76456 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

REGULATORY INFORMATION 

SERVICE CENTER 

Introduction to the Unified Agenda of 

Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory 

Actions 

AGENCY: Regulatory Information Service 

Center. 

ACTION: Introduction to the Regulatory 

Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. 

SUMMARY: The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

requires that agencies publish 

semiannual regulatory agendas in the 

Federal Register describing regulatory 

actions they are developing that may 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities (5 

U.S.C. 602). Executive Order 12866 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 

signed September 30, 1993 (58 FR 

51735), and incorporated in Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review’’ issued on 

January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3821) establish 

guidelines and procedures for agencies’ 

agendas, including specific types of 

information for each entry. 

The Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulator and Deregulatory Actions 

(Unified Agenda) helps agencies fulfill 

these requirements. All Federal 

regulatory agencies have chosen to 

publish their regulatory agendas as part 

of the Unified Agenda. The complete 

2014 Unified Agenda and Regulatory 

Plan, which contains the regulatory 

agendas for Federal agencies, is 

available to the public at http://

reginfo.gov. 

The fall 2014 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. 

The complete fall 2014 Unified 

Agenda contains the Regulatory Plans of 

30 Federal agencies and the regulatory 

agendas of 31 other Federal agencies. 

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), 

General Services Administration, 1800 F 

Street NW., 2219F, Washington, DC 

20405, (202) 482–7340. You may also 

send comments to us by email at: risc@

gsa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction to the Regulatory Plan and the 

Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Actions 

I. What are The Regulatory Plan and the 

Unified Agenda? 

II. Why are The Regulatory Plan and the 

Unified Agenda published? 

III. How are The Regulatory Plan and the 

Unified Agenda organized? 

IV. What Information appears for each 

entry? 

V. Abbreviations 

VI. How can users get copies of the Plan 

and the Agenda? 

Introduction to the Fall 2014 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 AGENDAS 

Cabinet Departments 

Department of Agriculture 

Department of Commerce 

Department of Defense 

Department of Education 

Department of Energy 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Department of Homeland Security 

Department of the Interior 

Department of Justice 

Department of Labor 

Department of Transportation 

Other Executive Agencies 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers 

Compliance Board 

Environmental Protection Agency 

General Services Administration 

National Aeronautics and Space 

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 

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. 

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://reginfo.gov. The 

online Unified Agenda offers flexible 

search tools and access to the historic 

Unified Agenda database to 1995. 

The fall 2014 Unified Agenda 

publication appearing in the Federal 

Register consists of The Regulatory Plan 

and agency regulatory flexibility 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76457 

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://reginfo.gov. 

These publication formats meet the 

publication mandates of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and Executive Order 

12866 (incorporated in Executive Order 

13563), as well as moved the Agenda 

process to the goal of online availability, 

resulting in a reduced cost in printing. 

The current online format does not 

reduce the amount of information 

available to the public. The complete 

online edition of the Unified Agenda 

includes regulatory agendas from 61 

Federal agencies. Agencies of the United 

States Congress are not included. 

The following agencies have no 

entries identified 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. 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development* 

Department of State 

Department of Treasury* 

Department of Veterans Affairs* 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 

Agency for International Development 

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 Archives and Records 

Administration* 

National Endowment for the Arts 

National Endowment for the Humanities 

National Science Foundation 

Office of Government Ethics 

Office of Management and Budget 

Office of Personnel Management* 

Peace Corps 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation* 

Railroad Retirement Board 

Social Security Administration* 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau* 

Consumer Product Safety Commission* 

Farm Credit Administration 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Federal Housing Finance Agency 

Federal Maritime Commission 

Federal Trade Commission* 

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration 

CouncilNational Credit Union 

Administration 

National Credit Union Administration 

National Indian Gaming Commission* 

National Labor Relations Board 

National Transportation Safety Board 

Postal Regulatory Commission 

Recovery Accountability and 

Transparency Board 

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 entitled 

‘‘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 entitled 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 

signed September 30, 1993 (58 FR 

51735), requires covered agencies to 

prepare an agenda of all regulations 

under development or review. The 

Order also requires that certain agencies 

prepare annually a regulatory plan of 

their ‘‘most important significant 

regulatory actions,’’ which appears as 

part of the fall Unified Agenda. 

Executive Order 13497, signed January 

30, 2009 (74 FR 6113), revoked the 

amendments to Executive Order 12866 

that were contained in Executive Order 

13258 and Executive Order 13422. 

Executive Order 13563 

Executive Order 13563 entitled 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review,’’ issued on January 18, 2011, 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76458 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132 entitled 

‘‘Federalism,’’ signed August 4, 1999 (64 

FR 43255), directs agencies to have an 

accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have 

‘‘federalism implications’’ as defined in 

the Order. Under the Order, an agency 

that is proposing a regulation with 

federalism implications, which either 

preempt State law or impose nonstatutory unfunded substantial direct 

compliance costs on State and local 

governments, must consult with State 

and local officials early in the process 

of developing the regulation. In 

addition, the agency must provide to the 

Director of the Office of Management 

and Budget a federalism summary 

impact statement for such a regulation, 

which consists of a description of the 

extent of the agency’s prior consultation 

with State and local officials, a 

summary of their concerns and the 

agency’s position supporting the need to 

issue the regulation, and a statement of 

the extent to which those concerns have 

been met. As part of this effort, agencies 

include in their submissions for the 

Unified Agenda information on whether 

their regulatory actions may have an 

effect on the various levels of 

government and whether those actions 

have federalism implications. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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

agencies to prepare written assessments 

of the costs and benefits of significant 

regulatory actions ‘‘that may result in 

the expenditure by State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

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

more . . . in any 1 year . . . . ’’ The 

requirement does not apply to 

independent regulatory agencies, nor 

does it apply to certain subject areas 

excluded by section 4 of the Act. 

Affected agencies identify in the Unified 

Agenda those regulatory actions they 

believe are subject to title II of the Act. 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 entitled 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ signed 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 

whose agendas they want to see. Users 

have broad flexibility to specify the 

characteristics of the entries of interest 

to them by choosing the desired 

responses to individual data fields. To 

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

a user can select the agency without 

specifying any particular characteristics 

of entries. 

Each entry in the Agenda is associated 

with one of five rulemaking stages. The 

rulemaking stages are: 

1. Prerule Stage—actions agencies 

will undertake to determine whether or 

how to initiate rulemaking. Such actions 

occur prior to a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) and may include 

Advance Notices of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRMs) and reviews of 

existing regulations. 

2. Proposed Rule Stage—actions for 

which agencies plan to publish a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking as the next step 

in their rulemaking process or for which 

the closing date of the NPRM Comment 

Period is the next step. 

3. Final Rule Stage—actions for which 

agencies plan to publish a final rule or 

an interim final rule or to take other 

final action as the next step. 

4. Long-Term Actions—items under 

development but for which the agency 

does not expect to have a regulatory 

action within the 12 months after 

publication of this edition of the Unified 

Agenda. Some of the entries in this 

section may contain abbreviated 

information. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76459 

ongoing, forward-looking nature 

intended for reporting developing 

rulemakings in the Agenda pursuant to 

Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 

4(c). To further differentiate these two 

stages of rulemaking in the Unified 

Agenda from active rulemakings, LongTerm and Completed Actions are 

reported separately from active 

rulemakings, which can be any of the 

first three stages of rulemaking listed 

above. A separate search function is 

provided on http://reginfo.gov to search 

for Completed and Long-Term Actions 

apart from each other and active RINs. 

A bullet (•) preceding the title of an 

entry indicates that the entry is 

appearing in the Unified Agenda for the 

first time. 

In the printed edition, all entries are 

numbered sequentially from the 

beginning to the end of the publication. 

The sequence number preceding the 

title of each entry identifies the location 

of the entry in this edition. The 

sequence number is used as the 

reference in the printed table of 

contents. Sequence numbers are not 

used in the online Unified Agenda 

because the unique Regulation Identifier 

Number (RIN) is able to provide this 

cross-reference capability. 

Editions of the Unified Agenda prior 

to fall 2007 contained several indexes, 

which identified entries with various 

characteristics. These included 

regulatory actions for which agencies 

believe that the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act may require a Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis, actions selected for periodic 

review under section 610(c) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, and actions 

that may have federalism implications 

as defined in Executive Order 13132 or 

other effects on levels of government. 

These indexes are no longer compiled, 

because users of the online Unified 

Agenda have the flexibility to search for 

entries with any combination of desired 

characteristics. The online edition 

retains the Unified Agenda’s subject 

index based on the Federal Register 

Thesaurus of Indexing Terms. In 

addition, online users have the option of 

searching Agenda text fields for words 

or phrases. 

IV. What information appears for each 

entry? 

All entries in the online Unified 

Agenda contain uniform data elements 

including, at a minimum, the following 

information: 

Title of the Regulation—a brief 

description of the subject of the 

regulation. In the printed edition, the 

notation ‘‘Section 610 Review’’ 

following the title indicates that the 

agency has selected the rule for its 

periodic review of existing rules under 

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

610(c)). Some agencies have indicated 

completions of section 610 reviews or 

rulemaking actions resulting from 

completed section 610 reviews. In the 

online edition, these notations appear in 

a separate field. 

Priority—an indication of the 

significance of the regulation. Agencies 

assign each entry to one of the following 

five categories of significance. 

(1) Economically Significant 

As defined in Executive Order 12866, 

a rulemaking action that will have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or will adversely affect 

in a material way the economy, a sector 

of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

or tribal governments or communities. 

The definition of an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule is similar but not 

identical to the definition of a ‘‘major’’ 

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

121). (See below.) 

(2) Other Significant 

A rulemaking that is not 

Economically Significant but is 

considered Significant by the agency. 

This category includes rules that the 

agency anticipates will be reviewed 

under Executive Order 12866 or rules 

that are a priority of the agency head. 

These rules may or may not be included 

in the agency’s regulatory plan. 

(3) Substantive, Nonsignificant 

A rulemaking that has substantive 

impacts but is neither Significant, nor 

Routine and Frequent, nor 

Informational/Administrative/Other. 

(4) Routine and Frequent 

A rulemaking that is a specific case of 

a multiple recurring application of a 

regulatory program in the Code of 

Federal Regulations and that does not 

alter the body of the regulation. 

(5) Informational/Administrative/Other 

A rulemaking that is primarily 

informational or pertains to agency 

matters not central to accomplishing the 

agency’s regulatory mandate but that the 

agency places in the Unified Agenda to 

inform the public of the activity. 

Major—whether the rule is ‘‘major’’ 

under 5 U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 104–121) 

because it has resulted or is likely to 

result in an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

meets other criteria specified in that 

Act. The Act provides that the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs will 

make the final determination as to 

whether a rule is major. 

Unfunded Mandates—whether the 

rule is covered by section 202 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

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

before issuing an NPRM likely to result 

in a mandate that may result in 

expenditures by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of more than $100 million 

in 1 year, agencies, other than 

independent regulatory agencies, shall 

prepare a written statement containing 

an assessment of the anticipated costs 

and benefits of the Federal mandate. 

Legal Authority—the section(s) of the 

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

Law (Pub. L.) or the Executive order 

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

action. Agencies may provide popular 

name references to laws in addition to 

these citations. 

CFR Citation—the section(s) of the 

Code of Federal Regulations that will be 

affected by the action. 

Legal Deadline—whether the action is 

subject to a statutory or judicial 

deadline, the date of that deadline, and 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76460 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

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 2014. 

Agency Contact—the name and phone 

number of at least one person in the 

agency who is knowledgeable about the 

rulemaking action. The agency may also 

provide the title, address, fax number, 

email address, and TDD for each agency 

contact. 

Some agencies have provided the 

following optional information: 

RIN Information URL—the Internet 

address of a site that provides more 

information about the entry. 

Public Comment URL—the Internet 

address of a site that will accept public 

comments on the entry. Alternatively, 

timely public comments may be 

submitted at the Governmentwide erulemaking site, http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Additional Information—any 

information an agency wishes to include 

that does not have a specific 

corresponding data element. 

Compliance Cost to the Public—the 

estimated gross compliance cost of the 

action. 

Affected Sectors—the industrial 

sectors that the action may most affect, 

either directly or indirectly. Affected 

sectors are identified by North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) codes. 

Energy Effects—an indication of 

whether the agency has prepared or 

plans to prepare a Statement of Energy 

Effects for the action, as required by 

Executive Order 13211 ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ signed May 18, 

2001 (66 FR 28355). 

Related RINs—one or more past or 

current RIN(s) associated with activity 

related to this action, such as merged 

RINs, split RINs, new activity for 

previously completed RINs, or duplicate 

RINs. 

Statement of Need—a description of 

the need for the regulatory action. 

Summary of the Legal Basis—a 

description of the legal basis for the 

action, including whether any aspect of 

the action is required by statute or court 

order. 

Alternatives—a description of the 

alternatives the agency has considered 

or will consider as required by section 

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

Anticipated Costs and Benefits—a 

description of preliminary estimates of 

the anticipated costs and benefits of the 

action. 

Risks—a description of the 

magnitude of the risk the action 

addresses, the amount by which the 

agency expects the action to reduce this 

risk, and the relation of the risk and this 

risk reduction effort to other risks and 

risk reduction efforts within the 

agency’s jurisdiction. 

V. Abbreviations 

The following abbreviations appear 

throughout this publication: 

ANPRM—An Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is a preliminary 

notice, published in the Federal 

Register, announcing that an agency is 

considering a regulatory action. An 

agency may issue an ANPRM before it 

develops a detailed proposed rule. An 

ANPRM describes the general area that 

may be subject to regulation and usually 

asks for public comment on the issues 

and options being discussed. An 

ANPRM is issued only when an agency 

believes it needs to gather more 

information before proceeding to a 

notice of proposed rulemaking. 

CFR—The Code of Federal 

Regulations is an annual codification of 

the general and permanent regulations 

published in the Federal Register by the 

agencies of the Federal Government. 

The Code is divided into 50 titles, each 

title covering a broad area subject to 

Federal regulation. The CFR is keyed to 

and kept up to date by the daily issues 

of the Federal Register. 

EO—An Executive order is a directive 

from the President to Executive 

agencies, issued under constitutional or 

statutory authority. Executive orders are 

published in the Federal Register and in 

title 3 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

FR—The Federal Register is a daily 

Federal Government publication that 

provides a uniform system for 

publishing Presidential documents, all 

proposed and final regulations, notices 

of meetings, and other official 

documents issued by Federal agencies. 

FY—The Federal fiscal year runs from 

October 1 to September 30. 

NPRM—A Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is the document an agency 

issues and publishes in the Federal 

Register that describes and solicits 

public comments on a proposed 

regulatory action. Under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

553), an NPRM must include, at a 

minimum: 

• A statement of the time, place, and 

nature of the public rulemaking 

proceeding; 

• 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. 

Public Law (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. Public laws are numbered in 

sequence throughout the 2-year life of 

each Congress; for example, Pub. L. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76461 

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 

Web site. 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 Web site 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: September 19, 2014. 

John C. Thomas, 

Executive Director. 

INTRODUCTION TO THE 2014 

REGULATORY PLAN 

Executive Order 12866, issued in 

1993, requires the production of a 

Unified Regulatory Agenda and 

Regulatory Plan. Executive Order 13563, 

issued in 2011, reaffirmed the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

Consistent with these Executive 

Orders, the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs is providing the 2014 

Unified Regulatory Agenda (Agenda) 

and the Regulatory Plan (Plan) for 

public review. The Agenda and Plan are 

preliminary statements of regulatory 

and deregulatory policies and priorities 

under consideration. The Agenda and 

Plan include ‘‘active rulemakings’’ that 

agencies could possibly conclude over 

the next year. As in previous years, 

however, this list may also include 

some rules that agencies will not end up 

issuing in the coming year. 

The Plan provides a list of important 

regulatory actions that agencies are 

considering for issuance in proposed or 

final form during the 2015 fiscal year. In 

contrast, the Agenda is a more inclusive 

list, including numerous ministerial 

actions and routine rulemakings, as well 

as long-term initiatives that agencies do 

not plan to complete in the coming year 

but on which they are actively working. 

A central purpose of the Agenda is to 

involve the public, including State, 

local, and tribal officials, in federal 

regulatory planning. The public 

examination of the Agenda and Plan 

will facilitate public participation in a 

regulatory system that, in the words of 

Executive Order 13563, protects ‘‘public 

health, welfare, safety, and our 

environment while promoting economic 

growth, innovation, competitiveness, 

and job creation.’’ We emphasize that 

rules listed on the Agenda must still 

undergo significant development and 

review before they are issued. No 

regulatory action can become effective 

until it has gone through the legally 

required processes, which generally 

include public notice and comment. 

Any proposed or final action must also 

satisfy the requirements of relevant 

statutes, Executive Orders, and 

Presidential Memoranda. Those 

requirements, public comments, and 

new information may or may not lead 

an agency to go forward with an action 

that is currently under contemplation. 

Among other information, the Agenda 

also provides an initial classification of 

whether a rulemaking is ‘‘significant’’ or 

‘‘economically significant’’ under the 

terms of Executive Orders 12866 and 

13563. Whether a regulation is listed on 

the Agenda as ‘‘economically 

significant’’ within the meaning of 

Executive Order 12866 (generally, 

having an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more) does not 

necessarily indicate whether it imposes 

high costs on the private sector. 

Economically significant actions may 

impose small costs or even no costs. 

Regulations may count as 

economically significant because they 

confer large benefits or remove 

significant burdens. For example, the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services issues regulations on an annual 

basis, pursuant to statute, to govern 

annual changes in Medicare payments. 

These payment regulations effectively 

authorize transfers of billions of dollars 

to hospitals and other health care 

providers each year. Regulations might 

therefore count as economically 

significant not because they impose 

significant regulatory costs on the 

private sector, but because they involve 

transfer payments as required or 

authorized by law. 

EOs 13563 and 13610: The 

Retrospective Review of Regulation 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles, structures, and definitions in 

Executive Order 12866, which has long 

governed regulatory review. Executive 

Order 13563 explicitly points to the 

need for predictability and certainty, as 

well as for use of the least burdensome 

means to achieving regulatory ends. 

These Executive Orders include the 

requirement that, to the extent 

permitted by law, agencies should not 

proceed with rulemaking in the absence 

of a reasoned determination that the 

benefits justify the costs; they establish 

public participation, integration and 

innovation, flexible approaches, 

scientific integrity, and retrospective 

review as areas of emphasis in 

regulation. In particular, Executive 

Order 13563 explicitly draws attention 

to the need to measure and to improve 

‘‘the actual results of regulatory 

requirements’’—a clear reference to the 

importance of retrospective evaluation. 

Executive Order 13563 addresses new 

regulations that are under development 

as well as retrospective review of 

existing regulations that are already in 

place. With respect to agencies’ review 

of existing regulations, the Executive 

Order calls for careful reassessment 

based on empirical analysis. The 

prospective analysis required by 

Executive Order 13563 may depend on 

a degree of prediction and speculation 

about a rule’s likely impacts, and the 

actual costs and benefits of a regulation 

may be lower or higher than what was 

anticipated when the rule was originally 

developed. 

Executive Order 13610, Identifying 

and Reducing Regulatory Burdens, 

issued in 2012, institutionalizes the 

retrospective or lookback mechanism set 

out in Executive Order 13563 by 

requiring agencies to report to OMB and 

the public twice each year (January and 

July) on the status of their retrospective 

review efforts, to ‘‘describe progress, 

anticipated accomplishments, and 

proposed timelines for relevant 

actions.’’ 

Executive Orders 13563 and 13610 

recognize that circumstances may 

change in a way that requires 

reconsideration of regulatory 

requirements. Lookback analysis allows 

agencies to reevaluate existing rules and 

to streamline, modify, or eliminate those 

regulations that do not make sense in 

their current form. The agencies’ 

lookback efforts so far during this 

Administration have yielded nearly $20 

billion in near term savings for the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76462 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

1Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/

default/files/omb/oira/irc/us-canada-rcc-jointforward-plan.pdf. 

American public, with significantly 

more to come. 

The Administration is continuing to 

work with agencies to institutionalize 

retrospective review so that agencies 

regularly review existing rules on the 

books to ensure they remain effective, 

cost-justified, and based on the best 

available science. By institutionalizing 

retrospective review of regulations, the 

Administration will continue to 

examine what is working and what is 

not, and eliminate unjustified and 

outdated regulations. 

Regulatory lookback is an ongoing 

exercise, and continues to be a high 

priority for the Administration. As part 

of that prioritization, the Administration 

requires that agencies regularly report 

about recent progress and coming 

initiatives. In accordance with 

Executive Order 13610 and Executive 

Order 13563, in July 2014, agencies 

submitted to OIRA the latest updates of 

their retrospective review plans. Federal 

agencies will again update their 

retrospective review plans this winter. 

We have also asked agencies to continue 

to emphasize regulatory lookbacks in 

their latest Regulatory Plans. 

Reflecting that focus, the current 

agenda lists 83 rules that are 

characterized as retroactively reviewing 

existing programs. Below are some 

examples of agency plans to reevaluate 

current practices, in accordance with 

Executive Orders 13563 and 13610: 

—The Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) is working on a rule 

to revise the requirements that LongTerm Care facilities must meet to 

participate in the Medicare and 

Medicaid programs. These proposed 

changes are necessary to reflect the 

substantial advances that have been 

made over the past several years in 

the theory and practice of service 

delivery and safety. These proposals 

are also an integral part of HHS’s 

efforts to achieve broad-based 

improvements both in the quality of 

health care furnished through Federal 

programs, and in patient safety, while 

at the same time reducing procedural 

burdens on providers. 

—The Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) is working 

on a final rule to streamline the 

inspection and home warranty 

requirements for Federal Housing 

Administration (FHA) single family 

mortgage insurance and, in doing so, 

would increase choice and lower the 

costs for FHA borrowers. First, HUD 

would remove regulations that require 

the use of an inspector from the FHA 

Inspector Roster as a condition for 

FHA mortgage insurance. This change 

is based on the recognition of the 

sufficiency and quality of inspections 

carried out by local jurisdictions, and 

HUD expects the rule will increase 

competition and choice of inspectors 

among lenders. Second, this rule 

would also remove the regulations 

requiring homeowners to purchase 

10-year protection plans from FHAapproved warranty issuers in order to 

qualify for high loan-to-value FHAinsured mortgages. This change is 

based on the increased quality of 

construction materials and the 

standardization of building codes and 

building code enforcement, and HUD 

expects the rule will reduce burden 

on homeowners that do not want to 

purchase warranties and increase 

choice for the homeowners that still 

want to purchase warranties. In total, 

HUD estimates up to $29 million in 

warranty expenditures avoided, 

$100,000 in paperwork burden 

savings for the public, and $50,000 in 

administrative cost savings for HUD. 

—The Department of Labor is working 

to revise existing Sex Discrimination 

Guidelines, which have not been 

substantively updated since 1973, and 

to replace them with regulations that 

align with current law and legal 

principles in order to address their 

application to current workplace 

practices and issues. 

E.O. 13609: International Regulatory 

Cooperation 

In addition to using regulatory 

lookback as a tool to make our 

regulatory system more efficient, the 

Administration has been focused on 

promoting international regulatory 

cooperation. International regulatory 

cooperation supports economic growth, 

job creation, innovation, trade and 

investment, while also protecting public 

health, safety, and welfare. In May 2012 

President Obama issued Executive 

Order 13609, Promoting International 

Regulatory Cooperation, which 

emphasizes the importance of these 

efforts as a key tool for eliminating 

unnecessary differences in regulation 

between the United States and its major 

trading partners. Additionally, as part of 

the regulatory lookback initiative, 

Executive Order 13609 requires agencies 

to ‘‘consider reforms to existing 

significant regulations that address 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements between the United States 

and its major trading partners . . . when 

stakeholders provide adequate 

information to the agency establishing 

that the differences are unnecessary.’’ 

Executive Order 13609 also directed 

agencies to submit a Regulatory Plan 

that includes ‘‘a summary of its 

international regulatory cooperation 

activities that are reasonably anticipated 

to lead to significant regulations, with 

an explanation of how these activities 

advance the purposes of Executive 

Order 13563,’’ and Executive Order 

13609. Further, Executive Order 13609 

requires agencies to ‘‘ensure that 

significant regulations that the agency 

identifies as having significant 

international impacts are designated as 

such’’ in the Regulatory Agenda. In 

furtherance of this focus on 

international regulatory cooperation, 

this summer, the Administration and 

Canada released the U.S.-Canada 

Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) 

Joint Forward Plan.1 The Forward Plan 

represents a significant pivot point for 

the Administration’s regulatory 

cooperation relationships with Canada, 

and outlines new Federal agency-level 

partnership arrangements to help 

institutionalize the way our regulators 

work together. The Forward Plan will 

help remove duplicative requirements, 

develop common standards, and 

identify potential areas where future 

regulation may unnecessarily differ. 

This kind of international cooperation 

on regulations between the United 

States and Canada will help eliminate 

barriers to doing business in the United 

States or with U.S. companies, grow the 

economy, and create jobs. The Forward 

Plan identifies 24 areas of cooperation 

where the United States and Canada 

will work together to implement over 

the next three to five years in order to 

modernize our thinking around 

international regulatory cooperation and 

develop a toolbox of strategies to 

address international regulatory issues 

as they arise. We expect that future 

Agendas will reflect strong evidence of 

this partnership. 

The Administration continues to 

foster a regulatory system that 

emphasizes that careful consideration of 

costs and benefits, public participation, 

integration and innovation, flexible 

approaches, and science. These 

requirements are meant to produce a 

regulatory system that draws on recent 

learning, that is driven by evidence, and 

that is suited to the distinctive 

circumstances of the twenty-first 

century. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76463 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

1 ........................ National Organic Program, Origin of Livestock, NOP–11–0009 .............................. 0581–AD08 Proposed Rule Stage. 

2 ........................ National Organic Program, Organic Pet Food Standards ....................................... 0581–AD20 Proposed Rule Stage. 

3 ........................ National Organic Program, Organic Apiculture Practice Standard, NOP–12–0063 0581–AD31 Proposed Rule Stage. 

4 ........................ National Organic Program—Organic Aquaculture Standards .................................. 0581–AD34 Proposed Rule Stage. 

5 ........................ Exemption of Producers and Handlers of Organic Products From Assessment 

Under a Commodity Promotion Law.

0581–AD37 Proposed Rule Stage. 

6 ........................ Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program ...................................................... 0560–AI20 Final Rule Stage. 

7 ........................ Conservation Compliance ........................................................................................ 0560–AI26 Final Rule Stage. 

8 ........................ Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) .................................................................... 0560–AI30 Final Rule Stage. 

9 ........................ Brucellosis and Bovine Tuberculosis; Update of General Provisions ...................... 0579–AD65 Proposed Rule Stage. 

10 ...................... Establishing a Performance Standard for Authorizing the Importation and Interstate Movement of Fruits and Vegetables.0579–AD71 Proposed Rule Stage. 

11 ...................... Viruses, Serums, Toxins, and Analogous Products; Single Label Claim for Veterinary Biological Products.0579–AD64 Final Rule Stage. 

12 ...................... User Fees for Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Services .............................. 0579–AD77 Final Rule Stage. 

13 ...................... Emergency Supplemental Nutrition Assistance for Victims of Disasters Procedures.0584–AE00 Proposed Rule Stage. 

14 ...................... Child Nutrition Program Integrity .............................................................................. 0584–AE08 Proposed Rule Stage. 

15 ...................... Child and Adult Care Food Program: Meal Pattern Revisions Related to the 

Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.

0584–AE18 Proposed Rule Stage. 

16 ...................... Enhancing Retailer Eligibility Standards in SNAP ................................................... 0584–AE27 Proposed Rule Stage. 

17 ...................... Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Farm Bill of 2008 Retailer Sanctions 0584–AD88 Final Rule Stage. 

18 ...................... Child Nutrition Programs: Local School Wellness Policy Implementation Under 

the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.

0584–AE25 Final Rule Stage. 

19 ...................... SNAP: Employment and Training (E&T) Performance Measurement, Monitoring 

and Reporting Requirements.

0584–AE33 Final Rule Stage. 

20 ...................... Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Veal Calves .......... 0583–AD54 Proposed Rule Stage. 

21 ...................... Mandatory Inspection of Fish of the order Siluriformes and Products Derived 

From Such Fish.

0583–AD36 Final Rule Stage. 

22 ...................... Electronic Export Application and Certification as a Reimbursable Service and 

Flexibility in the Requirements for Official Export Inspection Marks, Devices, 

and Certificates.

0583–AD41 Final Rule Stage. 

23 ...................... Descriptive Designation for Needle- or Blade-Tenderized (Mechanically Tenderized) Beef Products.0583–AD45 Final Rule Stage. 

24 ...................... Records to be Kept by Official Establishments and Retail Stores That Grind Raw 

Beef Products.

0583–AD46 Final Rule Stage. 

25 ...................... Forest Service Manual 2020—Ecological Restoration and Resilience Policy ......... 0596–AC82 Final Rule Stage. 

26 ...................... Land Management Planning Rule Policy ................................................................. 0596–AD06 Final Rule Stage. 

27 ...................... Rural Energy for America Program .......................................................................... 0570–AA76 Final Rule Stage. 

28 ...................... Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program ........................................ 0570–AA85 Final Rule Stage. 

29 ...................... Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program.0570–AA93 Final Rule Stage. 

30 ...................... Agricultural Conservation Easement Program ......................................................... 0578–AA61 Final Rule Stage. 

31 ...................... Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Interim Rule ............................. 0578–AA62 Final Rule Stage. 

32 ...................... Conservation Stewardship Program Interim Rule .................................................... 0578–AA63 Final Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

33 ...................... Requirements for Importation of Fish and Fish Product under the U.S. Marine 

Mammal Protection Act.

0648–AY15 Proposed Rule Stage. 

34 ...................... Designation of Critical Habitat for the North Atlantic Right Whale .......................... 0648–AY54 Proposed Rule Stage. 

35 ...................... Revision of Hawaiian Monk Seal Critical Habitat ..................................................... 0648–BA81 Proposed Rule Stage. 

36 ...................... Revision of the National Standard 1 Guidelines ...................................................... 0648–BB92 Proposed Rule Stage. 

37 ...................... Fishery Management Plan for Regulating Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the 

Gulf of Mexico.

0648–AS65 Final Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

38 ...................... Limitations on Terms of Consumer Credit Extended to Service Members and Dependents.0790–AJ10 Proposed Rule Stage. 

39 ...................... Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Security/Information Assurance (CS/IA) Activities: Amendment.0790–AJ14 Proposed Rule Stage. 

40 ...................... Service Academies ................................................................................................... 0790–AI19 Final Rule Stage. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76464 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—Continued 

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

41 ...................... Foreign Commercial Satellite Services (DFARS Case 2014–D010) ....................... 0750–AI32 Final Rule Stage. 

42 ...................... CHAMPUS/TRICARE: Pilot Program for Refills of Maintenance Medications for 

TRICARE For Life Beneficiaries Through the TRICARE Mail Order Program.

0720–AB60 Final Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

43 ...................... Pay As You Earn ...................................................................................................... 1840–AD18 Proposed Rule Stage. 

44 ...................... Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act .............................................................. 1830–AA21 Proposed Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

45 ...................... Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Lamps .................................. 1904–AD09 Prerule Stage. 

46 ...................... Energy Efficiency Standards for Manufactured Housing ......................................... 1904–AC11 Proposed Rule Stage. 

47 ...................... Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Non-weatherized Gas Furnaces .. 1904–AD20 Proposed Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

48 ...................... Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Food for Animals.0910–AG10 Proposed Rule Stage. 

49 ...................... Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for 

Human Consumption.

0910–AG35 Proposed Rule Stage. 

50 ...................... Current Good Manufacturing and Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive 

Controls for Human Food.

0910–AG36 Proposed Rule Stage. 

51 ...................... Reports of Distribution and Sales Information for Antimicrobial Active Ingredients 

Used in Food-Producing Animals.

0910–AG45 Proposed Rule Stage. 

52 ...................... Foreign Supplier Verification Program ..................................................................... 0910–AG64 Proposed Rule Stage. 

53 ...................... ‘‘Tobacco Products’’ Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as 

Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

0910–AG38 Final Rule Stage. 

54 ...................... Food Labeling: Calorie Labeling of Articles of Food Sold in Vending Machines .... 0910–AG56 Final Rule Stage. 

55 ...................... Food Labeling: Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and 

Similar Retail Food Establishments.

0910–AG57 Final Rule Stage. 

56 ...................... Accreditation of Third-Party Auditors/Certification Bodies to Conduct Food Safety 

Audits and to Issue Certifications.

0910–AG66 Final Rule Stage. 

57 ...................... Revision of Postmarketing Reporting Requirements Discontinuance or Interruption in Supply of Certain Products (Drug Shortages).0910–AG88 Final Rule Stage. 

58 ...................... Supplemental Applications Proposing Labeling Changes for Approved Drugs and 

Biological Products.

0910–AG94 Final Rule Stage. 

59 ...................... Veterinary Feed Directive ......................................................................................... 0910–AG95 Final Rule Stage. 

60 ...................... Reform of Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities (CMS–3260–P) ................ 0938–AR61 Proposed Rule Stage. 

61 ...................... Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008; the Application to Medicaid Managed Care, CHIP, and Alternative Benefit Plans (CMS–2333–P).0938–AS24 Proposed Rule Stage. 

62 ...................... Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs—Stage 3 (CMS–3310–P) .... 0938–AS26 Proposed Rule Stage. 

63 ...................... CY 2016 Revisions to Payment Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule and 

Other Revisions to Medicare Part B (CMS–1631–P).

0938–AS40 Proposed Rule Stage. 

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

Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and FY 2016 Rates 

(CMS–1632–P).

0938–AS41 Proposed Rule Stage. 

65 ...................... CY 2016 Hospital Outpatient PPS Policy Changes and Payment Rates and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System Policy Changes and Payment Rates 

(CMS–1633–P).

0938–AS42 Proposed Rule Stage. 

66 ...................... Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes for Medicaid and Exchange Eligibility Appeals, and Other Eligibility and Enrollment Provisions 

(CMS–2334–F2).

0938–AS27 Final Rule Stage. 

67 ...................... Child Care and Development Fund Reforms to Support Child Development and 

Working Families.

0970–AC53 Final Rule Stage. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76465 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

68 ...................... Ammonium Nitrate Security Program ....................................................................... 1601–AA52 Final Rule Stage. 

69 ...................... Asylum and Withholding Definitions ......................................................................... 1615–AA41 Proposed Rule Stage. 

70 ...................... New Classification for Victims of Criminal Activity; Eligibility for the U Nonimmigrant Status.1615–AA67 Proposed Rule Stage. 

71 ...................... Exception to the Persecution Bar for Asylum, Refugee, and Temporary Protected 

Status, and Withholding of Removal.

1615–AB89 Proposed Rule Stage. 

72 ...................... Administrative Appeals Office: Procedural Reforms to Improve Efficiency ............. 1615–AB98 Proposed Rule Stage. 

73 ...................... Classification for Victims of Severe Forms of Trafficking in Persons; Eligibility for 

T Nonimmigrant Status.

1615–AA59 Final Rule Stage. 

74 ...................... Application of Immigration Regulations to the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands.

1615–AB77 Final Rule Stage. 

75 ...................... Special Immigrant Juvenile Petitions ....................................................................... 1615–AB81 Final Rule Stage. 

76 ...................... Employment Authorization for Certain H–4 Dependent Spouses ............................ 1615–AB92 Final Rule Stage. 

77 ...................... Enhancing Opportunities for H–1B1, CW–1, and E–3 Nonimmigrants and EB–1 

Immigrants.

1615–AC00 Final Rule Stage. 

78 ...................... Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System.1625–AA99 Final Rule Stage. 

79 ...................... Inspection of Towing Vessels ................................................................................... 1625–AB06 Final Rule Stage. 

80 ...................... Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC); Card Reader Requirements.1625–AB21 Final Rule Stage. 

81 ...................... Amendments to Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements ...... 1651–AA98 Proposed Rule Stage. 

82 ...................... Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) .................................................................... 1651–AB04 Proposed Rule Stage. 

83 ...................... Changes to the Visa Waiver Program To Implement the Electronic System for 

Travel Authorization (ESTA) Program.

1651–AA72 Final Rule Stage. 

84 ...................... Implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program ...................................... 1651–AA77 Final Rule Stage. 

85 ...................... Definition of Form I–94 to Include Electronic Format .............................................. 1651–AA96 Final Rule Stage. 

86 ...................... Security Training for Surface Mode Employees ...................................................... 1652–AA55 Proposed Rule Stage. 

87 ...................... Standardized Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Services ..................................... 1652–AA61 Proposed Rule Stage. 

88 ...................... Passenger Screening Using Advanced Imaging Technology .................................. 1652–AA67 Final Rule Stage. 

89 ...................... Adjustments to Limitations on Designated School Official Assignment and Study 

By F–2 and M–2 Nonimmigrants.

1653–AA63 Final Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

90 ...................... Economic Opportunities for Low- and Very Low-Income Persons (FR–4893) ........ 2529–AA91 Proposed Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

91 ...................... Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973).1190–AA60 Proposed Rule Stage. 

92 ...................... Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and 

Services of Public Accommodations.

1190–AA61 Proposed Rule Stage. 

93 ...................... Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Movie Captioning and Audio Description.1190–AA63 Proposed Rule Stage. 

94 ...................... Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability: Accessibility of Web Information and 

Services of State and Local Governments.

1190–AA65 Proposed Rule Stage. 

95 ...................... Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Title II and Title III of the 

ADA).

1190–AA59 Final Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

96 ...................... Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act .............................................................. 1205–AB73 Proposed Rule Stage. 

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

98 ...................... Criteria and Procedures for Proposed Assessment of Civil Penalties .................... 1219–AB72 Proposed Rule Stage. 

99 ...................... Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in Underground Mines ............. 1219–AB78 Proposed Rule Stage. 

100 .................... Proximity Detection Systems for Continuous Mining Machines in Underground 

Coal Mines.

1219–AB65 Final Rule Stage. 

101 .................... Infectious Diseases .................................................................................................. 1218–AC46 Prerule Stage. 

102 .................... Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica ............................................................ 1218–AB70 Proposed Rule Stage. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76466 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR—Continued 

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

103 .................... Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses ............................................ 1218–AC49 Final Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

104 .................... Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) ............. 2120–AJ60 Proposed Rule Stage. 

105 .................... Slot Management and Transparency for LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy 

International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport.

2120–AJ89 Proposed Rule Stage. 

106 .................... Drug and Alcohol Testing of Certain Maintenance Provider Employees Located 

Outside of the United States.

2120–AK09 Proposed Rule Stage. 

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

108 .................... Safety Management Systems for Certificate Holders .............................................. 2120–AJ86 Final Rule Stage. 

109 .................... National Goals and Performance Management Measures (MAP–21) .................... 2125–AF53 Proposed Rule Stage. 

110 .................... National Goals and Performance Management Measures (MAP–21) .................... 2125–AF54 Proposed Rule Stage. 

111 .................... Carrier Safety Fitness Determination ....................................................................... 2126–AB11 Proposed Rule Stage. 

112 .................... Electronic Logging Devices and Hours of Service Supporting Documents (MAP– 

21).

2126–AB20 Proposed Rule Stage. 

113 .................... Commercial Driver’s License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (MAP–21) ............. 2126–AB18 Final Rule Stage. 

114 .................... Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Work 

Trucks: Phase 2.

2127–AL52 Proposed Rule Stage. 

115 .................... Sound for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles ................................................................... 2127–AK93 Final Rule Stage. 

116 .................... Electronic Stability Control Systems for Heavy Vehicles (MAP–21) ....................... 2127–AK97 Final Rule Stage. 

117 .................... State Safety Oversight (MAP–21) ............................................................................ 2132–AB19 Proposed Rule Stage. 

118 .................... Pipeline Safety: Safety of On-Shore Liquid Hazardous Pipelines ........................... 2137–AE66 Proposed Rule Stage. 

119 .................... Pipeline Safety: Gas Transmission (RRR) ............................................................... 2137–AE72 Proposed Rule Stage. 

120 .................... Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational Controls 

for High-Hazard Flammable Trains.

2137–AE91 Final Rule Stage. 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

121 .................... Expedited Senior Executive Removal Authority ....................................................... 2900–AP30 Final Rule Stage. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

122 .................... Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone .......................... 2060–AP38 Proposed Rule Stage. 

123 .................... Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead ............................. 2060–AQ44 Proposed Rule Stage. 

124 .................... Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: EGUs in 

Indian Country and U.S. Territories.

