 

Report of the Bureaus of Competition and 

Economics (Jan. 2017), https://www.ftc.gov/system/ 

files/documents/reports/ftcs-merger-remedies-2006- 

2012-report-bureaus-competition-economics/ 

p143100_ftc_merger_remedies_2006-2012.pdf. 

13FTC, A Study of the Commission’s Divestiture 

Process (1999), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/ 

files/attachments/merger-review/divestiture.pdf. 

FTC is also seeking general research that 

explores the privacy and security 

implications of emerging technologies, 

such as the Internet of Things, artificial 

intelligence and virtual reality. 

The Internet of Things is also an 

expanding part of the Commission’s 

work. It comes in the form of products 

such as fitness devices, wearables, smart 

cars, and connected smoke detectors, 

light bulbs, and refrigerators. While 

these products are innovative and 

exciting, they are also collecting, 

storing, and often sharing vast amounts 

of consumer data, some of it very 

personal, raising familiar and new 

concerns relating to privacy and 

security. Manufacturers and service 

providers are finding ways to track 

consumers across multiple devices, 

often without disclosing they are doing 

so. The FTC released a report on socalled cross-device tracking.9 The 

Commission’s report found that many 

companies do not explicitly discuss 

their cross-device tracking practices in 

their privacy policies. As companies 

increasingly track consumers across not 

only desktops and smartphones but 

other smart devices—like TVs—it is 

important that companies not only 

reassess their approaches to privacy but 

also simplify consumer choices 

wherever possible and get affirmative 

consent from consumers before tracking 

sensitive information across devices. 

On March 9, 2017, the Commission 

also hosted its third FinTech Forum, 

focusing on the consumer implications 

of two rapidly developing technologies: 

Artificial intelligence and blockchain. 

The FinTech Forum series is part of the 

FTC’s ongoing work to protect 

consumers taking advantage of new and 

emerging financial technology. As 

technological advances expand the ways 

consumers can store, share, spend, and 

borrow money, the FTC is working to 

keep consumers protected while 

encouraging innovation for consumers’ 

benefit. Artificial intelligence focuses on 

the capability for machines to mimic 

rational or human-like thought 

processes or behaviors, including 

learning and problem solving. The 

technology may be used, for example, to 

provide personalized financial services 

for consumers, including providing 

money management tools. Blockchain 

technology involves a distributed digital 

ledger for recording transactions that 

can be shared widely. It first emerged as 

the foundation for digital currency, and 

it is now being explored for other 

consumer-focused uses including 

payment systems and ‘‘smart contracts.’’ 

(2) Small Business. There are more 

than 28 million small businesses 

nationwide, employing nearly 57 

million people, according to the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). The 

agency has launched a new small 

business website (www.ftc.gov/

SmallBusiness) with information to help 

small business owners avoid scams and 

protect their systems and customer data 

from threats. The site, which includes a 

new Small Business Computer Security 

Basics guide, also has information on 

other cyber threats such as ransomware 

and phishing schemes. The FTC also 

kicked off a new ‘‘Engage, Connect, and 

Protect’’ Initiative in partnership with 

the SBA, launching a nationwide 

dialogue on cybersecurity with small 

businesses. The first event was held in 

Portland, Oregon, on July 25, 2017, in 

conjunction with the National 

Cybersecurity Alliance’s conference on 

‘‘Understanding your Cybersecurity: 5 

Steps to Protect Your Business.’’ This 

event was followed by a roundtable 

discussion (hosted by the FTC and the 

Council of Smaller Enterprises and in 

collaboration with the SBA) in 

Cleveland, Ohio, on September 6, and 

another roundtable event (sponsored by 

the NCSA) on September 18, 2017, in 

Des Moines, Iowa. 

(3) Military Consumers. The agency 

also has expanded its focus on military 

consumers. This includes a new 

military.consumer.gov website and a 

series of Military Financial Consumer 

conferences, the first of which was held 

in Los Angeles, CA, on September 7, 

2017. The new website provides advice 

and assistance on a number of topics 

including financial advice and alerts on 

numerous scams directed at military 

consumers and their families. 

(4) Fostering Innovation & 

Competition. For more than two 

decades, the Commission has examined 

difficult issues at the intersection of 

antitrust and intellectual property law— 

including those related to innovation, 

standard-setting, and patents. The 

Commission’s work in this area is 

grounded in the recognition that 

intellectual property and competition 

laws share the fundamental goals of 

promoting innovation and consumer 

welfare. The Commission has authored 

several seminal reports on competition 

and patent law and conducted 

workshops to learn more about 

emerging practices and trends. 

For instance, the FTC has used its 

authority under Section 6(b) of the 

Federal Trade Commission Act to 

explore the impact of patent assertion 

entities (PAE), firms that acquire patents 

from third parties and then try to make 

money by licensing or suing accused 

infringers. In 2014, the FTC received 

clearance under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act from the Office of 

Management and Budget to issue 

compulsory process orders to PAEs and 

other industry participants to develop a 

better understanding of PAE business 

models. In October 2016, the FTC 

published a staff report that spotlighted 

the business practices of PAEs and 

recommended patent litigation 

reforms.10

In conjunction with the Department of 

Justice, the Commission updated the 

Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of 

Intellectual Property, also known as the 

IP Licensing Guidelines to reflect 

changes in law and accumulated 

antitrust enforcement experience over 

the past 20 years.11 The changes 

reaffirmed the Commission’s 

commitment to an economically 

grounded approach to antitrust analysis 

of IP licensing and to a strong and 

competitive IP licensing system that 

benefits consumers and fosters 

innovation. 

