```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1664-1821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28207]

[[Page 1663]]

Vol. 83

Friday,

No. 9

January 12, 2018

Part II

Regulatory Information Service Center

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions--Fall 2017

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

[[Page 1664]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: [email protected].

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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 1666]]

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 non-statutory 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

[[Page 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, Long-Term 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

[[Page 1668]]

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 e-rulemaking 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.
    [squ] 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;
    [squ] 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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 1670]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................  National Bioengineered            0581-AD54  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Food Disclosure Standard.
2.............................  NOP: Organic Livestock            0581-AD75  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 and Poultry Practices.
3.............................  Lacey Act Implementation          0579-AD44  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Plan: De Minimis
                                 Exception and Composite
                                 Articles.
4.............................  National Environmental            0579-AC60  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Policy Act Implementing
                                 Procedures.
5.............................  Animal Welfare;                   0579-AD99  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Establishing De Minimis
                                 Exemptions From
                                 Licensing.

[[Page 1671]]

 
6.............................  Child Nutrition Programs:         0584-AE53  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Flexibilities for Milk,
                                 Whole Grains, and Sodium
                                 Requirements.
7.............................  Modernization of Swine            0583-AD62  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Slaughter Inspection.
8.............................  Administrative Issuances;         0596-AC65  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Involving the Public in
                                 the Formulation of
                                 Forest Service
                                 Directives (Rule).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                             Department of Commerce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.............................  Taking and Importing              0648-BB38  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Marine Mammals; Taking
                                 Marine Mammals
                                 Incidental to
                                 Geophysical Surveys in
                                 the Gulf of Mexico.
10............................  Illegal, Unregulated, and         0648-BG11  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Unreported Fishing;
                                 Fisheries Enforcement;
                                 High Seas Driftnet
                                 Fishing Moratorium
                                 Protection Act.
11............................  Endangered and Threatened         0648-BG26  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Species; Designation of
                                 Critical Habitat for
                                 Threatened Caribbean and
                                 Indo-Pacific Reef-
                                 Building Corals.
12............................  Commerce Trusted Trader           0648-BG51  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                              Department of Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13............................  Earned Value Management           0750-AJ10  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Applicability (DFARS
                                 Case 2015-D038).
14............................  Contractor Purchasing             0750-AJ48  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 System Review Threshold
                                 (DFARS Case 2017-D038).
15............................  Brand Name or Equal               0750-AJ50  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 (DFARS Case 2017-D040).
16............................  Amendment to Mentor-              0750-AJ05  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Prot[eacute]g[eacute]
                                 Program (DFARS Case 2016-
                                 D011).
17............................  Use of the Government             0750-AJ11  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Property Clause (DFARS
                                 Case 2015-D035).
18............................  Repeal of Independent             0750-AJ51  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Research and Development
                                 Technical Interchange
                                 (DFARS Case 2017-D041).
19............................  Establishment of TRICARE          0720-AB70  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Select and Other TRICARE
                                 Reforms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                             Department of Education
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20............................  Nondiscrimination on the          1870-AA14  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Basis of Sex in
                                 Education Programs or
                                 Activities Receiving
                                 Federal Financial
                                 Assistance.
21............................  Borrower Defense and              1840-AD26  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Related Issues.
22............................  Program Integrity;                1840-AD31  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Gainful Employment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                              Department of Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AD09  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards and Definition
                                 for General Service
                                 Lamps.
24............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AD15  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for
                                 Residential Conventional
                                 Cooking Products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     Department of Health and Human Services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.            Rulemaking stage .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25............................  HIPAA Privacy Rule:               0945-AA09  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Presumption of Good
                                 Faith of HealthCare
                                 Providers.
26............................  Health Information                0955-AA01  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Technology:
                                 Interoperability and
                                 Certification
                                 Enhancements.
27............................  Certification of Opioid           0930-AA27  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Treatment Programs.
28............................  Confidentiality of                0930-AA26  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Substance Use Disorder
                                 Patient Records.
29............................  Mammography Quality               0910-AH04  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards Act;
                                 Regulatory Amendments.
30............................  Medical Device De Novo            0910-AH53  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Classification Process.
31............................  Requirement for Access or         0910-AH62  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Safe Use of Certain
                                 Nonprescription Drug
                                 Products.
32............................  Medication Guides;                0910-AH68  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Patient Medication
                                 Information.
33............................  Format and Content of             0910-AH89  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Reports Intended to
                                 Demonstrate Substantial
                                 Equivalence.
34............................  340B Drug Pricing Program         0906-AB12  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Ceiling Price and
                                 Manufacturer Civil
                                 Monetary Penalties
                                 Regulation.

[[Page 1672]]

 
35............................  National Vaccine Injury           0906-AB14  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Compensation Program:
                                 Revisions to the Vaccine
                                 Injury Table.
36............................  Policy and Technical              0938-AT08  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Changes to the Medicare
                                 Advantage and the
                                 Medicare Prescription
                                 Drug Benefit Programs
                                 for Contract Year 2019
                                 (CMS-4182-P).
37............................  Regulatory Provisions to          0938-AT23  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Promote Program
                                 Efficiency,
                                 Transparency, and Burden
                                 Reduction (CMS-3346-P).