2060–AR33 Proposed Rule Stage. 

125 .................... Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and 

Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2.

2060–AS16 Proposed Rule Stage. 

126 .................... Renewable Fuel 2015 Volume Standards ............................................................... 2060–AS22 Proposed Rule Stage. 

127 .................... Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators ..................................................... 2070–AJ20 Proposed Rule Stage. 

128 .................... Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Reassessment of Use Authorizations .............. 2070–AJ38 Proposed Rule Stage. 

129 .................... Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program for Public and Commercial 

Buildings.

2070–AJ56 Proposed Rule Stage. 

130 .................... Revisions to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; Subpart J Product Schedule Listing Requirements.

2050–AE87 Proposed Rule Stage. 

131 .................... User Fee Schedule for Electronic Hazardous Waste Manifest ............................... 2050–AG80 Proposed Rule Stage. 

132 .................... Modernization of the Accidental Release Prevention Regulations Under Clean Air 

Act.

2050–AG82 Proposed Rule Stage. 

133 .................... Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards.2060–AQ75 Final Rule Stage. 

134 .................... Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New Stationary 

Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units.

2060–AQ91 Final Rule Stage. 

135 .................... Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: 

State Implementation Plan Requirements.

2060–AR34 Final Rule Stage. 

136 .................... Carbon Pollution Standards for Modified and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: 

Electric Utility Generating Units.

2060–AR88 Final Rule Stage. 

137 .................... Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions .............................. 2070–AJ22 Final Rule Stage. 

138 .................... Formaldehyde; Third-Party Certification Framework for the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products.2070–AJ44 Final Rule Stage. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76467 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY—Continued 

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

139 .................... Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products ...................... 2070–AJ92 Final Rule Stage. 

140 .................... Standards for the Management of Coal Combustion Residuals Generated by 

Commercial Electric Power Producers.

2050–AE81 Final Rule Stage. 

141 .................... Revising Underground Storage Tank Regulations—Revisions to Existing Requirements and New Requirements for Secondary Containment and Operator Training.2050–AG46 Final Rule Stage. 

142 .................... Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category.2040–AF14 Final Rule Stage. 

143 .................... Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions ....................................................... 2040–AF16 Final Rule Stage. 

144 .................... Definition of ‘‘Waters of the United States’’ Under the Clean Water Act ................ 2040–AF30 Final Rule Stage. 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

145 .................... Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Process ........................................ 3046–AB00 Prerule Stage. 

146 .................... The Federal Sector’s Obligation To Be a Model Employer of Individuals With Disabilities.3046–AA94 Proposed Rule Stage. 

147 .................... Amendments to Regulations Under the Americans With Disabilities Act ................ 3046–AB01 Proposed Rule Stage. 

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

Act of 2008.

3046–AB02 Proposed Rule Stage. 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

149 .................... Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Digestive Disorders (3441P) .................... 0960–AG65 Proposed Rule Stage. 

150 .................... Revisions to Representative Code of Conduct (3835P) .......................................... 0960–AH63 Proposed Rule Stage. 

151 .................... Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Neurological Impairments (806F) ............. 0960–AF35 Final Rule Stage. 

152 .................... Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hematological Disorders (974F) ............... 0960–AF88 Final Rule Stage. 

153 .................... Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Growth Disorders and Weight Loss in 

Children (3163F).

0960–AG28 Final Rule Stage. 

154 .................... Use of Date of Written Statement as Filing Date (3431F) ....................................... 0960–AG58 Final Rule Stage. 

155 .................... Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Immune (HIV) System Disorders (3466F) 0960–AG71 Final Rule Stage. 

156 .................... Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Cancer (Malignant Neoplastic Diseases) 

(3757F).

0960–AH43 Final Rule Stage. 

157 .................... Submission of Evidence in Disability Claims (3802F) ............................................. 0960–AH53 Final Rule Stage. 

158 .................... Social Security Number Card Applications (3855I) .................................................. 0960–AH68 Final Rule Stage. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

identifier No. Rulemaking stage 

159 .................... Revision of Fee Schedules: Fee Recovery for FY 2015 [NRC–2014–0200] .......... 3150–AJ44 Proposed Rule Stage. 

BILLING CODE 6820–27–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

(USDA) 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

In FY 2015, USDA will focus on a 

number of high-priority regulations 

necessary to implement the Agricultural 

Act of 2014 (Farm Bill). This legislation, 

which was signed into law on February 

7, 2014, provides authorization for 

services and programs that impact every 

American and millions of people 

around the world. The new Farm Bill 

builds on historic economic gains in 

rural America over the past five years, 

while achieving meaningful reform and 

billions of dollars in savings for the 

taxpayer. The new Farm Bill will allow 

USDA to continue record 

accomplishments on behalf of the 

American people, while providing new 

opportunity and creating jobs across 

rural America. It will enable USDA to 

further expand markets for agricultural 

products at home and abroad, 

strengthen conservation efforts, create 

new opportunities for local and regional 

food systems and grow the biobased 

economy. It will provide a dependable 

safety net for America’s farmers, 

ranchers and growers. It will maintain 

important agricultural research and 

ensure access to safe and nutritious food 

for all Americans. USDA’s regulatory 

efforts in the coming year will modify 

existing regulations and introduce new 

regulatory actions necessary to 

implement the 2014 Farm Bill and to 

achieve the following goals identified in 

the Department’s Strategic Plan for 

2010–2015: 

• Assist rural communities to create 

prosperity so they are self-sustaining, repopulating, and economically thriving. 

USDA is the leading advocate for rural 

America. The Department supports rural 

communities and enhances quality of 

life for rural residents by improving 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76468 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

their economic opportunities, 

community infrastructure, 

environmental health, and the 

sustainability of agricultural production. 

The common goal is to help create 

thriving rural communities with good 

jobs where people want to live and raise 

families where children have economic 

opportunities and a bright future. 

• Ensure our national forests and 

private working lands are conserved, 

restored, and made more resilient to 

climate change, while enhancing our 

water resources. America’s prosperity is 

inextricably linked to the health of our 

lands and natural resources. Forests, 

farms, ranches, and grasslands offer 

enormous environmental benefits as a 

source of clean air, clean and abundant 

water, and wildlife habitat. These lands 

generate economic value by supporting 

the vital agriculture and forestry sectors, 

attracting tourism and recreational 

visitors, sustaining green jobs, and 

producing ecosystem services, food, 

fiber, timber and non-timber products. 

They are also of immense social 

importance, enhancing rural quality of 

life, sustaining scenic and culturally 

important landscapes, and providing 

opportunities to engage in outdoor 

activity and reconnect with the land. 

• Help America promote agricultural 

production and biotechnology exports 

as America works to increase food 

security. A productive agricultural 

sector is critical to increasing global 

food security. For many crops, a 

substantial portion of domestic 

production is bound for overseas 

markets. USDA helps American farmers 

and ranchers use efficient and 

sustainable production, biotechnology, 

and other emergent technologies to 

enhance food security around the world 

and find export markets for their 

products. 

• Ensure that all of America’s 

children have access to safe, nutritious, 

and balanced meals. A plentiful supply 

of safe and nutritious food is essential 

to the well-being of every family and the 

healthy development of every child in 

America. USDA provides nutrition 

assistance to children and low-income 

people who need it and works to 

improve the healthy eating habits of all 

Americans, especially children. In 

addition, the Department safeguards the 

quality and wholesomeness of meat, 

poultry, and processed egg products, 

and it addresses and prevents loss or 

damage from pests and disease 

outbreaks. 

Important regulatory activities 

supporting the accomplishment of these 

goals in 2015 will include the following: 

• Strengthening Food Safety 

Inspection. USDA will continue to 

develop science-based regulations that 

improve the safety of meat, poultry, and 

processed egg products in the least 

burdensome and most cost-effective 

manner. Existing regulations will be 

revised to address emerging food safety 

challenges, streamlined to remove 

excessively prescriptive requirements, 

and updated to be made consistent with 

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control 

Point principles. Among other actions, 

USDA will amend regulations so that 

information presented on food 

packaging is useful in assisting 

consumers with purchasing and 

preparation decisions. The agency will 

also use technology to streamline and 

improve the integrity of export 

certificates. To help small businesses 

comply with food safety regulatory 

requirements, FSIS will continue its 

collaboration with other USDA and 

State partners in its small business 

outreach program. 

Improving Access to Nutrition 

Assistance and Dietary Behaviors. As 

changes are made to the nutrition 

assistance programs, USDA will work to 

ensure access to program benefits, 

strengthen program integrity, improve 

diets and healthy eating, and promote 

physical activity consistent with the 

national effort to reduce obesity. In 

support of these activities in 2014, the 

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) plans 

to publish a proposed rule updating 

meal pattern revisions for the Child and 

Adult Care Food Program, as well as a 

proposal to enhance the eligibility 

standards for SNAP retailers to increase 

access to more healthful foods. FNS will 

continue to work to implement rules 

that minimize participant and vendor 

fraud in its nutrition assistance 

programs. 

• Collaborating with Producers to 

Conserve Natural Resources. The 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) is amending the Conservation 

Stewardship Program (CSP) and 

Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program (EQIP) regulations to 

incorporate programmatic changes as 

authorized by the Farm Bill. CSP 

promotes consultation at the local level 

to identify priority resource concerns in 

geographic areas within a State. CSP 

encourages producers to address 

environmental concerns while 

improving and conserving the quality 

and condition of natural resources in a 

comprehensive manner. EQIP provides 

assistance to landowners to address 

natural resource issues that impact soil, 

water and related natural resources, 

including grazing lands, wetlands, and 

wildlife habitat. The Farm Bill folded 

the former Wildlife Habitat Incentives 

Program (WHIP) into EQIP. 

• Promoting Innovation through 

Partnerships. NRCS has a long history of 

providing science-based, technically 

sound, and proven conservation 

practices, advice, and alternatives to 

America’s farmers and ranchers. 

Traditionally, NRCS has worked with 

USDA agencies, universities, and other 

nongovernmental organizations to 

identify and refine new cutting-edge 

technology through on-farm trials and 

research. Using this approach, NRCS 

continually reviews and revises 

conservation practices based on new 

research or changes in technology. 

Through the Conservation Innovation 

Grants (CIG) component of EQIP, NRCS 

involves additional partners in 

identifying and demonstrating new 

approaches for possible NRCS adoption. 

CIG’s purpose is to stimulate the 

adoption of innovative conservation 

approaches and technologies in 

agricultural production and leverage 

additional investments in conservation. 

Partners assist NRCS with meeting the 

CIG goals of identifying new 

conservation technologies and practices, 

conducting demonstrations and field 

tests, and integrating widely applicable 

technologies and practices into NRCS’ 

toolkit of practices and activities to help 

agricultural producers better address 

natural resource concerns. NRCS is 

updating the CIG section of the EQIP 

regulation to be consistent with Farm 

Bill amendments. 

• Protecting Productive Agricultural 

Lands and Wetlands. The Farm Bill 

combined several NRCS easement 

programs, including the Wetlands 

Reserve Program (WRP), the Farm and 

Ranch Lands Protection Program 

(FRPP), and the Grassland Reserve 

Program (GRP) into the new 

Agricultural Conservation Easement 

Program (ACEP). ACEP will require its 

own regulation to replace those of the 

repealed WRP, FRPP, and GRP 

programs. ACEP will have two 

components: an agricultural land 

easement component under which 

NRCS assists eligible entities to protect 

agricultural land by limiting nonagricultural land uses and a wetland 

reserve easement component under 

which NRCS provides technical and 

financial assistance directly to 

landowners to restore, protect and 

enhance wetlands through the purchase 

of wetlands reserve easements. NRCS 

will maintain the existing easements 

and contracts formed under the 

previous programs; however, they will 

all be considered part of ACEP 

enrollment. 

• Addressing Conservation Concerns 

on a Regional Level. The Farm Bill 

established the Regional Conservation 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76469 

Partnership Program (RCPP) to promote 

the implementation of conservation 

activities through providing support for 

agreements between producers and 

partner groups. Producers receive 

technical and financial assistance 

through RCPP while NRCS and its 

partners help producers install and 

maintain conservation activities. These 

projects may focus on water quality and 

quantity, soil erosion, wildlife habitat, 

drought mitigation, flood control, and 

other regional priorities. Partners 

include producer associations, State or 

local governments, Indian tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and 

institutions of higher education. RCPP 

projects affect multiple agricultural or 

nonindustrial private forest operations 

on a local, regional, State, or multistate 

level. The Farm Bill combined several 

regional conservation initiatives into 

this program. RCPP is implemented 

through an announcement of program 

funding through Grants.gov; however, 

NRCS is publishing updates in the CSP, 

EQIP and ACEP regulations to indicate 

that these are covered programs through 

which RCPP can operate. 

• Establish Framework for Managing 

our Nation’s Forests and Grasslands. 

The Forest Service will publish 

proposed guidance for implementation 

of the 2012 Land Management Planning 

Rule. This guidance will provide the 

detailed monitoring, assessment, and 

documentation requirements that the 

managers of our national forests and 

grasslands require to begin revising their 

land management plans under the 2012 

Planning Rule. Currently 70 of the 120 

Forest Service’s Land Management 

Plans are expired and in need of 

revision. 

• Making Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs More Focused. The Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) plans to amend its veterinary 

biologics regulations to provide for the 

use of a simpler, uniform label format to 

better meet the needs of veterinary 

biologics consumers. APHIS also plans 

to revise tuberculosis and brucellosis 

regulations to better reflect the 

distribution of these diseases and 

thereby minimize the impacts on 

livestock producers while continuing to 

address these livestock diseases. In the 

area of plant health, APHIS proposes to 

expand the streamlined method of 

considering the importation and 

interstate movement of fruits and 

vegetables. The Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS) will support the organic 

sector by updating the National List of 

Allowed and Prohibited Substances as 

advised by the National Organic 

Standards Board, streamlining organic 

regulatory enforcement actions, 

developing organic pet food standards, 

and proposing that all existing and 

replacement dairy animals from which 

milk or milk products are intended to be 

sold as organic must be managed 

organically from the last third of 

gestation. 

• Promoting Biobased Products. 

USDA will continue to promote 

sustainable economic opportunities to 

create jobs in rural communities 

through the purchase and use of 

biobased products through the 

BioPreferred® program. USDA will 

finalize regulations to revise the 

BioPreferred® program guidelines to 

continue adding designated product 

categories to the preferred procurement 

program, including intermediates and 

feedstocks and finished products made 

of intermediates and feedstocks. The 

Federal preferred procurement and the 

certified label parts of the program are 

voluntary; both are designed to assist 

biobased businesses in securing 

additional sales. 

Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive 

Order 13563 ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review (Jan. 18, 2011), the 

following initiatives are identified in the 

Department’s Final Plan for 

Retrospective Analysis. The final agency 

plans, as well as periodic status updates 

for each initiative, are available online 

at http://www.whitehouse.gov/

21stcenturygov/actions/21st-centuryregulatory-system. 

RIN Title Significantly reduce burdens on 

small businesses 

0583–AC59 ....... Prior Labeling Approval System: Generic Label Approval ............................... Yes. 

0583–AD41 ....... Electronic Export Application and Certification Fee .......................................... Yes. 

0583–AD32 ....... Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection ................................................. Yes. 

0570–AA76 ........ Rural Energy America Program ........................................................................ Yes. 

0570–AA85 ........ Business and Industry Loan Guaranteed Program .......................................... Yes. 

0575–AC91 ....... Community Facilities Loan and Grants ............................................................. Yes. 

0596–AD01 ....... National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Efficiencies ................................... Yes. 

Subsequent to EO 13563 and 

consistent with its goals as well as the 

importance of public participation, 

President Obama issued Executive 

Order 13610 on Identifying and 

Reducing Regulatory Burdens in May 

2012. Executive Order 13610 directs 

agencies, in part, to give priority 

consideration to those initiatives that 

will produce cost savings or significant 

reductions in paperwork burdens. 

Accordingly, reducing the regulatory 

burden on the American people and our 

trading partners is a priority for USDA, 

and we will continually work to 

improve the effectiveness of our existing 

regulations. As a result of our ongoing 

regulatory review and burden reduction 

efforts, USDA has identified the 

following burden-reducing initiatives: 

• Increase Use of Generic Approval 

and Regulations Consolidation. FSIS is 

finalizing a rule that will expand the 

circumstances in which the labels of 

meat and poultry products will be 

deemed to be generically approved by 

FSIS. The rule will reduce regulatory 

burdens and generate a discounted 

Agency cost savings of $3.3 million over 

10 years (discounted at 7 percent). 

• Implement Electronic Export 

Application for Meat and Poultry 

Products. FSIS is finalizing a rule to 

provide exporters a fee-based option for 

transmitting U.S. certifications to 

foreign importers and governments 

electronically. Automating the export 

application and certification process 

will facilitate the export of U.S. meat, 

poultry, and egg products by 

streamlining the processes that are used 

while ensuring that foreign regulatory 

requirements are met. 

• Streamline Forest Service National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Compliance. The Forest Service, in 

cooperation with the Council on 

Environmental Quality, is promulgating 

rulemaking to establish three new 

Categorical Exclusions for simple 

restoration activities. These Categorical 

Exclusions will improve and streamline 

the NEPA process and reduce the 

paperwork burden, as it applies to 

Forest Service projects without reducing 

environmental protection. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76470 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

• Increase Accessibility to the Rural 

Energy for America Program (REAP). 

Under REAP, Rural Development 

provides guaranteed loans and grants to 

support the purchase, construction, or 

retrofitting of a renewable energy 

system. This rulemaking will streamline 

the application process for grants, 

lessening the burden on the applicant. 

The rulemaking is expected to reduce 

the information collection. 

• Reduced Duplication in Farm 

Programs. The Farm and Foreign 

Agricultural Services (FFAS) mission 

area is reducing the paperwork burden 

on program participants by 

consolidating the information 

collections required to participate in 

farm programs administered by the 

Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the 

Federal crop insurance program 

administered by the Risk Management 

Agency (RMA). As a result, producers 

will be able to spend less time reporting 

information to USDA. Additionally, 

FSA and RMA will be better able to 

share information, thus improving 

operational efficiency. FFAS is 

simplifying and standardizing, to the 

extent practical, acreage reporting 

processes, program dates, and data 

definitions across the various USDA 

programs and agencies. FFAS is making 

improvements to allow producers to use 

information from their farmmanagement and precision agriculture 

systems for reporting production, 

planted and harvested acreage, and 

other key information needed to 

participate in USDA programs. FFAS is 

also streamlining the collection of 

producer information by FSA and RMA 

with the agricultural production 

information collected by the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service. These 

process changes allow for program data 

that is common across agencies to be 

collected once and utilized or 

redistributed to agency programs in 

which the producer chooses to 

participate. FFAS will conduct a pilot 

project in spring 2015 to test the ability 

of FSA county offices to receive 

electronic acreage reports through a 

third-party service provider; the pilot 

will add additional States following the 

2014 small ‘‘proof-of-concept’’ in 

Illinois. 

Periodic status updates for these 

burden-reducing initiatives can be 

found online at: http://

www.whitehouse.gov/21stcenturygov/

actions/21st-century-regulatory-system. 

In addition to regulatory review 

initiatives identified under Executive 

Order 13563 and the paper work burden 

reduction initiatives identified under 

the Executive Order 13610, USDA has 

plans to initiate the following additional 

streamlining initiatives in 2015. 

• Simplify FSA NEPA Compliance. 

FSA proposed revisions to its 

regulations that implement NEPA to 

update, improve, and clarify 

requirements. It also proposed new 

categorical exclusions and removing 

obsolete provisions. FSA will revise the 

regulations with any additional 

improvements being made based on 

public comments to the proposed rule. 

Annual cost savings to FSA as a result 

of this rule could be $345,000 from 

conducting 314 fewer environmental 

assessments per year, while retaining 

strong environmental protection. 

• Simplify Equipment Contracts for 

Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Loans. RUS 

is proposing a rule that would result in 

a new standard Equipment Contract 

Form for use by Telecommunications 

Program borrowers. This new 

standardized contract would ensure that 

certain standards and specifications are 

met, and this new form would replace 

the current process that requires all 

construction providers to use their own 

resources to develop a contract for each 

project. 

• Consolidate Community Facilities 

Programs Loan and Grant 

Requirements. The Rural Housing 

Service (RHS) is proposing to 

consolidate seven of the regulations 

used to service Community Facilities 

direct loans and grants into one 

streamlined regulation. This rule will 

reduce the time burden on RHS staff 

and provide the public with a single 

document that clearly outlines the 

requirements for servicing Community 

Facilities direct loans and grants. 

• Update Tuberculosis and 

Brucellosis Programs. Given the success 

USDA has had in nearly eradicating 

tuberculosis and brucellosis in 

ruminants, APHIS will propose 

rulemaking to update and consolidate 

its regulations regarding these diseases 

to better reflect the current distribution 

of these diseases and the changes in 

which cattle, bison, and captive cervid 

are produced in the United States. 

Promoting International Regulatory 

Cooperation Under Executive Order 

13609: 

President Obama issued Executive 

Order 13609 on promoting international 

regulatory cooperation in May 2012. 

The Executive order charges the 

Regulatory Working Group, an 

interagency working group chaired by 

the Administrator of Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA), with examining appropriate 

strategies and best practices for 

international regulatory cooperation. 

The Executive order also directs 

agencies to identify factors that should 

be taken into account in evaluating the 

effectiveness of regulatory approaches 

used by trading partners with whom the 

U.S. is engaged in regulatory 

cooperation. At this time, USDA is 

identifying international regulatory 

cooperation activities that are 

reasonably anticipated to lead to 

significant regulations, while working 

closely with the Administration to 

refine the guidelines implementing the 

Executive order. Apart from 

international regulatory cooperation, the 

Department has continued to identify 

regulations with international impacts, 

as it has done in the past. Such 

regulations are those that are expected 

to have international trade and 

investment effects or otherwise may be 

of interest to our international trading 

partners. 

USDA is diligently working to carry 

out the President’s Executive order 

mandate with regard to regulatory 

cooperation as new regulations are 

developed. Several agencies within the 

Department are also actively engaged in 

interagency and Departmental 

regulatory cooperation initiatives being 

pursued as part of the U.S.-Mexico High 

Level Regulatory Cooperation Council 

(HLRCC) and the U.S.-Canada 

Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC), 

as well as other fora. Specific projects 

are being pursued by USDA agencies 

such as AMS, APHIS, and FSIS and 

address a variety of regulatory oversight 

processes and requirements related to 

meat, poultry, and animal and plant 

health. Projects related to electronic 

certification, equivalence, meat 

nomenclature, and the efficient and safe 

flow of plants, animals and food across 

our shared borders are all regulatory 

cooperation pursuits these agencies are 

undertaking in order to secure better 

alignment among our countries without 

compromising the high standards of 

safety we have in place in the U.S. 

relative to food safety and public health, 

as well as plant and animal health, that 

are so critical to American agriculture. 

Major Regulatory Priorities 

This following represents summary 

information on prospective priority 

regulations as called for in Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563: 

Food and Nutrition Service 

Mission: FNS works to end hunger 

and obesity through the administration 

of federal nutrition assistance programs 

including WIC, Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP), and school 

meals. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76471 

Priorities: In addition to responding to 

provisions of legislation authorizing and 

modifying Federal nutrition assistance 

programs, FNS’s 2015 regulatory plan 

supports USDA’s Strategic Goal to 

‘‘ensure that all of America’s children 

have access to safe, nutritious and 

balanced meals’’ and its related 

objectives: 

• Increase Access to Nutritious Food. 

This objective represents FNS’s efforts 

to improve nutrition by providing 

access to program benefits (food 

consumed at home, school meals, 

commodities) and distributing State 

administrative funds to support program 

operations. To advance this objective, 

FNS plans to publish a final rule 

implementing the Healthy, Hunger-Free 

Kids Act of 2010’s Community 

Eligibility Provision, which eliminates 

the burden of household applications 

and increases access to free school 

lunches and breakfasts for children in 

eligible high-poverty schools. FNS will 

also publish a proposed rule to codify 

procedures for providing temporary 

SNAP benefits during emergencies for 

victims of disasters. 

• Improve Program Integrity. FNS 

also plans to publish a number of rules 

to increase efficiency, reduce the burden 

of program operations, and further 

reduce improper payments. Program 

integrity provisions will continue to be 

strengthened in the SNAP and Child 

Nutrition programs to ensure Federal 

taxpayer dollars are spent effectively. To 

support this objective, FNS plans to 

publish a final rule from the 2008 Farm 

Bill that increases the penalty for SNAP 

authorized stores that are involved in 

the trafficking of Program benefits. 

Additionally, FNS plans to publish a 

proposed rule to establish consistent, 

outcome-focused performance measures 

for the SNAP Employment and Training 

Program. For Child Nutrition, FNS plans 

to publish a proposed rule to strengthen 

oversight requirements and institution 

disqualification procedures, allow the 

imposition of fines by USDA or State 

agencies for egregious and/or repeated 

program violations, and address several 

deficiencies identified through program 

audits and reviews. 

• Promote Healthy Diet and Physical 

Activity Behaviors. This objective 

represents FNS’s efforts to ensure that 

program benefits meet appropriate 

standards to effectively improve 

nutrition for program participants, to 

improve the diets of its clients through 

nutrition education, and to support the 

national effort to reduce obesity by 

promoting healthy eating and physical 

activity. To implement provisions 

included in the Healthy Hunger Free 

Kids Act of 2010. FNS plans to publish 

a proposed rule that updates the meal 

patterns for the Child and Adult Care 

Food Program to align them with the 

latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans 

and final rules that establish 

professional standards for school food 

service and State child nutrition 

program directors, require schools to 

develop local wellness policies that 

promote the health of students and 

address the growing problem of 

childhood obesity. Additionally, FNS 

plans to publish a proposed rule to 

implement the 2014 Farm Bill governing 

the eligibility of retail food stores 

participating in SNAP that will improve 

SNAP participants’ access to healthy 

food options. 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

Mission: FSIS is responsible for 

ensuring that meat, poultry, and 

processed egg products in interstate and 

foreign commerce are wholesome, not 

adulterated, and are properly marked, 

labeled, and packaged. 

Priorities: FSIS is committed to 

developing and issuing science-based 

regulations intended to ensure that 

meat, poultry, and processed egg 

products are wholesome and not 

adulterated or misbranded. FSIS 

regulatory actions support the objective 

to protect public health by ensuring that 

food is safe under USDA’s goal to 

ensure access to safe food. To reduce the 

number of foodborne illnesses and 

increase program efficiencies, FSIS will 

continue to review its existing 

authorities and regulations to ensure 

that it can address emerging food safety 

challenges, to streamline excessively 

prescriptive regulations, and to revise or 

remove regulations that are inconsistent 

with the FSIS’s Hazard Analysis and 

Critical Control Point (HACCP) 

regulations. FSIS is also working with 

the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) to improve coordination and 

increase the effectiveness of inspection 

activities. FSIS’s priority initiatives are 

as follows: 

• Implement Inspection of Certain 

Fish, Including Catfish and Catfish 

Products. FSIS plans to issue a final rule 

to implement a new inspection system 

for all fish of the order Siluriformes, as 

required by the 2014 Farm Bill. The rule 

will define inspection requirements for 

this type of fish and will take into 

account the conditions under which the 

fish is raised and transported to a 

processing establishment. 

• Streamline Export Application 

Processes through the Public Health 

Information System (PHIS). To support 

its food safety inspection activities, FSIS 

is continuing to implement PHIS, a 

user-friendly and Web-based system 

that automates many of the Agency’s 

business processes. PHIS also enables 

greater exchange of information between 

FSIS and other Federal agencies, such as 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

which is involved alongside FSIS in 

tracking cross-border movement of 

import and export shipments of meat, 

poultry, and processed egg products. To 

facilitate the implementation of some 

PHIS components, FSIS is finalizing 

regulations to provide for electronic 

export application and certification 

processes. 

• Update Nutrition Facts Panels for 

Meat and Poultry Products. FSIS will 

propose to amend its regulations so that 

the nutrition labeling requirements for 

meat and poultry products reflect recent 

scientific research and dietary 

recommendations and to improve the 

presentation of nutrition information to 

assist consumers in maintaining healthy 

dietary practices. These revisions will 

be consistent with the recent changes 

that the Food and Drug Administration 

proposed for conventional foods and 

will ensure that there is consistency in 

how nutrition information is presented 

across the food supply. 

• Ensure Accurate Labeling of 

Mechanically Tenderized Beef. FSIS has 

concluded that without proper labeling, 

raw or partially cooked mechanically 

tenderized beef products could be 

mistakenly perceived by consumers to 

be whole, intact muscle cuts. The fact 

that a cut of beef has been needle or 

blade-tenderized is a characterizing 

feature of the product and, as such, is 

a material fact likely to affect 

consumers’ purchase decisions and 

should affect their preparation of the 

product. FSIS has also concluded that 

the addition of validated cooking 

instruction is required to ensure that 

potential pathogens throughout the 

product are destroyed. Without 

thorough cooking, pathogens that may 

have been introduced to the interior of 

the product during the tenderization 

process may remain in the product. The 

Agency will finalize regulations 

requiring that raw, mechanically 

tenderized (needle or blade) beef 

products be labeled to indicate that they 

are ‘‘mechanically tenderized.’’ 

• Improve the Efficiency of Product 

Recalls. FSIS is developing a final rule 

that will amend recordkeeping 

regulations to specify that all official 

establishments and retail stores that 

grind or chop raw beef products for sale 

in commerce must keep records that 

disclose the identity of the supplier of 

all source materials that they use in the 

preparation of each lot of raw ground or 

chopped product and identify the 

names of those source materials. FSIS 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76472 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

investigators and public health officials 

frequently use records kept by all levels 

of the food distribution chain, including 

the retail level, to identify and trace 

back product that is the source of the 

illness to the suppliers that produced 

the source material for the product. 

Access to this information will improve 

FSIS’s ability to conduct timely and 

effective consumer foodborne illness 

investigations and other public health 

activities throughout the stream of 

commerce. 

• Improve Compliance with the 

Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. FSIS 

has concluded that prohibiting the 

slaughter of all non-ambulatory disabled 

veal calves will improve compliance 

with the Humane Methods of Slaughter 

Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) and 

will also improve the Agency’s 

inspection efficiency by eliminating the 

time that FSIS inspection program 

personnel spend re-inspecting nonambulatory disabled veal calves. FSIS 

plans to propose to amend its 

regulations on ante-mortem inspection 

to remove a provision that permits 

establishments to set apart and hold for 

treatment veal calves that are unable to 

rise from a recumbent position and walk 

because they are tired or cold (9 CFR 

309.13(b)). Under the proposed rule, 

non-ambulatory disabled veal calves 

that are offered for slaughter will be 

condemned and promptly euthanized. 

• FSIS Small Business Implications. 

The great majority of businesses 

regulated by FSIS are small businesses. 

FSIS conducts a small business outreach 

program that provides critical training, 

access to food safety experts, and 

information resources, such as 

compliance guidance and questions and 

answers on various topics, in forms that 

are uniform, easily comprehended, and 

consistent. FSIS collaborates in this 

effort with other USDA agencies and 

cooperating State partners. For example, 

FSIS makes plant owners and operators 

aware of loan programs available 

through USDA’s Rural Business and 

Cooperative programs to help them in 

upgrading their facilities. FSIS 

employees will meet with small and 

very small plant operators to learn more 

about their specific needs and explore 

how FSIS can tailor regulations to better 

meet the needs of small and very small 

establishments, while maintaining the 

highest level of food safety. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

Mission: A major part of the mission 

of APHIS is to protect the health and 

value of American agricultural and 

natural resources. APHIS conducts 

programs to prevent the introduction of 

exotic pests and diseases into the 

United States and conducts 

surveillance, monitoring, control, and 

eradication programs for pests and 

diseases in this country. These activities 

enhance agricultural productivity and 

competitiveness and contribute to the 

national economy and the public health. 

APHIS also conducts programs to 

ensure the humane handling, care, 

treatment, and transportation of animals 

under the Animal Welfare Act. 

Priorities: APHIS continues to pursue 

initiatives to update its regulations to 

make them more flexible and 

performance-based. For example, in the 

area of animal health, APHIS is 

preparing a final rule to amend its 

veterinary biologics regulations to 

provide for the use of a simpler, uniform 

label format that would allow biologics 

licensees and permittees to more clearly 

communicate product performance 

information to the end user. In addition, 

the rule would simplify the evaluation 

of efficacy studies and reduce the 

amount of time required by APHIS to 

evaluate study data, thus allowing 

manufacturers to market their products 

sooner. APHIS has also prepared a 

proposed rule that would revise and 

consolidate its regulations regarding 

bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis to 

better reflect the distribution of these 

diseases and the current nature of cattle, 

bison, and captive cervid production in 

the United States. In the area of plant 

health, APHIS has prepared a proposed 

rule that would establish performance 

standards and a notice-based process for 

approving the interstate movement of 

fruits and vegetables from Hawaii and 

the U.S. Territories and the importation 

of those articles from other countries. In 

addition, APHIS will revise agricultural 

quarantine and inspection user fees so 

that fees collected are commensurate 

with the cost of providing the activity. 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Mission: AMS’s mission is to facilitate 

the competitive and efficient marketing 

of agricultural products. AMS provides 

marketing services to producers, 

manufacturers, distributors, importers, 

exporters, and consumers of food 

products. AMS also manages the 

government’s food purchases, 

supervises food quality grading, 

maintains food quality standards, 

supervises the Federal research and 

promotion programs, and oversees the 

country of origin labeling program as 

well as the National Organic Program 

(NOP). 

Priorities: AMS intends to support the 

government’s initiative to streamline 

regulatory actions by establishing a 

process to communicate fees for our 

voluntary user fee programs annually 

through publication of a Federal 

Register notice. AMS is also committed 

to ensuring the integrity of USDA 

organic products in the U.S. and 

throughout the world. In addition to its 

ongoing work to develop organic pet 

food, apiculture, and aquaculture 

standards, the Agency is moving 

forward with the following priority 

rulemakings that affect the organic 

industry: 

• Research and Promotion Programs 

Organic Exemption. USDA intends to 

implement the 2014 Farm Bill provision 

to expand the organic exemption for 

research and promotion program 

assessments. This action would exempt 

organic operations with ‘‘100 percent 

organic’’ and ‘‘organic’’ products, 

including certain split operations, from 

paying research and promotion program 

assessments. 

• Transitioning Dairy Animals into 

Organic Production. Members of the 

organic community, including dairy 

producers, organic interest groups, and 

the National Organic Standards Board 

have advocated for rulemaking on the 

allowance for transitioning dairy 

animals into organic production. 

Stakeholders have interpreted the 

current standard differently, creating 

inconsistencies across dairy producers. 

AMS has submitted a proposed rule for 

clearance on this issue. This proposed 

change to the organic standards is 

intended to level the playing field for 

organic dairy producers. 

Farm Service Agency 

Mission: FSA’s mission is to deliver 

timely, effective programs and services 

to America’s farmers and ranchers to 

support them in sustaining our Nation’s 

vibrant agricultural economy, as well as 

to provide first-rate support for 

domestic and international food aid 

efforts. FSA has successfully expedited 

the implementation of several major 

regulatory priorities resulting from the 

2014 Farm Bill, including new programs 

such as the Agriculture Risk Coverage 

Program, Price Loss Coverage Program, 

Margin Protection Program for Dairy, 

Dairy Product Donation Program, Cotton 

Transition Assistance Program, and 

improvements to existing programs such 

as disaster assistance programs, entity 

eligibility for Farm Loan Programs, and 

Microloans. FSA supports USDA’s 

strategic goals by stabilizing farm 

income, providing credit to new or 

existing farmers and ranchers who are 

temporarily unable to obtain credit from 

commercial sources, and helping farm 

operations recover from the effects of 

disaster. FSA administers several 

conservation programs directed toward 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76473 

agricultural producers. The largest 

program is the Conservation Reserve 

Program, which protects up to 32 

million acres of environmentally 

sensitive land. 

Priorities: FSA is focused on 

continuing to implement the 2014 Farm 

Bill while providing the best possible 

service to producers while protecting 

the environment by updating and 

streamlining environmental compliance. 

FSA’s priority initiatives are as follows: 

• Noninsured Crop Disaster 

Assistance Program (NAP). FSA will 

revise its NAP regulations to implement 

the 2014 Farm Bill changes. The 2014 

Farm Bill changes include enhanced 

protection under NAP, which is also 

known as NAP buy-up to allow 

producers to buy additional NAP 

coverage for an additional premium; 

revised NAP eligibility requirements for 

coverage on tilled native sod; added 

coverage for sweet sorghum and 

biomass sorghum; service fee waivers 

for beginning and socially 

disadvantaged farmers. 

• Conservation Compliance. FSA, 

working in coordination with NRCS and 

RMA, will revise the USDA 

conservation compliance regulations to 

implement the 2014 Farm Bill changes. 

The 2014 Farm Bill changes linking 

eligibility for any premium subsidy paid 

by FCIC on a policy or plan of federally 

reinsured crop insurance to be in 

compliance with Highly Erodible Land 

Conservation and Wetlands 

Conservation provisions. Since 

enactment of the 1985 Farm Bill, 

eligibility for most commodity, disaster, 

and conservation programs has been 

linked to compliance with the Highly 

Erodible Land Conservation and 

Wetland Conservation provisions. The 

2014 Farm Bill continues the 

requirement that producers adhere to 

conservation compliance guidelines to 

be eligible for most programs 

administered by FSA and NRCS. 

• Marketing Assistance Loans (MAL) 

and Loan Deficiency Payments (LDP). 

FSA will revise its MAL and LDP 

regulations to implement the 2014 Farm 

Bill changes. The 2014 Farm Bill 

changes reauthorize MAL and LDP for 

all eligible commodities including 

cotton, honey, and sugar loans, for the 

2014 through 2018 crop years. The MAL 

and LDP Programs allow producers to 

receive short-term loans against their 

crops so that producers can market their 

crops at a time that is convenient for 

them, rather than being forced to sell 

immediately after harvest to pay the 

bills. The MAL and LDP programs are 

continued with no changes to the loan 

rates except for cotton, and there are no 

other changes to the basic structure of 

the programs. The changes extend the 

program years and add clarity to the 

regulations. MALs, LDPs and sugar 

loans are Commodity Credit Corporation 

(CCC) programs administered by the 

Farm Service Agency (FSA). 

• Farm Loan Programs (FLP) changes. 

FSA will revise its FLP regulations to 

implement the 2014 Farm Bill changes. 

The 2014 Farm Bill changes include 

expanding lending opportunities for 

thousands of farmers and ranchers to 

begin and continue operations, 

including greater flexibility in 

determining eligibility, raising loan 

limits, and emphasizing beginning and 

socially disadvantaged producers. 

Specific changes include: Eliminating 

loan term limits for guaranteed 

operating loans, modifying the 

definition of beginning farmers, 

allowing debt forgiveness on youth 

loans, increasing the guaranteed amount 

on conservation loans from 75 to 80 

percent and 90 percent for beginning 

farmers and socially disadvantaged 

producers, changing the interest rate on 

Direct Farm Ownership loans that are 

made in conjunction with other lenders, 

and increasing the maximum loan 

amount for the down payment loan 

program from $225,000 to $300,000. 

• Biomass Crop Assistance Program 

(BCAP). FSA will revise its BCAP 

regulations to implement the 2014 Farm 

Bill changes. The 2014 Farm Bill 

changes include extending BCAP 

through 2018 and revising BCAP to add 

some new payment amounts and 

eligibility restrictions. Specific changes 

include: revising eligible materials to 

remove bagasse, add materials used for 

research material, and require that all 

woody biomass be harvested directly 

from the land and reducing the payment 

for collection, harvest, storage, and 

transportation matching payments to 

$20 per dry ton. BCAP provides 

financial assistance to producers who 

establish and harvest biomass crops and 

requires at least 10 percent of payments 

to be matching payments. 

• Conservation Reserve Program 

(CRP). FSA will revise its CRP 

regulations to implement the 2014 Farm 

Bill changes. The 2014 Farm Bill 

changes include extending the authority 

to enroll acreage in CRP through 

September 30, 2018, and requiring 

enrollment to be no more than 24 

million acres beginning October 1, 2016. 

There are 25.6 million acres enrolled in 

CRP, of which 2 million expired on 

September 30, 2014. 