(5) Remedy Study. In January 2017, 

the Commission released a report that 

examined the effectiveness of the 

Commission’s orders in past merger 

cases where it has required a divestiture 

or other remedy.12 This effort expanded 

on a similar remedy study conducted in 

the 1990s that led to important 

improvements in the Commission’s 

orders.13 The new study was broader, 

covering 89 merger orders entered 

between 2006 and 2012, and benefited 

from information collected from 

respondents, buyers of divested assets, 

other significant competitors, and 

customers. The report found that the 

agency’s process for maintaining 

competition when companies merge is 

generally effective. The new report 

concluded that in most cases the 

Commission’s remedies protected or 

restored competition. Also, divestitures 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1814 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

14See Press Release, Ashley Madison settles with 

FTC over data security (Dec. 14, 2014), https://

www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2016/ 

12/ashley-madison-settles-ftc-over-data-security. 

15See Press Release, Federal Trade Commission 

and Department of Justice Announce Updated 

International Antitrust Guidelines (Jan. 13, 2017), 

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/businessblog/2016/12/ashley-madison-settles-ftc-over-datasecurity. 

of ongoing businesses were particularly 

successful. Finally, the study provided 

valuable insight into best practices for 

designing and implementing merger 

remedies in future cases. 

(6) Protecting Consumers from CrossBorder Harm. The FTC cooperates with 

competition and consumer protection 

agencies in other countries to halt 

deceptive and anticompetitive business 

practices that affect U.S. consumers, and 

promotes sound approaches to issues of 

mutual international interest by 

building relationships with counterpart 

agencies around the world on 

competition and consumer protection 

issues. 

The FTC cooperated on enforcementrelated matters with foreign agencies or 

multilateral organizations in consumer 

protection and privacy matters, using its 

authority under the U.S. SAFE WEB Act 

in these matters to share information or 

provide investigative assistance to 

foreign authorities. One highlight was 

the FTC’s successful collaboration with 

the Office of the Privacy Commissioner 

of Canada and the Australian 

Information Commissioner in 

investigating a massive data breach and 

other allegedly deceptive practices of 

the Toronto-based adult dating website, 

AshleyMadison.com.14 The website had 

members in nearly 50 countries. The 

operators of the website settled FTC and 

state charges that they deceived 

consumers and failed to protect 36 

million users’ account and profile 

information. The Australian and 

Canadian agencies contributed to the 

FTC’s investigation and reached their 

own settlements with the company. The 

FTC also continues to advance 

enforcement cooperation through 

networks such as the International 

Consumer Protection and Enforcement 

Network (ICPEN), the Global Privacy 

Enforcement Network (GPEN), the antispam Unsolicited Communications 

Enforcement Network (UCENet, 

formerly known as the London Action 

Plan) and the International Mass 

Marketing Fraud Working Group. 

In the policy arena, the FTC played a 

leading role in revising the Organization 

for Economic Co-operation and 

Development (OECD)’s Guidelines on 

Consumer Protection in Electronic 

Commerce, which were adopted by the 

OECD Council in early 2016 to address 

new developments in e-commerce 

including mobile applications, digital 

content, and peer platform marketplaces 

as well as the revised United Nations 

Guidelines on Consumer Protection, 

which include provisions on ecommerce, consumer financial services, 

dispute resolution and redress, and 

international cooperation. 

The FTC also continues to advocate 

for global interoperability and strong 

enforcement of data privacy laws 

through collaboration with the 

Department of Commerce on the E.U.- 

U.S. Privacy Shield. The Privacy Shield 

provides a mechanism for transatlantic 

data transfers and strengthens 

cooperation between the FTC and EU 

Data Protection Authorities by 

providing for vigorous enforcement of 

the Framework’s requirements. 

Throughout 2017, the FTC’s 

international competition program 

promoted cooperation with competition 

agencies in other jurisdictions and 

advocated convergence of international 

antitrust policies toward best practice. 

As co-chair of the Mergers Working 

Group of the International Competition 

Network (ICN), the FTC is leading an 

update of the ICN’s signature 

recommended practices for merger 

notification and review procedures, and 

for merger analysis, and developing 

practical guidance on merger 

investigative techniques and on merger 

remedies. It also hosted the ICN’s 2017 

merger workshop. The FTC also 

originated and leads the ICN Training 

on Demand project, which is creating a 

comprehensive curriculum of video 

training materials on competition law 

and practice. The FTC also continues to 

further the important roles that it plays 

in the competition groups of the OECD, 

the United Nations Conference on Trade 

and Development (UNCTAD), and AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). 

In addition to promoting convergence 

toward sound competition policy and 

enforcement, the FTC advocates fair and 

transparent enforcement procedures. 

Through its leadership of the ICN’s 

implementation efforts, the FTC 

continues to play a key role in 

promoting implementation of the ICN’s 

Guidance on Investigative Process, the 

most comprehensive agency-led effort to 

articulate principles and practices of 

procedural fairness in antitrust 

investigations, as well as the ICN’s work 

on merger notification and review 

procedures. In the OECD, the FTC 

played a key role in the Competition 

Committee’s project on international 

cooperation and evaluating the impact 

of competition enforcement. The FTC is 

also playing an active role in developing 

the competition chapters of the 

renegotiated North American Free Trade 

Agreement. 

On January 13, 2017, the Federal 

Trade Commission and Department of 

Justice issued revised Antitrust 

Guidelines for International 

Enforcement and Cooperation.15 The 

Guidelines, which had previously been 

updated in 1996, describe the agencies’ 

current practices and analysis of key 

issues of international consumer 

protection enforcement and 

cooperation. 