38............................  Hospital Inpatient                0938-AT27  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Prospective Payment
                                 System for Acute Care
                                 Hospitals and the Long-
                                 Term Care Hospital
                                 Prospective Payment
                                 System and FY 2019 Rates
                                 (CMS-1694-P).
39............................  Requirements for Long-            0938-AT36  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Term Care Facilities:
                                 Regulatory Provisions to
                                 Promote Program
                                 Efficiency,
                                 Transparency, and Burden
                                 Reduction (CMS-3347-P).
40............................  Medicaid and CHIP Managed         0938-AT40  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Care (CMS-2408-P).
41............................  Adoption and Foster Care          0970-AC72  Prerule Stage.
                                 Analysis and Reporting
                                 System.
42............................  Head Start Service                0970-AC73  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Duration Requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                         Department of Homeland Security
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43............................  Inadmissibility and               1615-AA22  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Deportability on Public
                                 Charge Grounds.
44............................  Registration Requirement          1615-AB71  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Petitioners Seeking
                                 To File H-1B Petitions
                                 on Behalf of Aliens
                                 Subject to Numerical
                                 Limitations.
45............................  Rescission of                     1615-AC04  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 International
                                 Entrepreneur Rule.
46............................  EB-5 Immigrant Investor           1615-AC11  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Regional Center Program.
47............................  Strengthening the H-1B            1615-AC13  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Nonimmigrant Visa
                                 Classification Program.
48............................  Removing H-4 Dependent            1615-AC15  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Spouses from the Class
                                 of Aliens Eligible for
                                 Employment Authorization.
49............................  EB-5 Immigrant Investor           1615-AC07  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Program Modernization.
50............................  Air Cargo Advance                 1651-AB04  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Screening (ACAS).
51............................  Collection of Biometric           1651-AB12  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Data Upon Entry to and
                                 Exit From the United
                                 States.
52............................  Implementation of the             1651-AB14  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Electronic System for
                                 Travel Authorization
                                 (ESTA) at U.S. Land
                                 Borders--Automation of
                                 CBP Form I-94W.
53............................  Vetting of Certain                1652-AA69  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Surface Transportation
                                 Employees.
54............................  Amending Vetting                  1652-AA70  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Requirements for
                                 Employees With Access to
                                 a Security
                                 Identification Display
                                 Area (SIDA).
55............................  Flight Training for               1652-AA35  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Aliens and Other
                                 Designated Individuals;
                                 Security Awareness
                                 Training for Flight
                                 School Employees.
56............................  Ronald Reagan Washington          1652-AA49  Final Rule Stage.
                                 National Airport:
                                 Enhanced Security
                                 Procedures for Certain
                                 Operations.
57............................  Security Training for             1652-AA55  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Surface Transportation
                                 Employees.
58............................  Adjusting Program Fees            1653-AA74  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for the Student and
                                 Exchange Visitor Program.
59............................  Apprehension, Processing,         1653-AA75  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Care and Custody of
                                 Alien Minors.
60............................  Practical Training Reform         1653-AA76  Proposed Rule Stage.
61............................  Factors Considered When           1660-AA83  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Evaluating a Governor's
                                 Request for Individual
                                 Assistance for a Major
                                 Disaster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   Department of Housing and Urban Development
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
62............................  Project Approval for              2502-AJ30  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Single Family
                                 Condominium (FR-5715).
63............................  Housing Opportunity               2577-AD03  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Through Modernization
                                 Act of 2016 (FR-6057).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                           Department of the Interior
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
64............................  Rescission of the 2015            1004-AE52  Final Rule Stage.
                                 BLM Hydraulic Fracturing
                                 Rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1673]]

                                              Department of Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
65............................  Public Safety Officers'           1121-AA85  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Benefits Program
                                 Regulations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                               Department of Labor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
66............................  Request for Information           1235-AA20  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Defining and Delimiting
                                 the Exemptions for
                                 Executive,
                                 Administrative,
                                 Professional, Outside
                                 Sales and Computer
                                 Employees.
67............................  Apprenticeship Programs,          1205-AB85  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Labor Standards for
                                 Registration, Amendment
                                 of Regulations.
68............................  Tracking of Workplace             1218-AD17  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Injuries and Illnesses.
69............................  Occupational Exposure to          1218-AB76  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Beryllium.
70............................  Standards Improvement             1218-AC67  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Project IV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                          Department of Transportation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
71............................  Pilot Records Database            2120-AK31  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 (HR 5900).
72............................  Orbital Debris Mitigation         2120-AK81  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Methods for Launch
                                 Vehicle Upper Stages
                                 (Orbital Debris).
73............................  Operations of Small               2120-AK85  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Unmanned Aircraft Over
                                 People.
74............................  Pilot Professional                2120-AJ87  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Development.
75............................  Transport Airplane Fuel           2120-AK24  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Tank and System
                                 Lightning Protection.
76............................  Registration and Marking          2120-AK82  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Requirements for Small
                                 Unmanned Aircraft.
77............................  Rear Seat Belt Reminder           2127-AL37  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 System.
78............................  Passenger Car and Light           2127-AL76  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Truck Corporate Average
                                 Fuel Economy Standards
                                 MYs 2022-2025.