• Streamline Environmental 

Compliance (NEPA). FSA will revise its 

regulations that implement NEPA. The 

changes improve the efficiency, 

transparency, and consistency of NEPA 

implementation. Changes include 

aligning the regulations to NEPA 

regulations and guidance from the 

President’s Council on Environmental 

Quality, providing a single set of 

regulations that reflect the Agency’s 

current structure, clarifying the types of 

actions that require an Environmental 

Assessment (EA), and adding to the list 

of actions that are categorically 

excluded from further environmental 

review because they have no significant 

effect on the human environment. FSA 

will develop any additional changes 

resulting from public comments to the 

proposed rule. 

Forest Service 

Mission: FS’s mission is to sustain the 

health, productivity, and diversity of the 

Nation’s forests and rangelands to meet 

the needs of present and future 

generations. This includes protecting 

and managing National Forest System 

lands; providing technical and financial 

assistance to States, communities, and 

private forest landowners, plus 

developing and providing scientific and 

technical assistance; and the exchange 

of scientific information to support 

international forest and range 

conservation. FS regulatory priorities 

support the Department’s goal to ensure 

our National forests are conserved, 

restored, and made more resilient to 

climate change, while enhancing our 

water resources. 

Priorities: FS is committed to 

developing and issuing science-based 

regulations intended to ensure public 

participation in the management of our 

Nation’s national forests and grasslands, 

while also moving forward the Agency’s 

ability to plan and conduct restoration 

projects on National Forest System 

lands. FS will continue to review its 

existing authorities and regulations to 

ensure that it can address emerging 

challenges, to streamline excessively 

burdensome business practices, and to 

revise or remove regulations that are 

inconsistent with the USDA’s vision for 

restoring the health and function of the 

lands it is charged with managing. FS’s 

priority initiatives are as follows: 

• Implement Land Management 

Planning Framework. The Forest 

Service promulgated a new Land 

Management Planning Rule at 36 CFR 

part 219 in April 2012 that sets out the 

requirements for developing, amending, 

and revising land management plans for 

units of the National Forest System. The 

planning directives, once finalized, will 

be used to implement the planning 

framework which fosters collaboration 

with the public during land 

management planning, is science-based 

and responsive to change and promotes 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76474 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

social, economic, and ecological 

sustainability. 

• Strengthen Ecological Restoration 

Policies. This policy would recognize 

the adaptive capacity of ecosystems and 

includes the role of natural disturbances 

and uncertainty related to climate and 

other environmental change. The need 

for ecological restoration of National 

Forest System lands is widely 

recognized, and the Forest Service has 

conducted restoration-related activities 

across many programs for decades. 

‘‘Restoration’’ is a common way of 

describing much of the Agency’s work, 

and the concept is threaded throughout 

existing authorities, program directives, 

and collaborative efforts such as the 

National Fire Plan, a 10-Year 

comprehensive strategy and 

implementation plan, and the Healthy 

Forests Restoration Act. However, the 

Agency did not have a definition of 

‘‘restoration’’ established in policy. The 

lack of a definition was identified as a 

barrier to collaborating with the public 

and partners to plan and accomplish 

restoration work. 

Rural Development 

Mission: Rural Development (RD) 

promotes a dynamic business 

environment in rural America that 

creates jobs, community infrastructure, 

and housing opportunities in 

partnership with the private sector and 

community-based organizations by 

providing financial assistance and 

business planning services and 

supporting projects that create or 

preserve quality jobs, advance energy 

efficiency and the bioeconomy, and 

strengthen local and regional food 

systems while focusing on the 

development of single- and multi-family 

housing and community infrastructure. 

RD financial resources are often 

leveraged with those of other public and 

private credit source lenders to meet 

business and credit needs in underserved areas. Recipients of these 

programs may include individuals, 

corporations, partnerships, 

cooperatives, public bodies, nonprofit 

corporations, Indian tribes, and private 

companies. 

Priorities: RD regulatory priorities 

will facilitate sustainable renewable 

energy development and enhance the 

opportunities necessary for rural 

families to thrive economically. RD’s 

rules will minimize program complexity 

and the related burden on the public 

while enhancing program delivery and 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service 

oversight. 

• Increase Accessibility to the Rural 

Energy for America Program (REAP). 

Under REAP, Rural Development 

provides guaranteed loans and grants to 

support the purchase, construction, or 

retrofitting of a renewable energy 

system. This rulemaking will streamline 

the application process for grants, 

lessening the burden to the customer. 

The rulemaking is expected to reduce 

the information collection. REAP will 

also be revised to ensure a larger 

number of applicants will be made 

available through the issuing of smaller 

grants. As a result, funding will be 

distributed evenly across the applicant 

pool and encourage greater development 

of renewable energy. 

• Broadband Access Loans. 

Increasing access to broadband service 

is a critical factor in improving the 

quality of life in rural America and in 

providing the foundation needed for 

creating jobs. The A 2014 Farm Bill 

revises program provisions particularly 

with regard to broadband speed and 

application priority. Revised regulations 

for the Broadband Access Loan Program 

are anticipated to be published in the 

Federal Register in the spring of 2015. 

• Modify review of Single Family 

Housing Direct Loans. RD will publish 

the certified loan packager regulation to 

streamline oversight of the agency’s vast 

network of committed Agency-certified 

packagers. This action will help lowand very low-income people become 

homeowners. It will also reduce the 

burden on program staff, enabling them 

to focus on implementation and 

delivery, and will ensure specialized 

support is available to them to complete 

the application for assistance, 

improving the quality of loan 

application packages. 

Departmental Management 

Mission: Departmental Management’s 

mission is to provide management 

leadership to ensure that USDA 

administrative programs, policies, 

advice and counsel meet the needs of 

USDA programs, consistent with laws 

and mandates, and provide safe and 

efficient facilities and services to 

customers. 

Priorities: 

• Promote Biobased Products: In 

support of the Department’s goal to 

increase prosperity in rural areas, 

USDA’s Departmental Management 

plans to publish regulations to 

implement the requirement in the 

Agricultural Act of 2014 (Farm Bill) to 

establish eligibility criteria for forest 

and other traditional biobased products 

in the BioPreferred® program. 

Aggregate Costs and Benefits 

USDA will ensure that its regulations 

provide benefits that exceed costs, but 

are unable to provide an estimate of the 

aggregated impacts of its regulations. 

Problems with aggregation arise due to 

differing baselines, data gaps, and 

inconsistencies in methodology and the 

type of regulatory costs and benefits 

considered. Some benefits and costs 

associated with rules listed in the 

regulatory plan cannot currently be 

quantified as the rules are still being 

formulated. For 2015, USDA’s focus will 

be to implement the changes to 

programs in such a way as to provide 

benefits while minimizing program 

complexity and regulatory burden for 

program participants. 

USDA—Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

1. National Organic Program, Origin of 

Livestock, NOP–11–0009 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

December 31, 2014. 

The proposed action would eliminate 

the two-track system and require that 

upon transition, all existing and 

replacement dairy animals from which 

milk or milk products are intended to be 

sold, labeled, or represented as organic, 

must be managed organically from the 

last third of gestation. 

Abstract: The current regulations 

provide two tracks for replacing dairy 

animals which are tied to how dairy 

farmers transition to organic production. 

Farmers who transition an entire 

distinct herd must thereafter replace 

dairy animals with livestock that has 

been under organic management from 

the last third of gestation. Farmers who 

do not transition an entire distinct herd 

may perpetually obtain replacement 

animals that have been managed 

organically for 12 months prior to 

marketing milk or milk products as 

organic. The proposed action would 

eliminate the two-track system and 

require that upon transition, all existing 

and replacement dairy animals from 

which milk or milk products are 

intended to be sold, labeled, or 

represented as organic must be managed 

organically from the last third of 

gestation. 

Statement of Need: This action is 

being taken because of concerns raised 

by various parties, including the 

National Organic Standards Board 

(NOSB), about the dual tracks for dairy 

replacement animals. The proposed 

action would institute the same 

requirements across all producers. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76475 

Summary of Legal Basis: The National 

Organic Program regulations stipulate 

the requirements for dairy replacement 

animals in section 205.236(a)(2) Origin 

of Livestock. In addition, in response to 

the final ruling in the 2005 case, Harvey 

v. Johanns, the USDA committed to 

rulemaking to address the concerns 

about dairy replacement animals. 

Alternatives: The program considered 

initiating the rulemaking with an 

ANPRM. It was determined that there is 

sufficient awareness of the expectations 

of the organic community to proceed 

with a proposed rule. As alternatives, 

we considered the status quo, however, 

this would continue the disparity 

between producers who can continually 

transition conventional dairy animals 

into organic production and producers 

who source dairy animals that are 

organic from the last third of gestation. 

We also considered an action that 

would restrict the source of breeder 

stock and movement of breeder stock 

after they are brought onto an organic 

operation; however, this would 

minimize the flexibility of producers to 

purchase breeder stock from any source 

as specified under the Organic Foods 

Production Act. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Risks: Continuation of the two-track 

system jeopardizes the viability of the 

market for organic heifers. A potential 

risk associated with the rulemaking 

would be a temporary supply shortage 

of dairy replacement animals due to the 

increased demand. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/14 

Final Action ......... 05/00/16 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Melissa R. Bailey, 

Director, Standards Division, 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 

Marketing Service, 14th & Independence 

Avenue SW., Room 2646–South 

Building, Washington, DC 20250, 

Phone: 202 720–3252, Fax: 202 205– 

7808, Email: melissa.bailey@usda.gov. 

RIN: 0581–AD08 

USDA—AMS 

2. National Organic Program, Organic 

Pet Food Standards 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

April 30, 2015. 

The National Organic Program (NOP) 

is establishing national standards 

governing the marketing of organically 

produced agricultural products. 

Abstract: The National Organic 

Program (NOP) is establishing national 

standards governing the marketing of 

organically produced agricultural 

products. In 2004, the National Organic 

Standards Board (NOSB) initiated the 

development of organic pet food 

standards, which had not been 

incorporated into the NOP regulations, 

by forming a task force which included 

pet food manufacturers, organic 

consultants, etc. Collectively, these 

experts drafted organic pet food 

standards consistent with the Organic 

Foods Production Act of 1990, Food and 

Drug Administration requirements, and 

the Association of American Feed 

Control Officials (AAFCO) Model 

Regulations for Pet and Specialty Pet 

Food. The AAFCO regulations are 

scientifically based regulations for 

voluntary adoption by State 

jurisdictions to ensure the safety, 

quality, and effectiveness of feed. In 

November 2008, the NOSB approved a 

final recommendation for organic pet 

food standards incorporating the 

provisions drafted by the pet food task 

force. 

Statement of Need: This action is 

necessary to ensure consistency in the 

composition and labeling of pet food 

products bearing organic claims. While 

the NOP has maintained that pet food 

may be certified in accordance with the 

existing USDA organic regulations, the 

requirements for processed products are 

intended for human foods and are not 

entirely applicable to pet food. The 

uncertainty about pet food composition 

and labeling requirements causes 

confusion in the marketplace with 

potentially negative impacts for the 

credibility of the organic label in 

general. This action responds to a 2008 

recommendation of the National 

Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and 

industry requests for organic pet food 

standards. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Organic 

Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture 

to establish an organic certification 

program for producers and handlers of 

agricultural products that have been 

produced using organic methods (7 

U.S.C. 6503(a)). The OFPA also 

authorizes the NOSB to provide 

recommendations to the Secretary 

regarding the implementation of the 

National Organic Program (7 U.S.C. 

6518(k)(1)). 

Alternatives: AMS has considered the 

implications of developing specific 

composition and labeling standards for 

organic pet food versus maintaining the 

status quo and not pursuing regulatory 

action. In addition, AMS is examining 

options regarding potential 

implementation periods. Finally, AMS 

considered the viability of composition 

requirements that vary from those 

recommended by the NOSB. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

proposed rule would facilitate the 

marketing of organic pet food by 

establishing clear, enforceable 

requirements for the composition and 

labeling of these products. This action 

will clarify how pet food may be 

produced, certified, and marketed as 

organic and the significance of organic 

claims on pet food. That standardization 

would provide certainty to pet food 

handlers and certifying agents for 

manufacturing and certifying pet foods, 

respectively, and bolster consumer 

confidence. AMS does not expect this 

action to result in significant costs for 

the $109 million organic pet food sector 

(2012 sales). This action may be an 

incentive for some handlers that are 

using organic claims on noncertified pet 

food products to pursue certification. 

AMS intends to solicit specific public 

comments to validate this expectation. 

Risks: AMS does not anticipate risks 

to be associated with this action. The 

NOSB and industry participated in the 

development of organic pet food 

standards and have strongly encouraged 

their adoption since 2008. This action 

may provoke questions about the 

Agency’s intent with regard to a 

separate 2013 NOSB recommendation 

that would, in effect, prohibit the use of 

certain amino acids in organic pet food. 

AMS is evaluating the impact of that 

action; however, that recent 

recommendation is not expected to 

affect this rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/15 

Final Action ......... 08/00/16 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, Tribal. 

Agency Contact: Melissa R. Bailey, 

Director, Standards Division, 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 

Marketing Service, 14th & Independence 

Avenue SW., Room 2646–South 

Building, Washington, DC 20250, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76476 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Phone: 202 720–3252, Fax: 202 205– 

7808, Email: melissa.bailey@usda.gov. 

RIN: 0581–AD20 

USDA—AMS 

3. National Organic Program, Organic 

Apiculture Practices Standard, NOP– 

12–0063 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, July 

31, 2015. 

This action proposes to amend the 

USDA organic regulations to reflect an 

October 2010 recommendation 

submitted to the Secretary by the 

National Organic Standards Board 

(NOSB) concerning the production of 

organic apicultural (i.e. beekeeping) 

products. 

Abstract: This action proposes to 

amend the USDA organic regulations to 

reflect an October 2010 

recommendation submitted to the 

Secretary by the National Organic 

Standards Board (NOSB) concerning the 

production of organic apicultural (i.e. 

beekeeping) products. Instead of 

continuing to allow certifying agents to 

certify apiculture to the organic 

livestock standards, this action would 

establish certification standards 

specifically for organic bees and bee 

products. 

Statement of Need: This action is 

necessary to establish uniform standards 

for certification of organic apiculture 

operations. Currently, certifying agents 

adapt the organic livestock standards to 

certify organic apiaries. This action is 

necessary to distinguish apiculture as a 

unique production system that merits 

separate organic standards and would 

address practices that are not covered in 

the general organic livestock 

requirements. This action is needed to 

ensure consistency across certifying 

agents in the inspection and 

certification of apiculture operations. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Bees are 

regarded as ‘‘nonplant life’’ under 

definitions in the current Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) and 

implementing regulations. Based on 

these definitions, apicultural products 

(bees and bee products) may currently 

be certified under the livestock 

provisions of the USDA organic 

regulations (7 CFR part 205). 

Alternatives: AMS is considering 

variations in the implementation period 

needed for any existing organic honey 

producers to comply with a new 

proposed forage zone requirement. The 

agency is also considering an alternative 

to align with Canadian and EU 

apiculture which require land within 

the forage zone to be ‘‘organically 

managed,’’ rather than certified as crop 

or wild crop. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Issuing 

standards for management of bees and 

bee products will benefit the industry 

by bringing greater consistency across 

certifiers. The introduction of formal 

standards will encourage new producers 

to enter the market and increase 

consumer confidence in apiculture 

products marketed under the USDA 

organic seal. In terms of costs, 

accredited certifying agents that 

currently certify apiculture operations 

as livestock would be required to 

request to extend the scope (current 

possible scopes of accreditation are 

crops, livestock, handling, and wild 

crop) of their accreditation to include 

apiculture. AMS is currently evaluating 

how the new rule would impact the 

costs to existing organic producers. 

Risks: AMS does not expect 

controversy as a result of this action. 

One provision that AMS anticipates 

public comment on during rulemaking 

pertains to a 1.8 mile forage zone radius 

around bee hives. Under the proposed 

standard, this forage zone would need to 

be comprised of certified organic 

cropland and/or certified wild crop 

harvest area. This provision may limit 

new producers in some parts of the 

world from entering the market. 

However, there is widespread 

recognition of the proposed 

requirements among certified 

operations, as many certifiers have 

started using the 2010 NOSB 

recommendation as guidance for 

certification of apiculture operations. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/00/15 

Final Action ......... 12/00/16 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Agency Contact: Melissa R. Bailey, 

Director, Standards Division, 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 

Marketing Service, 14th & Independence 

Avenue SW., Room 2646–South 

Building, Washington, DC 20250, 

Phone: 202 720–3252, Fax: 202 205– 

7808, Email: melissa.bailey@usda.gov 

RIN: 0581–AD31 

USDA—AMS 

4. • National Organic Program— 

Organic Aquaculture Standards 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

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

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

February 28, 2015. 

This action will establish standards 

for organic farmed aquatic animals and 

their products to allow U.S. producers 

to compete in the organic seafood 

market. The Organic Foods Production 

Act authorizes the NOP to regulate 

organic claims on fish used for food. 

The USDA organic regulations do not 

include organic aquaculture standards. 

This action will open the market for 

U.S. organic aquaculture production 

and ensure that organic aquatic animal 

products sold in the U.S. meet a 

consistent standard. 

Abstract: This action proposes to 

establish standards for organic 

production and certification of farmed 

aquatic animals and their products in 

the USDA organic regulations. This 

action would also add aquatic animals 

as a scope of certification and 

accreditation under the National 

Organic Program. This action is 

necessary to establish standards for 

organic farmed aquatic animals and 

their products which would allow U.S. 

producers to compete in the organic 

seafood market. This action is also 

necessary to address multiple 

recommendations provided by USDA by 

the National Organic Standards Board 

(NOSB). In 2007 through 2009, the 

NOSB made five recommendations to 

establish standards for the certification 

of organic farmed aquatic animals and 

their products. Finally, the U.S. 

currently has organic standards 

equivalence arrangements with Canada 

and the European Union (EU). Both 

Canada and the EU have recently 

established standards for organic 

aquaculture products. Because the U.S. 

does not have organic aquaculture 

standards, the U.S. is unable to include 

aquaculture in the scope of these 

arrangements. Establishing U.S. organic 

aquaculture may provide a basis for 

expanding those trade partnerships. 

Statement of Need: In 2005, The 

Secretary of Agriculture appointed an 

Aquaculture Working Group to advise 

the National Organic Standards Board 

(NOSB) on drafting a recommendation 

on the production of organic farmed 

aquatic animals. The NOSB considered 

the Aquaculture Working Group’s draft 

recommendations and provided USDA 

with a series of five recommendations 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76477 

from 2007–2009 for technical standards 

for the production and certification of 

organic farmed aquatic animals. Based 

on the NOSB recommendations, this 

action proposed to establish standards 

for organic production and certification 

of farmed aquatic animals and their 

products in the USDA organic 

regulations. This action would also add 

aquatic animals as an area of 

certification and accreditation under 

NOP. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

National Organic Program (NOP) 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). Participation under the 

NOP is voluntary. However, if organic 

producers or handlers choose to sell, 

represent, or label more than $5,000 in 

organic products, certification under the 

USDA organic regulations is required. 

Alternatives: An alternative to 

providing organic aquatic animal 

standards would be to not publish such 

standards and allow aquatic animal 

products to continue to be sold as 

organic based on private standards or 

other countries standards. Organic 

seafood producers have expressed a 

strong interest in having USDA organic 

standards for fish and other aquatic 

animal products. U.S. aquaculture 

operations are generally hesitant to 

invest in organic aquaculture without 

published standards for organic aquatic 

animals and their products. Selecting 

such an alternative could result in 

failure for this sector of organic 

agriculture to develop in the United 

States. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

cost for existing conventional 

aquaculture operations to convert and 

participate in this voluntary marketing 

program will generally be incurred in 

the cost of changing management 

practices, increased feed costs, and 

obtaining organic certification. There 

will also be some costs to certifying 

agents who would need to add 

aquaculture to their areas of 

accreditation under the USDA organic 

regulations. These costs include 

application fees and expanded audits to 

ensure certifying agents meet the 

accreditation requirements needed for 

providing certification services to 

aquaculture operations. Certification of 

organic operations under the NOP is 

provided as a user-fee service by AMSaccredited private sector certifying 

agents and State agencies. AMS 

provides accreditation services to 

private and State agency certifiers on a 

cost-recovery, user-fee basis. AMS will 

not require additional appropriated 

funds to implement this program. By 

providing organic standards for organic 

aquatic animal products, producers will 

be able to sell certified organic aquatic 

animal products for up to 75–100 

percent above the price of 

conventionally produced seafood. In 

addition, organic aquatic animal 

products imported into the U.S. from 

other countries will be required to meet 

a consistent, enforced standard. Organic 

consumers will be assured that organic 

aquatic animal products comply with 

the USDA organic regulations. The new 

standards will also provide the basis for 

expanding our organic standards 

equivalency agreements to include this 

additional area of organic products. 

Risks: There are no known risks to 

providing these additional standards for 

certification of organic products. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/15 

Final Action ......... 07/00/16 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

EO 13132. 

Agency Contact: Melissa R. Bailey, 

Director, Standards Division, 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 

Marketing Service, 14th & Independence 

Avenue SW., Room 2646–South 

Building, Washington, DC 20250, 

Phone: 202 720–3252, Fax: 202 205– 

7808, Email: melissa.bailey@usda.gov. 

RIN: 0581–AD34 

USDA—AMS 

5. • Exemption of Producers and 

Handlers of Organic Products From 

Assessment Under a Commodity 

Promotion Law 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7401; Pub. L. 

113–79. 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 900. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

November 30, 2014. 

This action would amend the general 

regulations that apply to the 29 

marketing orders for fruits, vegetables, 

and specialty crops and the orders and/ 

or rules and regulations of the 22 

research and promotion programs under 

AMS oversight. 

Abstract: As a result of this action, 

certified ‘‘organic’’ commodities (those 

comprising at least 95 percent organic 

components) would no longer be subject 

to assessment for promotion activities 

conducted under marketing order or 

research and promotion programs. In 

addition, certified organic commodities 

that are produced, handled, marketed, 

or imported by operations that also deal 

in conventional products would be 

eligible for exemptions. Currently, only 

products that are certified ‘‘100 percent 

organic’’ and that are produced and 

handled by entities that deal exclusively 

with organic products are exempt from 

assessments. This action is expected to 

reduce the assessment obligation for 

organic industry operators by as much 

as $13.7 million. Conversely, the impact 

on the marketing programs will be a loss 

of approximately $13.7 million in funds 

for generic commodity promotions. 

Statement of Need: Section 501 of the 

Federal Agriculture Improvement and 

Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7401) 

(FAIR Act), as amended, currently 

exempts entities that produce and 

market solely 100 percent organic 

products from payment of assessments 

under commodity promotion laws. 

Section 10004 of the Agricultural Act of 

2014 (Pub. L. 113–79) (Farm Bill) 

further amended the FAIR Act to 

provide exemptions for all certified 

organic products, including those 

produced and handled by operators that 

also deal in conventional products. This 

action is needed to bring existing 

Federal regulations governing 

commodity promotion activities into 

compliance with the FAIR Act, as 

amended by the Farm Bill. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

10004 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 

(Pub. L. 113–79) (Farm Bill) further 

amended the FAIR Act to provide 

exemptions for all certified organic 

products, including those produced and 

handled by operators that also deal in 

conventional products. This action is 

needed to bring existing Federal 

regulations governing commodity 

promotion activities into compliance 

with the FAIR Act, as amended by the 

Farm Bill. 

Alternatives: Currently, only products 

that are certified ‘‘100 percent organic’’ 

and that are produced and handled by 

entities that deal exclusively with 

organic products are exempt from 

assessments. So the alternative, would 

be to continue in this manner. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

action is expected to reduce the 

assessment obligation for organic 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76478 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

industry operators by as much as $13.7 

million. 

Risks: Conversely, the impact on the 

marketing programs will be a loss of 

approximately $13.7 million in funds 

for generic commodity promotions. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/00/14 

Final Action ......... 07/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Governmental 

Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Michael V. Durando, 

Chief, Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Marketing Service, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, 

Washington, DC 20250–0237, Phone: 

202 720–2491, Fax: 202 720–8938. 

RIN: 0581–AD37 

USDA—Farm Service Agency (FSA) 

Final Rule Stage 

6. Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance 

Program 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7333. 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1437. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Commodity Credit 

Corporation (CCC) is amending 

regulations for the Noninsured Crop 

Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). 

NAP is administered for CCC by the 

Farm Service Agency (FSA). NAP 

provides producers of crops that are not 

eligible for crop insurance with a basic 

level of risk management coverage. NAP 

provides financial assistance to 

producers of non-insurable crops when 

low yield, loss of inventory, or 

prevented plantings occur due to a 

natural disaster. The rule includes 

changes to NAP required by the 2014 

Farm Bill. The changes include revised 

NAP eligibility requirements for 

coverage on tilled native sod, and added 

coverage for sweet sorghum and 

biomass sorghum. Beginning and 

socially disadvantaged farmers will be 

eligible for service fee waivers. New 

‘‘buy up’’ provisions will allow 

producers to buy additional NAP 

coverage for an additional premium. 

While the rule does not have a statutory 

deadline, the 2014 Farm Bill requires 

changes to the NAP program beginning 

with the 2015 coverage year, which 

begins as early as May 2014. In addition 

to the 2014 Farm Bill changes, the rule 

also makes the following changes: 

• Adds NAP coverage for organic 

crops. 

• Expands NAP coverage for 

mollusks, a common aquaculture crop. 

Specifically, it removes the current 

requirement that eligible mollusk 

inventory be seeded and raised in 

containers or similar devices designed 

to protect the aquaculture species. 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

needed to update the FSA regulations to 

implement the 2014 Farm Bill changes. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113– 

79). 

Alternatives: There are no alternatives 

to this rule, the changes are legislatively 

mandated. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: A cost 

benefit analysis was prepared for this 

rule and will be made available when 

the rule is published. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 12/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For Public Comments: 

regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Deirdre Holder, 

Director, Regulatory Review Group, 

Department of Agriculture, Farm 

Service Agency, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250– 

0572, Phone: 202 205–5851, Fax: 202 

720–5233, Email: deirdre.holder@

wdc.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0560–AI20 

USDA—FSA 

7. • Conservation Compliance 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.; 

16 U.S.C. 3811 and 3812; 16 U.S.C. 3821 

and 3822. 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 12. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The interim rule 

implements mandatory changes to the 

conservation compliance regulations in 

7 CFR part 12 as required by the 

Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm 

Bill). The current regulations require 

participants in most USDA programs to 

comply with conservation compliance 

measures on any land that is highly 

erodible or that is considered a wetland. 

The 2014 Farm Bill expands current 

conservation compliance requirements 

to apply to producers who obtain 

subsidized Federal crop insurance 

under the Federal Crop Insurance Act. 

It also slightly modifies the existing 

wetlands ‘‘Mitigation Banking’’ program 

to remove the requirement that USDA 

hold easements in the mitigation 

program. 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

needed to update the FSA regulations to 

implement the 2014 Farm Bill changes. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113– 

79). 

Alternatives: There are no alternatives 

to this rule; the changes are legislatively 

mandated. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: A cost 

benefit analysis was prepared for this 

rule and will be made available when 

the rule is published. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 02/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For Public Comments: 

regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Deirdre Holder, 

Director, Regulatory Review Group, 

Department of Agriculture, Farm 

Service Agency, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250– 

0572, Phone: 202 205–5851, Fax: 202 

720–5233, Email: deirdre.holder@

wdc.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0560–AI26 

USDA—FSA 

8. • Conservation Reserve Program 

(CRP) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3831 to 

3835. 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1410. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The rule implements 

changes to CRP required by the 2014 

Farm Bill. CRP assists producers in 

conserving and improving soil, water, 

and wildlife resources by converting 

highly erodible and other 

environmentally sensitive acreage to a 

long-term vegetative cover. The core 

scope of CRP will not change. The 

changes required by the 2014 Farm Bill 

include providing an ‘‘early out’’ for 

contract cancellations in 2015, removing 

the requirement for a payment reduction 

for emergency haying and grazing, and 

allowing non-cropland (grasslands) in 

CRP. CRP is a Commodity Credit 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76479 

Corporation (CCC) program 

administered by the Farm Service 

Agency (FSA). 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

needed to update the FSA regulations to 

implement the 2014 Farm Bill changes. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113– 

79). 

Alternatives: There are no alternatives 

to the rule; the changes are legislatively 

mandated. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: A costbenefit analysis will be prepared for the 

rule and will be made available when 

the rule is published. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 04/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For Public Comments: 

regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Deirdre Holder, 

Director, Regulatory Review Group, 

Department of Agriculture, Farm 

Service Agency, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250– 

0572, Phone: 202 205–5851, Fax: 202 

720–5233, Email: deirdre.holder@

wdc.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0560–AI30 

USDA—Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

9. Brucellosis and Bovine Tuberculosis; 

Update of General Provisions 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 7 

U.S.C. 8301 to 8317; 15 U.S.C. 1828; 21 

U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701. 

CFR Citation: 9 CFR 50 and 51; 9 CFR 

71; 9 CFR 76 to 78; 9 CFR 86; 9 CFR 93; 

9 CFR 161. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

consolidate the regulations governing 

bovine tuberculosis (TB), currently 

found in 9 CFR part 77, and those 

governing brucellosis, currently found 

in 9 CFR part 78. As part of this 

consolidation, we are proposing to 

transition the TB and brucellosis 

programs away from a State status 

system based on disease prevalence. 

Instead, States and tribes would 

implement an animal health plan that 

identifies sources of the diseases within 

the State or tribe and specifies 

mitigations to address the risk posed by 

these sources. The consolidated 

regulations would also set forth 

standards for surveillance, 

epidemiological investigations, and 

affected herd management that must be 

incorporated into each animal health 

plan, with certain limited exceptions; 

conditions for the interstate movement 

of cattle, bison, and captive cervids; and 

conditions for APHIS approval of tests 

for bovine TB or brucellosis. Finally, the 

rulemaking would revise the import 

requirements for cattle and bison to 

make these requirements clearer and 

ensure that they more effectively 

mitigate the risk of introduction of the 

diseases into the United States. 

Statement of Need: The current 

regulations were issued during a time 

when the prevalence rates for the 

disease in domestic, cattle, bison, and 

captive cervids were much higher than 

they are today. As a result, the 

regulations specify measures that are 

necessary to prevent these diseases from 

spreading through the interstate 

movement of infected animals. The 

regulations are effective in this regard, 

but do not address reservoirs of 

tuberculosis and brucellosis that exist in 

certain States. Moreover, the regulations 

presuppose one method of dealing with 

infected herds—whole-herd 

depopulation—and do not take into 

consideration the development of other 

methods, such as test-and-remove 

protocols, that are equally effective but 

less costly for APHIS and producers. 

Finally, our current regulations 

governing the importation of cattle and 

bison do not always address the risk 

that such animals may pose of spreading 

brucellosis or bovine tuberculosis, and 

need to be updated to allow APHIS to 

take appropriate measures when 

prevalence rates for bovine tuberculosis 

or brucellosis increase or decrease in 

foreign regions. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Under the 

Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 

8301 et seq.), the Secretary of 

Agriculture has the authority to issue 

orders and promulgate regulations to 

prevent the introduction into the United 

States and the dissemination within the 

United States of any pest or disease of 

livestock. 

Alternatives: One alternative would 

be to leave the current regulations 

unchanged. As noted above, the current 

regulations are effective in preventing 

the interstate movement of infected 

animals, but do not address reservoirs of 

brucellosis and tuberculosis that exist in 

certain States and thus do not address 

the root cause of such infection. They 

also are written in a prescriptive manner 

which does not allow States to take into 

consideration scientific developments 

and other emerging information in 

determining how best to deal with 

infected animals and herds. Finally, 

APHIS’ current regulations governing 

the importation of cattle and bison do 

not always address the risk that such 

animals may pose of spreading bovine 

tuberculosis or brucellosis. 

A second alternative considered was 

to limit the scope of the regulatory 

changes to the Agency’s domestic 

tuberculosis and brucellosis program. 

However, in recent years, when 

tuberculosis-affected animals have been 

discovered at slaughtering facilities 

within the United States, these animals 

have usually been of foreign origin. This 

has led us to reexamine the current 

import regulations. As a result of this 

reevaluation, we have determined that 

the import regulations need to be 

revised to assure that they more 

effectively mitigate the risk of 

introduction of these diseases into the 

United States. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Certain 

additional costs may be incurred by 

producers as a result of this rule. For 

example, the proposed rule would 

impose new interstate movement 

restrictions on rodeo, event, and 

exhibited cattle and bison and impose 

additional costs for producers of such 

cattle and bison. These new testing 

requirements could cost, in aggregate, 

between $651,000 and $1 million. Also, 

the proposed additional restrictions for 

the movement of captive cervids could 

result in additional costs for producers. 

Adhering to these new requirements 

may have a total cost to the captive 

cervid industry of between about 

$157,000 and $485,000 annually. States 

and tribes would incur costs associated 

with this proposed rule, in particular in 

developing animal health plans for 

bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis. The 

proposed animal health plans for 

brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis 

would build significantly on existing 

operations with respect to these 

diseases. We anticipate that all 50 States 

and as many as 3 tribes would develop 

animal health plans. Based on our 

estimates of plan development costs, the 

total cost of the development of these 53 

animal health plans could be between 

about $750,000 and $2.9 million. We 

expect that under current 

circumstances, four or five States are 

likely to develop recognized 

management area plans as proposed in 

this rule as part of their animal health 

plans. Based on our estimates of 

recognized management area plan 

development costs, the cost of 

developing recognized management area 

plans by these States could total 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76480 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

between $56,000 and $274,000. While 

direct effects of this proposed rule for 

producers should be small, whether the 

entity affected is small or large, 

consolidation of the brucellosis and 

bovine tuberculosis regulations is 

expected to benefit the affected 

livestock industries. Disease 

management would be more focused, 

flexible and responsive, reducing the 

number of producers incurring costs 

when disease concerns arise in an area. 

Also, the competitiveness of the United 

States in international markets depends 

on its reputation for producing healthy 

animals. The proposed rule would 

enhance this reputation through its 

comprehensive approach to the control 

of identified reservoirs of bovine 

tuberculosis or brucellosis in wildlife 

populations in certain parts of the 

United States and more stringent import 

regulations consistent with domestic 

restrictions. We expect that the benefits 

would justify the costs. 

Risks: If we do not issue this proposed 

rule, reservoirs of brucellosis and 

tuberculosis that exist in certain States 

will not be adequately evaluated and 

addressed. Additionally, our current 

regulations regarding the importation of 

cattle and bison do not always address 

the risk that such animals may pose of 

spreading brucellosis or bovine 

tuberculosis. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/15 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

03/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State, Tribal. 

Additional Information: Additional 

information about APHIS and its 

programs is available on the Internet at 

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

Agency Contact: Langston Hull, 

National Center for Import and Export, 

VS, Department of Agriculture, Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

4700 River Road, Unit 39, Riverdale, 

MD 20737, Phone: 301 851–3300. 

C. William Hench, Senior Staff 

Veterinarian, Ruminant Health 

Programs, National Center for Animal 

Health Programs, VS, Department of 

Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, 2150 Centre Avenue, 

Building B–3E20, Ft. Collins, CO 80526, 

Phone: 970 494–7378. 

RIN: 0579–AD65 

USDA—APHIS 

10. Establishing a Performance 

Standard for Authorizing the 

Importation and Interstate Movement 

of Fruits and Vegetables 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450; 7 U.S.C. 

7701 to 7772; 7 U.S.C. 7781 to 7786; 21 

U.S.C. 136 and 136a. 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 318 and 319. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

amend our regulations governing the 

importations of fruits and vegetables by 

broadening our 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 

authorizing new imports through 

proposed and final rules and specifying 

import conditions in the regulations, the 

notice-based process uses Federal 

Register notices to make risk analyses 

available to the public for review and 

comment, with authorized commodities 

and their conditions of entry 

subsequently being listed on the 

Internet. It would also remove the 

region- or commodity-specific 

phytosanitary requirements currently 

found in these regulations. Likewise, we 

are proposing an equivalent revision of 

the performance standard in our 

regulations 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 proposal would allow 

for the consideration of requests to 

authorize the importation or interstate 

movement of new fruits and vegetables 

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 

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

associated with importation or interstate 

movement of a given fruit or vegetable 

is evaluated or the manner in which 

risks associated with the importation or 

interstate movement of a fruit or 

vegetable are mitigated. 

Statement of Need: The revised 

regulations are needed to streamline the 

administrative process involved in 

consideration of fruits and vegetables 

currently not authorized for interstate 

movement or importation, while 

continuing to provide opportunity for 

public comment and engagement on the 

science and risk-based analysis 

associated with such imports and 

interstate movements. The proposal 

would also enable us to adapt our 

import requirements more quickly in 

the event of any changes to a country’s 

pest or disease status or as a result of 

new scientific information or treatment 

options. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Under 

section 7701 of the Plant Protection Act 

(PPA), given that the smooth movement 

of enterable plants and plant products 

into, out of, or within the United States 

is vital to the U.S. economy, it is the 

responsibility of the Secretary of 

Agriculture to facilitate exports, 

imports, and interstate commerce in 

agricultural products and other 

commodities that pose a risk of 

harboring plant pests or noxious weeds 

in ways that will reduce, to the extent 

practicable, as determined by the 

Secretary, the risk of dissemination of 

plant pests or noxious weeds. Decisions 

regarding exports, imports, and 

interstate commerce are required to be 

based on sound science. 

Alternatives: We considered taking no 

action at this time and leaving the 

regulations as they are currently written. 

We decided against this alternative 

because leaving the regulations 

unchanged would not address the needs 

identified immediately above. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Consumers and businesses would 

benefit from the more timely access to 

fruits and vegetables for which entry or 

movement would currently require 

rulemaking. This benefit would be 

reduced to the extent that certain 

businesses would face increased 

competition for the subject fruits and 

vegetables sooner due to their more 

timely approval. APHIS has not 

identified other costs that may be 

incurred because of the proposed rule. 

Risks: The performance-based process 

more closely links APHIS’ decision to 

authorize importation of a fruit or 

vegetable with the pest risk assessment 

and brings us in line with other 

countries that authorize importation of 

a fruit or vegetable with the pest risk 

assessment. Some countries have 

viewed the rulemakings for fruits and 

vegetables that follow completion of the 

pest risk assessment as a non-technical 

trade barrier and may have slowed the 

approval of U.S. exports (including, but 

not limited to, fruits and vegetables) 

into their markets, or placed additional 

restrictions on existing exports from the 

United States. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 09/09/14 79 FR 53346 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

11/10/14 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76481 

Action Date FR Cite 

Final Rule ............ 04/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Additional Information: Additional 

information about APHIS and its 

programs is available on the Internet at 

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

Agency Contact: Matthew Rhoads, 

Associate Executive Director, Plant 

Health Programs, PPQ, Department of 

Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, 

Unit 131, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231, 

Phone: 301 851–2133. 

RIN: 0579–AD71 

USDA—APHIS 

Final Rule Stage 

11. Viruses, Serums, Toxins, and 

Analogous Products; Single Label Claim 

for Veterinary Biological Products 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 151 to 159 

CFR Citation: 9 CFR 112. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking will amend 

the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act regulations 

to replace the current label format, 

which reflects any of four different 

levels of effectiveness, with a single, 

uniform label format. It will also require 

biologics licensees to provide a 

standardized summary, with 

confidential business information 

removed, of the efficacy and safety data 

submitted to the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service in support of 

the issuance of a full product license or 

conditional license. A single label 

format along with publicly available 

safety and efficacy data will help 

biologics producers to more clearly 

communicate product performance to 

their customers. 

Statement of Need: The intent of this 

proposal is to address a request made by 

our stakeholders and to more clearly 

communicate product performance 

information to the user by requiring a 

uniform label format and a summary of 

efficacy and safety data (with 

confidential business information 

removed). 

Summary of Legal Basis: APHIS 

administers and enforces the VirusSerum-Toxin Act, as amended (21 

U.S.C. 151 to 159). The regulations 

issued pursuant to the Act are intended 

to ensure that veterinary biological 

products are pure, safe, potent, and 

efficacious when used according to label 

instructions. 

Alternatives: We could retain the 

current APHIS labeling guidance, but 

maintaining the status quo would not 

address the concern reported by 

stakeholders concerning the 

interpretation of product performance. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: APHIS 

anticipates that the only costs associated 

with the proposed labeling format 

would be one-time costs incurred by 

licensees and permittees in having 

labels for existing licensed products 

updated in accordance with the 

proposed new format. A simpler, 

uniform label format would allow 

biologics licensees and permittees to 

more clearly communicate product 

performance information to the end 

user. In addition, the rule would 

simplify the evaluation of efficacy 

studies and reduce the amount of time 

required by APHIS to evaluate study 

data, thus allowing manufacturers to 

market their products sooner. 