Finally, the FTC has continued its 

robust technical assistance program to 

share its experience with competition 

and consumer protection agencies 

around the world. In 2017, the FTC 

conducted programs in jurisdictions 

around the globe, including Argentina, 

Brazil, Central America, India, Mexico, 

the Philippines, Ukraine and the 

Southern African region. Through its 

International Fellows Program, the FTC 

brought ten international competition 

colleagues from five competition 

agencies to work alongside FTC staff on 

antitrust enforcement matters for fiscal 

year 2017. Under the same program, the 

FTC brought international consumer 

protection colleagues from agencies to 

work alongside FTC staff on consumer 

protection matters and research for 

fiscal year 2017. 

(7) Self-Regulatory and Compliance 

Initiatives with Industry. The 

Commission continues to engage 

industry in compliance partnerships in 

the funeral and franchise industries, 

among others. For example, the 

Commission’s Funeral Rule Offender 

Program, conducted in partnership with 

the National Funeral Directors 

Association, is designed to educate 

funeral home operators found in 

violation of the requirements of the 

Funeral Rule, 16 CFR 453, so that they 

can meet the rule’s disclosure 

requirements. Four hundred and ninetynine funeral homes have participated in 

the program since its inception in 1996. 

In addition, the Commission 

established the Franchise Rule 

Alternative Law Enforcement Program 

in partnership with the International 

Franchise Association (IFA), a nonprofit 

organization that represents both 

franchisors and franchisees. This 

program assists franchisors found to 

have a minor or technical violation of 

the Franchise Rule, 16 CFR 436, in 

complying with the rule. Violations 

involving fraud or other FTC Act 

violations are not candidates for referral 

to the program. The IFA teaches the 

franchisor how to comply with the rule 

and monitors its business for a period of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1815 

years. Where appropriate, the program 

offers franchisees the opportunity to 

mediate claims arising from the law 

violations. Since December 1998, 21 

companies have agreed to participate in 

the program. 

(8) Second Chance and Leniency 

Policies. The Commission complements 

its compliance assistance efforts by 

considering the particular circumstance 

when enforcing business obligations. 

For example, the Commission has a 

small business leniency policy 

statement that analyzes various factors 

that may result in reduction or waiver 

of penalties. See 62 FR 16809 (Apr. 8, 

1997) (issuing policy), 62 FR 46363 

(Sept. 2, 1997) (responding to comment 

received). As such cases arise; the 

Commission considers these leniency 

factors whenever a civil penalty may be 

assessed against a small business. 

The Commission continued its 

‘‘second chance’’ policy for certain 

minor and inadvertent violations of the 

textile and wool labeling rules, which 

can apply to small businesses. The 

Textile Corporate Leniency Policy helps 

increase overall compliance with the 

rules while minimizing the burden on 

business of correcting inadvertent 

labeling errors that are not likely to 

injure consumers. Since the Policy was 

announced (2002), 242 companies have 

been granted ‘‘leniency’’ for selfreported minor violations of the FTC 

textile regulations. 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Measures 

In 1992, the Commission 

implemented a program to review its 

rules and guides regularly. The 

Commission’s review program is 

patterned after provisions in the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612 and complies with the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. The Commission’s 

10-year program also is consistent with 

section 5(a) of Executive Order 12866, 

which directs executive branch agencies 

to develop a plan to reevaluate 

periodically all of their significant 

existing regulations. 58 FR 51735 (Sept. 

30, 1993). Under the Commission’s 

program, rules are reviewed on a 10- 

year schedule that results in more 

frequent reviews than are generally 

required by Section 610 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. This program 

is also broader than the review 

contemplated under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, in that it provides the 

Commission with an ongoing systematic 

approach for seeking information about 

the costs and benefits of its rules and 

guides and whether there are changes 

that could minimize any adverse 

economic effects, not just a ‘‘significant 

economic impact upon a substantial 

number of small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 610. 

In each rule review, the Commission 

requests public comments 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. 

As part of its continuing 10-year 

review plan, the Commission examines 

the effect of rules and guides on small 

businesses and on the marketplace in 

general. These 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 and at the 

least cost to business. Pursuant to this 

program, the Commission has rescinded 

37 rules and guides promulgated under 

the FTC’s general authority and updated 

dozens of others since the early 1990s. 

The FTC continues to take a fresh 

look at its long-standing regulatory 

review process. In June 2017, the 

Commission issued a revised 10-year 

review schedule. The Commission is 

currently reviewing 16 of the 65 rules 

and guides within its jurisdiction. The 

FTC maintains a web page at http://

www.ftc.gov/regreview that serves as a 

one-stop shop for the public to obtain 

information and provide comments on 

individual rules and guides under 

review as well as the Commission’s 

regulatory review program generally. 

In 2018, the Commission proposes 

initiating reviews of four of its rules or 

guides: (1) Test Procedures and Labeling 

Standards for Recycled Oil, 16 CFR 311; 

(2) Disclosure Requirements and 

Prohibitions Concerning Franchising, 16 

CFR 436; and (3) Identity Theft [Red 

Flags] Rules, 16 CFR 681, and (4) The 

Nursery Guides, 16 CFR 18. 

Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews 

The Commission is continuing review 

of a number of rules and guides, which 

are discussed below. 

(a) Rules 

CAN–SPAM Rule, 16 CFR 316. As part 

of its ongoing systematic review of its 

rules and guides, the Commission 

initiated a periodic review of the Rule 

on June 28, 2017 82 FR 29254. The 

public comment period closed on 

August 31, 2017. Commission staff 

anticipates sending a recommendation 

to the Commission by January 2018. The 

Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited 

Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 

(‘‘CAN–SPAM Rule’’) sets rules for 

commercial email, establishes 

requirements for commercial messages, 

gives recipients the right to have 

senders of commercial email stop 

emailing them, and provides for 

penalties for violations. The FTC issued 

the CAN–SPAM Rule to implement the 

Act, as authorized by the statute. 

Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 423. 

Promulgated in 1971, the Rule on Care 

Labeling of Textile Apparel and Certain 

Piece Goods as Amended (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. After 

reviewing the comments from a periodic 

rule review (76 FR 41148, July 13, 

2011), the Commission concluded on 

September 20, 2012, that the Rule 

continued to benefit consumers and 

would be retained, and sought 

comments on potential updates to the 

Rule, including changes that would 

allow garment manufacturers and 

marketers to include instructions for 

professional wetcleaning on labels; 

permit the use of ASTM Standard 

D5489–07, ‘‘Standard Guide for Care 

Symbols for Care Instructions on Textile 

Products,’’ or ISO 3758:2005(E), 

‘‘Textiles—Care labeling code using 

symbols,’’ in lieu of terms; clarify what 

can constitute a reasonable basis for care 

instructions; and update the definition 

of ‘‘dryclean.’’ 77 FR 58338. On March 

28, 2014, the Commission hosted a 

public roundtable in Washington, DC, 

that analyzed proposed changes to the 

Rule. Staff anticipates Commission 

action by January 2018. 

Contact Lens Rule, 16 CFR 315. As 

part of the systematic rule review 

process, on September 3, 2015, the 

Commission issued a Federal Register 

notice seeking public comments about 

the Contact Lens Rule. 80 FR 53272. The 

comment period closed on October 26, 

2015. After Commission staff completed 

review of the 660 comments received 

from consumers, eye care professionals, 

industry members, trade associations, 

and consumer advocacy groups, the 

Commission published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking on December 7, 

2016, seeking comment on its proposal 

to amend the Rule to require contact 

lens prescribers to obtain a signed 

acknowledgement after releasing a 

contact lens prescription to a patient, 

and to maintain it for at least three 

years. In addition, to conform language 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1816 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

16See Final Actions below for information about 

a separate completed rulemaking proceeding for the 

Energy Labeling Rule. 

of the Rule to the language of the 

FCLCA, the Commission proposed to 

amend section 315.5(e) of the Rule to 

remove the words ‘‘private label.’’ The 

Commission also sought comment on 

this proposal. The comment period 

closed on January 30, 2017, and staff is 

reviewing more than 4000 comments 

that were received, and anticipates the 

Commission taking next action by early 

2018. The Contact Lens Rule requires 

contact lens prescribers to provide 

prescriptions to their patients upon the 

completion of a contact lens fitting, and 

to verify contact lens prescriptions to 

contact lens sellers authorized by 

consumers to seek such verification. 

Sellers may provide contact lenses only 

in accordance with a valid prescription 

that is directly presented to the seller or 

verified with the prescriber. 

Energy Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 305. 

The Energy Labeling Rule is officially 

known as the Rule concerning Energy 

and Water Use Labeling for Consumer 

Products Under the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act. On November 9, 

2017, the Commission issued proposed 

rule changes containing scheduled, 

routine updates to the comparability 

ranges and unit energy cost figures on 

EnergyGuide labels for dishwashers, 

furnaces, room air conditioners, and 

pool heaters. The Commission also 

proposed to set a compliance date for 

EnergyGuide labels on room air 

conditioner boxes. The comment period 

will close on December 4, 2017.16

Eyeglass Rule, 16 CFR 456. As part of 

the systematic rule review process, on 

September 3, 2015, the Commission 

issued a Federal Register notice seeking 

public comments about the Eyeglass 

Rule (or Trade Regulation Rule on 

Ophthalmic Practice Rules). 80 FR 

53274. The comment period closed on 

October 26, 2015. Commission staff has 

completed the review of 831 comments 

on the Eyeglass Rule and is formulating 

next steps. Commission staff anticipates 

Commission action on the Eyeglass Rule 

by early 2018. The Eyeglass Rule 

requires that an optometrist or 

ophthalmologist must 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. 

Franchise Rule, 16 CFR 436. During 

2018, the Commission plans to initiate 

periodic review of the Franchise Rule 

(officially titled Disclosure 

Requirements and Prohibitions 

Concerning Franchising). The Rule gives 

prospective purchasers of franchises the 

material information they need in order 

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. 

Holder in Due Course Rule, 16 CFR 

433. On December 1, 2015, the 

Commission initiated a periodic review 

of this Rule, officially the Preservation 

of Consumers’ Claims and Defenses 

Rule. 80 FR 75018. The comment period 

closed on February 12, 2016. Staff is 

reviewing the comments and anticipates 

sending a recommendation to the 

Commission by June 2018. The Holder 

in Due Course Rule requires sellers to 

include language in consumer credit 

contracts that preserves consumers’ 

claims and defenses against the seller. 

This rule eliminated the holder in due 

course doctrine as a legal defense for 

separating a consumer’s obligation to 

pay from the seller’s duty to perform by 

requiring that consumer credit and loan 

contracts contain one of two clauses to 

preserve the buyer’s right to assert salesrelated claims and defenses against any 

‘‘holder’’ of the contracts. 

Identity Theft [Red Flags] Rules, 16 

CFR 681. During 2018, the Commission 

expects to initiate periodic review of the 

Identity Theft Rules. The Rules require 

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. 

Picture Tube Rule, 16 CFR 410. As 

part of the systematic review of its rules 

and guides, the Commission initiated a 

periodic review of this rule on June 28, 

2017. 82 FR 29256. The comment period 

closed on August 31, 2017. Commission 

staff anticipates sending a 

recommendation to the Commission by 

June 2018. The Picture Tube Rule, 

officially the Rule on Deceptive 

Advertising as to Sizes of Viewable 

Pictures Shown by Television Receiving 

Sets, became effective in 1967 and sets 

forth appropriate methods for measuring 

television screens when that measure is 

included in any advertisement or 

promotional material for the television 

set. If the measurement of the screen 

size is based on a measurement other 

than the horizontal dimension of the 

actual viewable picture area, the method 

of measurement must be clearly and 

conspicuously disclosed in close 

proximity to the size designation. 