79............................  Passenger Equipment               2130-AC46  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Safety Standards
                                 Amendments.
80............................  Private Investment                2132-AB27  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Project Procedures.
81............................  Public Transportation             2132-AB23  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Agency Safety Plans.
82............................  Pipeline Safety: Class            2137-AF29  Prerule Stage.
                                 Location Requirements.
83............................  Pipeline Safety: Safety           2137-AE66  Final Rule Stage.
                                 of Hazardous Liquid
                                 Pipelines.
84............................  Pipeline Safety: Gas              2137-AE72  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Transmission.
85............................  Hazardous Materials: Oil          2137-AF08  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Spill Response Plans and
                                 Information Sharing for
                                 High-Hazard Flammable
                                 Trains.
86............................  Hazardous Materials:              2137-AF20  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Enhanced Safety
                                 Provisions for Lithium
                                 Batteries Transported by
                                 Aircraft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                         Department of Veterans Affairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
87............................  Prosthetic and                    2900-AP46  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Rehabilitative Items and
                                 Services.
88............................  Revise and Streamline VA          2900-AP58  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 to Adhere to Federal
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 Principles (VAAR Case
                                 2014-V005, Parts 812 and
                                 813).
89............................  Revise and Streamline VA          2900-AP81  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 to Adhere to Federal
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 Principles (VAAR Case
                                 2014-V004, Parts 811 and
                                 832).
90............................  Beneficiary Travel.......         2900-AP89  Proposed Rule Stage.
91............................  Revise and Streamline VA          2900-AQ02  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 to Adhere to Federal
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 Principles (VAAR Case
                                 2015-V010).
92............................  Revise and Streamline VA          2900-AQ04  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 to Adhere to Federal
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 Principle (VAAR Case
                                 2016-V002, Parts 829,
                                 846 and 847).
93............................  Revise and Streamline VA          2900-AQ05  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 to Adhere to Federal
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 Principle (VAAR Case
                                 2016-V003, Parts 844 and
                                 845).
94............................  Authority of Health Care          2900-AQ06  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Providers to Practice
                                 Telehealth.
95............................  Revise and Streamline VA          2900-AQ18  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 to Adhere to Federal
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 Principles (VAAR Case
                                 2014-V008).
96............................  Revise and Streamline VA          2900-AQ19  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 to Adhere to Federal
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 Principles (VAAR Case
                                 2014-V006).
97............................  Revise and Streamline VA          2900-AQ20  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 to Adhere to Federal
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 Principles (VAAR Case
                                 2015-V011).
98............................  Revise and Streamline VA          2900-AQ21  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 to Adhere to Federal
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 Principles (VAAR Case
                                 2015-V012).
99............................  Per Diem Paid to States           2900-AO88  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Care of Eligible
                                 Veterans in State Homes.

[[Page 1674]]

 
100...........................  Revise and Streamline VA          2900-AP50  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 to Adhere to Federal
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 Principles (VAAR Case
                                 2014-V001, Parts 803,
                                 814 and 822).
101...........................  Revise and Streamline VA          2900-AP82  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 to Adhere to Federal
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 Principles (VAAR Case
                                 2014-V002, Parts 816 and
                                 828).
102...........................  Reimbursement for                 2900-AQ08  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Emergency Treatment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                         Environmental Protection Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103...........................  State Guidelines for              2060-AT67  Prerule Stage.
                                 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
                                 From Existing Electric
                                 Utility Generating Units.
104...........................  Oil and Natural Gas               2060-AT54  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Sector: Emission
                                 Standards for New,
                                 Reconstructed, and
                                 Modified Sources
                                 Reconsideration.
105...........................  Pesticides; Certification         2070-AK37  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 of Pesticide Applicators
                                 Rule; Reconsideration of
                                 the Minimum Age
                                 Requirements.
106...........................  Pesticides; Agricultural          2070-AK43  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Worker Protection
                                 Standard;
                                 Reconsideration of
                                 Several Requirements.
107...........................  Clean Water Act Hazardous         2050-AG87  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Substances Spill
                                 Prevention.
108...........................  Hazardous and Solid Waste         2050-AG88  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Management System:
                                 Disposal of Coal
                                 Combustion Residues From
                                 Electric Utilities:
                                 Remand Rule.
109...........................  Accidental Release                2050-AG95  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Prevention Requirements:
                                 Risk Management Programs
                                 Under the Clean Air Act;
                                 Reconsideration of
                                 Amendments.
110...........................  National Primary Drinking         2040-AF15  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Water Regulations for
                                 Lead and Copper:
                                 Regulatory Revisions.
111...........................  Second Action: Definition         2040-AF75  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 of 'Waters of the United
                                 States'.
112...........................  Renewable Fuel Volume             2060-AT04  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for 2018 and
                                 Biomass Based Diesel
                                 Volume (BBD) for 2019.
113...........................  Repeal of Carbon                  2060-AT55  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Pollution Emission
                                 Guidelines for Existing
                                 Stationary Sources:
                                 Electric Utility
                                 Generating Units.
114...........................  Financial Responsibility          2050-AG61  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Requirements Under
                                 CERCLA Section 108(b)
                                 for Classes of
                                 Facilities in the
                                 Hardrock Mining Industry.