Risks: APHIS has not identified any 

risks associated with this proposed 

action. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice .................. 05/24/11 76 FR 30093 

Comment Period 

End.

07/25/11 

NPRM .................. 04/21/14 79 FR 22048 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

06/20/14 

Final Action ......... 05/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

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: Donna L Malloy, 

Operational Support Section, Center for 

Veterinary Biologics, Policy, Evaluation, 

and Licensing, VS, Department of 

Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, 

Unit 148, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231, 

Phone: 301 851–3426. 

RIN: 0579–AD64 

USDA—APHIS 

12. User Fees for Agricultural 

Quarantine and Inspection Services 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701 to 

7772; 7 U.S.C. 7781 to 7786; 7 U.S.C. 

8301 to 8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 

49 U.S.C. 80503 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 354. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking will amend 

the user fee regulations by adding new 

fee categories and adjusting current fees 

charged for certain agricultural 

quarantine and inspection services that 

are provided in connection with certain 

commercial vessels, commercial trucks, 

commercial railroad cars, commercial 

aircraft, and international passengers 

arriving at ports in the customs territory 

of the United States. It will also adjust 

the fee caps associated with commercial 

vessels, commercial trucks, and 

commercial railcars. Based on the 

conclusions of a third party assessment 

of the user fee program and on other 

considerations, we have determined that 

revised user fee categories and revised 

user fees are necessary to recover the 

costs of the current level of activity, to 

account for actual and projected 

increases in the cost of doing business, 

and to more accurately align fees with 

the costs associated with each fee 

service. 

Statement of Need: Regarding certain 

agricultural quarantine and inspection 

services that are provided in connection 

with certain commercial vessels, 

commercial trucks, commercial railroad 

cars, commercial aircraft, and 

international passengers arriving at 

ports in the customs territory of the 

United States, we have determined that 

revised user fee categories and revised 

user fees are necessary to recover the 

costs of the current level of activity, to 

account for actual and projected 

increases in the cost of doing business, 

and to more accurately align fees with 

the costs associated with each fee 

service. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

2509(a) of the Food, Agriculture, 

Conservation, and Trade (FACT) Act of 

1990 (21 U.S.C. 136a) authorizes APHIS 

to collect user fees for certain 

agricultural quarantine and inspection 

(AQI) services. The FACT Act was 

amended on April 4, 1996, and May 13, 

2002. The FACT Act, as amended, 

authorizes APHIS to collect user fees for 

AQI services provided in connection 

with the arrival, at a port in the customs 

territory of the United States, of 

commercial vessels, commercial trucks, 

commercial railroad cars, commercial 

aircraft, and international passengers. 

According to the FACT Act, as 

amended, these user fees should recover 

the costs of: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76482 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

• Providing the AQI services for the 

conveyances and the passengers listed 

above; 

• Providing preclearance or 

preinspection at a site outside the 

customs territory of the United States to 

international passengers, commercial 

vessels, commercial trucks, commercial 

railroad cars, and commercial aircraft; 

• Administering the user fee program; 

and 

• Maintaining a reasonable reserve. 

In addition, the FACT Act, as 

amended, contains the following 

requirement: 

• The fees should be commensurate 

with the costs with respect to the class 

of persons or entities paying the fees. 

This is intended to avoid crosssubsidization of AQI services. 

Alternatives: APHIS focused on three 

alternatives composed of different 

combinations of paying classes. The first 

or preferred alternative is the proposed 

rule; the second alternative differed 

from the first by not including user fees 

for recipients of AQI treatment services; 

and under the third alternative, 

recipients of commodity import permits 

and pest import permits would pay user 

fees, in addition to the classes that 

would pay fees under the proposed rule. 

The latter two alternatives were 

rejected. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed changes in user fees would 

ensure that the program can continue to 

protect America’s agricultural industries 

and natural resource base against 

invasive species and diseases while 

more closely aligning, by class, the cost 

of AQI services provided and user fee 

revenue received. 

Risks: AQI services benefit U.S. 

agricultural and natural resources by 

protecting them from the inadvertent 

introduction of foreign pests and 

diseases that may enter the country and 

the threat of intentional introduction of 

pests or pathogens as a means of 

agroterrorism. In the extreme, failure to 

maintain the nation’s biosecurity could 

disrupt American agricultural 

production, erode confidence in the 

U.S. food supply, and destabilize the 

U.S. economy. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/25/14 79 FR 22895 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

06/24/14 

NPRM Comment 

Period Reopened.

07/01/14 79 FR 37231 

NPRM Comment 

Period Reopened End.

07/24/14 

Final Rule ............ 12/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Additional Information: Additional 

information about APHIS and its 

programs is available on the Internet at 

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

Agency Contact: William E Thomas, 

Senior Agriculturist, Office of the 

Deputy Administrator, PPQ, Department 

of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, 

Unit 130, Riverdale, MD 20737, Phone: 

301 851–2306. 

Kris Caraher, Branch Chief, Review 

and Analysis, Financial Management 

Division, MRPBS, Department of 

Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, 

Unit 55, Riverdale, MD 20737, Phone: 

301 851–2834. 

RIN: 0579–AD77 

USDA—FOOD AND NUTRITION 

SERVICE (FNS) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

13. Emergency Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance for Victims of Disasters 

Procedures 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Food and Nutrition 

Act of 2008 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 280. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Food and Nutrition Act 

of 2008 (FNA) provides authority for the 

Secretary of Agriculture to establish 

temporary emergency standards of 

eligibility for the duration of an 

emergency for households who are 

victims of a disaster that disrupts 

commercial channels of food 

distribution. FNS plans to publish a 

Proposed Rule for D–SNAP that will 

codify longstanding policies 

disseminated through previous 

guidance. 

Statement of Need: A 2007 Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) report (Audit 

27099–49–Te: Disaster Food Stamp 

Program for Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita—Louisiana, Mississippi, and 

Texas—Final Report) found some 

deficits in the design and review of 

State D–SNAP plans of operation and 

inadequate controls to prevent recipient 

fraud and duplicate participation. OIG 

attributed the deficits, in part, to a lack 

of detailed procedures in regulations 

and, in response, recommended that 

FNS amend D–SNAP policy on those 

specific topics and promulgate D–SNAP 

regulations. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Food 

and Nutrition Act of 2008 (FNA) 

provides authority for the Secretary of 

Agriculture to establish temporary 

emergency standards of eligibility for 

the duration of an emergency for 

households who are victims of a disaster 

which disrupts commercial channels of 

food distribution. 

Alternatives: None identified; this 

Proposed Rule primarily will codify 

long-standing D–SNAP procedures. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: As the 

Proposed Rule primarily will codify 

longstanding D–SNAP procedures, FNS 

anticipates that this rule will not result 

in any significant costs. 

Risks: No risks are anticipated as the 

proposed rule will codify longstanding 

procedures. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/15 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

05/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Agency Contact: Charles H. Watford, 

Regulatory Review Specialist, 

Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 

Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 

703 605–0800, Email: charles.watford@

fns.usda.gov. 

Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning 

and Regulatory Affairs Branch, 

Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 

Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 

703 605–4782, Email: lynnette.thomas@

fns.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0584–AE00 

USDA—FNS 

14. Child Nutrition Program Integrity 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111–296. 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 215; 

7 CFR 220; 7 CFR 225; 7 CFR 226; 7 CFR 

235. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule proposes to codify 

three provisions of the Healthy, HungerFree Kids Act of 2010 (the Act). Section 

303 of the Act requires the Secretary to 

establish criteria for imposing fines 

against schools, school food authorities, 

or State agencies that fail to correct 

severe mismanagement of the program, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76483 

fail to correct repeat violations of 

program requirements, or disregard a 

program requirement of which they had 

been informed. Section 322 of the Act 

requires the Secretary to establish 

procedures for the termination and 

disqualification of organizations 

participating in the Summer Food 

Service Program (SFSP). Section 362 of 

the Act requires that any school, 

institution, service institution, facility, 

or individual that has been terminated 

from any program authorized under the 

Richard B. Russell National School 

Lunch Act or the Child Nutrition Act of 

1966, and appears on either the SFSP or 

the Child and Adult Care Food 

Program’s (CACFP’s) disqualified list, 

may not be approved to participate in or 

administer any other programs 

authorized under those two Acts. 

Statement of Need: There are 

currently no regulations imposing fines 

on schools, school food authorities, or 

State agencies for program violations 

and mismanagement. This rule will: (1) 

Establish criteria for imposing fines 

against schools, school food authorities, 

or State agencies that fail to correct 

severe mismanagement of the program 

or repeated violations of program 

requirements; (2) establish procedures 

for the termination and disqualification 

of organizations participating in the 

Summer Food Service Program (SFSP); 

and (3) require that any school, 

institutions, or individual that has been 

terminated from any Federal Child 

Nutrition Program and appears on either 

the SFSP or the Child and Adult Care 

Food Program’s (CACFP’s) disqualified 

list may not be approved to participate 

in or administer any other Child 

Nutrition Program. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule 

codifies Sections 303, 322, and 362 of 

the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 

2010 (Pub. L. 111–296). 

Alternatives: None identified; this 

rule implements statutory requirements. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

rule is expected to help promote 

program integrity in all of the child 

nutrition programs. FNS anticipates that 

these provisions will have no significant 

costs and no major increase in 

regulatory burden to States. 

Risks: None identified. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/15 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

03/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

EO 13132. 

Agency Contact: James F Herbert, 

Regulatory Review Specialist, 

Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 

Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 

703 305–2572, Email: james.herbert@

fns.usda.gov. 

Lynnette M Thomas, Chief, Planning 

and Regulatory Affairs Branch, 

Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 

Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 

703 605–4782, Email: lynnette.thomas@

fns.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0584–AE08 

USDA—FNS 

15. Child and Adult Care Food 

Program: Meal Pattern Revisions 

Related to the Healthy, Hunger-Free 

Kids Act of 2010 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111–296 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 215; 

7 CFR 220; 7 CFR 226. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposal would 

implement section 221 of the Healthy, 

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

111–296; the Act) which requires USDA 

to review and update, no less frequently 

than once every 10 years, requirements 

for meals served under the Child and 

Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) to 

ensure that meals are consistent with 

the most recent Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans and relevant nutrition 

science. 

Statement of Need: Section 221 of the 

Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 

(Pub. L. 111–296, the Act) requires 

USDA to review and update, no less 

frequently than once every 10 years, 

requirements for meals served under the 

Child and Adult Care Food Program 

(CACFP) to ensure that meals are 

consistent with the most recent Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans and relevant 

nutrition science. The Act also clarifies 

the purpose of the program, restricts the 

use of food as a punishment or reward, 

outlines requirements for milk and milk 

substitution, and introduces 

requirements for the availability of 

water. This rule will establish the 

criteria and procedures for 

implementing these provisions of the 

Act. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 221 

of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 

2010 (Pub. L. 111–296). 

Alternatives: There are several 

instances throughout this rule and its 

associated Regulatory Impact Analysis 

that offer alternatives for review and 

comment to the various criteria and 

procedures discussed in this proposed 

rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

rule is expected to improve the 

nutritional quality of meals served and 

the overall health of children 

participating in the CACFP. Most 

CACFP meals are served to children 

from low-income households. At this 

time, we cannot estimate the financial 

impact the proposed rule will have on 

State agencies, sponsoring 

organizations, and child care 

institutions, but we expect that there 

will be a small cost increase associated 

with the implementation of improved 

meal pattern requirements. A regulatory 

impact analysis will be conducted to 

determine these cost implications. 

Risks: None identified. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/00/14 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Governmental 

Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Agency Contact: James F. Herbert, 

Regulatory Review Specialist, 

Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 

Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 

703 305–2572, Email: james.herbert@

fns.usda.gov. 

Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning 

and Regulatory Affairs Branch, 

Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 

Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 

703 605–4782, Email: lynnette.thomas@

fns.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0584–AE18 

USDA—FNS 

16. Enhancing Retailer Eligibility 

Standards In SNAP 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Sec 3, U.S.C. 2012; 

sec 9, U.S.C. 2018 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 271.2; 7 CFR 

278.1. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking will 

address the criteria used to authorize 

redemption of SNAP benefits (especially 

by restaurant-type operations). 

Statement of Need: The 2014 Farm 

Bill amended the Food and Nutrition 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76484 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Act of 2008 to increase the requirement 

that certain SNAP authorized retail food 

stores have available on a continual 

basis at least three varieties of items in 

each of four staple food categories to a 

mandatory minimum of seven. The 2014 

Farm Bill also amended the Act to 

increase for certain SNAP authorized 

retail food stores the minimum number 

of categories in which perishable foods 

are required from two to three. This rule 

would codify these mandatory 

requirements. Further, using existing 

authority in the Act and feedback from 

an expansive Request for Information, 

the rulemaking also proposes changes to 

address depth of stock, redefine staple 

and accessory foods, and amend the 

definition of retail food store to clarify 

when a retailer is a restaurant rather 

than a retail food store. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 3(k) 

of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 

(the Act) generally (with limited 

exception) (1) requires that food 

purchased with SNAP benefits be meant 

for home consumption and (2) forbids 

the purchase of hot foods with SNAP 

benefits. The intent of those statutory 

requirements can be circumvented by 

selling cold foods, which may be 

purchased with SNAP benefits, and 

offering onsite heating or cooking of 

those same foods, either for free or at an 

additional cost. In addition, Section 9 of 

the Act provides for approval of retail 

food stores and wholesale food concerns 

based on their ability to effectuate the 

purposes of the Program. 

Alternatives: Because this proposed 

rule is under development, alternatives 

are not yet articulated. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed changes will allow FNS to 

improve access to healthy food choices 

for SNAP participants and to ensure that 

participating retailers effectuate the 

purposes of the Program. FNS 

anticipates that these provisions will 

have no significant costs to States. 

Risks: None identified. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: State. 

Agency Contact: Charles H. Watford, 

Regulatory Review Specialist, 

Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 

Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 

703 605–0800, Email: charles.watford@

fns.usda.gov. 

Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning 

and Regulatory Affairs Branch, 

Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 

Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 

703 605–4782, Email: lynnette.thomas@

fns.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0584–AE27 

USDA—FNS 

Final Rule Stage 

17. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program: Farm Bill of 2008 Retailer 

Sanctions 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110–246 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 276. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This final rule would 

implement provisions under section 

4132 of the Food, Conservation, and 

Energy Act of 2008, giving the 

Department of Agriculture’s Food and 

Nutrition Service (FNS) the authority to 

assess a civil penalty and to disqualify 

a retail or wholesale food store 

authorized to participate in SNAP. 

Statement of Need: This final rule 

implements the provisions of the 2008 

Farm Bill that provide the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture greater 

flexibility in assessing sanctions against 

retail food stores and wholesale food 

concerns found in violation of the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program rules. This rule updates SNAP 

retailer sanction regulations to include 

authority granted in the 2008 Farm Bill 

to allow the Food and Nutrition Service 

(FNS) to impose a civil penalty in 

addition to disqualification, raise the 

allowable penalties per violation and 

provide greater flexibility to the 

Department for minor violations. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

4132, Food, Conservation, and Energy 

Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–246). 

Alternatives: For the new trafficking 

civil penalty, FNS considered 

alternatives for assessing a civil penalty 

in addition to permanent 

disqualification for stores sanctioned for 

trafficking. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

changes to the retailer sanction 

regulations will improve program 

integrity by increasing the deterrent 

effect of sanctions on the small number 

of authorized firms that commit 

program violations. 

Risks: The risk that retail or wholesale 

food stores will violate SNAP rules, or 

continue to violate SNAP rules, is 

expected to be reduced by refining 

program sanctions for participating 

retailers and wholesalers. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/14/12 77 FR 48461 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

10/15/12 

Final Action ......... 01/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: State. 

Additional Information: Note: This 

RIN replaces the previously issued RIN 

0584–AD78. 

Agency Contact: Charles H. Watford, 

Regulatory Review Specialist, 

Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 

Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 

703 605–0800, Email: charles.watford@

fns.usda.gov. 

Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning 

and Regulatory Affairs Branch, 

Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 

Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 

703 605–4782, Email: lynnette.thomas@

fns.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0584–AD88 

USDA—FNS 

18. Child Nutrition Programs: Local 

School Wellness Policy Implementation 

Under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids 

Act of 2010 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111–296 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 220. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This final rule codifies a 

provision of the Healthy, Hunger-Free 

Kids Act (Pub. L. 111–296; the Act) 

under 7 CFR parts 210 and 220. Section 

204 of the Act requires each local 

educational agency (LEA) to establish, 

for all schools under its jurisdiction, a 

local school wellness policy. The Act 

requires that the wellness policy 

include goals for nutrition, nutrition 

education, physical activity, and other 

school-based activities that promote 

student wellness. In addition, the Act 

requires that local educational agencies 

ensure stakeholder participation in 

development of their local school 

wellness policies, and periodically 

assess compliance with the policies, and 

disclose information about the policies 

to the public. 

Statement of Need: Schools play a 

critical role in promoting student 

health, preventing childhood obesity, 

and combating problems associated 

with poor nutrition and physical 

inactivity. To formalize and encourage 

this role, section 204 of the Child 

Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act 

of 2004 (Pub. L. 108–265), required each 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76485 

local educational agency (LEA) 

participating in the National School 

Lunch Program (NSLP) and/or the 

School Breakfast Program (SBP) to 

establish a local school wellness policy 

by School Year 2006. Subsequently, 

section 204 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free 

Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, Pub. L. 111– 

296, December 13, 2010) added a new 

section 9A to the Richard B. Russell 

National School Lunch Act (NSLA) (42 

U.S.C. 1758b) which expands the scope 

of wellness policies; brings additional 

stakeholders into the development, 

implementation, and review of local 

school wellness policies; and requires 

public updates on the content and 

implementation of the wellness policies. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 204 

of the Child Nutrition and WIC 

Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 

108–265); Section 204 of the Healthy, 

Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, 

Pub. L. 111–296). 

Alternatives: Alternatives to some of 

the policy provisions were outlined in 

the proposed rule and will be discussed 

in the final rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

rule strengthens local school wellness 

policy requirements. As described in the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis, we expect 

this to improve health outcomes for 

students, though we are not able to 

quantify these benefits. Minimal 

administrative expenses are estimated 

in relation to additional reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Risks: None identified. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/26/14 79 FR 10693 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

04/28/14 

Final Action ......... 04/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required:: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Governmental 

Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Agency Contact: James F. Herbert, 

Regulatory Review Specialist, 

Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 

Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 

703 305–2572, Email: james.herbert@

fns.usda.gov. 

Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning 

and Regulatory Affairs Branch, 

Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 

Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 

703 605–4782, Email: lynnette.thomas@

fns.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0584–AE25 

USDA—FNS 

19. • SNAP: Employment and Training 

(E&T) Performance Measurement, 

Monitoring and Reporting 

Requirements 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113–79 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 273. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule will implement 

the E&T provisions of section 4022 of 

The Agricultural Act of 2014. The 

provisions of the Agricultural Act of 

2014 require reporting measures for 

States’ E&T programs. 

Statement of Need: Section 4022 of 

Agricultural Act of 2014 states that ‘‘Not 

later than 18 months after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

shall issue interim final regulations 

implementing the amendments made by 

subsection (a)(2).’’ This interim rule will 

address the amendments in subsection 

(a)(2). This rule will also address the 

USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

audit entitled ‘‘Food Stamp 

Employment and Training Program’’ 

(OIG #27601–16–AT), released March 

31, 2008, that recommended FNS 

establish performance measures for the 

SNAP E&T Program. This rule will bring 

closure to that audit recommendation. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 4022 

of Agricultural Act of 2014. 

Alternatives: Alternatives will be 

identified in the interim final rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs 

and Benefits will be identified in the 

interim final rule. 

Risks: Risks, if applicable, will be 

identified in the interim final rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 04/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Agency Contact: Charles H. Watford, 

Regulatory Review Specialist, 

Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 

Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 

703 605–0800, Email: charles.watford@

fns.usda.gov. 

Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning 

and Regulatory Affairs Branch, 

Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 

Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 

703 605–4782, Email: lynnette.thomas@

fns.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0584–AE33 

USDA—Food Safety and Inspection 

Service (FSIS) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

20. Requirements for the Disposition of 

Non–Ambulatory Disabled Veal Calves 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: Federal Meat 

Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 

CFR Citation: 9 CFR 309. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: FSIS is proposing to amend 

the ante-mortem inspection regulations 

to remove a provision that permits 

establishments to set apart and hold for 

treatment veal calves that are unable to 

rise from a recumbent position and walk 

because they are tired or cold (9 CFR 

309.13(b)). The regulations permit such 

calves to proceed to slaughter if they are 

able to rise and walk after being warmed 

or rested. FSIS is proposing to require 

that non-ambulatory disabled (NAD) 

veal calves that are offered for slaughter 

be condemned and promptly 

euthanized. The existing regulations 

require that NAD mature cattle be 

condemned on ante-mortem inspection 

and that they be promptly euthanized (9 

CFR 309.3(e)). FSIS believes that 

prohibiting the slaughter of all NAD 

veal calves would improve compliance 

with the Humane Methods of Slaughter 

Act of 1978 (HMSA), and the humane 

slaughter implementing regulations. It 

would also improve the Agency’s 

inspection efficiency by eliminating the 

time that FSIS inspection program 

personnel (IPP) spend assessing and 

supervising the treatment of NAD veal 

calves. 

Statement of Need: Removing the 

provision from 9 CFR 309.13(b) would 

eliminate uncertainty as to what is to be 

done with veal calves that are nonambulatory disabled because they are 

tired or cold, or because they are injured 

or sick, thereby ensuring the appropriate 

disposition of these animals. In 

addition, removing the provision in 9 

CFR 309.13(b) would improve 

inspection efficiency by eliminating the 

time that FSIS IPP spend assessing the 

treatment of non-ambulatory disabled 

veal calves. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 

603 (a) and (b). 

Alternatives: The Agency considered 

two alternatives to the proposed 

amendment: The status quo and 

prohibiting the slaughter of nonambulatory disabled ‘‘bob veal,’’ which 

are calves generally less than one week 

old. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: If the 

proposed rule is adopted, nonmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76486 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

ambulatory disabled veal calves will not 

be re-inspected during ante-mortem 

inspection. The veal calves that are 

condemned during ante-mortem 

inspection will be euthanized. The 

estimated annual cost to the veal 

industry would range between $2,368 

and $161,405. 

The expected benefits of this 

proposed rule are not quantifiable. 

However, the proposed rule will ensure 

the humane disposition of the nonambulatory disabled veal calves. It will 

also increase the efficiency and effective 

implementation of inspection and 

humane handling requirements at 

official establishments. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Dr. Daniel L. 

Engeljohn, Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Policy and Program 

Development, Department of 

Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, 1400 Independence Avenue 

SW, 349–E JWB, Washington, DC 20250, 

Phone: 202 205–0495, Fax: 202 720– 

2025, Email: daniel.engeljohn@

fsis.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0583–AD54 

USDA—FSIS 

Final Rule Stage 

21. Mandatory Inspection of Fish of the 

Order Siluriformes and Products 

Derived From Such Fish 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: Federal Meat 

Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 to 

695); Pub. L. 110–246, sec 11016; Pub. 

L. 113–79, sec 12106 

CFR Citation: 9 CFR ch III, subchapter 

F (new). 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, Final 

Regulations not later than 60 days after 

enactment of the Agricultural Act of 

2014 (Pub. L. 113–79). The Agriculture 

Act of 2014 directs the Department to 

publish final regulations not later than 

60 days after the date of enactment. 

Abstract: The 2008 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 

110–246, sec. 11016), amended the 

Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) to 

make ‘‘catfish’’ a species amenable to 

the FMIA and, therefore, subject to FSIS 

inspection. In addition, the 2008 Farm 

Bill gave FSIS the authority to define 

the term ‘‘catfish.’’ On February 24, 

2011, FSIS published a proposed rule 

that outlined a mandatory catfish 

inspection program and presented two 

options for defining ‘‘catfish.’’ The 2014 

Farm Bill (Pub. L. 113–79, sec. 12106), 

amended the FMIA to remove the term 

‘‘catfish’’ and to make ‘‘all fish of the 

order Siluriformes’’ subject to FSIS 

jurisdiction and inspection. As a result, 

FSIS inspection of Siluriformes is 

mandated by law and non-discretionary. 

Statement of Need: The 2008 and 

2014 Farm Bills amended the Federal 

Meat Inspection Act, making all fish of 

the order Siluriformes amenable species 

to the FMIA, requiring FSIS inspection. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 

601 to 695, Public Law 110–246, section 

11016, Public Law 113–79, section 

12106. 

Alternatives: The option of no 

rulemaking is unavailable. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FSIS 

anticipates benefits from uniform 

standards and the more extensive and 

intensive inspection service it will 

provide. The requirements for imported 

Siluriformes will be equivalent to those 

applied to domestically raised and 

processed fish of this type. 

Risks: In the final rule, the Agency 

will consider any risks to public health 

or other pertinent risks associated with 

the production, processing, and 

distribution of catfish and catfish 

products. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/24/11 76 FR 10434 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

06/24/11 

Final Action ......... 12/00/14 

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: Dr. Daniel L. 

Engeljohn, Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Policy and Program 

Development, Department of 

Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, 1400 Independence Avenue 

SW, 349–E JWB, Washington, DC 20250, 

Phone: 202 205–0495, Fax: 202 720– 

2025, Email: daniel.engeljohn@

fsis.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0583–AD36 

USDA—FSIS 

22. Electronic Export Application and 

Certification as a Reimbursable Service 

and Flexibility in the Requirements for 

Official Export Inspection Marks, 

Devices, and Certificates 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Federal Meat 

Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 to 

695); Poultry Products Inspection Act 

(PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 to 470); Egg 

Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 

U.S.C. 1031 to 1056); Agricultural 

Marketing Act (AMA) (7 U.S.C. 1622(h) 

CFR Citation: 9 CFR 312.8; 9 CFR 

322.1 and 322.2; 9 CFR 350.7; 9 CFR 

362.5; 9 CFR 381.104 to 381.106; 9 CFR 

590.407; 9 CFR 592.20 and 592.500. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: FSIS is developing final 

regulations to amend the meat, poultry, 

and egg product inspection regulations 

to provide for an electronic export 

application and certification system. 

The electronic export application and 

certification system will be a component 

of the Agency’s Public Health 

Information System (PHIS). The export 

component of PHIS will be available as 

an alternative to the paper-based 

application and certification process. 

FSIS intends to charge users for the use 

of the system. FSIS is establishing a 

formula for calculating the fee. FSIS is 

also providing establishments that 

export meat, poultry, and egg products 

with flexibility in the official export 

inspection marks, devices, and 

certificates. In addition, FSIS is 

amending the egg product export 

regulations to parallel the meat and 

poultry export regulations. 

Statement of Need: These regulations 

will facilitate the electronic processing 

of export applications and certificates 

through the Public Health Information 

System (PHIS), a computerized, Webbased inspection information system. 

This rule will provide the electronic 

export system as a reimbursable 

certification service charged to the 

exporter. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 

601 to 695; 21 U.S.C. 451 to 470; 21 

U.S.C. 1031 to 1056; 7 U.S.C. 1622(h). 

Alternatives: The electronic export 

applications and certification system is 

being proposed as a voluntary service; 

therefore, exporters have the option of 

continuing to use the current paperbased system. Therefore, no alternatives 

were considered. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FSIS is 

charging exporters an application fee for 

the electronic export system. 

Automating the export application and 

certification process will facilitate the 

exportation of U.S. meat, poultry, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76487 

egg products by streamlining and 

automating the processes that are in use, 

while ensuring that foreign regulatory 

requirements are met. The cost to an 

exporter would depend on the number 

of electronic applications submitted. An 

exporter that submits only a few 

applications per year would not be 

likely to experience a significant 

economic impact. Under this rate, 

inspection personnel workload will be 

reduced through the elimination of the 

physical handling and processing of 

applications and certificates. When an 

electronic government-to-government 

system interface or data exchange is 

used, fraudulent transactions, such as 

false alterations and reproductions, will 

be significantly reduced, if not 

eliminated. The electronic export 

system is designed to ensure 

authenticity, integrity, and 

confidentiality. Exporters will be 

provided with a more efficient and 

effective application and certification 

process. The egg product export 

regulations provide the same export 

requirements across all products 

regulated by FSIS and consistency in 

the export application and certification 

process. The total annual paperwork 

burden to the egg processing industry to 

fill out the paper-based export 

application is approximately $32,340 

per year for a total of 924 hours a year. 

The average establishment burden 

would be 11 hours, and $385.00 per 

establishment. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/23/12 77 FR 3159 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

03/23/12 

Final Action ......... 02/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Agency Contact: Rita Kishore, Acting 

Director, Import/Export Coordinator and 

Policy Development Staff, Department 

of Agriculture, Food Safety and 

Inspection Service, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW, Office of Policy and 

Program Development, Room 2147, 

South Building, Washington, DC 20250, 

Phone: 202 720–6508, Fax: 202 720– 

7990, Email: rita.kishore@fsis.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0583–AD41 

USDA—FSIS 

23. Descriptive Designation for Needle– 

or Blade–Tenderized (Mechanically 

Tenderized) Beef Products 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601 to 695 

CFR Citation: 9 CFR 317.2(e)(3). 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: FSIS has proposed 

regulations to require the use of the 

descriptive designation ‘‘mechanically 

tenderized’’ on the labels of raw or 

partially cooked needle- or bladetenderized beef products, including beef 

products injected with marinade or 

solution, unless such products are 

destined to be fully cooked at an official 

establishment. Beef products that have 

been needle- or blade-tenderized are 

referred to as ‘‘mechanically 

tenderized’’ products. This rule would 

require that the product name for such 

beef products include the descriptive 

designation ‘‘mechanically tenderized,’’ 

and an accurate description of the beef 

component. The rule would also require 

that the print for all words in the 

descriptive designation as the product 

name appear in the same style, color, 

and size, and on a single-color 

contrasting background. In addition, 

this rule would require that labels of 

raw and partially-cooked needle- or 

blade-tenderized beef products destined 

for household consumers, hotels, 

restaurants, or similar institutions 

include validated cooking instructions 

stating that these products need to be 

cooked to a specified minimum internal 

temperature, and whether they need to 

be held at that minimum internal 

temperature for a specified time before 

consumption, i.e., dwell time or rest 

time, to ensure that they are thoroughly 

cooked. 

Statement of Need: FSIS has 

concluded that without proper labeling, 

raw or partially cooked mechanically 

tenderized beef products could be 

mistakenly perceived by consumers to 

be whole, intact muscle cuts. The fact 

that a cut of beef has been needle- or 

blade-tenderized is a characterizing 

feature of the product and, as such, a 

material fact that is likely to affect 

consumers’ purchase decisions and that 

should affect their preparation of the 

product. FSIS has also concluded that 

the addition of validated cooking 

instruction is necessary to ensure that 

potential pathogens throughout the 

product are destroyed. Without 

thorough cooking, pathogens that may 

have been introduced to the interior of 

the product during the tenderization 

process may remain in the product. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 

601 to 695. 

Alternatives: The Agency considered 

two options: Option 1, extend labeling 

requirements to include vacuumtumbled beef products and enzymeformed beef products; and Option 2, 

extend the proposed labeling 

requirements to all needle- or bladetenderized meat and poultry products. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed rule estimated the one-time 

cost to produce labels for mechanically 

tenderized beef at $1.05 million. The 

annualized cost is $140,000 at 7 percent 

for 10 years ($120,000 and when 

annualized at 3 percent for 10 years). 

The proposed rule estimated an 

additional one-time total cost to 

produce labels for mechanically 

tenderized beef at $1.57 million or 

$209,000 when annualized at 7 percent 

for 10 years ($179,000 when annualized 

at 3 percent for 10 years), if this 

proposed rule becomes final before the 

added-solution rule is finalized. The 

proposed rule estimated the expected 

number of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses 

prevented would be 453 per year, with 

a range of 133 to 1,497, if the predicted 

percentages of beef steaks and roasts are 

cooked to an internal temperature of 160 

°F (or 145 °F and 3 minutes of dwell 

time). These prevented illnesses amount 

to $1,486,000 per year in benefits with 

a range of $436,000 to $4,912,000. 

Therefore, the expected annualized net 

benefits are $296,000 to $4,772,000, 

with a primary estimate of $1,346,000. 

If, however, this rule is in effect before 

the added solutions rule, the expected 

annualized net benefits are then 

$1,137,000, with a range of $87,000 to 

$4,563,000, plus the unquantifiable 

benefits of increased consumer 

information and market efficiency, 

minus an unquantified consumer 

surplus loss and an unquantified cost 

associated with food service 

establishments changing their standard 

operating procedures. 

Risks: FSIS estimates that 

approximately 1,965 illnesses annually 

are attributed to mechanically 

tenderized beef, either with or without 

added solutions. If all the servings are 

cooked to a minimum of 160 degrees F 

then the number of illnesses drops to 

78. This number of illnesses is due to a 

data set for all STEC and not just O157 

data. FSIS estimates that 1,887 out of 

1,965 would be prevented annually if 

mechanically tenderized meat were 

cooked to 160 degrees F. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/10/13 78 FR 34589 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

08/09/13 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76488 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

08/09/13 78 FR 48631 

NPRM Comment 

Period Reopened.

12/03/13 78 FR 72597 

Final Action ......... 12/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Rosalyn MurphyJenkins, Director, Labeling and Program 

Delivery Staff (LPDS), Department of 

Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, Office of Policy and Program 

Development, Patriots Plaza 3, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., Room 8– 

148, Mailstop 5273, Washington, DC 

20250–5273, Phone: 301 504–0879, Fax: 

202 245–4792, Email: rosalyn.murphyjenkins@fsis.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0583–AD45 

USDA—FSIS 

24. Record To Be Kept by Official 

Establishments and Retail Stores That 

Grind Raw Beef Products 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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

CFR Citation: 9 CFR 320. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: FSIS proposed to amend its 

recordkeeping regulations to specify 

that all official establishments and retail 

stores that grind raw beef products for 

sale in commerce must keep records 

that disclose the identity of the supplier 

of all source materials that they use in 

the preparation of each lot of raw 

ground product, and identify the names 

of those source materials. 

Statement of Need: Under the 

authority of the Federal Meat Inspection 

Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and 

its implementing regulations, FSIS 

investigates complaints and reports of 

consumer foodborne illness possibly 

associated with FSIS-regulated meat 

products. Many such investigations into 

consumer foodborne illnesses involve 

those caused by the consumption of raw 

beef ground, by official establishments 

or retail stores. FSIS investigators and 

public health officials frequently use 

records kept by all levels of the food 

distribution chain, including the retail 

level, to identify and traceback product 

that is the source of the illness to the 

suppliers that produced the source 

material for the product. The Agency, 

however, has often been thwarted in its 

effort to traceback ground beef products, 

some associated with consumer illness, 

to the suppliers that provided source 

materials for the products. In some 

situations, official establishments and 

retail stores have not kept records 

necessary to allow traceback and 

traceforward activities to occur. Without 

such necessary records, FSIS’s ability to 

conduct timely and effective consumer 

foodborne illness investigations and 

other public health activities throughout 

the stream of commerce is also affected, 

thereby placing the consuming public at 

risk. Therefore, for FSIS to be able to 

conduct traceback and traceforward 

investigations, foodborne illnesses 

investigations, or to monitor product 

recalls, the records kept by official 

establishments and retail stores that 

grind raw beef products must disclose 

the identity of the supplier and the 

names of the sources of all materials 

that they use in the preparation of each 

lot of raw ground beef product. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Under 21 

U.S.C. 642, official establishments and 

retail stores that grind raw beef products 

for sale in commerce are persons, firms, 

or corporations that must keep such 

records and correctly disclose all 

transactions involved in their 

businesses subject to the Act. This is 

because they engage in the business of 

preparing products of an amenable 

species for use as human food, and they 

engage in the business of buying or 

selling (as meat brokers, wholesalers or 

otherwise) in commerce products of 

carcasses of an amenable species. These 

businesses must also provide access to, 

and inspection of, these records by FSIS 

personnel. Further, under 9 CFR 

320.1(a), every person, firm, or 

corporation required by section 642 of 

the FMIA to keep records must keep 

those records that will fully and 

correctly disclose all transactions 

involved in his or its business subject to 

the Act. Records specifically required to 

be kept under section 320.1(b) include, 

but are not limited to, bills of sale; 

invoices; bills of lading; and receiving 

and shipping papers. With respect to 

each transaction, the records must 

provide the name or description of the 

livestock or article; the net weight of the 

livestock or article; the number of 

outside containers; the name and 

address of the buyer or seller of the 

livestock or animal; and the date and 

method of shipment. 

Alternatives: FSIS considered two 

alternatives to the proposed 

requirements: The status quo and a 

voluntary recordkeeping program. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs 

occur because about 76,093 retail stores 

and official establishments will need to 

develop and maintain records, and 

make those records available for the 

Agency’s review. Using the best 

available data, FSIS believes that 

industry recordkeeping costs would be 

approximately $1.46 million. Agency 

costs of approximately $0.01 million 

would result from record reviews at 

official establishments and retail stores, 

as well as travel time to and from retail 

stores. Annual benefits from this rule 

come from estimated averted Shiga 

toxin-producing E.coli illnesses and 

averted cases of Salmonellosis. Nonmonetized benefits will accrue to 

industry due to an expected smaller 

volume of recalls, given everything else 

being equal, and due to the reduced 

industry vulnerability to reputationdamaging food safety events. Avoiding 

loss of business reputation is an indirect 

benefit. The Government will benefit in 

that the rule will enable it to operate in 

a more efficient manner in identifying 

and tracking recalls of adulterated raw 

ground beef products. Consumers will 

benefit from a reduction in foodborne 

illnesses due to quicker recalls, 

correction of process failures at 

establishments producing ground beef, 

and improved guidance and industry 

practices. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/22/14 79 FR 42464 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

10/22/14 

Final Action ......... 07/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Victoria Levine, 

Program Analyst, Issuances Staff (IS), 

Department of Agriculture, Food Safety 

and Inspection Service, Office of Policy 

and Program Development, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., Room 6079, 

South Building, Washington, DC 20250– 

3700, Phone: 202 720–5627, Fax: 202 

690–0486, Email: victoria.levine@

fsis.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0583–AD46 

USDA—FOREST SERVICE (FS) 

Final Rule Stage 

25. Forest Service Manual 2020— 

Ecological Restoration and Resilience 

Policy 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: FSM 2020 

CFR Citation: None. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This policy establishes a 

common definition for ecological 

restoration and resilience that is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76489 

consistent with the 2012 Land Planning 

rule. The directive provides additional 

guidance in implementing the definition 

throughout Forest Service program areas 

by incorporating it into the Forest 

Service Manual. Restoration objectives 

span a number of initiatives in various 

program areas, including the invasive 

species strategy; recovery of areas 

affected by high-severity fires, 

hurricanes, and other catastrophic 

disturbances; fish habitat restoration 

and remediation; riparian area 

restoration; conservation of threatened 

and endangered species; and restoration 

of impaired watersheds and large-scale 

watershed restoration projects. The 

restoration policy allows agency 

employees to more effectively 

communicate Forest Service work in 

meeting restoration needs at the local, 

regional, and national levels. Currently 

an internal Forest Service interim policy 

for this final directive has been 

implemented in the field units, without 

any issues. This final directive brings 

the Forest Service policy into alignment 

with current ecological restoration 

science and with congressional and 

Forest Service authorizations and 

initiatives. 

Statement of Need: There is a critical 

need for ecological restoration on 

National Forest System lands and the 

concept of restoration is threaded 

throughout existing agency authorities 

and collaborative efforts such as the 

National Fire Plan. However, without a 

definition in Forest Services’ Directive 

System there has not been consistent 

interpretation and application. This 

established policy was necessary for 

consistency and for the landscape to 

better weather disturbances, especially 

under future environmental conditions. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Forest 

Service amended the Forest Service 

Manual (FSM) to add a new title: FSM 

2020 Ecological Restoration and 

Resilience. This final directive 

reinforced adaptive management, use of 

science, and collaboration in planning 

and decision making. These 

foundational land management policies, 

including use of restoration to achieve 

desired conditions, underwent formal 

public review during revision of the 

Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) and 

amendment of associated directives 

(FSM 1900, 1920). 