Premerger Notification Rules and 

Report Form (or HSR Rules), 16 CFR 

801–803. 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 Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) and the U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ) and to wait 

a designated period of time before 

consummating the transaction. These 

Rules are continually reviewed in order 

to improve the program’s effectiveness 

and to reduce the paperwork burden on 

the business community. 

Staff anticipates sending a 

recommendation to the Commission by 

early 2018 that would clarify the 

definition of foreign issuer in the HSR 

Rules. The definition in the HSR Rules 

for U.S. and Foreign persons and issuers 

focuses on three tests: (1) Location of 

incorporation, (2) country whose laws 

organized under and (3) principal 

offices. The term ‘‘principal offices’’ is 

not defined in the rules and is often a 

source of confusion for parties. This 

rulemaking would provide a definition. 

Privacy Rule, 16 CFR 313. The Privacy 

Rule or Privacy of Consumer Financial 

Information 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 

June 24, 2015, the Commission 

proposed amending the Rule to allow 

motor vehicle dealers instead to notify 

their customers that a privacy policy is 

available on their website, under certain 

circumstances. 80 FR 36267. The 

proposed amendment would also revise 

the scope and definitions in the Rule in 

light of the transfer of part of the 

Commission’s rulemaking authority to 

the Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1817 

17See Final Actions below for information about 

a separate completed rulemaking proceeding for the 

Telemarketing Sales Rule. 

The comment period closed on August 

31, 2015. Since the Commission 

proposed amending the Rule, Congress 

enacted the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act (FAST Act) which 

included a provision amending the 

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to create a new 

exception to the annual notice 

requirement. Staff anticipates that the 

Commission will issue a final rule, to 

include changes reflecting the FAST Act 

amendment, by January 2018. 

Recycled Oil Rule, 16 CFR 311. 

During 2018, the Commission 

anticipates initiating its periodic review 

of the Rule (officially the Rule on Test 

Procedures and Labeling Standards for 

Recycled Oil) by publishing a notice 

seeking public comments on the 

effectiveness and impact of the Rule. 

This Rule governs labeling of containers 

for recycled or ‘‘re-refined’’ oil intended 

for use as engine oil. The Rule, which 

implemented statutory requirements 

designed to encourage the use of 

recycled oil, permits manufacturers and 

other sellers to represent on a recycled 

engine-oil container label that the oil is 

substantially equivalent to new engine 

oil, as long as the determination of 

equivalency is based on National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

test procedures prescribed by the Rule. 

R-value Rule, 16 CFR 460. On April 6, 

2016, the Commission initiated a 

periodic review of the R-value Rule, 

officially the Trade Regulation Rule 

Concerning the Labeling and 

Advertising of Home Insulation, as part 

of its ongoing systematic review of all 

rules and guides. 81 FR 19936. The 

comment period was later extended to 

September 6, 2016. 81 FR 35661 (June 

3, 2016). Staff anticipates the next 

Commission action before the end of 

2017. The R-value Rule is designed to 

assist consumers in evaluating and 

comparing the thermal performance 

characteristics of competing home 

insulation products by specifically 

requiring manufacturers of home 

insulation products to provide 

information about the product’s degree 

of resistance to the flow of heat (Rvalue). The Rule also establishes 

uniform standards for testing, 

information disclosure, and 

substantiation of product performance 

claims. 

Safeguards Rule (or Standards for 

Safeguarding Customer Information), 16 

CFR 314. On September 7, 2016, the 

Commission initiated a periodic review 

of the Safeguards Rule as part of its 

ongoing systematic review of all rules 

and guides. 81 FR 61632. The comment 

period closed on November 7, 2016, and 

staff anticipates that the Commission 

will take its next action by January 

2018. The FTC’s Safeguards Rule, as 

directed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 

(GLB), requires each financial 

institution subject to the FTC’s 

jurisdiction to 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. 

Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 

CFR 308. On August 11, 2014, the 

Commission initiated a periodic review 

of the TSR as set out on the 10-year 

review schedule.17 79 FR 46732. The 

comment period as extended closed on 

November 13, 2014. 79 FR 61267 (Oct. 

10, 2014). Staff anticipates making a 

recommendation to the Commission by 

June 2018. 

Textile Rules, 16 CFR 303. On June 

28, 2017, the Commission proposed 

amending the Textile Rules (or Rules 

and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber 

Identification Act) to delete the 

requirement that an owner of a 

registered word trademark furnish the 

FTC with a copy of the mark’s 

registration with the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) 

before using the mark on labels, and to 

no longer restrict the use of such 

trademarks to only those also employed 

as house marks. 82 FR 29251. The 

comment period closed on July 31, 

2017. Staff anticipates submitting a 

recommendation to the Commission by 

early 2018. 

The Textile Fiber Products 

Identification Act requires wearing 

apparel and other covered household 

textile articles to be marked with (1) the 

generic names and percentages by 

weight of the constituent fibers present 

in the textile fiber product; (2) the name 

under which the manufacturer or 

another responsible USA company does 

business, or in lieu thereof, the 

registered identification number (RN) of 

such a company; and (3) the name of the 

country where the textile product was 

processed or manufactured. The 

implementing rules are set forth at 16 

CFR 303. 

(b) Guides 

Fuel Economy Guide, 16 CFR 259. On 

September 19, 2017, the Commission 

published final amendments to the 

Guide Concerning Fuel Economy 

Advertising for New Automobiles 

(‘‘Fuel Economy Guide’’ or ‘‘Guide’’) to 

address advertising claims prevalent in 

the market and harmonize with current 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’) and National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (‘‘NHTSA’’) fuel 

economy labeling rules. 82 FR 43682. 