115...........................  Definition of ``Waters of         2040-AF74  Final Rule Stage.
                                 the United States''--
                                 Recodification of Pre-
                                 existing Rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
116...........................  Federal Sector Equal              3046-AB00  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Employment Opportunity
                                 Process.
117...........................  Amendments to Regulations         3046-AB10  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Under the Americans With
                                 Disabilities Act.
118...........................  Amendments to Regulations         3046-AB11  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Under the Genetic
                                 Information
                                 Nondiscrimination Act of
                                 2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                          Small Business Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
119...........................  SBA Express Loan Program;         3245-AG74  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Export Express Program.
120...........................  Women-Owned Small                 3245-AG75  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Business and
                                 Economically
                                 Disadvantaged Women-
                                 Owned Small Business--
                                 Certification.
121...........................  Office of Women's                 3245-AG02  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Business Ownership:
                                 Women's Business Center
                                 Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                         Social Security Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
122...........................  Investigative Policies            0960-AH79  Prerule Stage.
                                 for Organizational
                                 Representative Payees.
123...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AG38  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating
                                 Musculoskeletal
                                 Disorders (3318P).
124...........................  Update to the                     0960-AG65  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Comprehensive Medical
                                 Listings--Revised
                                 Medical Criteria for
                                 Evaluating Digestive
                                 Disorders,
                                 Cardiovascular
                                 Disorders, and Skin
                                 Disorders.
125...........................  Minimum Monthly                   0960-AH42  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Withholding Amount for
                                 Recovery of Title II
                                 Benefit Overpayments
                                 (3752P).
126...........................  Removing Ability to               0960-AH86  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Communicate in English
                                 as a Vocational Factor.
127...........................  Use of Electronic Payroll         0960-AH88  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Data To Improve Program
                                 Administration.

[[Page 1675]]

 
128...........................  Newer and Stronger                0960-AH91  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Penalties (Conforming
                                 Changes).
129...........................  Privacy Act Exemption:            0960-AH97  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Personnel Security and
                                 Suitability Program
                                 Files.
130...........................  References to Social              0960-AI04  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Security and Medicare in
                                 Electronic
                                 Communications.
131...........................  Availability of                   0960-AI07  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Information and Records
                                 to the Public.
132...........................  Privacy Act Exemption:            0960-AI08  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Social Security
                                 Administration Violence
                                 and Reporting System
                                 (SSAvers).
133...........................  Redeterminations When             0960-AI10  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 There is a Reason To
                                 Believe Fraud or Similar
                                 Fault Was Involved in an
                                 Individual's Application
                                 for Benefits.
134...........................  Changes to the                    0960-AI22  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Requirements for
                                 Claimant Representation.
135...........................  Making Permanent the              0960-AI23  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Attorney Advisor Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                               DOD/GSA/NASA (FAR)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
136...........................  Federal Acquisition               9000-AN62  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Regulation (FAR); FAR
                                 Case 2018-002,
                                 Protecting Life in
                                 Global Health Assistance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                        National Indian Gaming Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence no.                     Title             identifier no.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
137...........................  Class II Minimum Internal         3141-AA60  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Control Standards.
138...........................  Minimum Internal Control          3141-AA55  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Standards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
    [rtarr8] 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.
    [rtarr8] 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.
    [rtarr8] 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.
    [rtarr8] 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

[[Page 1676]]

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 customer-focused 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.
    [rtarr8] 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.
    [rtarr8] 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.
    [rtarr8] 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
    [rtarr8] Establish de minimis levels for enforcing Lacey Act 
requirements: The

[[Page 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.
    [rtarr8] 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.
    [rtarr8] 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.
    [rtarr8] 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.
    [rtarr8] 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.
    [rtarr8] 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.
    [rtarr8] 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.
    [rtarr8] 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

[[Page 1678]]

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 science-based 
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.
    [rtarr8] 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.
    [rtarr8] 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.
    [rtarr8] 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.
    [rtarr8] 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.
    [rtarr8] Modernize swine slaughter inspection: The Food Safety and 
Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to establish a voluntary New 
Swine Inspection System (NSIS) for market-hog 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.
    [rtarr8] 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 1680]]

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

[[Page 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      01/29/18
 End.
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: 
[email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 1682]]

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: 
[email protected].
    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 pre-
regulatory 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.

[[Page 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 
science-based policy advice on options to deal with very long-term 
(decadal to centennial) changes in the environment; and advancing and 
improving short-term 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 Magnuson-Stevens 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

[[Page 1684]]

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 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 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 Indo-Pacific 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,

[[Page 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 non-military 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

[[Page 1686]]

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

[[Page 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 non-monetized 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: Magnuson-Stevens 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

[[Page 1688]]

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 East-West 
Highway, Room 10362, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 427-8314, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0648-BG11

DOC--NOAA

11. Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat 
for Threatened Caribbean and Indo-Pacific 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 Indo-Pacific 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 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: Magnuson-Stevens 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 East-West 
Highway, Room 10362, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 427-8314, 
Email: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 1690]]

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

[[Page 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-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program (DFARS Case 2016-
D011).