Alternatives: No alternatives were 

considered as an established policy is 

necessary for agency consistency. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

final directive had no monetary effect to 

the agency or the public. The final 

directive helped agency employees and 

partners to more effectively 

communicate restoration needs and 

accomplishments at the local, regional, 

and national levels. 

Risks: There is no risk identified with 

this rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Proposed Directive.09/12/13 78 FR 56202 

Proposed Directive Comment 

Period End.

11/12/13 

Final Directive ..... 02/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: LaRenda C. King, 

Assistant Director, Directives and 

Regulations, Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, ATTN: ORMS, D&R 

Branch, 1400 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20250–0003, 

Phone: 202 205–6560, Email: 

larendacking@fs.fed.us. 

RIN: 0596–AC82 

USDA—FS 

26. Land Management Planning Rule 

Policy 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 302; 16 

U.S.C. 1604; 16 U.S.C. 1613 

CFR Citation: 36 CFR 219. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Forest Service issued 

proposed planning directives on 

February 27, 2013 (RIN # 0596–AD06), 

which would provide guidance to 

agency staff on implementation of the 

recently revised land management 

planning regulation at 36 CFR 219 (RIN 

0596–AC94) (the ‘‘2012 Planning 

Rule’’), which was effective May 9, 

2012. A 60-day period, extended for an 

additional 15 days, for the public to 

comment on the proposed directives 

concluded on May 24, 2013. The 

proposed directives have been revised, 

based on public comment, and the 

agency seeks to publish a Notice of 

Availability of the final Directives. 

The National Forest Management Act 

(NFMA) requires that the Forest Service 

develop land management plans for 

each unit of the National Forest System, 

and the agency maintain regulations 

(Planning Rule) that guide the 

development and content of such plans. 

In addition to formal regulations, the 

agency uses its system of directives to 

provide more detailed guidance on how 

to meet the requirements of the 

Planning Rule. 

Statement of Need: The existing 

direction in the Forest Service Manual 

1920 and the Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12 regarding Land Management 

Planning needs to be updated to support 

implementation of the 2012 Planning 

Rule (36 CFR 219). This brings the 

planning directives in line with the new 

planning rule and clarifies substantive 

and procedural requirements to 

implement the rule. The updated 

directives implements a planning 

framework that fosters collaboration 

with the public during land 

management planning, and is sciencebased, responsive to change, and 

promotes social, economic, and 

ecological sustainability. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Forest 

Service promulgated a new land 

management planning regulation at 36 

CFR 219 (the ‘‘2012 Planning Rule’’). 

The final Planning rule and record of 

decision was published on April 9, 2012 

(77 FR 21162). 

Alternatives: The Forest Service 

finalized the directives to bring the 

Forest Services’ internal directives inline with the CFR. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: No 

new costs to the agency or the public are 

associated with these directives. The 

amended directives results in more 

effective and efficient planning within 

the Agency’s capability. 

Risks: There are no risks to the public 

or to the Forest Service associated with 

this rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Proposed Directive.02/27/13 78 FR 13316 

Comment Period 

End.

04/29/13 

Final Directive ..... 02/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: LaRenda C. King, 

Assistant Director, Directives and 

Regulations, Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, ATTN: ORMS, D&R 

Branch, 1400 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20250–0003, 

Phone: 202 205–6560, Email: 

larendacking@fs.fed.us. 

RIN: 0596–AD06 

USDA—Rural Business-Cooperative 

Service (RBS) 

Final Rule Stage 

27. Rural Energy for America Program 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

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

undetermined. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76490 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8107 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 4280–B. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Agency published a 

proposed rule for the Rural Energy for 

America Program (REAP) on April 12, 

2013 (78 FR 22044). The agency is 

authorized under section 9007 of the 

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008 (as amended by the Agricultural 

Act of 2014) to provide grants for energy 

audits and renewable energy 

development assistance; grants for 

renewable energy system feasibility 

studies; and financial assistance for 

energy efficiency improvements and 

renewable energy systems. The 2014 

Farm Bill directs that at least 20 percent 

of funds be used for grants of $20,000 

or less, and up to 4 percent of 

mandatory funds for energy audits and 

Renewable Energy Development 

Assistance Grants. Eligible entities for 

energy audits and renewable energy 

development assistance include units of 

State, tribal, or local government; an 

instrumentality of a State, tribal, or local 

government; land grant or other 

institutions of higher education; rural 

electric cooperatives; RCID Councils or 

public power entities. Eligible entities 

for financial assistance for energy 

efficiency improvements and renewable 

energy systems include agricultural 

producers and rural small businesses. 

The agency identified REAP as one of 

the Department’s periodic retrospective 

review of regulations under Executive 

Order 13563, and has proposed a tiered 

application approach that reduces 

applicant burden for technical reports 

and streamlines the narrative portion of 

the application. 

Statement of Need: The agency needs 

to incorporate amendments from the 

Agricultural Act of 2014. Prior to the 

Agricultural Act of 2014, the agency 

modified the program to reduce the 

applicant burden and improve program 

delivery. In order to make these changes 

to 7 CFR 4280, subpart B, a final rule 

needs to be published. 

Summary of Legal Basis: REAP was 

authorized by the 2002 Farm Bill, and 

continued by the 2014 Farm Bill which 

made available $50,000,000 in 

mandatory funding for 2014, and each 

year thereafter through 2018, and 

authorized for appropriations 

$20,000,000 in discretionary funding for 

each fiscal year 2014 through 2018. The 

program provides for grants and 

guaranteed loans for renewable energy 

systems and energy efficiency 

improvements, and grants for energy 

audit and renewable energy 

development assistance. The purpose of 

the program is to reduce the energy 

consumption and increase renewable 

energy production. 

Alternatives: The alternatives are to: 

(1) Continue operating the program 

under the 7 CFR 4280, subpart B as it 

currently is written; (2) revise 7 CFR 

4280, subpart B based on public 

comments received on the interim rule 

and issue a final rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Benefits of the rule may include a 

reduction in energy consumption, an 

increase in renewable energy 

production and reduced burden for 

certain loan and grant applications. 

Risks: There are no associated risks to 

the public health, safety or the 

environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 04/14/11 76 FR 21109 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

04/14/11 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

06/13/11 

NPRM .................. 04/12/13 78 FR 22044 

Final Action ......... 11/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Kelley Oehler, 

Branch Chief, Department of 

Agriculture, Rural Business– 

Cooperative Service, STOP 3225, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–3225, Phone: 

202 720–6819, Fax: 202 720–2213, 

Email: kelley.oehler@wdc.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0570–AA76 

USDA—RBS 

28. Business and Industry (B&I) 

Guaranteed Loan Program 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Consolidated Farm 

and Rural Development Act 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 4287; 7 CFR 

4279. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Agency published a 

proposed rule for the Business and 

Industry Guaranteed Loan Program on 

September 15, 2014 (78 FR 22044), 

which, when finalized, would revise the 

1996 B&I regulations. While there have 

been some minor modifications to the 

B&I Guaranteed Loan Program 

regulations since 1996, this action is in 

response to the implement 2014 Farm 

Bill provisions and makes needed 

refinements to the regulation. These 

changes are design to enhance the 

program, improve efficiency, correct 

minor inconsistencies, clarify the 

regulations, and ultimately reduce 

delinquencies. The Agency held several 

lender meetings throughout the country 

to see how changes to the program 

could benefit lenders who utilize the 

program. The proposed changes being 

considered may result in a lower the 

subsidy rate. The rule, when finalized, 

is intended to increase lending activity, 

expand business opportunities, and 

create more jobs in rural areas, 

particularly in areas that have 

historically experienced economic 

distress. 

Statement of Need: With the passage 

of the 2014 Farm Bill, there is the need 

to conform certain portions of the B&I 

Guaranteed Loan Program regulations 

with requirements found in the 2014 

Farm Bill, such as the addition of 

cooperative equity security guarantees, 

the locally and regionally grown 

agricultural food products initiative, 

and exceptions to the rural area 

definition. In addition, with the passage 

of time, the Agency proposed revisions 

intended to improve program delivery 

and administration, leverage program 

resources, better align the regulation 

with the program’s goals and purposes, 

clarify the regulations, and reduce 

delinquencies and defaults. These 

proposed revisions may also improve 

program subsidy costs. A reduction in 

program subsidy costs may increase 

funding availability for additional 

projects, further improving the 

economic conditions of rural America. 

This may result in increased lending 

activity, the expansion of business 

opportunities, and the creation of more 

jobs in rural areas. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Consolidated 

Farm and Rural Development Act, as 

amended by the 2008 and 2014 Farm 

Bill. 

Alternatives: The only alternative 

would be the status quo, which is not 

an acceptable alternative. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

benefits of the proposed rule include a 

possible reduction in loan losses, a 

lower subsidy rate, and streamline 

program delivery. The program changes 

have a cumulative effect of lowering the 

program cost; however, the amount of 

the change in cost cannot be estimated 

with any reasonable precision. 

Risks: There are no associated risks to 

the public health, safety or the 

environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Proposed Rule .... 09/15/14 79 FR 55316 

Final Rule ............ 09/00/15 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76491 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Brenda Griffin, Loan 

Specialist, B&I Processing Division, 

Department of Agriculture, Rural 

Business–Cooperative Service, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720– 

6802, Fax: 202 720–6003, Email: 

brenda.griffin@wdc.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0570–AA85 

USDA—RBS 

29. • Biorefinery, Renewable 

Chemical, and Biobased Product 

Manufacturing Assistance Program 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8103 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 4279 subpart C; 

7 CFR 4287 subpart D. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Biorefinery Assistance 

Program was authorized under the 2008 

Farm Bill. The 2014 Farm Bill continues 

the authority established by the 2008 

Farm Bill but made changes to the 

program that require revisions to 

existing regulations. The 2014 Farm Bill 

changed the program’s name to the 

Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and 

Biobased Product Manufacturing 

Assistance Program and mandated that 

the program provide loan guarantees for 

the development, construction, and 

retrofitting of commercial-scale 

biorefineries as well as biobased 

product manufacturing facilities. 

Increasing production of homegrown 

renewable fuels, chemicals, and 

biobased products has grown; so has the 

need to develop and produce them. 

Rural Business—Cooperative Service 

(RBS) offers opportunities to producers 

to develop and manufacture such 

products through the Biorefinery, 

Renewable Chemical, and Biobased 

Product Manfacturing Assistance 

Program. RBS published the Biorefinery 

Assistance Program proposed rule in the 

Federal Register on April 18, 2010, (75 

FR 20044) and an interim rule on 

February 14, 2011, both with 60-day 

comment periods. Comments were 

received from biofuel and bio-products 

producers, banking and investment 

institutions, attorneys, and research and 

development companies. In addition to 

the program changes required by the 

2014 Farm Bill, RBS needs to address 

the comments received to the February 

14, 2011, interim rule. The Biorefinery, 

Renewable Chemical, and Biobased 

Product Manufacturing Assistance 

Program focuses on accelerating the 

commercialization of production of 

advanced biofuels and renewable 

chemicals, as well as biobased product 

manufacturing. 

Statement of Need: The 2014 Farm 

Bill made changes to the program that 

require revisions to the program rule, 

and RBS needs to address the comments 

received on the interim rule published 

on February 14, 2011. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Biorefinery Assistance Program was 

authorized under the 2008 Farm Bill. 

The 2014 Farm Bill continues the 

authority and provides $100 million for 

the program in fiscal year 2014 and $50 

million in both fiscal years 2015 and 

2016, of which not more than 15 percent 

can be used for Biobased Product 

Manufacturing. 

Alternatives: The alternatives are: (1) 

Implement the Section 9003 provisions 

of the Farm Bill immediately through 

publishing a subsequent interim rule. 

This alternative will require the 

Department to exercise the Hardin 

memo exemption to implement the 

Farm Bill amendments; however, it will 

also enable Rural Development to 

respond to the comments received to the 

interim rule published in 2011 and 

incorporate updates into the subsequent 

interim rule. Option 1 is the agency’s 

preferred alternative. (2) Implement the 

Section 9003 Farm Bill provisions 

immediately by publishing a final rule. 

This alternative will also require the 

Department to exercise the Hardin 

memo exemption the Farm Bill 

amendments; however, this alternative 

precludes stakeholder and public 

comment to the new rule. (3) Implement 

the Section 9003 Farm Bill provisions 

by publishing a proposed rule. This 

alternative is the Department’s 

traditional rulemaking process and 

enables public comment, but would 

delay implementation of the program 

and utilization of funding into fiscal 

year 2015 (or beyond) and may increase 

the risk of a rescission of fiscal year 

2014 funds. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Benefits include increase in renewable 

energy/advance biofuel, renewable 

chemical, and biobased manufacturing. 

Risks: There are no associated risks to 

the public health, safety or the 

environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 03/00/15 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

04/00/15 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

05/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Todd Hubbell, Loan 

Specialist, Specialty Lenders Division, 

Department of Agriculture, Rural 

Business—Cooperative Service, STOP 

3225, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–3225, Phone: 

202 690–2516, Email: todd.hubbell@

wdc.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0570–AA93 

USDA—NATURAL RESOURCES 

CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS) 

Final Rule Stage 

30. • Agricultural Conservation 

Easement Program 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113–79 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, 

November 4, 2014, 270 days from 

enactment of Public Law 113–79. 

Abstract: The Agricultural Act of 2014 

(the 2014 Act) consolidated the 

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the 

Farm and Ranch Lands Protection 

Program (FRPP), and the Grassland 

Reserve Program (GRP) into a single 

Agricultural Conservation Easement 

Program (ACEP). The consolidated 

easement program has two 

components—an agricultural land 

easement component and a wetland 

reserve easement component. The 

agricultural land easement component 

is patterned after the former FRPP with 

GRP’s land eligibility components 

merged into it. The wetland reserve 

easement component is patterned after 

WRP. Land previously enrolled in the 

three contributing programs is 

considered enrolled in the new ACEP. 

Statement of Need: The Agricultural 

Act of 2014 (2014 Act) consolidated 

several of the Title XII (of the Food 

Security Act of 1985) conservation 

easement programs and provided for the 

continued operations of former 

programs. NRCS is promulgating a 

consolidated conservation easement 

regulation to reflect the 2014 Act’s 

consolidation of the WRP, FRPP, and 

GRP programs. 

Summary of Legal Basis: NRCS seeks 

to publish an interim rule to implement 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76492 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

the consolidated conservation easement 

program. This regulation action is 

pursuant to section 1246 of the Food 

Security Act of 1985, as amended by the 

2014 Act, which requires regulations 

necessary to implement Title II of the 

2014 Act through an interim rule with 

request for comments. 

Alternatives: NRCS determined that 

rulemaking was the appropriate 

mechanism through which to 

implement the 2014 Act consolidation 

of the three source conservation 

easement programs. Additionally, NRCS 

determined that the Agency needs 

standard criteria for implementing the 

program and program participants need 

predictability when initiating an 

application and conveying an easement. 

The regulation aims to establish a 

comprehensive framework for working 

with program participants to implement 

ACEP. Upon consideration of public 

comment, NRCS will promulgate final 

program regulations. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

2014 Act has consolidated three 

conservation easement programs into a 

single conservation easement program 

with two components. The program will 

be implemented under the general 

supervision and direction of the Chief of 

NRCS, who is a Vice President of the 

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). 

Through ACEP, NRCS will continue to 

purchase wetland reserve easements 

directly and will contribute funds to 

eligible entities for their purchase of 

agricultural land easements that protect 

working farm and grazing lands. 

Participation in the program is 

voluntary. 

The primary benefits associated with 

this rulemaking are: 

• Provides an opportunity for public 

comment in program regulations. 

• Provides a regulatory framework for 

NRCS to implement a consolidated 

conservation easement program. 

• Provides transparency to the public 

potential applicants on NRCS program 

requirements. 

The primary costs imposed by this 

regulation are: 

• The costs incurred by private 

landowners are negative or zero since 

this is a voluntary program and they are 

compensated for the rights that they 

transfer. 

• Other costs incurred by society 

through market changes are localized or 

negligible. 

Risks: N/A. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 12/00/14 

Final Rule ............ 07/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Leslie Deavers, 

Acting Farm Bill Coordinator, 

Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, 1400 

Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 

20250, Phone: 202 720–5484, Email: 

leslie.deavers@wdc.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0578–AA61 

USDA—NRCS 

31. • Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program (EQIP) Interim Rule 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 714b and 

714c; 16 U.S.C. 3839AA–3839–8 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1466. 

Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, 

November 4, 2014, 270 days from 

enactment of Public Law 113–79. 

Abstract: NRCS promulgated the 

current EQIP regulation on January 15, 

2009 through an interim rule. The 

interim rule incorporated programmatic 

changes authorized by the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

(the 2008 Act). NRCS published a 

correction to the interim rule on March 

12, 2009, and an amendment to the 

interim rule on May 29, 2009. NRCS has 

implemented EQIP in FY 2009 through 

FY 2013 under the current regulation. 

The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Act) 

amended Chapter 4 of Subtitle D of Title 

XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 by 

making the following changes to EQIP 

program requirements: (1) Eliminates 

requirement that contract must remain 

in place for a minimum of 1 year after 

last practice implemented, but keeps 

requirement that the contract term is not 

to exceed 10 years, (2) Consolidates 

elements of Wildlife Habitat Incentives 

Program (WHIP), and repeals WHIP 

authority, (3) Replaces rolling 6-year 

payment limitation with payment 

limitation for FY 2014–FY 2018, 4) 

Requires Conservation Innovation 

Grants (CIG) reporting no later than 

December 31, 2014 and every 2 years 

thereafter, (4) Establishes payment 

limitation established at $450,000 and 

eliminates waiver authority, (5) 

Modifies the special rule for foregone 

income payments for certain associated 

management practices and resource 

concern priorities, (6) Makes advance 

payments are available up to 50 percent 

for eligible historically underserved 

participants to purchase material or 

contract services instead of the previous 

30 percent, (7) Provides flexibility for 

repayment of advance payment if not 

expended within 90 days, and (8) 

Requires that for each fiscal year from 

of the FY 2014 to FY 2018, at least five 

percent of available EQIP funds shall be 

targeted for wildlife related 

conservation practices. The 2014 Act 

further identifies EQIP as a contributing 

program authorized to accomplish the 

purposes of the Regional Conservation 

Partnership Program (RCPP) (Subtitle I 

of Title XII of the Food Security Act of 

1985, as amended). RCPP replaces the 

Agricultural Water Enhancement 

Program (AWEP), Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed Program (CBWP), 

Cooperative Conservation Partnership 

Initiative (CCPI), and the Great Lakes 

Basin Program for soil erosion and 

sediment control. Like the programs it 

replaces, RCPP will operate through 

regulations in place for contributing 

programs. The other contributing 

programs include the Conservation 

Stewardship Program, the Healthy 

Forests Reserve Program, and the new 

Agricultural Conservation Easement 

Program (ACEP). NRCS seeks to publish 

an interim rule to incorporate the 2014 

Act changes to EQIP program 

administration. This regulation action is 

pursuant to Section 1246 of the Food 

Security Act of 1985, as amended by 

section 2608 of the 2014 Act, which 

requires regulations necessary to 

implement Title II of the 2014 Act be 

promulgated through the interim rule 

process. 

Statement of Need: The Agricultural 

Act of 2014 (the 2014 Act) consolidated 

several of the Title XII conservation 

programs and provided for the 

continued operations of former 

programs. NRCS is updating the EQIP 

regulation to incorporate the 2014 Act 

changes, including consolidation of the 

purposes formerly addressed through 

the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 

(WHIP). 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 2014 

Act has reauthorized and amended the 

Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program (EQIP). EQIP was first added to 

the Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 

Act) (16 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.) by the 

Federal Agriculture Improvement and 

Reform Act of 1996 (1996 Act) (16 

U.S.C. 3839aa). The program is 

implemented under the general 

supervision and direction of the Chief of 

NRCS, who is a Vice President of the 

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). 

Alternatives: NRCS considered only 

making the changes mandated by the 

2014 Farm Bill. This alternative would 

have missed opportunities to improve 

the implementation of the program. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Through EQIP, NRCS provides 

assistance to farmers and ranchers to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76493 

conserve and enhance soil, water, air, 

and related natural resources on their 

land. Eligible lands include cropland, 

grassland, rangeland, pasture, wetlands, 

nonindustrial private forest land, and 

other agricultural land on which 

agricultural or forest-related products, 

or livestock are produced and natural 

resource concerns may be addressed. 

Participation in the program is 

voluntary. 

The primary benefits associated with 

this rulemaking are: 

• Provides continued consistency for 

the NRCS to implement EQIP. 

• Provides transparency to potential 

applicants on NRCS program 

requirements. 

The primary costs imposed by this 

regulation: 

• All program participants must 

follow the same requirements, even 

though they are very different types of 

agricultural operations in different 

resource contexts. 

• Most program participants are 

required to contribute at least 25 percent 

of the resources needed to implement 

program practices. However, such costs 

are standard for such financial 

assistance programs. 

Risks: N/A. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 11/00/14 

Final Rule ............ 07/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Leslie Deavers, 

Acting Farm Bill Coordinator, 

Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, 1400 

Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 

20250, Phone: 202 720–5484, Email: 

leslie.deavers@wdc.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0578–AA62 

USDA—NRCS 

32. Conservation Stewardship Program 

Interim Rule 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3838d to 

3838g. 

CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1470. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: NRCS seeks to publish an 

interim rule to incorporate the 2014 Act 

changes to Conservation Stewardship 

Program (CSP) program administration. 

This regulation action is pursuant to 

Section 1246 of the Food Security Act 

of 1985, as amended by the 2014 Act, 

which requires regulations necessary to 

implement Title II of the 2014 Act 

through an interim rule with request for 

comments. Background: The Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

Act (2008 Act) amended the Food 

Security Act of 1985 (1985 Act) to 

establish CSP and authorize the program 

in fiscal years 2009 through 2013. The 

Agriculture Act of 2014 (the 2014 Act) 

re-authorizes and revises CSP. The 

purpose of CSP is to encourage 

producers to address priority resource 

concerns and improve and conserve the 

quality and condition of the natural 

resources in a comprehensive manner 

by: (1) Undertaking additional 

conservation activities; and (2) 

improving, maintaining, and managing 

existing conservation activities. The 

Secretary of Agriculture delegated 

authority to the Chief, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 

to administer CSP. Through CSP, NRCS 

provides financial and technical 

assistance to eligible producers to 

conserve and enhance soil, water, air, 

and related natural resources on their 

land. Eligible lands include private or 

tribal cropland, grassland, pastureland, 

rangeland, non-industrial private forest 

lands and other land in agricultural 

areas (including cropped woodland, 

marshes, and agricultural land or 

capable of being used for the production 

of livestock) on which resource 

concerns related to agricultural 

production could be addressed. 

Participation in the program is 

voluntary. CSP encourages land 

stewards to improve their conservation 

performance by installing and adopting 

additional activities, and improving, 

maintaining, and managing existing 

activities on eligible land. NRCS makes 

funding for CSP available nationwide on 

a continuous application basis. 

Statement of Need: The Agricultural 

Act of 2014 (the 2014 Act) amended 

several of the Title XII conservation 

programs and provided for the 

continued operations of former 

programs. NRCS is updating the CSP 

regulation to incorporate the 2014 Act 

changes. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 2014 

Act has reauthorized and amended the 

Conservation Stewardship Program 

(CSP). CSP was first added to the Food 

Security Act of 1985 (1985 Act) (16 

U.S.C. 3801 et seq.) by the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 

The program is implemented under the 

general supervision and direction of the 

Chief of NRCS, who is a Vice President 

of the Commodity Credit Corporation 

(CCC). 

Alternatives: NRCS considered only 

making the changes mandated by the 

2014 Farm Bill. This alternative would 

have missed opportunities to improve 

the implementation of the program. 

NRCS would consider alternatives 

suggested during the public comment 

period. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: CSP is 

a voluntary program that encourages 

agricultural and forestry producers to 

address priority resource concerns by: 

(1) Undertaking additional conservation 

activities, and (2) improving and 

maintaining existing conservation 

systems. CSP provides financial and 

technical assistance to help land 

stewards conserve and enhance soil, 

water, air, and related natural resources 

on their land. 

CSP is available to all producers, 

regardless of operation size or crops 

produced, in all 50 States, the District 

of Columbia, and the Caribbean and 

Pacific Island areas. Eligible lands 

include cropland, grassland, prairie 

land, improved pastureland, rangeland, 

nonindustrial private forest land, and 

agricultural land under the jurisdiction 

of an Indian tribe. Applicants may 

include individuals, legal entities, joint 

operations, or Indian tribes. 

CSP pays participants for 

conservation performance the higher the 

performance, the higher the payment. It 

provides two possible types of 

payments. An annual payment is 

available for installing new conservation 

activities and maintaining existing 

practices. A supplemental payment is 

available to participants who also adopt 

a resource conserving crop rotation. 

Through five-year contracts, NRCS 

makes payments as soon as practical 

after October 1 of each fiscal year for 

contract activities installed and 

maintained in the previous year. A 

person or legal entity may have more 

than one CSP contract but, for all CSP 

contracts combined, may not receive 

more than $40,000 in any year or more 

than $200,000 during any five-year 

period. 

The primary benefits associated with 

this rulemaking are: 

• Provides continued consistency for 

the NRCS to implement CSP. 

• Provides transparency to potential 

applicants on NRCS program 

requirements. 

The primary costs imposed by this 

regulation are that all program 

participants must follow the same basic 

programmatic requirements, even 

though they are very different types of 

agricultural operations in different 

resource contexts. 

The 2014 Act further identifies CSP as 

a contributing program authorized to 

accomplish the purposes of the Regional 

Conservation Partnership Program 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76494 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

(RCPP) (subtitle I of title XII of the Food 

Security Act of 1985, as amended). 

RCPP replaces the Agricultural Water 

Enhancement Program (AWEP), 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program 

(CBWP), Cooperative Conservation 

Partnership Initiative (CCPI), and the 

Great Lakes Basin Program for soil 

erosion and sediment control. Like the 

programs it replaces, RCPP will operate 

through regulations in place for 

contributing programs. The other 

contributing programs include the 

Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program, the Healthy Forests Reserve 

Program, and the new Agricultural 

Conservation Easement Program 

(ACEP). 

Risks: N/A. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 11/05/14 79 FR 65835 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

11/05/14 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

01/05/15 

Final Rule ............ 07/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Leslie Deavers, 

Acting Farm Bill Coordinator, 

Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, 1400 

Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 

20250, Phone: 202 720–5484, Email: 

leslie.deavers@wdc.usda.gov. 

RIN: 0578–AA63 

BILLING CODE 3410–90–S 

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: 

• Innovate by creating new ideas 

through cutting-edge science and 

technology from advances in 

nanotechnology, to ocean exploration, 

to broadband deployment, and by 

protecting American innovations 

through the patent and trademark 

system; 

• Support entrepreneurship and 

commercialization by enabling 

community development and 

strengthening minority businesses and 

small manufacturers; 

• Maintain U.S. economic 

competitiveness in the global 

marketplace by promoting exports, 

ensuring a level playing field for U.S. 

businesses, and ensuring that 

technology transfer is consistent with 

our nation’s economic and security 

interests; 

• Provide effective management and 

stewardship of our nation’s resources 

and assets to ensure sustainable 

economic opportunities; and 

• Make informed policy decisions 

and enable better understanding of the 

economy by providing accurate 

economic and demographic data. 

Commerce is a vital resource base, a 

tireless advocate, and Cabinet-level 

voice for job creation. 

The Regulatory Plan tracks the most 

important regulations that implement 

these policy and program priorities, 

several of which involve regulation of 

the private sector by Commerce. 

Responding to the Administration’s 

Regulatory Philosophy and Principles 

The vast majority of the Commerce’s 

programs and activities do not involve 

regulation. Of Commerce’s 12 primary 

operating units, only the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) will be 

planning actions that are considered the 

‘‘most important’’ significant 

preregulatory or regulatory actions for 

FY 2015. 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. 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76495 

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; increasing 

the populations of depleted, threatened, 

or endangered species and marine 

mammals by implementing recovery 

plans that provide for their recovery 

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 climate change science 

and impacts, and communicating that 

understanding to government and 

private sector stakeholders enabling 

them to adapt; continually improving 

the National Weather Service; 

implementing reliable seasonal and 

interannual climate forecasts to guide 

economic planning; providing sciencebased policy advice on options to deal 

with very long-term (decadal to 

centennial) changes in the environment; 

and advancing and improving shortterm warning and forecast services for 

the entire environment. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) rulemakings 

concern the conservation and 

management of fishery resources in the 

U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 

(generally 3–200 nautical miles). Among 

the several hundred rulemakings that 

NOAA plans to issue in FY 2015, a 

number of the preregulatory and 

regulatory actions will be significant. 

The exact number of such rulemakings 

is unknown, since they are usually 

initiated by the actions of eight regional 

Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) 

that are responsible for preparing 

fishery management plans (FMPs) and 

FMP amendments, and for drafting 

implementing regulations for each 

managed fishery. NOAA issues 

regulations to implement FMPs and 

FMP amendments. Once a rulemaking is 

triggered by an FMC, the MagnusonStevens Act places stringent deadlines 

upon NOAA by which it must exercise 

its rulemaking responsibilities. FMPs 

and FMP amendments for Atlantic 

highly migratory species, such as 

bluefin tuna, swordfish, and sharks, are 

developed directly by NOAA, not by 

FMCs. 

FMPs address a variety of issues 

including maximizing fishing 

opportunities on healthy stocks, 

rebuilding overfished stocks, and 

addressing gear conflicts. One of the 

problems that FMPs may address is 

preventing overcapitalization 

(preventing excess fishing capacity) of 

fisheries. This may be resolved by 

market-based systems such as catch 

shares, which permit shareholders to 

harvest a quantity of fish and which can 

be traded on the open market. Harvest 

limits based on the best available 

scientific information, whether as a total 

fishing limit for a species in a fishery or 

as a share assigned to each vessel 

participant, enable stressed stocks to 

rebuild. Other measures include 

staggering fishing seasons or limiting 

gear types to avoid gear conflicts on the 

fishing grounds and establishing 

seasonal and area closures to protect 

fishery stocks. 

The FMCs provide a forum for public 

debate and, using the best scientific 

information available, make the 

judgments needed to determine 

optimum yield on a fishery-by-fishery 

basis. Optional management measures 

are examined and selected in 

accordance with the national standards 

set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

This process, including the selection of 

the preferred management measures, 

constitutes the development, in 

simplified form, of an FMP. The FMP, 

together with draft implementing 

regulations and supporting 

documentation, is submitted to NMFS 

for review against the national standards 

set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

in other provisions of the Act, and other 

applicable laws. The same process 

applies to amending an existing 

approved FMP. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act 

of 1972 (MMPA) provides the authority 

for the conservation and management of 

marine mammals under U.S. 

jurisdiction. It expressly prohibits, with 

certain exceptions, the take of marine 

mammals. The MMPA allows NMFS to 

permit the collection of wild animals for 

scientific research or public display or 

to enhance the survival of a species or 

stock. NMFS initiates rulemakings 

under the MMPA to establish a 

management regime to reduce marine 

mammal mortalities and injuries as a 

result of interactions with fisheries. The 

MMPA also 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 

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 MMPA. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76496 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

protected species. NMFS is also 

responsible for designating, reviewing, 

and revising critical habitat for any 

listed species. In addition, under the 

ESA’s procedural framework, Federal 

agencies consult with NMFS on any 

proposed action authorized, funded, or 

carried out by that agency that may 

affect one of the listed species or 

designated critical habitat, or is likely to 

jeopardize proposed species or 

adversely modify proposed critical 

habitat that is under NMFS’ jurisdiction. 

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 five 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 five regulatory plan actions is 

provided below. 

1. Revisions to the General section 

and Standards 1, 3, and 7 of the 

National Standard Guidelines (0648– 

BB92): This action would propose 

revisions to the National Standard 1 

(NS1) guidelines. National Standard 1 of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

states that ‘‘conservation and 

management measures shall prevent 

overfishing while achieving, on a 

continuing basis, the optimum yield 

from each fishery for the United States 

fishing industry.’’ The National Marine 

Fisheries Service last revised the NS1 

Guidelines in 2009 to reflect the 

requirements enacted by the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Reauthorization Act of 

2006 for annual catch limits and 

accountability measures to end and 

prevent overfishing. Since 2007, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) and the Regional Fishery 

Management Councils have been 

implementing the new annual catch 

limit and accountability measures 

requirements. Based on experience 

gained from implementing annual catch 

limits and accountability measures, 

NMFS has developed new perspectives 

and identified issues regarding the 

application of the NS1 guidelines that 

may warrant them to be revised to more 

fully meet the intended goal of 

preventing overfishing while achieving, 

on a continuing basis, the optimum 

yield from each fishery. The focus of 

this action is to improve the NS1 

guidelines. 

2. Proposed Rule To Designate Critical 

Habitat for North Atlantic Right Whale 

(0648–AY54): The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to 

revise critical habitat for the North 

Atlantic right whale. This proposal 

would modify the critical habitat 

previously designated in 1994. 

3. Fishery Management Plan for 

Regulating Offshore Marine 

Aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico 

(0648–AS65): The purpose of this 

fishery management plan is to develop 

a regional permitting process for 

regulating and promoting 

environmentally sound and 

economically sustainable aquaculture in 

the Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic 

zone. This fishery management plan 

consists of ten actions, each with an 

associated range of management 

alternatives, which would facilitate the 

permitting of an estimated 5 to 20 

offshore aquaculture operations in the 

Gulf of Mexico over the next 10 years, 

with an estimated annual production of 

up to 64 million pounds. By 

establishing a regional permitting 

process for aquaculture, the Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Council 

will be positioned to achieve their 

primary goal of increasing maximum 

sustainable yield and optimum yield of 

federal fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico 

by supplementing harvest of wild 

caught species with cultured product. 

This rulemaking would outline a 

regulatory permitting process for 

aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico, 

including: (1) Required permits; (2) 

duration of permits; (3) species allowed; 

(4) designation of sites for aquaculture; 

(5) reporting requirements; and (6) 

regulations to aid in enforcement. 

4. Requirements for Importation of 

Fish and Fish Products Under the U.S. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (0648– 

AY15): With this action, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service is developing 

procedures to implement the provisions 

of section 101(a)(2) of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act for imports of 

fish and fish products. Those provisions 

require the Secretary of Treasury to ban 

imports of fish and fish products from 

fisheries with bycatch of marine 

mammals in excess of U.S. standards. 

The provisions further require the 

Secretary of Commerce to insist on 

reasonable proof from exporting nations 

of the effects on marine mammals of 

bycatch incidental to fisheries that 

harvest the fish and fish products to be 

imported. 

5. Revised Proposed Rule To 

Designate Critical Habitat for the 

Hawaiian Monk Seal (0648–BA81): The 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) is developing a rule to 

designate critical habitat for the 

Hawaiian monk seal in the main and 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In 

response to a 2008 petition from the 

Center for Biological Diversity, Kahea, 

and the Ocean Conservancy to revise 

Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, 

NMFS published a proposed rule in 

June 2011 to revise Hawaiian monk seal 

critical habitat by adding critical habitat 

in the main Hawaiian Islands and 

extending critical habitat in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. 

Proposed critical habitat includes both 

marine and terrestrial habitats (e.g., 

foraging areas to 500 meter depth, 

pupping beaches, etc.). To address 

public comments on the proposed rule, 

NOAA Fisheries is augmenting its prior 

economic analysis to better describe the 

anticipated costs of the designation. 

NOAA Fisheries is analyzing new 

tracking data to assess monk seal habitat 

use in the main Hawaiian Islands. 

At this time, NOAA is unable to 

determine the aggregate cost of the 

identified Regulatory Plan actions as 

several of these actions are currently 

under development. 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

The Bureau of Industry and Security 

(BIS) advances U.S. national security, 

foreign policy, and economic objectives 

by maintaining and strengthening 

adaptable, efficient, and effective export 

control and treaty compliance systems 

as well as by administering programs to 

prioritize certain contracts to promote 

the national defense and to protect and 

enhance the defense industrial base. 

In August 2009, the President directed 

a broad-based interagency review of the 

U.S. export control system with the goal 

of strengthening national security and 

the competitiveness of key U.S. 

manufacturing and technology sectors 

by focusing on the current threats and 

adapting to the changing economic and 

technological landscape. In August 

2010, the President outlined an 

approach under which agencies that 

administer export controls will apply 

new criteria for determining what items 

need to be controlled and a common set 

of policies for determining when an 

export license is required. The control 

list criteria are to be based on 

transparent rules, which will reduce the 

uncertainty faced by our Allies, U.S. 

industry and its foreign customers, and 

will allow the Government to erect 

higher walls around the most sensitive 

export items in order to enhance 

national security. 

Under the President’s approach, 

agencies will apply the criteria and 

revise the lists of munitions and dualuse items that are controlled for export 

so that they: 

Distinguish the types of items that 

should be subject to stricter or more 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76497 

permissive levels of control for different 

destinations, end-uses, and end-users; 

Create a ‘‘bright line’’ between the two 

current control lists to clarify 

jurisdictional determinations and 

reduce Government and industry 

uncertainty about whether particular 

items are subject to the control of the 

State Department or the Commerce 

Department; and 

Are structurally aligned so that they 

potentially can be combined into a 

single list of controlled items. 

BIS’ current regulatory plan action is 

designed to implement the initial phase 

of the President’s directive, which will 

add to BIS’ export control purview, 

military related items that the President 

determines no longer warrant control 

under rules administered by the State 

Department. 

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 

participation of U.S. persons in certain 

boycotts administered by foreign 

Governments. The National Defense 

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, 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 with 

enforcement responsibilities 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’ Regulatory Plan Actions 

As the agency responsible for leading 

the administration and enforcement of 

U.S. export controls on dual-use and 

other items warranting controls but not 

under the provisions of export control 

regulations administered by other 

departments, BIS plays a central role in 

the Administration’s efforts to 

fundamentally reform the export control 

system. Changing what we control, how 

we control it and how we enforce and 

manage our controls will help 

strengthen our national security by 

focusing our efforts on controlling the 

most critical products and technologies, 

and by enhancing the competitiveness 

of key U.S. manufacturing and 

technology sectors. 

In FY 2011, BIS took several steps to 

implement the President’s Export 

Control Reform Initiative (ECRI). BIS 

published a final rule (76 FR 35275, 

June 16, 2011) implementing a license 

exception that authorizes exports, 

reexports and transfers to destinations 

that do not pose a national security 

concern, provided certain safeguards 

against diversion to other destinations 

are taken. BIS also proposed several 

rules to control under the EAR items 

that the President has determined do 

not warrant control under the 

International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations (ITAR), administered by the 

Department of State rule (76 FR 41957), 

and its United States Munitions List 

(USML). 

In FY 2012, BIS followed up on its FY 

2011 successes with the ECRI and 

proposed rules that would move items 

currently controlled in nine categories 

of the USML to control under the 

Commerce Control List (CCL), 

administered by BIS. In addition, BIS 

proposed a rule to ease the 

implementation process for 

transitioning items and re-proposed a 

revised key definition from the July 15 

Rule, ‘‘specially designed,’’ that had 

received extensive public comment. In 

FY 2013, after State Department 

notification to Congress of the transfer 

of items from the USML, BIS expects to 

be able to publish a final rule 

incorporating many of the proposed 

changes and revisions based on public 

responses to the proposals. 

In FY 2013, BIS activities crossed an 

important milestone with publication of 

two final rules that began to put ECRI 

policies into place. An Initial 

Implementation rule (73 FR 22660, 

April 16, 2013) sets in place the 

structure under which items the 

President determines no longer warrant 

control on the United States Munitions 

List will be controlled on the Commerce 

Control List. It also revises license 

exceptions and regulatory definitions, 

including the definition of ‘‘specially 

designed’’ to more make those 

exceptions and definitions clearer and 

to more close align them with the 

International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations, and adds to the CCL certain 

military aircraft, gas turbine engines and 

related items. A second final rule (78 FR 

40892, July 8 2012) followed on by 

adding to the CCL military vehicles, 

vessels of war submersible vessels, and 

auxiliary military equipment that 

President determined no longer warrant 

control on the USML. 