[81 FR 36216, June 6, 2016 (proposed 

amendments) (extended comment 

period closed on September 8, 2016)]. 

The Fuel Economy Guide was adopted 

in 1975 to prevent deceptive fuel 

economy advertising and to facilitate 

the use of fuel economy information in 

advertising. 

Jewelry Guides, 16 CFR 23. On July 2, 

2012, the Commission sought public 

comments on its Guides for the Jewelry, 

Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries, 

which are commonly known as the 

Jewelry Guides. 77 FR 39202. The 

Guides explain to businesses how to 

avoid making deceptive claims about 

precious metal, pewter, diamond, 

gemstone, and pearl products and when 

they should make disclosures to avoid 

unfair or deceptive trade practices. 

Based on comments received, and on 

information obtained during a public 

roundtable in June 2013, the FTC 

proposed revisions to the Guides on 

January 12, 2016, regarding belowthreshold alloys, precious metal content 

of products containing more than one 

precious metal, surface application of 

precious metals, lead-glass filled stones, 

‘‘cultured’’ diamonds, pearl treatments, 

varietals, and misuse of the word 

‘‘gem.’’ 81 FR 1349. The extended 

comment period closed on June 3, 2016, 

and Commission staff anticipates 

forwarding a recommendation to the 

Commission before the end of 2017. 

Nursery Guides, 16 CFR 18. The 

Commission plans to initiate periodic 

review of the Guides for the Nursery 

Industry during 2018. Adopted in 1979 

and last reviewed in 2007, the Guides 

address a number of sales practices for 

outdoor plants, trees and flowers and 

prohibit deception as to such things as 

size, grade, age, condition, price, origin 

or the place where the products were 

grown. 

Final Actions 

Since the publication of the 2016 

Regulatory Plan, the Commission has 

issued the following final rules or taken 

other actions to close other rulemaking 

proceedings. These final rules continue 

to be consistent with the President’s 

Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and 

Principles contained in Executive Order 

12866 and Executive Order 13771. 

Disposal Rule, 16 CFR 682. On 

September 15, 2016, the Commission 

initiated a periodic review of the 

Disposal Rule (formally the Disposal of 

Consumer Report Information and 

Records) as part of its ongoing 

systematic review of all rules and 

guides. 81 FR 63435. The comment 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1818 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

18Please see Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews (a) 

Rules above for information about a separate and 

ongoing rulemaking under the Energy Labeling 

Rule. 

19This is officially the Rules and Regulations 

Under the Fur Products Labeling Act. 

20This is officially the Rules and Regulations 

Under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939. 

21Please see Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews (a) 

Rules above for information about a separate and 

ongoing rulemaking under the HSR Rules. 

22Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines 

a regulatory action to be ‘‘significant’’ if it is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or 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; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or planned by another 

agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or 

the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out 

of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the 

principles set forth in this Executive order. 

period closed on November 21, 2016. 

During November 2017, the Commission 

announced the completion of the review 

of the Disposal Rule and that the rule is 

being retained in its current form. 

The Disposal Rule requires any 

person or entity that maintains or 

otherwise possesses consumer 

information for a business purpose to 

properly dispose of the information to 

protect against unauthorized access to 

or use of the information. Consumer 

information means any record about an 

individual that is a consumer report or 

is derived from a consumer report, or a 

compilation of such records. This Rule 

implements section 216 of the Fair and 

Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 

2003, which is designed to reduce the 

risk of consumer fraud and related 

harms, including identity theft, created 

by improper disposal of consumer 

information. 

Energy Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 305. On 

June 28, 2017, the Commission issued a 

final rule amending the Energy Labeling 

Rule to eliminate certain marking 

requirements for plumbing products and 

to exempt certain ceiling fans from 

labeling requirements. 82 FR 29230. 

Additionally, the amendments updated 

the Rule to include labeling 

requirements for electric instantaneous 

water heaters. The Commission also 

made non-substantive, conforming 

changes to the testing provisions for 

LED (or light-emitting diode) covered 

lamps and minor corrections to other 

provisions.18

Fur Rules, 16 CFR 301, Textile Rules, 

16 CFR 303, and Wool Rules, 16 CFR 

300. On September 15, 2017, the 

Commission announced the 

streamlining of requirements under the 

Fur,19 Textile and Wool Labeling 20

Rules as part of the regulatory reform 

agenda. 83 FR 43690 (Sept. 19, 2017). 

Effective October 19, 2017, these three 

rules were updated to require the public 

in most instances to submit via the 

FTC’s website any requests to obtain, 

update, or cancel registered 

identification numbers (RN) used on fur, 

textile and wool product labels. Use of 

the web-based RN system streamlines 

the application process for participating 

businesses and greatly increases the 

agency’s efficiency in delivering RN 

services to the public. 

Premerger Notification Rules and 

Report Form (or HSR Rules), 16 CFR 

801–803. On July 12, 2017, the 

Commission issued a final rule making 

ministerial changes to the HSR Form. 