    This rule amends Appendix I of the DFARS I to implement changes to 
the Pilot Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] 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 ``prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms.'' The mentor firms provide 
developmental assistance to prot[eacute]g[eacute] 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 prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms. DoD's Office of Small 
Business Programs will use this information to support decisions 
regarding whether to continue particular mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] 
agreements. In addition, this rule adds new eligibility criteria for 
both mentor and prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms and will limit the period 
of time a prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm can participate in the Program, as 
well as the number of mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] agreements to which 
a prot[eacute]g[eacute] 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

[[Page 1692]]

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

[[Page 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,

[[Page 1694]]

Washington, DC 20301-3060, Phone: 571 372-6115, Email: 
[email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0750-AJ50

DOD--DARC

Final Rule Stage

16. Amendment to Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] 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 Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] 
Program (``the Program''):
     Requires mentor firms to report assistance provided to or 
obtained for

[[Page 1695]]

prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms; new subcontracts awarded to 
prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms; any extensions, increases in the scope of 
work, or additional, unreported payments to prot[eacute]g[eacute] 
firms; all Federal contracts awarded to the mentor and 
prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms as a joint venture; whether the terms of 
the mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] agreement have changed; and a 
narrative describing the success assistance provided under the Program 
has had in addressing the prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm's developmental 
needs, the impact on DoD contracts, and addressing any problems 
encountered.
     Requires mentor firms and prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms to 
meet new eligibility criteria.
     Limits the number of mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] 
agreements to which a prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm may be a party to one 
at a time.
     Limits the period of time during which a 
prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm may participate in mentor-
prot[eacute]g[eacute] agreements under the Program to five years.
     Requires mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] agreements to 
address the benefits of the agreement to DoD and goals for additional 
awards for which the prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm can compete outside the 
Program.
     Removes business development assistance using mentor firm 
personnel and cash in exchange for an ownership interest in the 
prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm from the types of assistance that a mentor 
firm may provide to a prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm.
     Prohibits reimbursement of any fee assessed by the mentor 
firm for certain services provided to the prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm 
while participating in a joint venture with the prot[eacute]g[eacute] 
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 prot[eacute]g[eacute] 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 
prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms. The Program offers prot[eacute]g[eacute] 
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-
Prot[eacute]g[eacute] 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-prot[eacute]g[eacute] 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 mentor-
prot[eacute]g[eacute] agreements submitted for DoD approval each year 
under the Program. The Government estimated the cost of various 
activities mentor and prot[eacute]g[eacute] 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 prot[eacute]g[eacute] 
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 prot[eacute]g[eacute] 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 prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms. 
Prot[eacute]g[eacute] 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: 
[email protected].
    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

[[Page 1696]]

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: 
[email protected].
    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 non-commercial, 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

[[Page 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: 
[email protected].
    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      11/28/17
 End.
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.

[[Page 1698]]

    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

[[Page 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:

[[Page 1700]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               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: [email protected].
    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        06/16/17  82 FR 27640
 Negotiated Rulemaking.
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: 
[email protected].
    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        06/16/17  82 FR 27640
 Negotiated Rulemaking.

[[Page 1701]]

 
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: 
[email protected].
    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

[[Page 1702]]

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;       12/09/13  78 FR 73737
 Notice of Public Meeting.
Framework Document Comment Period      01/23/14  .......................
 End.
Framework Document Comment Period      01/23/14  79 FR 3742
 Extended.
Framework Document Comment Period      02/07/14  .......................
 Extended End.
Preliminary Analysis; Notice of        12/11/14  79 FR 73503
 Public Meeting.
Preliminary Analysis Comment Period    02/09/15  .......................
 End.
Preliminary Analysis Comment Period    01/30/15  80 FR 5052
 Extended.
Preliminary Analysis Comment Period    02/23/15  .......................
 Extended End.
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
Proposed Definition and Data           10/18/16  81 FR 71794
 Availability.
Proposed Definition and Data           11/08/16  .......................
 Availability Comment Period End.
Final Rule Adopting a Definition for   01/19/17  82 FR 7276
 GSL.
Final Rule Adopting a Definition for   01/01/20  .......................
 GSL Effective.
Final Rule Adopting a Definition for   01/19/17  82 FR 7322
 GSL Including IRL.
Final Rule Adopting a Definition for   01/01/20  .......................
 GSL Including IRL Effective.
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-STD-0051.
    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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 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  .......................
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-STD-0005.
    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: [email protected].
    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 
person-centered.

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 
outpatient-administered 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 self-
selection 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

[[Page 1704]]

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 person-centered 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

[[Page 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: [email protected].
    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.

[[Page 1706]]

    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, for-profit 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: 
[email protected].
    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

[[Page 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: 
[email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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.

[[Page 1708]]

    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 over-the-
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 self-selection 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: [email protected].
    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.

[[Page 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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 1710]]

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: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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.

[[Page 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: 
[email protected].
    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 patient-centered 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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 1712]]

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: 
[email protected].
    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 patient-centered 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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 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: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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 full-day 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:

[[Page 1714]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               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: 
[email protected].
    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

[[Page 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 multi-mission 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 highly-
trained personnel is one of the U.S. Government's most significant and 
important strengths in the maritime environment.