In FY 2014, BIS continued its 

emphasis on the ECRI by publishing 

three final rules adding to the 

Commerce Control List, items the 

President determined no long warrant 

control on the United States Munitions 

List (including a rule returning 

jurisdiction over Commercial Satellites 

to the Department of Commerce), as 

follows: 

January 2—Control of Military 

Training Equipment, Energetic 

Materials, Personal Protective 

Equipment, Shelters, Articles Related to 

Launch Vehicles, Missiles, Rockets, 

Military Explosives and Related Items; 

May 13—Revisions to the Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR): 

Control of Spacecraft Systems and 

Related Items the President Determines 

No Longer Warrant Control Under the 

United States Munitions List (USML); 

and 

July 1—Revisions to the Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR): 

Control of Military Electronic 

Equipment and Other Items the 

President Determines No Longer 

Warrant Control Under the United 

States Munitions List 

BIS expects to publish additional 

ECRI final rules in FY 2015. 

Promoting International Regulatory 

Cooperation 

As the President noted in Executive 

Order 13609, ‘‘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. 

Accordingly, in EO 13609, the President 

requires each executive agency to 

include in its Regulatory Plan a 

summary of its international regulatory 

cooperation activities that are 

reasonably anticipated to lead to 

significant regulations. 

The Department of Commerce engages 

with numerous international bodies in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76498 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

various forums to promote the 

Department’s priorities and foster 

regulations that do not ‘‘impair the 

ability of American business to export 

and compete internationally.’’ EO 

13609(a). For example, the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office is working 

with the European Patent Office to 

develop a new classification system for 

both offices’ use. The Bureau of Industry 

and Security, along with the Department 

of State and Department of Defense, 

engages with other countries in the 

Wassenaar Arrangement, through which 

the international community develops a 

common list of items that should be 

subject to export controls because they 

are conventional arms or items that have 

both military and civil uses. Other 

multilateral export control regimes 

include the Missile Technology Control 

Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, 

and the Australia Group, which lists 

items controlled for chemical and 

biological weapon nonproliferation 

purposes. In addition, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration works with other 

countries’ regulatory bodies through 

regional fishery management 

organizations to develop fair and 

internationally-agreed-to fishery 

standards for the High Seas. 

BIS is also engaged, in partnership 

with the Departments of State and 

Defense, in revising the regulatory 

framework for export control, through 

the President’s Export Control Reform 

Initiative (ECRI). Through this effort, the 

United States Government is moving 

certain items currently controlled by the 

United States Military List (USML) to 

the Commerce Control List (CCL) in BIS’ 

Export Administration Regulations. The 

objective of ECRI is to improve 

interoperability of U.S. military forces 

with those of allied countries, 

strengthen the U.S. industrial base by, 

among other things, reducing incentives 

for foreign manufacturers to design out 

and avoid U.S.-origin content and 

services, and allow export control 

officials to focus Government resources 

on transactions that pose greater 

concern. Once fully implemented, the 

new export control framework also will 

benefit companies in the United States 

seeking to export items through more 

flexible and less burdensome export 

controls. 

Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive 

Order 13563 ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review’’ (Jan. 18, 2011), the 

Department has identified several 

rulemakings as being associated with 

retrospective review and analysis in the 

Department’s final retrospective review 

of regulations plan. Accordingly, the 

Agency is reviewing these rules to 

determine whether action under E.O. 

13563 is appropriate. Some of these 

entries on this list may be completed 

actions, which do not appear in The 

Regulatory Plan. However, more 

information can be found about these 

completed rulemakings in past 

publications of the Unified Agenda on 

Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions 

section for the Agency. These 

rulemakings can also be found on 

Regulations.gov. The final Agency 

retrospective analysis plan can be found 

at: http://open.commerce.gov/sites/

default/files/Commerce%20Plan%20

for%20Retrospective%

20Analysis%20of%

20Existing%20Rules%20-%202011–08– 

22%20Final.pdf 

DOC—National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

33. Requirements for Importation of 

Fish and Fish Product Under the U.S. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1371 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 50 CFR 216. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: With this action, NMFS is 

developing procedures to implement the 

provisions of section 101(a)(2) of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act for 

imports of fish and fish products. Those 

provisions require the Secretary of 

Treasury to ban imports of fish and fish 

products from fisheries with bycatch of 

marine mammals in excess of U.S. 

standards. The provisions further 

require the Secretary of Commerce to 

insist on reasonable proof from 

exporting nations of the effects on 

marine mammals of bycatch incidental 

to fisheries that harvest the fish and fish 

products to be imported. 

Implementation of this rule may have 

trade implications. However, the 

impacts will be limited primarily to 

foreign entities, with no anticipated 

impacts to U.S. fishermen. 

Statement of Need: The Marine 

Mammal Protection Act requires that 

the United States prohibit imports of 

fish caught in a manner that results in 

bycatch of marine mammals in excess of 

U.S. standards. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. 

Alternatives: An alternative to this 

rulemaking that would facilitate marine 

mammal conservation overseas would 

be through cooperation and assistance 

programs. While the U.S. has developed 

effective bycatch mitigation techniques 

and applied these in many fisheries, 

there is no guarantee that these methods 

will be freely adopted in foreign 

fisheries. Technical and financial 

assistance for the development and 

implementation of marine mammal 

bycatch mitigation measures would not 

be precluded by this rulemaking, but 

market access incentives will increase 

the likelihood of action by harvesting 

nations exporting to the U.S. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Potential benefits of this rulemaking 

include: an incentive for exporting 

nations to adopt and implement marine 

mammal conservation standards 

comparable to the U.S. as a condition 

for access to the U.S. seafood market, 

establishing a review process for 

determining the effectiveness of 

mitigation measures adopted by foreign 

nations; decreasing the likelihood that 

marine mammal stocks will be further 

depleted; and increasing the availability 

of information on marine mammal 

distribution and abundance and the 

threats posed by fisheries interactions. 

Anticipated costs include: increased 

administrative costs of monitoring trade 

and making determinations about 

foreign fisheries bycatch of marine 

mammals; increased costs on seafood 

importers related to certifying import 

eligibility, and increased requests for 

international cooperation and assistance 

and attendant costs to implement 

mitigation measures. 

Risks: Prohibiting imports from 

seafood exporting nations that cause 

bycatch of marine mammals in excess of 

U.S. standards will diminish the risk of 

further declines in marine mammal 

stocks that are affected by foreign 

fisheries. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 04/30/10 75 FR 22731 

Reopening ANPR 

comment period.

07/01/10 75 FR 38070 

NPRM .................. 02/00/15 

Final Action ......... 08/00/15 

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: Rodney Mcinnis, 

Director, Office of International Affairs, 

Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76499 

Administration, 1315 East–West Hwy, 

Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 562 

980–4005, Email: rod.mcinnis@

noaa.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 0648–AX36 

RIN: 0648–AY15 

DOC—NOAA 

34. Designation of Critical Habitat for 

the North Atlantic Right Whale 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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

seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1531 to 1543. 

CFR Citation: 50 CFR 226; 50 CFR 

229. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: National Marine Fisheries 

Service proposes to revise critical 

habitat for the North Atlantic right 

whale. This proposal would result in 

modifying the critical habitat that was 

designated in 1994. 

Statement of Need: Under section 4 of 

the Endangered Species Act, NOAA 

Fisheries is required to designate critical 

habitat for newly listed species and 

revise as new information becomes 

available. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Endangered 

Species Act 

Alternatives: Critical habitat is 

defined as (i) the specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed, on which 

are found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) which may 

require special management 

considerations or protection; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination by the 

Secretary that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species. In 

developing this rule, NOAA Fisheries is 

analyzing best available information 

regarding where these areas occur and 

performing economic impact analysis to 

inform designation. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Because this rule is presently in the 

beginning stages of development, no 

analysis has been completed at this time 

to assess costs and benefits. 

Risks: Loss of critical habitat for a 

species listed as protected under the 

ESA and Marine Mammals Protection 

Act, as well as potential loss of right 

whales due to habitat loss. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Donna Wieting, 

Fishery Biologist, 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: 301 713–2322. 

RIN: 0648–AY54 

DOC—NOAA 

35. Revision of Hawaiian Monk Seal 

Critical Habitat 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533 

CFR Citation: 50 CFR 226. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Fisheries is developing a revised 

proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal in 

the main and Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands. In response to a 2008 petition 

from the Center for Biological Diversity, 

Kahea, and the Ocean Conservancy to 

revise Hawaiian monk seal critical 

habitat, NOAA Fisheries published a 

proposed rule in June 2011 to revise 

Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat by 

adding critical habitat in the main 

Hawaiian Islands and extending critical 

habitat in the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands. Proposed critical habitat 

includes both marine and terrestrial 

habitats (e.g., foraging areas to 500 meter 

depth, pupping beaches, etc.). To 

address public comments on the 

proposed rule, NOAA Fisheries is 

augmenting its prior economic analysis 

to better describe the anticipated costs 

of the designation. NOAA Fisheries is 

analyzing new tracking data to assess 

monk seal habitat use in the main 

Hawaiian Islands. 

Statement of Need: Hawaiian monk 

seal critical habitat was last designated 

in 1988. Since the 1988 designation, 

new information regarding Hawaiian 

monk seal habitat use has become 

available. A revision to this designation 

would allow NMFS to more accurately 

define those features and areas that are 

important to support Hawaiian monk 

seal conservation by modifying existing 

critical habitat in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands and proposing critical 

habitat in the main Hawaiian Islands. 

NMFS published a proposed rule to 

designate critical habitat in 2011. The 

agency has made changes to the 2011 

proposed rule in response to public 

comment, and now plans to release a 

second, revised proposed rule to 

provide an opportunity for the public to 

comment on these changes. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Endangered 

Species Act. 

Alternatives: In the 2011 proposed 

rule, NMFS considered the alternative 

of not revising critical habitat for the 

Hawaiian monk seal, the alternative of 

designating all potential critical habitat 

areas, and the alternative of designating 

a subset of all potential critical habitat 

areas, excluding those areas where the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of designation in accordance 

with 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species 

Act. Under the preferred alternative 

NMFS proposed for designation 10 

specific areas in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands and 6 specific areas in 

the main Hawaiian Islands which 

support terrestrial pupping and haul-out 

areas as well as marine foraging areas. 

Within four of the main Hawaiian 

Islands specific areas, NMFS proposed 

exclusions to reduce the impacts to 

national security. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

economic analysis is currently being 

revised to reflect changes in response to 

public comments received. 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. The 

designation of critical habitat typically 

does not impose additional costs in 

occupied habitat, where Federal 

agencies are already required to consult 

with NMFS as a consequence of the 

listed species being present. However, 

in unoccupied habitat the rule may 

impose administrative costs on Federal 

agencies as well as costs on Federal 

agencies and third parties stemming 

from project modifications to mitigate 

impacts to critical habitat. 

Risks: The Endangered Species Act 

requires designation of critical habitat 

following the listing of a species. If 

critical habitat is not designated, the 

species will not be protected to the 

extent provided for in the Endangered 

Species Act, posing a risk to the species 

continued existence and recovery. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/02/11 76 FR 32026 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76500 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice of Public 

Meetings.

07/14/11 76 FR 41446 

Other ................... 06/25/12 77 FR 37867 

Second NPRM .... 02/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Agency Contact: Donna Wieting, 

Fishery Biologist, 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: 301 713–2322. 

Related RIN: Related to 0648–AX23 

RIN: 0648–BA81 

DOC—NOAA 

36. Revision of the National Standard 1 

Guidelines 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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

seq.; Pub. L. 94–265. 

CFR Citation: 50 CFR 600. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This action would propose 

revisions to the National Standard 1 

(NS1) guidelines. National Standard 1 of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

states that conservation and 

management measures shall prevent 

overfishing while achieving, on a 

continuing basis, the optimum yield 

from each fishery for the United States 

fishing industry. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Fisheries 

last revised the NS1 Guidelines in 2009 

to reflect the requirements enacted by 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2006 for annual 

catch limits and accountability 

measures to end and prevent 

overfishing. Since 2007, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service and the 

Regional Fishery Management Councils 

have been implementing the new 

annual catch limit and accountability 

measures requirements. Based on 

experience gained from implementing 

annual catch limits and accountability 

measures, NMFS has developed new 

perspectives and identified issues 

regarding the application of the NS1 

guidelines that may warrant them to be 

revised to more fully meet the intended 

goal of preventing overfishing while 

achieving, on a continuing basis, the 

optimum yield from each fishery. The 

focus of this action is to improve the 

NS1 guidelines. 

Statement of Need: Since 2007, 

fisheries management within the U.S. 

has experienced many changes, in 

particular the implementation of annual 

catch limits and accountability 

measures under all fishery management 

plans. Based on this experience, the 

NMFS believes the National Standard 

guidelines can be improved to enhance 

the utility of the guidelines for managers 

and the public. The objective of the 

proposed revisions is to improve and 

streamline the guidelines, address 

concerns raised during the 

implementation of annual catch limits 

and accountability measures, and 

provide flexibility within current 

statutory limits to address fishery 

management issues. 

Summary of Legal Basis: MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. 

Alternatives: The rule attempts to 

improve fisheries management by 

proposing alternatives that clarify 

guidance in the following topic areas: 

(1) Identifying fishery management 

objectives; (2) identifying whether 

stocks require conservation and 

management; (3) managing data limited 

stocks; (4) stock complexes; (5) 

aggregate maximum sustainable yield 

estimates; (6) depleted stocks; (7) multiyear overfishing determinations; (8) 

optimum yield; (9) acceptable biological 

catch control rules; (10) accountability 

measures; (11) establishing annual catch 

limits and accountability measures 

mechanisms in Fishery Management 

Plans; and (12) flexibility in rebuilding 

stocks. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

changes to the guidelines would not 

establish any new requirements and 

thus are technical in nature. As such, 

the changes would allow, but do not 

require the Fishery Management 

Councils or the Secretary of Commerce, 

to make changes to their Fishery 

Management Plans. Because changes to 

the guidelines would not directly alter 

the behavior of any entities that operate 

in federally managed fisheries, no direct 

economic effects are expected to result 

from this action. The potential benefits 

of revising the National Standard 

guidelines include: improving and 

streamlining the guidance, providing 

additional clarity, and providing 

flexibility to address fishery 

management issues. 

Risks: NMFS anticipates that a 

revision to the National Standard 

guidelines would enhance the utility of 

the guidelines. NMFS does not foresee 

any risks associated with revising the 

National Standard guidelines. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 05/03/12 77 FR 26238 

ANPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

07/03/12 77 FR 39459 

NPRM .................. 12/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Alan Risenhoover, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Room 13362, 1315 

East–West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910, Phone: 301 713–2334, Fax: 301 

713–0596, Email: alan.risenhoover@

noaa.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 0648–AV60 

RIN: 0648–BB92 

DOC—NOAA 

Final Rule Stage 

37. Fishery Management Plan for 

Regulating Offshore Marine 

Aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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

CFR Citation: 50 CFR 622. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The purpose of this fishery 

management plan is to develop a 

regional permitting process for 

regulating and promoting 

environmentally sound and 

economically sustainable aquaculture in 

the Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic 

zone. This fishery management plan 

consists of ten actions, each with an 

associated range of management 

alternatives, which would facilitate the 

permitting of an estimated 5 to 20 

offshore aquaculture operations in the 

Gulf of Mexico over the next 10 years, 

with an estimated annual production of 

up to 64 million pounds. By 

establishing a regional permitting 

process for aquaculture, the Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Council 

will be positioned to achieve their 

primary goal of increasing maximum 

sustainable yield and optimum yield of 

federal fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico 

by supplementing harvest of wild 

caught species with cultured product. 

This rulemaking would outline a 

regulatory permitting process for 

aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico, 

including: (1) Required permits; (2) 

duration of permits; (3) species allowed; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76501 

(4) designation of sites for aquaculture; 

(5) reporting requirements; and (6) 

regulations to aid in enforcement. 

Statement of Need: Demand for 

protein is increasing in the United 

States and commercial wild-capture 

fisheries will not likely be adequate to 

meet this growing demand. Aquaculture 

is one method to meet current and 

future demands for seafood. 

Supplementing the harvest of domestic 

fisheries with cultured product will 

help the U.S. meet consumers’ growing 

demand for seafood and may reduce the 

Nation’s dependence on seafood 

imports. Currently, the U.S. imports 

over 80 percent of the seafood 

consumed in the country, and the 

annual U.S seafood trade deficit is at an 

all time high of over $9 billion. 

Summary of Legal Basis: MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Alternatives: The Council’s 

Aquaculture FMP includes 10 actions, 

each with an associated range of 

alternatives. These actions and 

alternatives are collectively intended to 

establish a regional permitting process 

for offshore aquaculture. Management 

actions in the FMP include: (1) 

Aquaculture permit requirements, 

eligibility, and transferability; (2) 

duration aquaculture permits are 

effective; (3) aquaculture application 

requirements, operational requirements, 

and restrictions; (4) species allowed for 

aquaculture; (5) allowable aquaculture 

systems; (6) marine aquaculture siting 

requirements and conditions; (7) 

restricted access zones for aquaculture 

facilities; (8) recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements; (9) biological 

reference points and status 

determination criteria; and (10) 

framework procedures for modifying 

biological reference points and 

regulatory measures. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Environmental and social/economic 

costs and benefits are described in detail 

in the Council’s Aquaculture FMP. 

Potential benefits include: establishing a 

rigorous review process for reviewing 

and approving/denying aquaculture 

permits; increasing optimum yield by 

supplementing the harvest of wild 

domestic fisheries with cultured 

products; and reducing the Nation’s 

dependence on imported seafood. 

Anticipated costs include increased 

administration and oversight of an 

aquaculture permitting process, and 

potential negative environmental 

impacts to wild marine resources. 

Approval of an aquaculture permitting 

system may also benefit fishing 

communities by creating new jobs. 

Risks: Currently, 90% of seafood 

consumed in the United States is 

imported. Offshore aquaculture 

operations will aid in meeting the 

increasing demand for seafood and 

improve U.S. food security. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice of Availability.06/04/09 74 FR 26829 

NPRM .................. 08/28/14 79 FR 26829 

Final Action ......... 05/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Roy E. Crabtree, 

Southeast Regional Administrator, 

Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 263 13th Avenue 

South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, Phone: 

727 824–5305, Fax: 727 824–5308, 

Email: roy.crabtree@noaa.gov. 

RIN: 0648–AS65 

BILLING CODE 3510–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

Background 

The Department of Defense (DoD) is 

the largest Federal department, 

consisting of three Military departments 

(Army, Navy, and Air Force), nine 

Unified Combatant Commands, 17 

Defense Agencies, and ten DoD Field 

Activities. It has 1,357,218 military 

personnel and 853,102 civilians 

assigned as of June 30, 2014, and over 

200 large and medium installations in 

the continental United States, U. S. 

territories, and foreign countries. The 

overall size, composition, and 

dispersion of DoD, coupled with an 

innovative regulatory program, presents 

a challenge to the management of the 

Defense regulatory efforts under 

Executive Order 12866 ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ of September 30, 

1993. 

Because of its diversified nature, DoD 

is affected by the regulations issued by 

regulatory agencies such as the 

Departments of Commerce, Energy, 

Health and Human Services, Housing 

and Urban Development, Labor, State, 

Transportation, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency. In order to develop 

the best possible regulations that 

embody the principles and objectives 

embedded in E.O. 12866, there must be 

coordination of proposed regulations 

among the regulatory agencies and the 

affected DoD components. Coordinating 

the proposed regulations in advance 

throughout an organization as large as 

DoD is a straightforward, yet formidable, 

undertaking. 

DoD issues regulations that have an 

effect on the public and can be 

significant as defined in E.O. 12866. In 

addition, some of DoD’s regulations may 

affect other agencies. DoD, as an integral 

part of its program, not only receives 

coordinating actions from other 

agencies, but coordinates with the 

agencies that are affected by its 

regulations as well. 

Overall Priorities 

The Department needs to function at 

a reasonable cost, while ensuring that it 

does not impose ineffective and 

unnecessarily burdensome regulations 

on the public. The rulemaking process 

should be responsive, efficient, costeffective, and both fair and perceived as 

fair. This is being done in DoD while 

reacting to the contradictory pressures 

of providing more services with fewer 

resources. The Department of Defense, 

as a matter of overall priority for its 

regulatory program, fully incorporates 

the provisions of the President’s 

priorities and objectives under 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

As the President noted in Executive 

Order 13609, ‘‘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. 

Accordingly, in Executive Order 13609, 

the President requires each executive 

agency to include in its Regulatory Plan 

a summary of its international 

regulatory cooperation activities that are 

reasonably anticipated to lead to 

significant regulations. 

The Department of Defense, along 

with the Department of State and the 

Department of Commerce, engages with 

other countries in the Wassenaar 

Arrangement, through which the 

international community develops a 

common list of items that should be 

subject to export controls. 

Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive 

Order 13563 ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), 

the following Regulatory Identifier 

Numbers (RINs) have been identified as 

associated with retrospective review 

and analysis in the Department’s final 

retrospective review of regulations plan. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76502 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

All are of particular interest to small 

businesses. Some of these entries on this 

list may be completed actions, which do 

not appear in The Regulatory Plan. 

However, more information can be 

found about these completed 

rulemakings in past publications of the 

Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the 

Completed Actions section for that 

agency. These rulemakings can also be 

found on Regulations.gov. The final 

agency plan and all updates to the plan 

can be found at: http://www.regulations.

gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOD-2011-OS0036. 

RIN Rule title 

(* expected to significantly reduce burdens on small businesses) 

0701–AA76 .......... Air Force Freedom of Information Act Program. 

0701–AA77 .......... Air Force Privacy Act Program. 

0703–AA87 .......... United States Navy Regulations and Official Records. 

0703–AA90 .......... Guidelines for Archaeological Investigation Permits and Other Research on Sunken Military Craft and Terrestrial Military 

Craft Under the Jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy. 

0703–AA91 .......... Unofficial Use of the Seal, Emblem, Names, or Initials of the Marine Corps. 

0703–AA92 .......... Professional Conduct of Attorneys Practicing Under the Cognizance and Supervision of the Judge Advocate General. 

0710–AA66 .......... Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule. 

0710–AA60 .......... Nationwide Permit Program Regulations.* 

0750–AG47 .......... Safeguarding Unclassified Controlled Technical Information (DFARS Case 2011–D039). 

0750–AG62 .......... Patents, Data, and Copyrights (DFARS Case 2010–D001). 

0750–AH11 .......... Only One Offer (DFARS Case 2011–D013). 

0750–AH19 .......... Accelerated Payments to Small Business (DFARS Case 2011–D008). 

0750–AH54 .......... Performance-Based Payments (DFARS Case 2011–D045). 

0750–AH70 .......... Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty With Australia and the United Kingdom (DFARS Case 2012–D034). 

0750–AH86 .......... Forward Pricing Rate Proposal Adequacy Checklist (DFARS Case 2012–D035). 

0750–AH87 .......... System for Award Management Name Changes, Phase 1 Implementation (DFARS Case 2012–D053). 

0750–AH90 ..........

0750–AH94 

0750–AH95 

0750–AI02 

0750–AI10 

0750–AI19 

0750–AI27 

Clauses With Alternates. 

0750–AI03 ............ Approval of Rental Waiver Requests (DFARS Case 2013–D006). 

0750–AI07 ............ Storage, Treatment, and Disposal of Toxic or Hazardous Materials—Statutory Update (DFARS Case 2013–D013). 

0750–AI18 ............ Photovoltaic Devices (DFARS Case 2014–D006). 

0750–AI34 ............ State Sponsors of Terrorism (DFARS Case 2014–D014). 

0790–AI24 ............ DoD Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Program Regulation. 

0790–AI30 ............ Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Privacy Program. 

0790–AI42 ............ Personnel Security Program. 

0790–AI51 ............ DoD Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Program; Amendment. 

0790–AI54 ............ Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies. 

0790–AI63 ............ Alternative Dispute Resolution. 

0790–AI71 ............ National Industrial Security Program (NISP): Procedures for Government Activities Relating to Foreign Ownership, Control 

or Influence (FOCI). 

0790–AI73 ............ Withholding of Unclassified Technical Data From Public Disclosure. 

0790–AI75 ............ Presentation of DoD-Related Scientific and Technical Papers at Meetings. 

0790–AI77 ............ Provision of Early Intervention and Special Education Services to Eligible DoD Dependents. 

0790–AI84 ............ National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowships. 

0790–AI86 ............ Defense Logistics Agency Privacy Program. 

0790–AI87 ............ Defense Logistics Agency Freedom of Information Act Program. 

0790–AI88 ............ Shelter for the Homeless. 

0790–AI90 ............ DoD Assistance to Non-Government, Entertainment-Oriented Media Productions. 

0790–AI92 ............ Inspector General; Privacy Act; Implementation. 

0790–AJ00 ........... Civilian Employment and Reemployment Rights of Applicants for, and Service Members and Former Service Members, of 

the Uniformed Services. 

0790–AJ03 ........... DoD Privacy Program. 

0790–AJ04 ........... Unlawful Discrimination (On the Basis of Race, Color, National Origin, or Age in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal 

Financial Assistance From the DoD). 

0790–AJ05 ........... End Use Certificates (EUCs). 

0790–AJ06 ........... Voluntary Education Programs. 

0790–AJ07 ........... Historical Research in the Files of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). 

0790–AJ10 ........... Enhancement of Protections on Consumer Credit for Members of the Armed Forces and Their Dependents. 

0790–AJ20 ........... DoD Privacy Program 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13563, DoD also removed 32 CFR part 513, ‘‘Indebtedness of Military Personnel,’’ because 

the part is obsolete and the governing policy is now codified at 32 CFR part 112. 

Administration Priorities 

1. Rulemakings That Are Expected To 

Have High Net Benefits Well in Excess 

of Costs 

The Department plans to— 

• Finalize the DFARS rule to 

implement section 806 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, as amended by 

section 806 of the NDAA for FY 2013. 

Section 806 requires the evaluation of 

offerors’ supply chain risks for 

information technology purchases 

relating to national security systems. 

This rule enables agencies to exclude 

sources that are identified as having a 

supply chain risk in order to minimize 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76503 

the potential risk for purchased supplies 

and services to maliciously introduce 

unwanted functions and degrade the 

integrity and operation of sensitive 

information technology systems. 

• Finalize the DFARS rule to provide 

guidance to contractors for the submittal 

of forward pricing rate proposals to 

ensure the adequacy of forward pricing 

rate proposals submitted to the 

Government. The rule provides 

guidance to contractors to ensure that 

forward pricing rate proposals are 

thorough, accurate, and complete. 

• Finalize the DFARS rule to 

implement section 1602 of the NDAA 

for FY 2014. Section 1602 prohibits 

award of a contract for commercial 

satellite services from certain foreign 

entities if the Secretary of Defense 

reasonably believes that the foreign 

entity is one in which the government 

of a foreign country has an ownership 

interest that enables the government to 

affect satellite operations. There is a 

potential risk to national security if DoD 

uses commercial satellite services for 

DoD communications and the 

government of a covered foreign country 

has an ownership interest that enables 

the government to affect satellite 

operations. Likewise, if launch or other 

satellite services under the contract are 

occurring in a covered country, the 

government of that country could 

impact the ability of the foreign entity 

to adequately provide those services. 

2. Rulemakings of Particular Interest to 

Small Businesses 

The Department plans to— 

• Finalize the DFARS rule to delete 

text in DFARS part 219 that 

implemented 10 U.S.C. 2323 because 10 

U.S.C. 2323 has expired. Removal of the 

obsolete implementing coverage for 10 

U.S.C. 2323 will bring DFARS up to 

date and provide accurate and 

indisputable regulations affecting the 

small business and vendor 

communities. 10 U.S.C. 2323 had 

provided the underlying statutory 

authority for DoD’s Small 

Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Program 

and served as the basis for DoD’s use of 

certain solicitation techniques to further 

its SDB participation rate. 

Notwithstanding removal of this 

statutory authority from the DFARS, 

DoD’s fundamental procurement 

policies continue to provide strong 

support for SDB participation as 

evidenced by DoD meeting or exceeding 

the annual Governmentwide statutory 

SDB prime contracting goals since 2001. 

• Through ‘‘Policy for Domestic, 

Municipal, and Industrial Water Supply 

Uses of Reservoir Projects Operated by 

the Department of the Army, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers,’’ (RIN 0710–AA72), 

update and clarify the policies 

governing the use of storage in U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers reservoir 

projects for domestic, municipal, and 

industrial water supply. 

3. Rulemakings That Streamline 

Regulations, Reduce Unjustified 

Burdens, and Minimize Burdens on 

Small Businesses 

The Department plans to— 

• Finalize the DFARS rule to 

implement section 802 of the NDAA for 

FY 2012 to allow a covered litigation 

support contractor access to technical, 

proprietary, or confidential data for the 

sole purpose of providing litigation 

support. DFARS Case 2012–D029, 

Disclosure to Litigation Support to 

Contractors, pertains. 

• Finalize the DFARS rule to require 

scientific and technical reports be 

submitted in electronic format. This 

rule, DFARS Case 2014–D0001, will 

streamline the submission process by no 

longer requiring the electronically 

initiated report to be printed for 

submission. 

4. Rules To Be Modified, Streamlined, 

Expanded, or Repealed To Make the 

Agency’s Regulatory Program More 

Effective or Less Burdensome in 

Achieving the Regulatory Objectives 

• DFARS Cases 2013–D005, Clauses 

with Alternates—Foreign Acquisition, 

2013–D025, Clauses with Alternates— 

Taxes, and 2014–D004, Clauses with 

Alternates—Special Contracting 

Methods, Major System Acquisition, 

and Service Contract—Propose a new 

convention for prescribing clauses with 

alternates to provide alternate clauses in 

full text. This will facilitate selection of 

alternate clauses using automated 

contract writing systems. The inclusion 

of the full text of the alternate clauses 

in the regulation for use in solicitations 

and contracts should make the terms of 

the alternate clauses clearer to offerors 

and contractors by clarifying paragraph 

substitutions. As a result, inapplicable 

paragraphs from the basic clause that 

are superseded by the alternate will not 

be included in solicitations or contracts, 

reducing the potential for confusion. 

• Finalize the rule for DFARS, 

DFARS Case 2014–D014, State Sponsors 

of Terrorism, to clarify and relocate 

coverage relating to state sponsors of 

terrorism, add an explicit 

representation, and conform the 

terminology to replace the term 

‘‘terrorist country’’ with the more 

accurate term ‘‘country that is a state 

sponsor of terrorism.’’ DFARS subpart 

209.1 text is being relocated to subpart 

225.7. Subpart 225.7 is a better location 

because the prohibition is based on 

ownership or control of an offeror by the 

government of specified countries, 

rather than the responsibility of the 

individual offeror. Correspondingly, the 

provision at 252.209–7001 is being 

removed and replaced by a newly 

proposed provision 252.225–70XX. 

5. Rulemakings That Have a Significant 

International Impact 

• Finalize the rule to revise the 

DFARS to improve awareness, 

compliance, and enforcement of DoD 

policies on combating trafficking in 

persons. The rule will further improve 

stability, productivity, and certainty in 

the contingency operations that DoD 

supports and ensure that DoD 

contractors do not benefit from the use 

of coerced labor. 

Specific DoD Priorities 

For this regulatory plan, there are six 

specific DoD priorities, all of which 

reflect the established regulatory 

principles. DoD has focused its 

regulatory resources on the most serious 

environmental, health, and safety risks. 

Perhaps most significant is that each of 

the priorities described below 

promulgates regulations to offset the 

resource impacts of Federal decisions 

on the public or to improve the quality 

of public life, such as those regulations 

concerning acquisition, health affairs, 

education, and cyber security. 

1. Defense Procurement and Acquisition 

Policy 

The Department of Defense 

continuously reviews the DFARS and 

continues to lead Government efforts 

to— 

• Revise the DFARS to improve 

presentation and clarity of the 

regulations by (1) initiating a new 

convention to construct clauses with 

alternates in a manner whereby the 

alternate clauses are included in full 

text making the terms of the alternates 

clearer by clarifying paragraph 

substitutions and (2) streamline the 

DFARS by screening the text to identify 

any DoD procedural guidance that does 

not have a significant effect beyond the 

internal operating procedures of DoD or 

have a significant cost or administrative 

impact on contractors or offerors, which 

should be more correctly relocated from 

the DFARS to the DFARS Procedures, 

Guidance, and Information (PGI). 

• Employ methods to facilitate and 

improve efficiency of the contracting 

process such as (1) employing a 

checklist to assist contractors in 

providing initial submission of FPRA 

proposals that are thorough, accurate, 

and complete and (2) requiring 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76504 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

scientific and technical reports to be 

submitted electronically. 

2. Health Affairs, Department of Defense 

The Department of Defense is able to 

meet its dual mission of wartime 

readiness and peacetime health care by 

operating an extensive network of 

medical treatment facilities. This 

network includes DoD’s own military 

treatment facilities supplemented by 

civilian health care providers, facilities, 

and services under contract to DoD 

through the TRICARE program. 

TRICARE is a major health care program 

designed to improve the management 

and integration of DoD’s health care 

delivery system. The program’s goal is 

to increase access to health care 

services, improve health care quality, 

and control health care costs. 

The Defense Health Agency plans to 

publish the following rule: 

• Final Rule: CHAMPUS/TRICARE: 

Pilot Program for Refills of Maintenance 

Medications for TRICARE Life 

Beneficiaries through the TRICARE Mail 

Order Program. This final rule 

implements section 716 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112–239), which 

establishes a 5-year pilot program that 

would generally require TRICARE for 

Life beneficiaries to obtain all refill 

prescriptions for covered maintenance 

medications from the TRICARE mail 

order program or military treatment 

facility pharmacies. Covered 

maintenance medications are those that 

involve recurring prescriptions for 

chronic conditions, but do not include 

medications to treat acute conditions. 

Beneficiaries may opt out of the pilot 

program after one year of participation. 

This rule includes procedures to assist 

beneficiaries in transferring covered 

prescriptions to the mail order 

pharmacy program. The interim final 

rule was published December 11, 2013 

(78 FR 75245) with an effective date of 

February 14, 2014. DoD anticipates 

publishing a final rule in the first 

quarter of FY 2015. 

3. Personnel and Readiness, Department 

of Defense 

The Department of Defense plans to 

publish a rule regarding Service 

Academies: 

• Final Rule: Service Academies. This 

rule establishes policy, assigns 

responsibilities, and prescribes 

procedures for Department of Defense 

oversight of the Service Academies. 

Administrative costs are negligible, and 

benefits are clear, concise rules that 

enable the Secretary of Defense to 

ensure that the Service Academies are 

efficiently operated and meet the needs 

of the armed forces. The proposed rule 

was published October 18, 2007 (72 FR 

59053), and included policy that has 

since changed. The final rule, 

particularly the explanation of 

separation policy, will reflect recent 

changes in the ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ 

policy. It will also incorporate changes 

resulting from interagency coordination. 

DoD anticipates publishing the final 

rule in the first or second quarter of FY 

2015. 

4. Military Community and Family 

Policy, Department of Defense 

The Department of Defense has 

proposed a revision to the regulation 

implementing the Military Lending Act, 

which prescribes limitations on the 

terms of consumer credit extended to 

Service members and dependents: 

• Proposed Rule: Limitations on 

Terms of Consumer Credit Extended to 

Service Members and Dependents. In 

this proposed rule, the Department of 

Defense (Department) proposes to 

amend its regulation that implements 

the Military Lending Act, herein 

referred to as the ‘‘MLA’’. Among other 

protections for Service members, the 

MLA limits the amount of interest that 

a creditor may charge on ‘‘consumer 

credit’’ to a maximum annual 

percentage rate of 36 percent. The 

Department proposed to amend its 

existing regulation primarily for the 

purpose of extending the protections of 

the MLA to a broader range of closedend and open-end credit products, 

rather than the limited credit products 

currently defined as consumer credit. In 

addition, the Department proposed to 

amend its existing regulation to amend 

the provisions governing a tool a 

creditor may use in assessing whether a 

consumer is a ‘‘covered borrower,’’ 

modify the disclosures that a creditor 

must provide to a covered borrower 

implement the enforcement provisions 

of the MLA, as amended, among other 

purposes. The revisions to this rule are 

part of DoD’s retrospective plan under 

Executive Order 13563 completed in 

August 2011. 

5. Chief Information Officer, Department 

of Defense 

The Department of Defense plans to 

amend the voluntary cyber security 

information sharing program between 

DoD and eligible cleared defense 

contractors: 

• Proposed Rule: Defense Industrial 

Base (DIB) Voluntary Cyber Security/

Information Assurance (CS/IA) 

Activities. The Department proposes to 

amend the DoD–DIB CS/IA Voluntary 

Activities regulation (32 CFR part 236) 

in response to section 941 National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, which requires 

the Secretary of Defense to establish 

procedures that require each cleared 

defense contractor (CDC) to report to 

DoD when a network or information 

system has a cyber-intrusion. The 

revised rule also expands eligibility to 

participate in the DIB CS/IA voluntary 

cyber threat information sharing 

program to all CDCs. DoD anticipates 

publishing a proposed rule in the first 

or second quarter of FY 2015. 

DOD—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

(OS) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

38. Limitations on Terms of Consumer 

Credit Extended to Service Members 

and Dependents 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 987 

CFR Citation: 32 CFR 232. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Defense 

(‘‘Department’’) proposes to amend its 

regulation that implements the Military 

Lending Act, herein referred to as the 

‘‘MLA.’’ Among other protections for 

servicemembers, the MLA limits the 

amount of interest that a creditor may 

charge on ‘‘consumer credit’’ to a 

maximum annual percentage rate of 36 

percent. The Department is proposing to 

amend its existing regulation primarily 

for the purpose of extending the 

protections of the MLA to a broader 

range of closed-end and open-end credit 

products, rather than the limited credit 

products currently defined as consumer 

credit. In addition, the Department is 

proposing to amend its existing 

regulation to amend the provisions 

governing a tool a creditor may use in 

assessing whether a consumer is a 

‘‘covered borrower,’’ modify the 

disclosures that a creditor must provide 

to a covered borrower, implement the 

enforcement provisions of the MLA, as 

amended, and for other purposes. The 

revisions to this rule are part of DoD’s 

retrospective plan under Executive 

Order 13563 completed in August 2011. 

DoD’s full plan can be accessed at: 

http://exchange.regulations.gov/

exchange/topic/eo-13563. 

Statement of Need: This regulation 

identifies the negative impact of highcost consumer credit lending on 

servicemembers and their dependents 

quality of life and on general troop 

readiness. Servicemembers are younger 

than the population as a whole with 43 

percent 25 years old or less. Thirty-five 

percent of enlisted servicemembers in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76505 

the grades E1–E4 are married and 20 

percent of them have children. This is 

compared with approximately 12 

percent of their contemporaries in the 

U.S. population 18 through 24 who are 

married (2012 U.S. Census Bureau). The 

majority of recruits come to the military 

from high school with little financial 

literacy education. 

The initial indoctrination provided to 

servicemembers is critical providing 

basic requirements for their professional 

and personal responsibilities and their 

successful adjustment to military life. 

Part of this training is in personal 

finance which is an integral part of their 

personal and often professional success. 

The Department of Defense (the 

Department) continues to provide them 

messages to save, invest, and manage 

their money wisely throughout their 

career. 

A major concern of the Department 

has been the debt accumulation of some 

servicemembers and the continued 

financial turmoil caused by their use of 

credit particularly high-cost credit. The 

regulation has provided limitation on 

the use of credit posing the most 

significant concerns (short-term highcost credit secured by pay, vehicle title, 

or tax return). Other forms of high-cost 

credit outside of the definitions in the 

regulation have been developed since 

the regulation was initially released in 

2007 and the proposed changes to the 

regulation have been developed in part 

to extend protections to servicemembers 

and their families to cover these new 

developments. 

The Department views the support 

provided to military families as 

essential to sustaining force readiness 

and military capability. From this 

perspective it is not sufficient for the 

Department to train servicemembers on 

how best to use their financial 

resources. Financial protections are an 

important part of fulfilling the 

Departments compact with 

servicemembers and their families and 

most importantly of sustaining force 

readiness and military capability. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Public Law 

109–364 the John Warner National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 670 Limitations on Terms of 

Consumer Credit Extended to 

Servicemembers and Dependents 

(October 17 2006). Section 670 of Public 

Law 109–364 which was codified as 10 

U.S.C. 987 requires the Secretary of 

Defense to prescribe regulations to carry 

out the new section. 