Among other things, the changes 

eliminated certain language about the 

filing fee to conform to previously 

published amendments to the associated 

Instructions, changed the Form version 

dates from 2011/2012 to 2017, updated 

the minimum penalty for failure to file, 

and updated the Premerger Notification 

Office’s Constitution Center address.21

82 FR 32123. 

Used Car Rule (or Used Motor Vehicle 

Trade Regulation Rule), 16 CFR 455. On 

November 18, 2016, the Commission 

issued a final rule that added a Buyer’s 

Guide statement recommending that 

consumers obtain a vehicle history 

report (‘‘VHR’’), and directing them to 

an FTC website for more information 

about VHRs and safety recalls; revised 

the Buyers Guide statement describing 

the meaning of an ‘‘As Is’’ sale in which 

a dealer offers a vehicle for sale without 

a warranty; added boxes to the front of 

the Buyers Guide where dealers can 

indicate additional warranty and service 

contract coverage; added a Spanish 

statement to the English Buyers Guide 

advising consumers to ask for a copy of 

the Buyers Guide in Spanish if the 

dealer is conducting the sale in Spanish 

(and providing a Spanish translation of 

the optional consumer acknowledgment 

of receipt of the Buyers Guide); and 

added air bags and catalytic converters 

to the list of major defects on the back 

of the Buyers Guide. 81 FR 81664. The 

final rule was effective on January 27, 

2017. 

This Rule sets out the general duties 

of a used vehicle dealer and requires 

that a completed Buyers Guide be 

posted at all times on the side window 

of each used car a dealer offers for sale. 

Dealers must disclose on the Buyers 

Guide whether the vehicle is covered by 

a warranty, and if so, the type and 

duration of the warranty coverage, or 

whether the vehicle is being sold ‘‘as is 

no warranty.’’ 

Summary 

The actions under consideration 

inform and protect consumers, while 

minimizing the regulatory burdens on 

legitimate businesses. The Commission 

continues to identify and weigh the 

costs and benefits of proposed 

regulatory actions and possible 

alternative actions and to seek and 

consider the broadest practicable array 

of comment from affected consumers, 

businesses, and the public at large. In 

sum, the Commission’s regulatory 

actions are aimed at efficiently and 

fairly promoting the ability of ‘‘private 

markets to protect or improve the health 

and safety of the public, the 

environment, or the well-being of the 

American people.’’ Executive Order 

12866, section 1. 

II. Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

The Commission has no proposed 

rules that would be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the definition 

in Executive Order 12866.22 The 

Commission also has no proposed rules 

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. 

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. 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1819 

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, and 

strong tribal governments. The NIGC is 

fully committed to working with tribes 

to ensure the integrity of the industry by 

exercising its regulatory responsibilities 

through technical assistance, 

compliance, and enforcement activities. 

Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

As an independent regulatory agency, 

the NIGC has been performing a 

retrospective review of its existing 

regulations well before Executive Order 

13771 was issued on January 30, 2017. 

The NIGC, however, recognizes the 

importance of Executive Order 13771 

and its regulatory review is being 

conducted in the spirit of Executive 

Order 13771, 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–AA55 Minimum Internal Control 

Standards. 

3141–AA58 Management Contracts. 

3141–AA60 Class II Minimum Internal 

Control Standards. 

3141–AA62 Buy Indian Goods and Services (BIGS) Rule. 

3141–AA64 Class II Minimum Technical 

Standards. 

3141–AA66 Freedom of Information Act 

Procedures. 

3141–AA67 Fees. 

More specifically, the NIGC is 

currently considering promulgating new 

regulations in the following areas: (i) 

Amendments to its regulatory 

definitions to conform to the newly 

promulgated rules; (ii) the suspension of 

the existing minimum internal control 

standards (MICS) in part 542; (iii) 

updates or revisions to its management 

contract regulations to address the 

current state of the industry; (iv) the 

review and revision of the minimum 

internal control standards for Class II 

gaming updates; (v) regulation that 

would provide a preference to qualified 

Indian-owned businesses when 

purchasing goods or services for the 

Commission at a fair market price; (vi) 

revisions to the minimum technical 

standards for gaming equipment used 

with the play of Class II games; (vii) 

revisions to the existing Freedom of 

Information Act procedures in part 517 

as a means to bring them into full 

compliance with the Freedom of 

Information Act; and (viii) revisions to 

the NIGC’s fee publication schedule to 

provide for one, yearly publication no 

later than November 1st each year. 

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. 

NIGC 

Proposed Rule Stage 

137. Class II Minimum Internal Control 

Standards 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or 

Partially Exempt. 

Legal Authority: 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(1) 

to (4); 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(10); 25 U.S.C. 

2710(d)(7)(B)(vii) 

CFR Citation: 25 CFR 543. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The NIGC continues to 

review and revise the minimum internal 

control standards (MICS) for Class II 

gaming. The NIGC anticipates proposing 

minor but substantive corrections to the 

Class II MICS, including adding 

clarifying language and reinserting 

critical key controls that were 

inadvertently removed by the last 

revisions. 

Statement of Need: Periodic review 

and revision of existing standards based 

on input by a wide array of tribal 

entities ensures that the MICS remain 

relevant and appropriate. Recent review 

has uncovered a need for correction and 

clarification to specific provisions of the 

MICS, as well as a need to re-insert 

standards that were accidentally 

overwritten when kiosk standards were 

added. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The NIGC is 

charged with monitoring class II gaming 

conducted on Indian lands 25 U.S.C. 

2706(b)(1). With regard to Class II 

gaming, NIGC’s responsibility includes 

inspecting and examining the premises 

located on Indian lands on which Class 

II gaming is conducted and auditing all 

papers, books, and records respecting 

gross revenues of Class II gaming 

conducted on Indian lands, and any 

other matters necessary to carry out the 

duties of the NIGC pursuant to the 

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 

(IGRA). 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(2), (4). 

Alternatives: Maintain the current 

regulations. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There 

are no anticipated cost increases to the 

Federal Government or to tribal 

governments as a result of this 

regulatory action. 

Risks: There are no known risks to 

this regulatory action. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/17 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Tribal. 