    America is a maritime nation, and our security, resilience, and 
economic prosperity are intrinsically linked to the oceans. Safety, 
efficient waterways, and freedom of transit on the high seas are 
essential to our well-being. The Coast Guard is leaning forward, poised 
to meet the demands of the modern maritime environment. The Coast Guard 
creates value for the public through solid prevention and response 
efforts. Activities involving oversight and regulation, enforcement, 
maritime presence, and public and private partnership foster increased 
maritime safety, security, and stewardship.
    The statutory responsibilities of the Coast Guard include ensuring 
marine safety and security, preserving maritime mobility, protecting 
the marine environment, enforcing U.S. laws and international treaties, 
and performing search and rescue. The Coast Guard supports the 
Department's overarching goals of mobilizing and organizing our Nation 
to secure the homeland from terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and 
other emergencies.
    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.

[[Page 1716]]

    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

[[Page 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

[[Page 1718]]

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 security-sensitive 
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.

[[Page 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: 
[email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 1720]]

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: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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,

[[Page 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: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 1722]]

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: [email protected].
    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 CBP-approved 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 one-time 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

[[Page 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: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 1724]]

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: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    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

[[Page 1725]]

Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 
227-5839, Email: [email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    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 high-
frequency event-based interval to a time-based interval, clarify the 
definitions and other provisions of the rule, and enable industry to 
use TSA-provided electronic recordkeeping systems for all documents 
required to demonstrate compliance with the rule.
    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        09/20/04  69 FR 56324
 Comments.
Interim Final Rule Effective........   09/20/04  .......................
Interim Final Rule; Comment Period     10/20/04  .......................
 End.
Notice--Information Collection; 60-    11/26/04  69 FR 68952
 Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 30-    03/30/05  70 FR 16298
 Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 60-    06/06/08  73 FR 32346
 Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 30-    08/13/08  73 FR 47203
 Day Renewal.
Notice--Alien Flight Student Program   04/13/09  74 FR 16880
 Recurrent Training Fees.
Notice--Information Collection; 60-    09/21/11  76 FR 58531
 Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 30-    01/31/12  77 FR 4822
 Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 60-    03/10/15  80 FR 12647
 Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 30-    06/18/15  80 FR 34927
 Day Renewal.
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: 
[email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA61
    RIN: 1652-AA35

[[Page 1726]]

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        07/19/05  70 FR 41586
 Comments.
Interim Final Rule Effective........   08/18/05  .......................
Interim Final Rule; Comment Period     09/19/05  .......................
 End.
Notice--Information Collection;        08/26/05  70 FR 50391
 Approval and 60-Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 30-    10/26/05  70 FR 61831
 Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 60-    10/20/08  73 FR 62304
 Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 30-    12/29/08  73 FR 79499
 Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 60-    02/29/12  77 FR 12321
 Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 30-    04/27/12  77 FR 25188
 Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 60-    01/03/16  81 FR 943
 Day Renewal.
Notice--Information Collection; 30-    03/17/16  81 FR 14470
 Day Renewal.
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: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA08
    RIN: 1652-AA49

[[Page 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 over-the-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 Security-Sensitive 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
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: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    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,

[[Page 1728]]

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 class-action 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: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1653-AA75

[[Page 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.

[[Page 1730]]

    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: 
[email protected].
    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 self-sufficient. 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 Sec.  
101(a)(1) of HOTMA), the definition of public housing agency (PHA)-
owned housing (Sec.  105 of HOTMA), and changes to the PBV program at 
large (Sec.  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 (Sec.  
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

[[Page 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 Project-Based 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 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register Notice.............     10/24/  81 FR 73030
                                           2016
Federal Register Notice.............     01/18/  82 FR 5458
                                           2017
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 owner-
occupied, 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

[[Page 1732]]

(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 
one-family 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=FR-5715&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 Project-Based 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

[[Page 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
    [cir] The proposed rule ``Offshore Air Quality Control, Reporting, 
and Compliance'' published on April 5, 2016. See 81 FR 19717;
    [cir] 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
    [cir] 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

[[Page 1734]]

     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 right-of-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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 1736]]

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 well-positioned 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:
    [cir] 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);
    [cir] Revising the requirement to shut in platforms when a lift 
boat approaches within 500 feet;
    [cir] Extending the 14-day interval between pressure testing of BOP 
systems to 21 Days in appropriate situations;
    [cir] Clarifying that the requirement for weekly testing of two BOP 
control stations means testing one station (not both stations) per 
week;
    [cir] Simplifying testing pressures for verification of ram 
closure; and
    [cir] 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:
    [cir] Eliminating the requirement for capture of water-based muds 
and cuttings;
    [cir] 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;
    [cir] 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
    [cir] 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

[[Page 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, cost-effective, 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.
    [ballot] 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 wildlife-
dependent 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

[[Page 1738]]

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 Non-Federal 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.

[[Page 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: [email protected].
    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-the-art 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.

[[Page 1740]]

    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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 1742]]

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 cost-benefit 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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 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 industry-recognized 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-

[[Page 1744]]

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: 
[email protected].
    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 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: [email protected].