Alternatives: No other regulatory 

alternatives are available. Education 

represents a non-regulatory alternative 

that is an important aspect of the overall 

protection provided servicemembers 

and their families. However education 

has not been proven to change behavior 

and has not been sufficient to prepare 

many of servicemembers to avoid 

financial products and services that can 

cause them financial harm. This 

regulation works in tandem with ongoing efforts to educate Service 

members and prepare them to manage 

their finances. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Increased costs to the creditors as a 

result of the Regulation have been 

articulated in the Paperwork Reduction 

Act Submission as part of the EO 12866 

review. The Department anticipates that 

its regulation, if adopted as proposed, 

might impose costs of approximately 

$96 million during the first year, as 

creditors adapt their systems to comply 

with the requirements of the MLA and 

the Department’s regulation. However, 

after the first year and on an ongoing 

basis, the annual effect on the economy 

is expected to be between 

approximately $7 million net 

(quantitative) costs and $117 million net 

(quantitative) benefits. The potentially 

anticipated net benefits of the proposed 

regulation are attributable to the cost 

savings to the Department that would 

result from the reduction in involuntary 

separations of Service members due to 

financial distress; at some points in the 

range of estimates the Department has 

used to assess the proposal, these 

savings are estimated to exceed the 

compliance costs that would be borne 

by creditors. 

Risks: The Regulation currently 

covers payday loans, vehicle-title loans, 

and tax refund anticipation loans 

(RALs). Some other credit products with 

favorable terms as well as terms that can 

increase the interest rate well beyond 

the limits prescribed by 10 U.S.C. 987 

were not initially covered by the 

regulation. However access to payday 

and vehicle title loans has changed to 

include variations that are no longer 

covered by the regulation and there are 

other high-cost credit products that have 

become more of an issue for 

servicemembers and their families who 

have over extended their credit. 

The regulation continues to 

complement other actions taken by the 

Department to include initial and 

follow-on financial education financial 

awareness campaigns savings 

campaigns free financial counseling at 

military installations and available 24 

hours 7 days per week through Military 

OneSource. To complement these efforts 

Military Aid Societies provide grants 

and no-interest loans and a growing 

number of financial institutions located 

on military installations are providing 

low-cost small-dollar loans. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 06/17/13 78 FR 36134 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

08/01/13 

NPRM .................. 09/29/14 79 FR 58601 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

11/28/14 

Final Action ......... 05/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Marcus Beauregard, 

Department of Defense, Office of the 

Secretary, 4000 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–4000, Phone: 

571 372–5357. 

RIN: 0790–AJ10 

DOD—OS 

39. Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber 

Security/Information Assurance (CS/IA) 

Activities: Amendment 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: EO 12829 

CFR Citation: 32 CFR 236. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule amends the DoD– 

DIB CS/IA Voluntary Activities 

regulation in response to section 941 

National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 which 

requires the Secretary of Defense to 

establish procedures that require each 

cleared defense contractor (CDC) to 

report when a network or information 

system that meets the criteria reports 

cyber intrusions. 

Statement of Need: The Department of 

Defense (DoD) will amend the DoD–DIB 

CS/IA Voluntary Activities (32 CFR part 

236) regulation to incorporate changes 

as required by section 941 NDAA for FY 

2013 to include mandated cyber 

intrusion incident reporting by all 

cleared defense contractors (CDCs). 

Summary of Legal Basis: This 

regulation is proposed under the 

authorities of section 941 NDAA for FY 

2013. 

Alternatives: DoD analyzed the 

requirements in section 941 NDAA for 

FY 2013 and determined that 

implementation must be accomplished 

through the rulemaking process. This 

will allow the public to comment on the 

implementation strategy. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Implementing the amended rule to meet 

the requirements of section 941 NDAA 

for FY 2013 affects approximately 8,700 

CDCs. Each company will require DoD 

approved, medium assured certificates 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76506 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

to submit the mandatory cyber incident 

reporting to the DoD-access controlled 

Web site. The cost per certificate is 

$175. In addition, it is estimated that the 

average burden per reported incident is 

7 hours, which includes identifying the 

cyber incident details, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, reviewing 

the collection of information to be 

reported, and completing the report. 

Note, these costs are the same as those 

associated with 32 CFR part 236 (DoD– 

DIB CS/IA Voluntary Activities), but are 

now applicable across a larger 

population of defense contractors. The 

benefit of this amended rule is satisfying 

the legal mandate from section 941 

NDAA for FY 2013 as well as informing 

the Department of incidents that impact 

DoD programs and information. DoD 

needs to have the ability to assess the 

strategic and operational impacts of 

cyber incidents and determine 

appropriate mitigation activities. 

Risks: There will likely be significant 

public interest in DoD’s implementation 

of section 941 NDAA for FY 2013. DoD 

will need to assure the public that DoD 

will provide for the reasonable 

protection of trade secrets, commercial 

or financial information, and 

information that can be used to identify 

a specific person that may be evident 

through the cyber incident reporting 

and media analysis. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Vicki Michetti, 

Department of Defense, Office of the 

Secretary, 6000 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–6000, Phone: 

703 604–3177, Email: 

vicki.d.michetti.civ@mail.mil. 

RIN: 0790–AJ14 

DOD—OS 

Final Rule Stage 

40. Service Academies 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 403; 10 

U.S.C. 603; 10 U.S.C. 903 

CFR Citation: 32 CFR 217 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department is revising 

and updating policy guidance and 

oversight of the military service 

academies. This rule implements 10 

U.S.C. 403, 603, and 903 for the 

establishment and operation of the 

United States Military Academy, the 

United States Naval Academy, and the 

United States Air Force Academy. The 

proposed rule was published October 

18, 2007 (72 FR 59053), and included 

policy that has since changed. The final 

rule, particularly the explanation of 

separation policy, will reflect recent 

changes in the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell 

policy. 

Statement of Need: The Department of 

Defense revises and updates the current 

rule providing the policy guidance and 

oversight of the military service 

academies. This rule implements 10 

U.S.C. 403, 603, and 903 for the 

establishment and operation of the 

United States Military Academy, the 

United States Naval Academy, and the 

United States Air Force Academy. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 10 U.S.C. 

chapters 403, 603, 903. 

Alternatives: None. The Federal 

statute directs the Department of 

Defense to develop policy, assign 

responsibilities, and prescribe 

procedures for operations and oversight 

of the service academies. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Administrative costs are negligible and 

benefits would be clear, concise rules 

that enable the Secretary of Defense to 

ensure that the service academies are 

efficiently operated and meet the needs 

of the Armed Forces. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/18/07 72 FR 59053 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

12/17/07 

Final Action ......... 02/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: DoD 

Instruction 1322.22. 

Agency Contact: Paul Nosek, 

Department of Defense, Office of the 

Secretary, 4000 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–4000, Phone: 

703 695–5529. 

RIN: 0790–AI19 

DOD—Defense Acquisition 

Regulations Council (DARC) 

Final Rule Stage 

41. Foreign Commercial Satellite 

Services (DFARS Case 2014–D010) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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

L. 113–66, sec 1602 

CFR Citation: 48 CFR 204; 48 CFR 

212; 48 CFR 225; 48 CFR 252. 

Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, 

December 26, 2013, 10 U.S.C. 2279, as 

added by sec 1602 of the NDAA for FY 

2014 (Pub. L. 113–66), which was 

effective on enactment 12/26/13. 

Abstract: DoD issued an interim rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to implement section 1602 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2014, which prohibits 

award of a contract for commercial 

satellite services to a foreign entity if the 

Secretary of Defense believes that the 

foreign entity (1) is an entity in which 

the government of a covered foreign 

country has an ownership interest that 

enables the government to affect 

satellite operations; or (2) plans to, or is 

expected to, provide or use launch or 

other satellite services under the 

contract from a covered foreign country. 

This rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Statement of Need: This action is 

necessary because 10 U.S.C. 2279 as 

added by section 1602 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for FY 2014 

(Pub. L. 113–66) became effective upon 

enactment on December 26 2013. 10 

U.S.C. 2279 restricts the acquisition of 

commercial satellite services from 

certain foreign entities. The statute 

prohibits the award of contracts for 

commercial satellite services to a foreign 

entity that (1) is an entity in which the 

government of a covered foreign country 

(i.e., the Peoples Republic of China, 

North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, or 

Syria) has an ownership interest that 

enables the government to affect 

satellite operations; or (2) plans to or is 

expected to provide or use launch or 

other satellite services under the 

contract from a covered foreign country. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is 

proposed under the authority of title 10 

U.S.C. 2279 as added by section 1602 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act 

for FY 2014 (Pub. L. 113–66). 

Alternatives: DoD was not able to 

identify any alternatives that meet the 

statutory requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2279 

and the objectives of this rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Benefits associated with this rule 

outweigh the cost of compliance. The 

rule reduces the potential risk to 

national security by prohibiting the 

acquisition of commercial satellite 

services from certain foreign entities as 

in those case where the foreign entity is 

either (1) an entity in which the 

government of a covered foreign country 

has an ownership interest that enables 

the government to affect satellite 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76507 

operations; or (2) plans to or is expected 

to provide or use launch or other 

satellite services under the contract 

from a covered foreign country. The rule 

requires an annual representation as to 

whether the offeror is or is not a foreign 

entity subject to the prohibitions of the 

statute or is or is not offering 

commercial satellite services provided 

by such a foreign entity. DoD estimates 

that the total estimated annual public 

burden for the collection of this 

information is negligible (approximately 

$4275.00) based on Federal 

Procurement Data System data for FY 

2013. There were 380 unique 

contractors that received contract or 

orders for PSC D304 (ADP 

Telecommunications and Transmission 

Services) of which commercial satellite 

services are a subset so 380 is an 

estimate at the highest end of the 

possible range of respondents. We 

estimate that these respondent will 

spend an average of 0.25 hours to 

complete and submit one response per 

year. Additionally DoD estimates that 

the rule will not have a significant 

impact on small entities unless they are 

offering commercial satellite services 

provided by a foreign entity that is 

subject to the restrictions of this rule. 

According to the FPDS data for fiscal 

year 2013, 111 small entities were 

awarded contracts or orders for services 

in PSC D304 (ADP Telecommunications 

and Transmission Services) of which 

commercial satellite services are a 

subset. 

Risks: Until this statute is 

implemented in the DFARS there is risk 

that contracting officers may acquire 

commercial satellite services in 

violation of the law increasing the risk 

to the U.S. military operations and lost 

opportunities for the U.S. industrial 

base. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 08/05/14 79 FR 45662 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

08/05/14 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

10/06/14 

Final Action ......... 03/00/15 

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: Manuel Quinones, 

Department of Defense, Defense 

Acquisition Regulations Council, 4800 

Mark Center Drive, Suite 15D07–2, 

Alexandria, VA 22350, Phone: 571 372– 

6088, Email: manuel.quinones.civ@

mail.mil. 

RIN: 0750–AI32 

DOD—Office of Assistant Secretary for 

Health Affairs (DODOASHA) 

Final Rule Stage 

42. Champus/TRICARE: Pilot Program 

for Refills of Maintenance 

Medications for TRICARE for Life 

Beneficiaries Through the TRICARE 

Mail Order Program 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

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

U.S.C. ch 55 

CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This interim final rule 

implements section 716 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112–239), which 

establishes a 5-year pilot program that 

would generally require TRICARE for 

Life beneficiaries to obtain all refill 

prescriptions for covered maintenance 

medications from the TRICARE mail 

order program or military treatment 

facility pharmacies. Covered 

maintenance medications are those that 

involve recurring prescriptions for 

chronic conditions, but do not include 

medications to treat acute conditions. 

Beneficiaries may opt out of the pilot 

program after 1 year of participation. 

This rule includes procedures to assist 

beneficiaries in transferring covered 

prescriptions to the mail-order 

pharmacy program. This regulation is 

being issued as an interim final rule in 

order to comply with the express 

statutory intent that the program begin 

in calendar year 2013. 

Statement of Need: The Department of 

Defense (DoD) proposed rule establishes 

processes for the new program of refills 

of maintenance medications for 

TRICARE for Life beneficiaries through 

military treatment facility pharmacies 

and the mail order pharmacy program. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This 

regulation is proposed under 5 U.S.C. 

301; 10 U.S.C. chapter 55; 32 CFR 

199.21. 

Alternatives: The rule fulfills a 

statutory requirement, therefore there 

are no alternatives. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

effect of the statutory requirement, 

implemented by this rule, is to shift a 

volume of prescriptions from retail 

pharmacies to the most cost-effective 

point-of-service venues of military 

treatment facility pharmacies and the 

mail order pharmacy program. This will 

produce savings to the Department of 

approximately $104 million per year, 

and savings to beneficiaries of 

approximately $34 million per year in 

reduced copayments. 

Risks: Loss of savings to both the 

Department and beneficiaries. No risk to 

the public. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 12/11/13 78 FR 75245 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

02/10/14 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

02/14/14 

Final Action ......... 01/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: George Jones, 

Department of Defense, Office of 

Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, 

Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301, Phone: 703 681–2890. 

RIN: 0720–AB60 

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 others in improving 

education nationwide and in helping to 

ensure that all Americans receive a 

high-quality education. We provide 

leadership and financial assistance 

pertaining to education 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76508 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

programs and activities that receive 

Federal financial assistance, and 

support innovative programs, research 

and evaluation activities, technical 

assistance, and the dissemination of 

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 2014–2015 school year, about 55 

million students will attend an 

estimated 130,000 elementary and 

secondary schools in approximately 

13,600 districts, and about 21 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, and monitoring related to 

our programs, we are committed to 

working closely with affected persons 

and groups. Specifically, we work with 

a broad range of interested parties and 

the general public, including families, 

students, and educators; State, local, 

and tribal governments; 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 continuing to streamline 

information collections, reduce the 

burden on information providers 

involved in our programs, and make 

information easily accessible to the 

public. 

II. Regulatory Priorities 

A. The Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

Amended 

Gainful Employment. On March 25, 

2014, the Secretary issued a notice of 

proposed rulemaking for the Federal 

Student Aid programs authorized under 

title IV of the Higher Education Act of 

1965, as amended (HEA). Specifically, 

the proposed regulations would amend 

the regulations on institutional 

eligibility under the HEA and the 

Student Assistance General Provisions 

to establish measures for determining 

whether certain postsecondary 

educational programs prepare students 

for gainful employment in a recognized 

occupation, the conditions under which 

these educational programs remain 

eligible for the title IV Federal Student 

Aid programs, and requirements for 

reporting and disclosure of relevant 

information. The public comment 

period for the proposed regulations 

closed on May 27, 2014, and the 

Department published final regulations 

on October 31, 2014. 

Pay As You Earn. On June 9, 2014, the 

President issued a memorandum 

directing the Secretary to propose 

regulations by June 9, 2015, that will 

allow additional students who borrowed 

Federal Direct Loans to cap their 

Federal student loan payments at 10 

percent of their income. The 

memorandum further directed the 

Secretary to issue final regulations after 

considering all public comments with 

the goal of making the repayment option 

available to borrowers by December 31, 

2015. On September 3, 2014, we 

published a notice announcing our 

intention to establish a negotiated 

rulemaking committee to prepare 

proposed regulations governing the 

Federal William D. Ford Direct Loan 

Program. We also invited public 

comments regarding additional issues 

that should be considered for action by 

the negotiating committee. 

Teacher Preparation. On April 25, 

2014, the President directed the 

Department to propose a plan to 

strengthen America’s teacher 

preparation programs for public 

comment and to publish a final rule 

within the next year. The 

Administration seeks to encourage and 

support States in developing systems 

that recognize excellence and provide 

all programs with information to help 

them improve, while holding them 

accountable for how well they prepare 

teachers to succeed in today’s 

classrooms and throughout their careers. 

Specifically, the Department is 

preparing to issue proposed regulations 

under title II of the HEA that require 

States to provide more meaningful data 

in their State report cards on the 

performance of each teacher preparation 

program located in the State and to 

amend the regulations governing the 

Teacher Education Assistance for 

College and Higher Education (TEACH) 

Grant Program to update, clarify, and 

improve the current regulations and 

align them with data reported by States 

under title II. 

B. Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as Amended 

In 2010, the Administration released 

the ‘‘Blueprint for Reform: The 

Reauthorization of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act’’, the 

President’s plan for revising the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 (ESEA) and replacing the 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 

(NCLB). The blueprint can be found at 

the following Web site: http://

www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/

index.html. 

Additionally, as we continue to work 

with Congress on reauthorizing the 

ESEA, we continue to provide flexibility 

on certain provisions of current law for 

States that are willing to embrace 

reform. The mechanisms we are using 

will ensure continued accountability 

and commitment to high-quality 

education for all students while 

providing States with increased 

flexibility to implement State and local 

reforms to improve student 

achievement. 

C. Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act of 2006 

In 2012, we released ‘‘Investing in 

America’s Future: A Blueprint for 

Transforming Career and Technical 

Education’’, our plan for reauthorizing 

the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act of 2006 (2006 Perkins 

Act). The Blueprint can be found at the 

following Web site: http://www2.ed.gov/ 

about/offices/list/ovae/pi/cte/

transforming-career-technicaleducation.pdf. 

The 2006 Perkins Act made important 

changes in Federal support for career 

and technical education (CTE), such as 

the introduction of a requirement that 

all States offer ‘‘programs of study.’’ 

These changes helped to improve the 

learning experiences of CTE students 

but did not go far enough to 

systemically create better outcomes for 

students and employers who are 

competing in a 21st-century global 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76509 

economy. The Administration’s 

Blueprint would usher in a new era of 

rigorous, relevant, and results-driven 

CTE shaped by four core principles: (1) 

Alignment; (2) Collaboration; (3) 

Accountability; and (4) Innovation. The 

Administration’s Blueprint proposal 

reflects a commitment to promoting 

equity and quality across these 

alignment, collaboration, accountability, 

and innovation efforts in order to ensure 

that more students have access to highquality CTE programs. 

D. Individuals With Disabilities 

Education Act 

On September 18, 2013, the Secretary 

issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 

to amend regulations under Part B of the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA) regarding local maintenance 

of effort (MOE) to ensure that all parties 

involved in implementing, monitoring, 

and auditing local educational agency 

(LEA) compliance with MOE 

requirements understand the rules. The 

Secretary intends to issue final 

regulations to amend the existing 

regulations that will clarify existing 

policy and make other related changes 

regarding: (1) The compliance standard; 

(2) the eligibility standard; (3) the level 

of fiscal effort required of an LEA in the 

year after it fails to maintain that effort; 

and (4) the consequence for a failure to 

maintain local effort. 

E. Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act 

President Obama signed the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act (WIOA) into law on July 22, 2014. 

WIOA replaced the Workforce 

Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), 

including the Adult Education and 

Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), and 

amended the Wagner-Peyser Act and the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

(Rehabilitation Act). WIOA promotes 

the integration of the workforce 

development system’s four ‘‘core 

programs’’, including AEFLA and the 

vocational rehabilitation program under 

Title I of the Rehabilitation Act), into 

the revamped workforce development 

system under Title I of WIOA. In 

collaboration with the Department of 

Labor (DOL), the Department must issue 

an NPRM by January 18, 2015, and final 

regulations by January 22, 2016. The 

Department is working with DOL to 

meet this statutory deadline. The 

Department will also regulate on the 

programs it administers under the 

Rehabilitation Act and AEFLA that were 

changed by WIOA. 

III. Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review’’ (signed by the 

President on Jan. 18, 2011), the 

following Regulatory Identifier Numbers 

(RINs) have been identified as 

associated with retrospective review 

and analysis in the Department’s final 

retrospective review of regulations plan. 

Some of the entries on this list may be 

completed actions that do not appear in 

The Regulatory Plan. However, more 

information can be found about these 

completed rulemakings in past 

publications of the Unified Agenda on 

Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions 

section. These rulemakings can also be 

found on Regulations.gov. The final 

agency plan can be found at: 

www.ed.gov. 

RIN Title of Rulemaking 

Do we expect this 

rulemaking to significantly reduce burden 

on small businesses? 

1810–AB16 ....... Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged ..................................................... No. 

1820–AB65 ....... Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities—Maintenance of Effort ................. No. 

1820–AB66 ....... American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program ................................................................. No. 

1820–AB68 ....... Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (OSERS) .............................................................................. Undetermined. 

1830–AA21 ....... Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (OCTAE) .............................................................................. Undetermined. 

1840–AD08 ....... Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act, as Amended ...................................................................... No. 

1840–AD14 ....... Negotiated Rulemaking Under Title IV of the HEA .................................................................................. No. 

1840–AD15 ....... Gainful Employment ................................................................................................................................. No. 

1840–AD16 ....... Violence Against Women Act ................................................................................................................... No. 

1840–AD17 ....... William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program ......................................................................................... No. 

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 compliance behavior. 

• Encourage flexibility, to the extent 

possible and as needed to enable 

institutional forces to achieve desired 

results. 

ED—OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY 

EDUCATION (OPE) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

43. • Pay as you Earn 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76510 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On June 9 2014, the 

President issued a memorandum (79 FR 

33843) directing the Secretary to 

propose regulations by June 9, 2015, 

that will allow additional students who 

borrowed Federal Direct Loans to cap 

their Federal student loan payments at 

10 percent of their income. The 

memorandum further directed the 

Secretary to issue final regulations after 

considering all public comments with 

the goal of making the repayment option 

available to borrowers by December 31, 

2015. 

Statement of Need: The President has 

issued a memorandum directing the 

Secretary to propose regulations by June 

9, 2015, that will allow additional 

student borrowers Federal Direct Loans 

to cap their Federal student loan 

payments at 10 percent of their income. 

The memorandum further directed the 

Secretary to issue final regulations after 

considering all public comments with 

the goal of making the repayment option 

available to borrowers by December 31, 

2015. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

President directed the Secretary to 

propose regulations that will allow 

additional student borrowers Federal 

Direct Loans to cap their Federal 

student loan payments at 10 percent of 

their income. 

Alternatives: These will be discussed 

in the notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These 

will be discussed in the notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

Risks: These will be discussed in the 

notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice of Intent to 

Establish Negotiated Rulemaking Committee.

09/03/14 79 FR 52273 

NPRM .................. 06/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Wendy Macias, 

Department of Education, Office of 

Postsecondary Education, Room 8017, 

1990 K Street NW., Washington, DC 

20006, Phone: 202 502–7526, Email: 

wendy.macias@ed.gov. 

RIN: 1840–AD18 

ED—OFFICE OF CAREER, 

TECHNICAL, AND ADULT EDUCATION 

(OCTAE) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

44. • Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

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

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113–128 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

January 18, 2015, No later than 180 days 

after enactment. Final, Statutory, 

January 22, 2016, 18 months after 

enactment. 

Abstract: WIOA was signed into law 

on July 22, 2014. It replaced the 

Workforce Investment Act of 1998, 

including the Adult Education and 

Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), and 

amended the Wagner-Peyser Act and the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. WIOA 

promotes the integration of the 

workforce development system’s four 

core programs. In collaboration with the 

Department of Labor (DOL), the 

Department must issue an NPRM by 

January 18, 2015 and final regulations 

by January 22, 2016. To meet this 

statutory timeline, the Department will 

work with DOL on various issues. The 

Department will also regulate on the 

programs it administers under the 

Rehabilitation Act and the AEFLA that 

were changed by WIOA. 

Statement of Need: WIOA replaces 

the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, 

including the AEFLA, and amends the 

Wagner-Peyser Act and the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In 

collaboration with the Department of 

Labor (DOL), the Department must issue 

proposed regulations on the integration 

of the workforce development system’s 

four core programs, and will also 

regulate on the programs it administers 

under the Rehabilitation Act and the 

AEFLA that were changed by WIOA. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Department will issue proposed 

regulations on the integration of the 

workforce development system’s four 

core programs, and on the programs it 

administers under that were changed by 

WIOA. 

Alternatives: These will be discussed 

in the NPRM Regulations. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These 

will be discussed in the NPRM 

Regulations. 

Risks: These will be discussed in the 

NPRM Regulations. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Mary Louise Dirrigl, 

Department of Education, Office of 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services, Room 5156, PCP, 550 12th 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20202, 

Phone: 202 245–7324. 

Cheryl Keenan, Department of 

Education, Office of Career, Technical, 

and Adult Education, 550 12th Street 

SW., Washington, DC 20202, Phone: 202 

245–7810. 

RIN: 1830–AA21. 

BILLING CODE 4001–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Statement of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Priorities 

The Department of Energy 

(Department or DOE) makes vital 

contributions to the Nation’s welfare 

through its activities focused on 

improving national security, energy 

supply, energy efficiency, 

environmental remediation, and energy 

research. The Department’s mission is 

to: 

• Promote dependable, affordable and 

environmentally sound production and 

distribution of energy; 

• Advance energy efficiency and 

conservation; 

• Provide responsible stewardship of 

the Nation’s nuclear weapons; 

• Provide a responsible resolution to 

the environmental legacy of nuclear 

weapons production; and 

• Strengthen U.S. scientific 

discovery, economic competitiveness, 

and improve quality of life through 

innovations in science and technology. 

The Department’s regulatory activities 

are essential to achieving its critical 

mission and to implementing major 

initiatives of the President’s National 

Energy Policy. Among other things, the 

Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda 

contain the rulemakings the Department 

will be engaged in during the coming 

year to fulfill the Department’s 

commitment to meeting deadlines for 

issuance of energy conservation 

standards and related test procedures. 

The Regulatory Plan and Unified 

Agenda also reflect the Department’s 

continuing commitment to cut costs, 

reduce regulatory burden, and increase 

responsiveness to the public. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76511 

Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive 

Order 13563 ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review’’ (Jan. 18, 2011), 

several regulations have been identified 

as associated with retrospective review 

and analysis in the Department’s final 

retrospective review of regulations plan. 

Some of these entries on this list may 

be completed actions, which do not 

appear in the Regulatory Plan. However, 

more information can be found about 

these completed rulemakings in past 

publications of the Unified Agenda on 

Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions 

section for that agency. These 

rulemakings can also be found on 

Regulations.gov. The final agency plan 

can be found at http://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/

other/2011-regulatory-action-plans/

departmentofenergy

regulatoryreformplanaugust2011.pdf. 

Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer 

Products and Commercial Equipment 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (EPCA) requires DOE to set 

appliance efficiency standards at levels 

that achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. The Department 

continues to follow its schedule for 

setting new appliance efficiency 

standards. These rulemakings are 

expected to save American consumers 

billions of dollars in energy costs. 

The overall plan for implementing the 

schedule is contained in the Report to 

Congress under section 141 of EPACT 

2005, which was released on January 31, 

2006. This plan was last updated in the 

August 2014 report to Congress and now 

includes the requirements of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007) and the American Energy 

Manufacturing Technical Corrections 

Act (AEMTCA). The reports to Congress 

are posted at: http://www.eere.energy.

gov/buildings/appliance_standards/

schedule_setting.html. 

Estimate of Combined Aggregate Costs 

and Benefits 

In FY 2014, the Department published 

final rules that adopted new or amended 

energy conservation standards for seven 

different products, including metal 

halide lamp fixtures, external power 

supplies, commercial refrigeration 

equipment, walk-in coolers and freezers, 

through the wall air conditioners and 

heat pumps, electric motors, and 

furnace fans. These standards when 

combined with the other final rules 

adopting standards since January 2009, 

are expected to save consumers 

hundreds of billions of dollars on their 

utility bills through 2030. 

DOE believes that the three 

rulemakings that make up the 

Regulatory Plan will also substantially 

benefit the Nation. However, because of 

their current stage in the rulemaking 

process, DOE has not yet proposed 

candidate standard levels for these 

products and cannot provide an 

estimate of combined aggregate costs 

and benefits for these actions. DOE will, 

however, in compliance with all 

applicable law, issue standards that 

provide the maximum energy savings 

that are technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Estimates of 

energy savings will be provided when 

DOE issues the notice of proposed 

rulemakings for manufactured housing, 

general service lamps, and nonweatherized gas furnaces. 

DOE—ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND 

RENEWABLE ENERGY (EE) 

Prerule Stage 

45. Energy Conservation Standards for 

General Service Lamps 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(6)(A) and (B) 

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

January 1, 2017. 

Abstract: Amendments to Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) in 

the Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007 (EISA) direct DOE to 

conduct two rulemaking cycles to 

evaluate energy conservation standards 

for GSLs, the first of which must be 

initiated no later than January 1, 2014. 

EISA specifically states that the scope of 

the rulemaking is not limited to 

incandescent lamp technologies. EISA 

also states that DOE must consider in 

the first rulemaking cycle the minimum 

backstop requirement of 45 lumens per 

watt for GSLs effective January 1, 2020, 

established by EISA. This rulemaking 

constitutes DOE’s first rulemaking cycle. 

Statement of Need: EPCA requires 

minimum energy efficiency standards 

for certain appliances and commercial 

equipment. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Title III of 

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

of 1975 (EPCA or the Act) Public Law 

94163 (42 U.S.C. 62916309 as codified) 

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles. Pursuant to EPCA 

any new or amended energy 

conservation standard that the U.S. 

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 

by the statute. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Because DOE has not yet proposed 

energy efficiency standards, DOE cannot 

provide an estimate of combined 

aggregate costs and benefits for these 

actions. DOE will, however, in 

compliance with all applicable law, 

issue standards that provide for 

increased energy efficiency that are 

economically justified. Estimates of 

energy savings will be provided when 

DOE issues the notice of proposed 

rulemaking action. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Framework Document Availibility; 

Public Meeting.

12/09/13 78 FR 73737 

Framework Document Comment 

Period Extended.

01/23/14 79 FR 3742 

Framework Document Comment 

Period End.

02/07/14 

Preliminary Analysis.12/00/14 

NPRM .................. 02/00/16 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

URL For More Information: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=83. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov/

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

Agency Contact: Lucy DeButts, Office 

of Buildings Technologies Program, EE– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76512 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

5B, Department of Energy, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 287– 

1604, Email: lucy.debutts@ee.doe.gov. 

RIN: 1904–AD09 

DOE—EE 

Proposed Rule Stage 

46. Energy Efficiency Standards for 

Manufactured Housing 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under Pub. L. 

104–4. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 17071 

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 460. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

December 19, 2011. 

Abstract: Section 413 of EISA requires 

that DOE establish standards for energy 

efficiency in manufactured housing. See 

42 U.S.C. 17071(a)(1). DOE is directed to 

base the energy efficiency standards on 

the most recent version of the 

International Energy Conservation Code 

(IECC), except where DOE finds that the 

IECC is not cost effective, or a more 

stringent standard would be more cost 

effective, based on the impact of the 

IECC on the purchase price of 

manufactured housing and on total lifecycle construction and operating costs. 

On June 13, 2014, DOE published a 

notice of intent to establish a negotiated 

rulemaking working group for the 

manufactured housing rulemaking 

under the Appliance Standards and 

Rulemaking Federal Advisory 

Committee (ASRAC) in accordance with 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA) and the Negotiated Rulemaking 

Act (NRA) to negotiate proposed Federal 

standards for the energy efficiency of 

manufactured homes (79 FR 33873). The 

purpose of the working group is to 

discuss and, if possible, reach 

consensus on a proposed rule for the 

energy efficiency of manufactured 

homes. 

Statement of Need: EISA requires 

DOE to establish minimum energy 

efficiency standards for manufactured 

housing. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 413 

of EISA 2007, 42 U.S.C. 17071, directs 

DOE to develop and publish energy 

standards for manufactured housing. 

Alternatives: The statute requires DOE 

to conduct a rulemaking to establish 

standards based on the most recent 

version of the International Energy 

Conservation Code (IECC), except in 

cases in which the Secretary finds that 

the IECC is not cost effective or a more 

stringent standard would be more cost 

effective based on the impact of the 

IECC on the purchase price of 

manufactured housing and on total 

lifecycle construction and operating 

costs. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Because DOE has not yet proposed 

energy efficiency standards, DOE cannot 

provide an estimate of combined 

aggregate costs and benefits for these 

actions. DOE will, however, in 

compliance with all applicable law, 

issue standards that provide for 

increased energy efficiency that are 

economically justified. Estimates of 

energy savings will be provided when 

DOE issues the notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 02/22/10 75 FR 7556 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

03/24/10 

Request for Information.06/25/13 78 FR 37995 

NPRM .................. 11/00/14 

Extension of 

Term; Notice of 

Public Meeting.

10/01/14 79 FR 59154 

NPRM .................. 02/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=97. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2009-BT-BC0021. 

Agency Contact: Joseph Hagerman, 

Office of Building Technologies, EE–2J, 

Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, 1000 

Independence Ave. SW., Washington, 

DC 20585, Phone: 202 586–4549, Email: 

joseph.hagerman@ee.doe.gov. 

RIN: 1904–AC11 

DOE—EE 

47. Energy Conservation Standards for 

Residential Non–weatherized Gas 

Furnaces 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 

6295(f)(4)(e); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1); 42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3) 

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, April 

24, 2015, One year after issuance of the 

proposed rule. Final, Judicial, April 24, 

2016. 

Abstract: 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 furnaces. EPCA 

also requires the DOE to periodically 

determine whether more-stringent 

amended standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified and would save a 

significant amount of energy. DOE is 

amending its energy conservation 

standards for residential nonweatherized gas furnaces and mobile 

home gas furnaces in partial fulfillment 

of a court-ordered remand of DOE’s 

2011 rulemaking for these products. 

Statement of Need: EPCA requires 

minimum energy efficiency standards 

for certain appliances and commercial 

equipment, including residential 

furnaces. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Title III of 

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 

94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309, as 

codified), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles. 

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended 

energy conservation standard that the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

prescribes for certain products, such as 

residential furnaces, 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 

by the statute. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Because DOE has not yet proposed 

energy efficiency standards, DOE cannot 

provide an estimate of combined 

aggregate costs and benefits for these 

actions. DOE will, however, in 

compliance with all applicable laws, 

issue standards that provide for 

increased energy efficiency that are 

economically justified. Estimates of 

energy savings will be provided when 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76513 

DOE issues the notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice of Public 

Meeting.

10/30/14 79 FR 64517 

NPRM .................. 12/00/14 

Final Action ......... 12/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

URL For More Information: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/product.aspx/

productid/72. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: John Cymbalsky, 

Office of Building Technologies 

Program, EE–5B, Department of Energy, 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 

287–1692, Email: john.cymbalsky@

ee.doe.gov. 

RIN: 1904–AD20 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities for 

Fiscal Year 2015 

As the Federal agency with lead 

responsibility for protecting the health 

of all Americans and for providing 

supportive services for vulnerable 

populations, the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) implements 

programs that strengthen the health care 

system; advance scientific knowledge 

and innovation; improve the health, 

safety, and well-being of the American 

people; and strengthen the Nation’s 

health and human services 

infrastructure. 

The Department’s regulatory priorities 

for Fiscal Year 2015 reflect this complex 

mission through planned rulemakings 

structured to: Further increase access to 

health care for all Americans, especially 

by strengthening the Medicare, 

Medicaid and Children’s Health 

Insurance programs; build from 

previous experiences to safeguard the 

Nation’s food supply; provide 

consumers with information to help 

them make healthy choices; and 

marshal the best research and 

technology available to streamline and 

modernize the health care delivery and 

medical-product availability systems. 

The following overview highlights 

forthcoming rulemakings exemplifying 

these priorities. 

Encouraging Delivery System Reforms 

To Ensure Consumer Access to High 

Quality, Affordable Care 

The Affordable Care Act expands 

access to health insurance through 

improvements in Medicaid, the 

establishment of Affordable Insurance 

Exchanges, and coordination between 

Medicaid, the Children’s Health 

Insurance Program, and the Exchanges. 

A forthcoming final rule will bring to 

completion regulatory provisions that 

support our efforts to assist States in 

implementing Medicaid eligibility 

determinations, appeals, enrollment 

changes, and other State health subsidy 

programs stemming from the Affordable 

Care Act. The intent of the rule is to 

afford each State substantial discretion 

in the design and operation of that 

State’s exchange, with standardization 

provided only where directed by the Act 

or where there are compelling practical, 

efficiency or consumer-protection 

reasons. 

A forthcoming proposed rule would 

establish policies related to ‘‘Stage 3’’ of 

the Medicare/Medicaid Electronic 

Health Record (EHR) Incentive 

Programs. The rule is necessary to 

further implement provisions of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act that provide incentive payments to 

eligible providers, hospitals, and critical 

access hospitals participating in 

Medicare and Medicaid programs that 

adopt certified EHR technology. The 

proposal will offer for comment specific 

criteria that these providers and 

facilities would need to meet in order to 

successfully demonstrate ‘‘meaningful 

use,’’ focusing on advanced use of EHR 

technology to promote improved 

outcomes for patients. 

The Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) 

requires parity between mental health or 

substance use disorder benefits and 

medical/surgical benefits, with respect 

to financial requirements and treatment 

limitations under group health plans. A 

new proposed rule would build on the 

2013 final rule implementing MHPAEA 

by proposing standards for Medicaid 

alternative benefit plans, Medicaid 

managed care organizations, and the 

Children’s Health Insurance Program. 

Another proposed rule would revise 

the requirements that long-term care 

facilities must meet to participate in the 

Medicare and Medicaid programs. The 

proposed changes are necessary to 

reflect advances in the theory and 

practice of service delivery and safety 

for patients in long-term care settings. 

The proposals are also an integral part 

of our efforts to achieve broad-based 

improvements both in the quality of 

health care furnished through Federal 

programs, and in patient safety, while at 

the same time reducing procedural 

burdens on providers. 

In addition, nine Medicare payment 

rules will be updated to better reflect 

the current state of medical practice and 

to respond to feedback from providers 

seeking financial predictability and 

flexibility to better serve patients. 

Streamlining Regulations Through 

Retrospective Review 

Consistent with the President’s 

Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ the 

Department remains committed to 

reducing regulatory burden on States, 

health care providers and suppliers, and 

other regulated entities by updating 

current rules to align them with 

emerging health and safety standards, 

and by eliminating outdated procedural 

provisions. 

For example, CMS will continue its 

retrospective review efforts by finalizing 

an April 2014, proposal to amend the 

fire safety standards for hospitals, longterm care facilities, ambulatory surgery 

centers, and a variety of other inpatient 

care settings. Further, this rule will 

adopt the most recent edition of the Life 

Safety Code (LSC) and eliminate 

references in our regulations to all 

earlier editions, which will give clear 

guidance to providers and institutions 

for these important safety standards. 

Similarly, a forthcoming final rule 

from the Administration for Children 

and Families (ACF) will provide the 

first comprehensive update of Child 

Care and Development Fund (CCDF) 

regulations since 1998. The CCDF is a 

Federal program that provides formula 

grants to States, territories, and tribes. 

The program provides financial 

assistance to low-income families to 

access child care so that they can work 

or attend a job-training or educational 

program. It also provides funding to 

improve the quality of child care and 

increase the supply and availability of 

child care for all families, including 

those who receive no direct assistance 

through CCDF. 

Another ACF effort would modify 

existing Head Start performance 

standards to take into account increased 

knowledge in the early childhood field 

since the standards were last updated 

more than 15 years ago. Changes would 

strengthen requirements on curriculum 

and assessment, supervision, health and 

safety, and governance. The notice of 

proposed rulemaking would also 

streamline existing regulations to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76514 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

eliminate unnecessary or duplicative 

requirements. 

Additionally, the Department, in 

collaboration with the President’s Office 

of Science and Technology Policy will 

propose revisions to existing rules 

governing research on human subjects, 

often referred to as the Common Rule. 

This rule would apply to institutions 

and researchers supported by HHS as 

well as researchers throughout much of 

the Federal Government who are 

conducting research involving human 

subjects. The proposed revisions will 

aim to better protect human subjects 

while facilitating research, and also 

reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity 

for investigators. 

Helping Consumers Identify Healthy 

Choices in the Marketplace 

Since 1980, the prevalence of obesity 

among children and adolescents has 

almost tripled. Obesity has both 

immediate and long-term effects on the 

health and quality of life of those 

affected, increasing their risk for chronic 

diseases, including heart disease, type 2 

diabetes, certain cancers, stroke, and 

arthritis—as well as increasing medical 

costs for the individual and the health 

system. Building on the momentum of 

the First Lady’s ‘‘Let’s Move’’ initiative, 

HHS has mobilized skills and expertise 

from across the Department to address 

this epidemic with research, public 

education, and public health strategies. 

Adding to this effort, the Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA) plans to 

issue four final rules designed to 

provide more useful, easy to understand 

dietary information tools that will help 

millions of American families identify 

healthy choices in the marketplace. 