Sectors Affected: 92115 American 

Indian and Alaska Native Tribal 

Governments; 72112 Casino Hotels; 

71321 Casinos (except Casino Hotels). 

Agency Contact: Michael Hoenig, 

General Counsel, National Indian 

Gaming Commission, 1849 C Street NW, 

Mailstop #1621, Washington, DC 20240, 

Phone: 202 632–7003. 

Related RIN: Split from 3141–AA56 

RIN: 3141–AA60 

NIGC 

Final Rule Stage 

138. Minimum Internal Control 

Standards 

Priority: Other Significant. 

E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory. 

Legal Authority: 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(1) 

to (4); 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(10); 25 U.S.C. 

2710(d)(7)(B)(vii) 

CFR Citation: 25 CFR 542. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The NIGC is considering 

suspending the existing Class III 

minimum internal control standards 

(MICS) in part 542 and issuing 

guidance. 

Statement of Need: The NIGC cannot 

enforce Class III MICS. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
1820 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 

Summary of Legal Basis: The D.C. 

Circuit Court’s decision in Colorado 

River Indian Tribes v. National Indian 

Gaming Commission 383 F.Supp.2d 123 

(D.D.C. 2005), affd., 466 F.3d 134 (D.C. 

Cir. 2006), held that the NIGC cannot 

enforce Class III control standards. 

Alternatives: The NIGC has a number 

of options: (1) Retain the status quo; (2) 

remove the standards; or (3) remove the 

standards and publish updated 

standards as guidance documents. At 

this time, the NIGC has decided to 

suspend the standards provided in the 

regulations and publish updated 

standards as guidance documents. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There 

are no anticipated cost increases to the 

Federal Government or to tribal 

governments as a result of this 

regulatory action. 

Risks: There are no known risks to 

this regulatory action. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

First NPRM ......... 12/01/04 69 FR 69847 

First NPRM Comment Period 

End.

01/18/05 

Second NPRM .... 03/10/05 70 FR 11893 

Second NPRM 

Comment Period End.

04/25/05 

Final Action on 

First NPRM.

05/04/05 70 FR 23011 

Final Action on 

Second NPRM.

08/12/05 70 FR 47097 

Third NPRM ........ 11/15/05 70 FR 69293 

Third NPRM 

Comment Period End.

12/30/05 

Final Action on 

Third NPRM.

05/11/06 71 FR 27385 

Final Rule; Delay 

of Effective 

Date and Request for Comments.

08/30/12 77 FR 53817 

Final Rule; Delay 

of Effective 

Date and Request for Comments.

10/04/12 77 FR 60625 

Effective Date Delayed.04/22/14 

Final Action ......... 01/00/18 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Tribal. 

Sectors Affected: 92115 American 

Indian and Alaska Native Tribal 

Governments; 72112 Casino Hotels; 

71321 Casinos (except Casino Hotels). 

Agency Contact: Michael Hoenig, 

General Counsel, National Indian 

Gaming Commission, 1849 C Street NW, 

Mailstop #1621, Washington, DC 20240, 

Phone: 202 632–7003. 

Related RIN: Split from 3141–AA27 

RIN: 3141–AA55 

BILLING CODE 7565–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities for 

Fiscal Year 2018 

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) 2018 reflect our complex 

mission and will enable us to achieve 

our two strategic goals described in 

NUREG–1614, Volume 6, ‘‘Strategic 

Plan: Fiscal Years 2014–2018’’ (http://

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1614/v6/): (1) 

To ensure the safe use of radioactive 

materials, and (2) to ensure the secure 

use of radioactive materials. 

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 2018. For additional 

information on these regulatory actions 

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. Proposed Rules 

Cyber Security for Fuel Facilities (RIN 

3150–AJ64): This proposed rule would 

assure that NRC-licensed fuel cycle 

facilities provide reasonable assurance 

that digital assets associated with safety, 

security, emergency preparedness, and 

safeguards are adequately protected 

from cyber-attacks. 

Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.84, Rev. 38; 

RG 1.147, Rev. 19; and RG 1.192, Rev. 

3; Approval of American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers Code Cases (RIN 

3150–AJ93; NRC–2017–0024): This 

proposed rule would incorporate by 

reference the American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers Code Cases that 

the NRC finds to be acceptable or 

conditionally acceptable in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR). 

U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor 

(US–ABWR) Design Certification 

Renewal (RIN 3150–AK04; NRC–2017– 

0090): This rule would amend the 

NRC’s regulations in Appendix A to 10 

CFR part 52 to renew the certification of 

the US–ABWR design. 

Enhanced Security for Special 

Nuclear Material (formerly Physical 

Protection for Category I, II, and III 

Special Nuclear Material) (RIN 3150– 

AJ41; NRC–2014–0018): This proposed 

rule would update fuel cycle and 

special nuclear material security 

regulations to make generically 

applicable security requirements 

imposed in post-September 11, 2001, 

security orders, and enhance existing 

security requirements through 

continued monitoring of threat 

information and updated technical 

analyses. This rulemaking is on hold 

pending completion of interagency 

interactions. 

B. Final Rules 

The following rulemaking activities 

meet the requirements of a significant 

regulatory action in Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ because they are likely to have 

an annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more. 

Mitigation of Beyond Design Basis 

Events (RIN 3150–AJ49; NRC–2011– 

0189, NRC–2014–0240): This final rule 

would enhance mitigation strategies for 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Regulatory Plan 1821 

nuclear power reactors for beyonddesign-basis external events. 

Revision of Fee Schedules: Fee 

Recovery for FY 2018 (RIN 3150–AJ95; 

NRC–2017–0026): This final rule would 

amend the NRC’s fee schedules for 

licensing, inspection, and annual fees 

charged to its applicants and licensees. 

[FR Doc. 2017–28207 Filed 1–11–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2