    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 
[micro]g/m3 and the short term exposure limit (STEL) of 2.0 
[micro]g/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 [micro]g/m\3\ and the STEL of 2.0 [micro]g/m\3\ 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 [micro]g/m\3\, 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        03/22/10
 Effects and Risk Assessment.
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/  12/30/15  80 FR 81475
 2016.
Notice of Public Hearing; Date         02/16/16  81 FR 7717
 Change 03/21/2016.
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     03/02/17  82 FR 12318
 of Effective Date.
Final Rule; Further Delay of           03/21/17  82 FR 14439
 Effective Date.
Final Rule; Further Delay of           05/20/17
 Effective Date Effective.
NPRM (Construction and Shipyard)....   06/27/17  82 FR 29182
NPRM (Construction and Shipyard)       08/28/17
 Comment Period End.
Analyze Comments....................   01/00/18
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: 
[email protected].
    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

[[Page 1746]]

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: 
[email protected].
    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 publicly-available 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

[[Page 1747]]

to ensure that they continue to meet the needs for which they were 
originally designed, and that they remain cost-effective 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 data-driven 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 statutorily-mandated 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

[[Page 1748]]

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 cost-effective way possible. Finally, it will pursue 
regulatory reform in areas where

[[Page 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 RSAC-supported actions that advance 
high-performing 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-

[[Page 1750]]

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 high-risk 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

[[Page 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: 
[email protected].
    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 on-orbit.
    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 present-value $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: 
[email protected].
    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

[[Page 1752]]

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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 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: [email protected].
    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  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1754]]

    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: [email protected].
    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 non-modelers, 
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 non-
modelers would be about $383 million. The resulting cost savings to 
society from this IFR equals the cost of this baseline policy ($383 
million) minus the cost of this IFR ($56 million), or about $327 
million ($259 million in present value at a 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

[[Page 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            12/21/15  80 FR 79255
 collection.
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      01/15/16  .......................
 End.
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: [email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    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 non-passenger 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 medium-duty passenger vehicles will 
reduce fuel consumption, and will thereby improve U.S. energy 
independence and energy

[[Page 1756]]

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 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.
    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: 
[email protected].
    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:

[[Page 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: [email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    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

[[Page 1758]]

``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: [email protected].
    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 high-consequence 
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: [email protected].
    RIN: 2137-AF29

DOT--PHMSA

Final Rule Stage

83. +Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.

[[Page 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 re-mediating 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: [email protected].
    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 high-consequence 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

[[Page 1760]]

 
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: 
[email protected].
    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 cost-effective 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: [email protected].
    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.

[[Page 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 cargo-only 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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 1762]]

    (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

[[Page 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

[[Page 1764]]

have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory 
matters or in the conduct of intelligence or counter-intelligence 
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 anti-
money 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

[[Page 1765]]

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 (non-
advanced approaches banking organizations). Specifically, for non-
advanced 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; non-significant 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ OCC, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 
(Board), and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 FDIC-supervised 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 incentive-based 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

[[Page 1766]]

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-and-transfer 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

[[Page 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 
high-quality 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     This rulemaking would
                            States for Care of   adopt as final, with
                            Eligible Veterans    changes, proposed
                            in State Homes.      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       The Department of
                            Rehabilitative       Veterans Affairs (VA)
                            Items and Services.  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.

[[Page 1768]]

 
AP89.....................  Change in rates      This document proposes
                            that VA pays for     amendments to the
                            ambulance travel.    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  To continue to provide
                            Care Providers to    high quality health
                            Practice             care to veterans, the
                            Telehealth.          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    The Department of
                            Emergency            Veterans Affairs (VA)
                            Treatment.           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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Significantly reduce burdens
             RIN                       Title                on small businesses         Summary of Rulemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple RINs...............  Revise and Streamline    No..........................  The Department of Veterans
                               VA Acquisition                                         Affairs (VA) is proposing
                               Regulation to Adhere                                   to amend and update its VA
                               to Federal Acquisition.                                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.

[[Page 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: [email protected].
    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:

[[Page 1770]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               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: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 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 non-contract 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: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 1772]]

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: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 1774]]

Management Services, 425 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202 
632-5276, Email: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 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: [email protected].
    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.

[[Page 1776]]

    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: [email protected].
    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.

[[Page 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: [email protected].
    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 health-plan 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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 1778]]

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

[[Page 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,

[[Page 1780]]

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 post-closure 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,

[[Page 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:

[[Page 1782]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Rulemaking title             Regulatory Identifier No. (RIN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Responsibility Requirements    2050-AG61
 under CERCLA Section 108(b) for
 Classes of Facilities in the Hard Rock
 Mining Industry.
National Primary Drinking Water          2040-AF15
 Regulations for Lead and Copper:
 Regulatory Revisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 fossil-fueled 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 fossil-fueled 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: [email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    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,

[[Page 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: [email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    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

[[Page 1784]]

20460, Phone: 703 305-7666, Email: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    Ryne Yarger, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 605-1193, Email: [email protected].
    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:

[[Page 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: 
[email protected].
    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 settlement-related 
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,

[[Page 1786]]

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-8453, Email: [email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    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.

[[Page 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: [email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    Lisa Christ, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-8354, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2040-AF15

[[Page 1788]]

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, two-step 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: [email protected].
    Rose Kwok, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 4502T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 
202 566-0657, Email: [email protected]
    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: [email protected].
    Paul Argyropoulos, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air 
and

[[Page 1789]]

Radiation, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 6401A, Washington, DC 
20460, Phone: 202 564-1123, Email: [email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    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/superfund-financial-responsibility.
    URL For Public Comments: https://www.regulations.gov/searchResults?rpp=25&po=0&s=EPA-HQ-SFUND-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,

[[Page 1790]]

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-7057, Email: 
[email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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-rule-definition-waters-united-states-recodification-pre-existing-rules.
    URL For Public Comments: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-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: [email protected].
    Rose Kwok, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 4502T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 
202 566-0657, Email: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 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: 
[email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    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

[[Page 1792]]

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: [email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    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 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 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: [email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    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

[[Page 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:

[[Page 1794]]

     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 fixed-price 
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 over-target 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

[[Page 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 
[email protected].

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:

[[Page 1796]]

     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 non-covered plans (i.e., 
defined contribution plans and plans of small professional-service 
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

[[Page 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

[[Page 1798]]

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 SBA-maintained 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 self-
certification 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

[[Page 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 non-SBA 
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: 
[email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    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

[[Page 1800]]

    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  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 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: [email protected].
    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 de-regulation, 
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

[[Page 1802]]

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: [email protected]
    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: 
[email protected].
    Cheryl A. Williams, Director, Social Security Administration, 
Office of Medical Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-
6401, Phone: 410 965-1020, Email: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 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: 
[email protected].
    Joanna Firmin, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-7782, Email: 
[email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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 partial-withholding 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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 1804]]

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: [email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    Eric Skidmore, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Income Security Programs, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, Phone: 410 597-1833, Email: 
[email protected].
    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

[[Page 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: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AI07

SSA

132. Privacy Act Exemption: Social Security Administration Violence and 
Reporting System (SSAVERS)

    Priority: Other Significant.

[[Page 1806]]

    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: [email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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:

[[Page 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: [email protected].
    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: [email protected].
    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

[[Page 1808]]

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: [email protected].
    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 Dodd-Frank 
Act.
    The Bureau is also working to implement section 1071 of the Dodd-
Frank 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,

[[Page 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 Dodd-Frank 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 non-bank ``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 
open-end 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

[[Page 1810]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For example, the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited 
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).
    \3\ For 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 1811]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Amended 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Bismarck-Mandan 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Complaint 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Complaint 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/cases-proceedings/121-0062/shire-viropharma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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:

[[Page 1812]]

     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 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. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews for further information 
about specific rule reviews.
    \8\ See Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations for further 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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 nuts-and-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 self-regulatory 
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

[[Page 1813]]

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 so-called 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Cross-Device Tracking: An FTC Staff Report (January 2017), 
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/cross-device-tracking-federal-trade-commission-staff-report-january-2017/ftc_cross-device_tracking_report_1-23-17.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ FTC Study, Patent Assertion Entity Activity (Oct. 2016), 
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/patent-assertion-entity-activity-ftc-study/p131203_patent_assertion_entity_activity_an_ftc_study.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Press 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-licensing-intellectual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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

[[Page 1814]]

of ongoing businesses were particularly successful. Finally, the study 
provided valuable insight into best practices for designing and 
implementing merger remedies in future cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 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.
    \13\ FTC, A Study of the Commission's Divestiture Process 
(1999), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/merger-review/divestiture.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) Protecting Consumers from Cross-Border 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 enforcement-related 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 anti-spam Unsolicited Communications 
Enforcement Network (UCENet, formerly known as the London Action Plan) 
and the International Mass Marketing Fraud Working Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 e-commerce, 
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 
Asia-Pacific 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Press Release, Federal Trade Commission and Department 
of Justice Announce Updated International Antitrust Guidelines (Jan. 
13, 2017), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2016/12/ashley-madison-settles-ftc-over-data-security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 ninety-nine 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

[[Page 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 
self-reported 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

[[Page 1816]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Final Actions below for information about a separate 
completed rulemaking proceeding for the Energy Labeling Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 sales-related 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.

[[Page 1817]]

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 (R-value). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Final Actions below for information about a separate 
completed rulemaking proceeding for the Telemarketing Sales Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 below-
threshold 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

[[Page 1818]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Please see Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews (a) Rules above 
for information about a separate and ongoing rulemaking under the 
Energy Labeling Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ This is officially the Rules and Regulations Under the Fur 
Products Labeling Act.
    \20\ This is officially the Rules and Regulations Under the Wool 
Products Labeling Act of 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Please see Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews (a) Rules above 
for information about a separate and ongoing rulemaking under the 
HSR Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Section 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 1820]]

    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    08/30/12  77 FR 53817
 and Request for Comments.
Final Rule; Delay of Effective Date    10/04/12  77 FR 60625
 and Request for Comments.
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/doc-collections/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

[[Page 1821]]

nuclear power reactors for beyond- design-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
```