These rules, each benefiting from input 

received in extended public comment 

periods, will: 

• Require restaurants and similar 

retail food establishments with 20 or 

more locations to list calorie content 

information for standard menu items on 

restaurant menus and drive-through 

menu boards. Other nutrient 

information—total calories, fat, 

saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, total 

carbohydrates, sugars, fiber, and total 

protein—would have to be made 

available in writing upon request; 

• Require vending machine operators 

who own or operate 20 or more vending 

machines to disclose calorie content for 

some items. The Department anticipates 

that such information will ensure that 

patrons of chain restaurants and 

vending machines have access to 

essential nutrition information; 

• Revise the nutrition and 

supplement facts labels on packaged 

food, which has not been updated since 

1993 when mandatory nutrition labeling 

of food was first required. The aim of 

the proposed revision is to provide 

updated and easier to read nutrition 

information on the label to help 

consumers maintain healthy dietary 

practices; and 

• Update the serving-size information 

provided within the food label, 

providing current nutrition information 

based on the amount of food that is 

typically eaten as a serving, to assist 

consumers in maintaining healthy 

dietary practices. 

Implementing the Food Safety 

Modernization Act 

FDA will maintain the agency’s 

ongoing effort to promulgate rules 

required under the Food Safety 

Modernization Act (FSMA), working 

with public and private partners to 

build a new system of food safety 

oversight. Responding to extensive 

feedback from stakeholders, the agency 

recently issued for further public 

comment supplemental proposals 

structured to: 

• Establish preventive controls in the 

manufacture and distribution of human 

foods and of animal feeds. These 

regulations constitute the heart of the 

FSMA food safety program by 

instituting uniform practices for the 

manufacture and distribution of food 

products, to ensure that those products 

are safe for consumption and will not 

cause or spread disease. 

• Ensure that produce sold in the 

United States meets rigorous safety 

standards. The regulation would set 

enforceable, science-based standards for 

the safe production and harvesting of 

fresh produce at the farm and the 

packing house, to minimize the risk of 

adverse health consequences. 

• Require food importers to establish 

a verification program to improve the 

safety of food imported into the United 

States. Specifically, FDA will outline 

proposed standards that foreign food 

suppliers must meet to ensure that 

imported food is produced in a manner 

that is as safe as food produced in the 

United States. 

Reducing Tobacco Use 

In 2009, Congress enacted the Family 

Smoking Prevention and Tobacco 

Control Act, authorizing FDA to regulate 

the manufacture, marketing, and 

distribution of tobacco products, to 

protect the public health and to reduce 

tobacco use by minors. In the coming 

fiscal year, benefiting from public 

scrutiny of an April 2014, regulatory 

proposal, FDA plans to issue a final rule 

that will clarify which products 

containing tobacco, in addition to 

cigarettes, are subject to the Agency’s 

oversight. This rule would also allow 

FDA to establish regulatory standards 

on the sale and distribution of tobacco 

products, such as age-related access 

restrictions on advertising and 

promotion, as appropriate, to protect 

public health. 

Modernizing Medical-Product Safety 

and Availability 

In 2012, Congress provided new 

authorities under the Food and Drug 

Administration Safety and Innovation 

Act to support its mission of 

safeguarding the quality of medical 

products available to the public while 

ensuring the availability of innovative 

products. FDA is implementing this 

new authority with a focus on 

protecting the quality of medical 

products in the global drug supply 

chain; improving the availability of 

needed drugs and devices; and 

promoting better-informed decisions by 

health professionals and patients. 

For example, the Agency plans to 

issue a final rule this year to require 

manufacturers of certain drugs, such as 

drugs used for cancer treatments, 

anesthesia drugs, and other drugs that 

are critical to the treatment of serious 

diseases and life-threatening conditions, 

to report discontinuances or 

interruptions in the manufacturing of 

these products. This rule will help FDA 

address and potentially prevent drug 

shortages, and it will help inform 

providers and public health officials 

earlier about potential drug shortages. 

Another forthcoming final rule will 

update FDA’s regulations to reflect the 

increased use of generic drugs in the 

current marketplace, and will describe 

approaches for brand name and generic 

drug manufacturers to update product 

labeling. This rule will revise and 

clarify procedures for updates to 

product labeling to reflect certain types 

of newly acquired safety information 

through submission of a ‘‘changes being 

effected’’ supplement. 

Reducing Gun Violence 

As part of the President’s continuing 

efforts to reduce gun violence, HHS will 

issue a final rule to remove unnecessary 

legal barriers under the HIPAA Privacy 

Rule that may prevent States from 

reporting certain information to the 

National Instant Criminal Background 

Check System (NICS). The NICS helps 

to ensure that guns are not sold to those 

prohibited by law from having them, 

including felons, those convicted of 

domestic violence, and individuals 

involuntarily committed to a mental 

institution. However, the background 

check system is only as effective as the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76515 

information that is available to it. The 

rule will give States and certain covered 

entities added flexibility to ensure 

accurate but limited information is 

reported to the NICS, which would not 

include clinical, diagnostic, or other 

mental health information. Instead, 

certain covered entities would be 

permitted to disclose the minimum 

necessary identifying information about 

individuals who have been 

involuntarily committed to a mental 

institution or otherwise have been 

determined by a lawful authority to be 

a danger to themselves or others. 

HHS—FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION (FDA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

48. Current Good Manufacturing 

Practice and Hazard Analysis and 

Risk–Based Preventive Controls for 

Food for Animals 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under Pub. L. 

104–4. 

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

U.S.C. 331; 21 U.S.C. 342; 21 U.S.C. 

350c; 21 U.S.C. 350d note; 21 U.S.C. 

350g; 21 U.S.C. 350g note; 21 U.S.C. 

371; 21 U.S.C. 374; 42 U.S.C. 264; 42 

U.S.C. 243; 42 U.S.C. 271; 

CFR Citation: 21 CFR 507. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 

2012. Final, Judicial, August 30, 2015. 

The FDA Food Safety Modernization 

Act (FSMA) mandates that FDA 

promulgate final regulations to establish 

preventive controls not later than 18 

months after the date of enactment of 

FSMA. Certain requirements regarding 

standards for pet food and other animal 

feeds mandated by the FDA 

Amendment Act of 2007 will be 

subsumed in the FSMA rulemaking. Per 

consent decree, FDA will submit the 

final rule to the Federal Register for 

publication by 08/30/2015. 

Abstract: This rule establishes 

requirements for good manufacturing 

practice, and requires that certain 

facilities establish and implement 

hazard analysis and risk-based 

preventive controls for animal food, 

including ingredients and mixed animal 

feed. This action is intended to provide 

greater assurance that food for all 

animals, including pets, is safe. 

Statement of Need: Regulatory 

oversight of the animal food industry 

has traditionally been limited and 

focused on a few known safety issues so 

there could be problems that remain 

unaddressed potentially affecting 

animal health. The massive pet food 

recall due to adulteration with 

melamine and cyanuric acid in 2007 is 

an example. Actions taken by two 

protein suppliers in China affected a 

large number of pet food manufacturers 

in the United States and created a 

nationwide problem. By the time the 

cause of the problem was identified 

melamine- and cyanuric-acid 

contaminated ingredients had resulted 

in the adulteration of millions of 

individual servings of pet food 

sickening and killing pets. Salmonella 

contaminated pet food has been the 

cause of illness in humans: In 2007 

people became ill handling pet food 

contaminated with a rare Salmonella 

serotype; over 200 people in the United 

Kingdom and United States became ill 

from handling Salmonella contaminated 

frozen mice (used for pet food) that 

came from a U.S. facility; and people 

were infected with Salmonella in 2012 

that originated from contaminated dog 

and cat food. Other animal food recalls 

have resulted from contamination with 

aflatoxins, dioxins excessive vitamin D, 

and insufficient thiamine. Congress 

passed FSMA which the President 

signed into law on January 4, 2011 (Pub. 

L. 111–353). Section 103 of FSMA 

amended the Federal Food Drug and 

Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) by adding 

section 418 (21 U.S.C. 350g) Hazard 

Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive 

Controls. In enacting FSMA Congress 

sought to improve the safety of food in 

the United States by taking a risk-based 

approach to food safety emphasizing 

prevention. Section 418 of the FD&C Act 

requires owners, operators, or agents in 

charge of food facilities to develop and 

implement a written hazard analysis 

and preventive controls to significantly 

minimize or prevent the occurrence of 

hazards and help prevent adulteration 

of food. 

Summary of Legal Basis: FDA’s 

authority for issuing this rule is 

provided in FSMA (Pub. L. 111–353), 

which amended the FD&C Act by 

establishing section 418, which directed 

FDA to publish implementing 

regulations. FSMA also amended 

section 301 of the FD&C Act to add 

301(uu) that states the operation of a 

facility that manufactures, processes, 

packs, or holds food for sale in the 

United States, if the owner, operator, or 

agent in charge of such facility is not in 

compliance with section 418 of the 

FD&C Act, is a prohibited act. FDA is 

also issuing this rule under the certain 

provisions of section 402 of the FD&C 

Act (21 U.S.C. 342) regarding 

adulterated food. In addition, section 

701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 

371(a)) authorizes the Agency to issue 

regulations for the efficient enforcement 

of the Act. To the extent the regulations 

are related to communicable disease, 

FDA’s legal authority also derives from 

sections 311, 361, and 368 of the Public 

Health Services Act (42 U.S.C. 243, 264, 

and 271). Finally, FDA is acting under 

the direction of section 1002(a) of title 

X of FDAAA of 2007 (21 U.S.C. 2102) 

which requires the Secretary to establish 

processing standards for pet food. 

Alternatives: The Food Safety 

Modernization Act requires FDA to 

promulgate regulations to establish 

hazard analyses and risk-based 

preventive controls. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

benefits of the proposed rule would be 

fewer cases of contaminated animal 

food. Discovering contaminated food 

ingredients before they are used in a 

finished product would reduce the 

number of recalls of contaminated 

animal food products. Benefits would 

include reduced medical treatment costs 

for animals, reduced loss of market 

value of livestock, reduced loss of 

animal companionship, and reduced 

loss in value of animal food. More 

stringent requirements for animal food 

manufacturing would maintain public 

confidence in the safety of animal food, 

and protect animal and human health. 

FDA lacks sufficient data to quantify the 

benefits of the proposed rule. The 

compliance costs of the proposed rule 

would result from the additional labor 

and capital required to perform the 

hazard analyses, write and implement 

the preventive controls, monitor and 

verify the preventive controls, take 

corrective actions if preventive controls 

fail to prevent food from becoming 

contaminated, and implement the 

current good manufacturing practice 

regulations. 

Risks: FDA is proposing this rule to 

provide greater assurance that food 

intended for animals is safe, and will 

not cause illness or injury to animals. 

This rule would implement a risk-based, 

preventive controls food safety system 

intended to prevent animal food 

containing hazards, which may cause 

illness or injury to animals or humans, 

from entering the food supply. The rule 

would apply to domestic and imported 

animal food (including raw materials 

and ingredients). Fewer cases of animal 

food contamination would reduce the 

risk of serious illness and death to 

animals. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/29/13 78 FR 64736 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76516 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extension.

02/03/14 79 FR 6111 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

02/26/14 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extension End.

03/31/14 

Supplemental 

NPRM.

09/29/14 79 FR 58475 

Supplemental 

NPRM Comment Period 

End.

12/15/14 

Final Rule ............ 08/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: State. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

EO 13132. 

Agency Contact: Kim Young, Deputy 

Director, Division of Compliance, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Food and Drug 

Administration, Center for Veterinary 

Medicine, Room 106 (MPN–4, HFV– 

230), 7519 Standish Place, Rockville, 

MD 20855, Phone: 240 276–9207, Email: 

kim.young@fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AG10 

HHS—FDA 

49. Standards for the Growing, 

Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of 

Produce for Human Consumption 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under Pub. L. 

104–4. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 342; 21 

U.S.C. 350h; 21 U.S.C. 371; 42 U.S.C. 

264; Pub. L. 111–353 (signed on January 

4, 2011) 

CFR Citation: 21 CFR 112. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, 

October 2015. 

Abstract: This rule will establish 

science-based minimum standards for 

the safe production and harvesting of 

those types of fruits and vegetables that 

are raw agricultural commodities for 

which the Secretary has determined that 

such standards minimize the risk of 

serious adverse health consequences or 

death. The purpose of the rule is to 

reduce the risk of illness associated with 

fresh produce. 

Statement of Need: FDA is taking this 

action to meet the requirements of the 

FSMA and to address the food safety 

challenges associated with fresh 

produce and, thereby, protect the public 

health. Data indicate that between 1973 

and 1997, outbreaks of foodborne illness 

in the U.S. associated with fresh 

produce increased in absolute numbers 

and as a proportion of all reported 

foodborne illness outbreaks. The 

Agency issued general good agricultural 

practice guidelines for fresh fruits and 

vegetables over a decade ago. 

Incorporating prevention-oriented 

public health principles, and 

incorporating what we have learned in 

the past decade into a regulation is a 

critical step in establishing standards for 

the production and harvesting of 

produce, and reducing the foodborne 

illness attributed to fresh produce. 

Summary of Legal Basis: FDA is 

relying on the amendments to the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(the FD&C Act), provided by section 105 

of the Food Safety Modernization Act 

(codified primarily in section 419 of the 

FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350h)). FDA’s legal 

basis also derives in part from sections 

402(a)(3), 402(a)(4), and 701(a) of the 

FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(3), 342(a)(4), 

and 371(a)). FDA also intends to rely on 

section 361 of the Public Health Service 

Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 264), which 

gives FDA authority to promulgate 

regulations to control the spread of 

communicable disease. 

Alternatives: Section 105 of the Food 

Safety Modernization Act requires FDA 

to conduct this rulemaking. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FDA 

estimates that the costs to more than 

300,000 domestic and foreign producers 

and packers of fresh produce from the 

proposal would include one-time costs 

(e.g., new tools and equipment) and 

recurring costs (e.g., monitoring, 

training, recordkeeping). FDA 

anticipates that the benefits would be a 

reduction in foodborne illness and 

deaths associated with fresh produce. 

The monetized annual benefits of this 

rule are estimated to be $1 billion, and 

the monetized annual costs are 

estimated to be $460 million, 

domestically. 

Risks: This regulation would directly 

and materially advance the Federal 

Government’s substantial interest in 

reducing the risks for illness and death 

associated with foodborne infections 

associated with the consumption of 

fresh produce. Less restrictive and less 

comprehensive approaches have not 

been sufficiently effective in reducing 

the problems addressed by this 

regulation. FDA anticipates that the 

regulation would lead to a significant 

decrease in foodborne illness associated 

with fresh produce consumed in the 

United States. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/16/13 78 FR 3503 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

05/16/13 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

04/26/13 78 FR 24692 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

09/16/13 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

08/09/13 78 FR 48637 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

11/15/13 

Notice of Intent 

To Prepare an 

Environmental 

Impact Statement for the 

Proposed Rule.

08/19/13 78 FR 50358 

Notice of Intent 

To Prepare Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Proposed Rule 

Comment Period End.

11/15/13 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

11/20/13 78 FR 69605 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

11/22/13 

Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Proposed Rule; 

Comment Period Extended.

03/11/14 79 FR 13593 

Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Proposed Rule; 

Comment Period Extended 

End.

04/18/14 

Supplemental 

NPRM.

09/29/14 79 FR 58433 

Supplemental 

NPRM Comment Period 

End.

12/15/14 

Final Rule ............ 10/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None 

Agency Contact: Samir Assar, 

Supervisory Consumer Safety Officer, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Food and Drug 

Administration, Center for Food Safety 

and Applied Nutrition, Office of Food 

Safety, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, 

College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 

402–1636, Email: samir.assar@

fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AG35 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76517 

HHS—FDA 

50. Current Good Manufacturing and 

Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based 

Preventive Controls for Human Food 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under Pub. L. 

104–4. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 342; 21 

U.S.C. 371; 42 U.S.C. 264; Pub. L. 111– 

353 (signed on Jan. 4, 2011) 

CFR Citation: 21 CFR 117. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 

4, 2012, Final rule must be published no 

later than 18 months after the date of 

enactment of the FDA Food Safety 

Modernization Act. 

Abstract: This rule would require a 

food facility to have and implement 

preventive controls to significantly 

minimize or prevent the occurrence of 

hazards that could affect food 

manufactured, processed, packed, or 

held by the facility. This action is 

intended to prevent or, at a minimum, 

quickly identify foodborne pathogens 

before they get into the food supply. 

Statement of Need: FDA is taking this 

action to meet the requirements of 

FSMA and to better address changes 

that have occurred in the food industry 

and thereby protect public health. Highprofile outbreaks of foodborne illness 

over the last decade and data showing 

that such illnesses strike one in six 

Americans each year have caused a 

widespread recognition that we need a 

new modern food safety system that 

prevents food safety problems in the 

first place not a system that just reacts 

once they happen. Section 103 of FSMA 

amended the Federal Food Drug and 

Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) by adding 

section 418 (21 U.S.C. 350g) Hazard 

Analysis and Risk Based Preventive 

Controls. In enacting FSMA Congress 

sought to improve the safety of food in 

the United States by taking a risk-based 

approach to food safety emphasizing 

prevention. Section 418 of the FD&C Act 

requires owners operators or agents in 

charge of food facilities to develop and 

implement a written plan that describes 

and documents how their facility will 

implement the hazard analysis and 

preventive controls required by this 

section. In addition to containing new 

provisions requiring hazard analysis 

and risk-based preventive controls this 

rule would also revise the existing 

Current Good Manufacturing Practice 

(CGMP) requirements found in 21 CFR 

part 110 that were last updated in 1986. 

Summary of Legal Basis: FDA is 

relying on section 103 of the FSMA. 

FDA is also relying on sections 

402(a)(3), (a)(4) and 701(a) of the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(3), 

(a)(4), and 371(a)). Under section 

402(a)(3) of the FD&C Act, a food is 

adulterated if it consists in whole, or in 

part, of any filthy, putrid, or 

decomposed substance, or if it is 

otherwise unfit for food. Under section 

402(a)(4), a food is adulterated if it has 

been prepared, packed, or held under 

unsanitary conditions whereby it may 

have become contaminated with filth, or 

may have been rendered injurious to 

health. Under section 701(a) of the 

FD&C Act, FDA is authorized to issue 

regulations for the efficient enforcement 

of the FD&C Act. FDA’s legal basis also 

derives from section 361 of the Public 

Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 

264), which gives FDA authority to 

promulgate regulations to control the 

spread of communicable disease. 

Alternatives: An alternative to this 

rulemaking is not to update the CGMP 

regulations, and instead issue separate 

regulations to implement the FDA Food 

Safety Modernization Act. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FDA 

estimates that the costs from the 

proposal to domestic and foreign 

producers and packers of processed 

foods would include new one-time costs 

(e.g., adoption of written food safety 

plans, setting up training programs, 

implementing allergen controls, and 

purchasing new tools and equipment) 

and recurring costs (e.g., auditing and 

monitoring suppliers of sensitive raw 

materials and ingredients, training 

employees, and completing and 

maintaining records used throughout 

the facility). FDA anticipates that the 

benefits would be a reduced risk of 

foodborne illness and death from 

processed foods, and a reduction in the 

number of safety-related recalls. 

Risks: This regulation will directly 

and materially advance the Federal 

Government’s substantial interest in 

reducing the risks for illness and death 

associated with foodborne infections. 

Less restrictive and less comprehensive 

approaches have not been effective in 

reducing the problems addressed by this 

regulation. The regulation will lead to a 

significant decrease in foodborne illness 

in the U.S. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/16/13 78 FR 3646 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

05/16/13 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

04/26/13 78 FR 24691 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

09/16/13 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

08/09/13 78 FR 48636 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

11/15/13 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

11/20/13 78 FR 69604 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

11/22/13 

Supplemental 

NPRM.

09/29/14 79 FR 58523 

Supplemental 

NPRM Comment Period 

End.

12/15/14 

Final Rule ............ 08/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: Includes 

Retrospective Review under E.O. 13563. 

Agency Contact: Jenny Scott, Senior 

Advisor, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Food and Drug 

Administration, Office of Food Safety, 

5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College 

Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 402–1488, 

Email: jenny.scott@fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AG36 

HHS—FDA 

51. Reports of Distribution and Sales 

Information for Antimicrobial Active 

Ingredients Used in Food–Producing 

Animals 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b(l)(3) 

CFR Citation: 21 CFR 514.80. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

require that the sponsor of each 

approved or conditionally approved 

antimicrobial new animal drug product 

submit an annual report to the Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) 

on the amount of each antimicrobial 

active ingredient in the drug product 

that is sold or distributed for use in 

food-producing animals, including any 

distributor-labeled product. In addition 

to codifying these requirements, FDA is 

exploring other requirements for the 

collection of additional drug 

distribution data. 

Statement of Need: Section 105 of the 

Animal Drug User Fee Amendments of 

2008 (ADUFA) amended section 512 of 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FD&C Act) to require that the 

sponsor of each approved or 

conditionally appoved new animal drug 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76518 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

product that contains an antimicrobial 

active ingredient submit an annual 

report to FDA on the amount of each 

antimicrobial active ingredient in the 

drug product that is sold or distributed 

for use in food-producing animals, 

including information on any 

distributor-labeled product. This 

legislation was enacted to assist FDA in 

its continuing analysis of the 

interactions (including drug resistance), 

efficacy, and safety of antibiotics 

approved for use in both humans and 

food-producing animals (H. Rpt. 110– 

804). This proposed rulemaking is to 

codify these requirements. In addition, 

FDA is exploring the establishment of 

other reporting requirements to provide 

for the collection of additional drug 

distribution data, including reporting 

sales and distribution data by species. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 105 

of ADUFA (Pub. L. 110–316; 122 Stat. 

3509) amended section 512 of the FD&C 

Act (21 U.S.C. 360b) to require that 

sponsors of approved or conditionally 

approved applications for new animal 

drugs containing an antimicrobial active 

ingredient submit an annual report to 

the Food and Drug Administration on 

the amount of each such ingredient in 

the drug that is sold or distributed for 

use in food-producing animals, 

including information on any 

distributor-labeled product. FDA is also 

issuing this rule under its authority 

under section 512(l) of the FD&C Act to 

collect information relating to approved 

new animal drugs. 

Alternatives: This rulemaking codifies 

the congressional mandate of ADUFA 

section 105. The annual reporting 

required under ADUFA section 105 is 

necessary to address potential problems 

concerning the safety and effectiveness 

of antimicrobial new animal drugs. Less 

frequent data collection would hinder 

this purpose. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Sponsors of antimicrobial drugs sold for 

use in food-producing animals currently 

report sales and distribution data to the 

Agency under section 105 of ADUFA; 

this rulemaking will codify in FDA’s 

regulations a current statutory 

requirement. There may be a minimal 

additional labor cost if any other 

reporting requirement is proposed. 

Additional data beyond the reporting 

requirements specified in ADUFA 

section 105 will help the Agency better 

understand how the use of medically 

important antimicrobial drugs in foodproducing animals may relate to 

antimicrobial resistance. 

Risks: Section 105 of ADUFA was 

enacted to address the problem of 

antimicrobial resistance, and to help 

ensure that FDA has the necessary 

information to examine safety concerns 

related to the use of antibiotics in foodproducing animals. 154 Congressional 

Record H7534. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 07/27/12 77 FR 44177 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

09/25/12 

ANPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

09/26/12 77 FR 59156 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

11/26/12 

NPRM .................. 05/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Sujaya Dessai, 

Supervisory Veterinary Medical Officer, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Food and Drug 

Administration, Center for Veterinary 

Medicine, MPN–4, Room 2620, HFV– 

212, 7529 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 

20855, Phone: 240 276–9075, Email: 

sujaya.dessai@fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AG45 

HHS—FDA 

52. Foreign Supplier Verification 

Program 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under Pub. L. 

104–4. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 384a; title 

III, sec 301 of FDA Food Safety 

Modernization Act, Pub. L. 111–353, 

establishing sec 805 of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

January 4, 2012. 

Abstract: This rule describes what a 

food importer must do to verify that its 

foreign suppliers produce food that is as 

safe as food produced in the United 

States. FDA is taking this action to 

improve the safety of food that is 

imported into the United States. 

Statement of Need: The proposed rule 

is needed to help improve the safety of 

food that is imported into the United 

States. Imported food products have 

increased dramatically over the last 

several decades. Data indicate that about 

15 percent of the U.S. food supply is 

imported. FSMA provides the Agency 

with additional tools and authorities to 

help ensure that imported foods are safe 

for U.S. consumers. Included among 

these tools and authorities is a 

requirement that importers perform riskbased foreign supplier verification 

activities to verify that the food they 

import is produced in compliance with 

U.S. requirements, as applicable, and is 

not adulterated or misbranded. This 

proposed rule on the content of foreign 

supplier verification programs (FSVPs) 

sets forth the proposed steps that food 

importers would be required to take to 

fulfill their responsibility to help ensure 

the safety of the food they bring into this 

country. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

805(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 

384a(c)) directs FDA, not later than 1 

year after the date of enactment of 

FSMA, to issue regulations on the 

content of FSVPs. Section 805(c)(4) 

states that verification activities under 

such programs may include monitoring 

records for shipments, lot-by-lot 

certification of compliance, annual 

onsite inspections, checking the hazard 

analysis and risk-based preventive 

control plans of foreign suppliers, and 

periodically testing and sampling 

shipments of imported products. 

Section 301(b) of FSMA amends section 

301 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331) by 

adding section 301(zz), which 

designates as a prohibited act the 

importation or offering for importation 

of a food if the importer (as defined in 

section 805) does not have in place an 

FSVP in compliance with section 805. 

In addition, section 301(c) of FSMA 

amends section 801(a) of the FD&C Act 

(21 U.S.C. 381(a)) by stating that an 

article of food being imported or offered 

for import into the United States shall 

be refused admission if it appears, from 

an examination of a sample of such an 

article or otherwise, that the importer is 

in violation of section 805. 

Alternatives: We are considering a 

range of alternative approaches to the 

requirements for foreign supplier 

verification activities. These might 

include: (1) establishing a general 

requirement that importers determine 

and conduct whatever verification 

activity would adequately address the 

risks associated with the foods they 

import; (2) allowing importers to choose 

from a list of possible verification 

mechanisms, such as the activities listed 

in section 805(c)(4) of the FD&C Act; (3) 

requiring importers to conduct 

particular verification activities for 

certain types of foods or risks (e.g., for 

high-risk foods), but allowing flexibility 

in verification activities for other types 

of foods or risks; and (4) specifying use 

of a particular verification activity for 

each particular kind of food or risk. To 

the extent possible while still ensuring 

that verification activities are adequate 

to ensure that foreign suppliers are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76519 

producing food in accordance with U.S. 

requirements, we will seek to give 

importers the flexibility to choose 

verification procedures that are 

appropriate to adequately address the 

risks associated with the importation of 

a particular food, and accounted for in 

the proposed rules that contain these 

requirements. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We are 

still estimating the cost and benefits for 

this proposed rule. However, the 

available information suggests that, if 

finalized, the costs will be significant. 

Our preliminary analysis of FY10 

OASIS data suggests that this rule will 

cover about 60,000 importers, 240,000 

unique combinations of importers and 

foreign suppliers, and 540,000 unique 

combinations of importers, products, 

and foreign suppliers. These numbers 

imply that provisions that require 

activity for each importer, each unique 

combination of importer and foreign 

supplier, or each unique combination of 

importer, product, and foreign supplier 

will generate significant costs. An 

example of a provision linked to 

combinations of importers and foreign 

suppliers would be a requirement to 

conduct a verification activity, such as 

an onsite audit, under certain 

conditions. The cost of onsite audits 

will depend, in part, on whether foreign 

suppliers can provide the same onsite 

audit results to different importers, or 

whether every importer will need to 

take some action with respect to each of 

their foreign suppliers. The benefits of 

this proposed rule will consist of the 

reduction of adverse health events 

linked to imported food that could 

result from increased compliance with 

applicable requirements, and are 

accounted for in the proposed rules that 

contain those requirements and are 

accounted for in the proposed rules that 

contain those requirements. 

Risks: As stated above, about 15 

percent of the U.S. food supply is 

imported, and many of these imported 

foods are high-risk commodities. 

According to recent data from the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, each year, about 48 million 

Americans get sick, 128,000 are 

hospitalized, and 3,000 die from 

foodborne diseases. We expect that the 

adoption of FSVPs by food importers 

will benefit the public health by helping 

to ensure that imported food is 

produced in compliance with other 

applicable food safety regulations. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/29/13 78 FR 45729 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

11/26/13 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

11/20/13 78 FR 69602 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

01/27/14 

Supplemental 

NPRM.

09/29/14 79 FR 58573 

Supplemental 

NPRM Comment Period 

End.

12/15/14 

Final Rule ............ 10/00/15 

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: Brian L. Pendleton, 

Senior Policy Advisor, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Food and 

Drug Administration, Office of Policy, 

WO 32, Room 4245, 10903 New 

Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 

20993–0002, Phone: 301 796–4614, Fax: 

301 847–8616, Email: brian.pendleton@

fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AG64 

HHS—FDA 

Final Rule Stage 

53. ‘‘Tobacco Products’’ Subject to the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 

as Amended by the Family Smoking 

Prevention and Tobacco Control Act 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under Pub. L. 

104–4. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.; 

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act; Pub. L. 111–31; The Family 

Smoking Prevention and Tobacco 

Control Act 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Family Smoking 

Prevention and Tobacco Control Act 

(Tobacco Control Act) provides the 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette 

tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and 

smokeless tobacco. The Federal Food, 

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

amended by the Tobacco Control Act, 

permits FDA to issue regulations 

deeming other tobacco products to be 

subject to the FD&C Act. This rule 

would deem additional products 

meeting the statutory definition of 

‘‘tobacco product’’ to be subject to the 

FD&C Act, and would specify additional 

restrictions. 

Statement of Need: Currently, the 

Tobacco Control Act provides FDA with 

immediate authority to regulate 

cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-yourown tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. 

The Tobacco Control Act also permits 

FDA to issue regulations deeming other 

tobacco products that meet the statutory 

definition of ‘‘tobacco product’’ to also 

be subject to the FD&C Act. This 

regulation is necessary to afford FDA 

the authority to regulate additional 

products which include hookah, 

electronic cigarettes, cigars, pipe 

tobacco, other novel tobacco products, 

and future tobacco products. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 901 

of the FD&C Act, as amended by the 

Tobacco Control Act, permits FDA to 

issue regulations deeming other tobacco 

products to be subject to the FD&C Act. 

Section 906(d) provides FDA with the 

authority to propose restrictions on the 

sale and distribution of tobacco 

products, including restrictions on the 

access to, and the advertising and 

promotion of, tobacco products if FDA 

determines that such regulation would 

be appropriate for the protection of the 

public health. 

Alternatives: In addition to the 

benefits and costs of both options for the 

proposed rule, FDA assessed the 

benefits and costs of several alternatives 

to the proposed rule: e.g., deeming only, 

but exempt newly-deemed products 

from certain requirements; exempt 

certain classes of products from certain 

requirements; deeming only, with no 

additional provisions; and changes to 

the compliance periods. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed rule consists of two 

coproposals, option 1 and option 2. The 

proposed option 1 deems all products 

meeting the statutory definition of 

‘‘tobacco product’’ except accessories of 

a proposed deemed tobacco product to 

be subject to chapter IX of the FD&C 

Act. Option 1 also proposes additional 

provisions that would apply to 

proposed deemed products as well as to 

certain other tobacco products. Option 2 

is the same as option 1 except that it 

exempts premium cigars. We expect that 

asserting our authority over these 

tobacco products will enable us to take 

further regulatory action in the future as 

appropriate; those actions will have 

their own costs and benefits. The 

proposed rule would generate some 

direct benefits by providing information 

to consumers about the risks and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76520 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

characteristics of tobacco products 

which may result in consumers 

reducing their use of cigars and other 

tobacco products. Other potential 

benefits follow from premarket 

requirements which could prevent more 

harmful products from appearing on the 

market and worsening the health effects 

of tobacco product use. The proposed 

rule would impose costs in the form of 

registration submission labeling and 

other requirements; other likely costs 

are not quantifiable based on current 

data. 

Risks: Adolescence is the peak time 

for tobacco use initiation and 

experimentation. In recent years, new 

and emerging tobacco products, 

sometimes referred to as ‘‘novel tobacco 

products,’’ have been developed and are 

becoming an increasing concern to 

public health due, in part, to their 

appeal to youth and young adults. Nonregulated tobacco products come in 

many forms, including electronic 

cigarettes, nicotine gels, and certain 

dissolvable tobacco products (i.e., those 

dissolvable products that do not 

currently meet the definition of 

smokeless tobacco under 21 U.S.C. 

387(18) because they do not contain cut, 

ground, powdered, or leaf tobacco, and 

instead contain nicotine extracted from 

tobacco), and these products are widely 

available. This deeming rule is 

necessary to provide FDA with 

authority to regulate these products 

(e.g., registration, product and 

ingredient listing, user fees for certain 

products, premarket requirements, and 

adulteration and misbranding 

provisions). In addition, the additonal 

restrictions that FDA seeks to 

promulgate for the proposed deemed 

products will protect youth by 

restricting minors’ access to these 

products and will increase consumer 

understanding of the impact of these 

products on public health. This rule is 

consistent with other approaches that 

the Agency has taken to address the 

tobacco epidemic and is particularly 

necessary, given that consumer use may 

be gravitating to the proposed deemed 

products. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/25/14 79 FR 23142 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

07/09/14 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

06/24/14 79 FR 35711 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

08/08/14 

Final Action ......... 06/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Agency Contact: Gerie Voss, Senior 

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: 

301 595–1426, Email: ctpregulations@

fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AG38 

HHS—FDA 

54. Food Labeling: Calorie Labeling of 

Articles of Food Sold in Vending 

Machines 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

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

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

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: FDA published a proposed 

rule to establish requirements for 

nutrition labeling of certain food items 

sold in certain vending machines. FDA 

also proposed the terms and conditions 

for vending machine operators 

registering to voluntarily be subject to 

the requirements. FDA is issuing a final 

rule, and taking this action to carry out 

section 4205 of the Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking 

was mandated by section 4205 of the 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

Act (Affordable Care Act). 

Summary of Legal Basis: On March 

23, 2010, the Affordable Care Act (Pub. 

L. 111–148) was signed into law. 

Section 4205 amended 403(q)(5) of the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FD&C Act) by, among other things, 

creating new clause (H) to require that 

vending machine operators, who own or 

operate 20 or more machines, disclose 

calories for certain food items. FDA has 

the authority to issue this rule under 

sections 403(q)(5)(H) and 701(a) of the 

FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(q)(5)(H), and 

371(a)). Section 701(a) of the FD&C Act 

vests the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, and, by delegation, the 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

with the authority to issue regulations 

for the efficient enforcement of the 

FD&C Act. 

Alternatives: Section 4205 of the 

Affordable Care Act requires the 

Secretary (and by delegation, the FDA) 

to establish by regulation requirements 

for calorie labeling of articles of food 

sold from covered vending machines. 

Therefore, there are no alternatives to 

rulemaking. FDA has analyzed 

alternatives that may reduce the burden 

of the rulemaking, including analyzing 

the benefits and costs of: restricting the 

flexibility of the format for calorie 

disclosure, lengthening the compliance 

time, and extending the coverage of the 

rule to bulk vending machines without 

selection buttons. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Any 

vending machine operator operating 

fewer than 20 machines may voluntarily 

choose to be covered by the national 

standard. It is anticipated that vending 

machine operators that own or operate 

20 or more vending machines will bear 

costs associated with adding calorie 

information to vending machines. FDA 

initially estimated that the total cost of 

complying with section 4205 of the 

Affordable Care Act and this rulemaking 

would be approximately $25.8 million 

initially, with a recurring cost of 

approximately $24 million. 

Because comprehensive national data 

for the effects of vending machine 

labeling do not exist, FDA did not 

quantify the benefits associated with 

section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act 

and this rulemaking in the proposed 

rule. Some studies have shown that 

some consumers consume fewer calories 

when calorie content information is 

displayed at the point of purchase. 

Consumers will benefit from having this 

important nutrition information to assist 

them in making healthier choices when 

consuming food away from home. Given 

the very high costs associated with 

obesity and its associated health risks, 

FDA estimated that if 0.02 percent of the 

adult obese population reduces energy 

intake by at least 100 calories per week, 

then the benefits of section 4205 of the 

Affordable Care Act and this rulemaking 

would be at least as large as the costs. 

Risks: Americans now consume an 

estimated one-third of their total 

calories from foods prepared outside the 

home, and spend almost half of their 

food dollars on such foods. This rule 

will provide consumers with 

information about the nutritional 

content of food to enable them to make 

healthier food choices, and may help 

mitigate the trend of increasing obesity 

in America. 

Timetable: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76521 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/06/11 76 FR 19238 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

07/05/11 

Final Action ......... 11/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

EO 13132. 

Agency Contact: Daniel Reese, Food 

Technologist, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Food and Drug 

Administration, Center for Food Safety 

and Applied Nutrition (HFS–820), 5100 

Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 

20740, Phone: 240 402–2126, Email: 

daniel.reese@fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AG56 

HHS—FDA 

55. Food Labeling: Nutrition Labeling of 

Standard Menu Items in Restaurants 

and Similar Retail Food Establishments 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under Pub. L. 

104–4. 

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

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

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: FDA published a proposed 

rule in the Federal Register to establish 

requirements for nutrition labeling of 

standard menu items in chain 

restaurants and similar retail food 

establishments. FDA also proposed the 

terms and conditions for restaurants and 

similar retail food establishments 

registering to voluntarily be subject to 

the Federal requirements. FDA is 

issuing a final rule, and taking this 

action to carry out section 4205 of the 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

Act. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking 

was mandated by section 4205 of the 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

Act (Affordable Care Act). 

Summary of Legal Basis: On March 

23, 2010, the Affordable Care Act (Pub. 

L. 111–148) was signed into law. 

Section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act 

amended 403(q)(5) of the Federal Food, 

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

among other things, creating new clause 

(H) to require that certain chain 

restaurants and similar retail food 

establishments with 20 or more 

locations disclose certain nutrient 

information for standard menu items. 

FDA has the authority to issue this rule 

under sections 403(a)(1), 403(q)(5)(H), 

and 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 

343(a)(1), 343(q)(5)(H), and 371(a)). 

Section 701(a) of the FD&C Act vests the 

Secretary of Health and Human 

Services, and, by delegation, the Food 

and Drug Administration (FDA) with 

the authority to issue regulations for the 

efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act. 

Alternatives: Section 4205 of the 

Affordable Care Act requires the 

Secretary, and by delegation the FDA, to 

establish by regulation requirements for 

nutrition labeling of standard menu 

items for covered restaurants and 

similar retail food establishments. 

Therefore, there are no alternatives to 

rulemaking. FDA has analyzed 

alternatives that may reduce the burden 

of this rulemaking, including analyzing 

the benefits and costs of expanding and 

contracting the set of establishments 

covered by this rule, and shortening or 

lengthening the compliance time 

relative to the rulemaking. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Chain 

restaurants and similar retail food 

establishments covered by the Federal 

law operating in local jurisdictions that 

impose different nutrition labeling 

requirements will benefit from having a 

uniform national standard. Any 

restaurant or similar retail food 

establishment with fewer than 20 

locations may voluntarily choose to be 

covered by the national standard. It is 

anticipated that chain restaurants with 

20 or more locations will bear costs for 

adding nutrition information to menus 

and menu boards. FDA initially 

estimated that the total cost of section 

4205 and this rulemaking would be 

approximately $80 million, annualized 

over 10 years, with a low annualized 

estimate of approximately $33 million 

and a high annualized estimate of 

approximately $125 million over 10 

years. These costs (which are subject to 

change in the final rule) included an 

initial cost of approximately $320 

million with an annually recurring cost 

of $45 million. 

Because comprehensive national data 

for the effects of menu labeling do not 

exist, FDA did not quantify the benefits 

associated with section 4205 of the 

Affordable Care Act and this 

rulemaking. Some studies have shown 

that some consumers consume fewer 

calories when menus have information 

about calorie content displayed. 

Consumers will benefit from having 

important nutrition information for the 

approximately 30 percent of calories 

consumed away from home. Given the 

very high costs associated with obesity 

and its associated health risks, FDA 

estimated that if 0.6 percent of the adult 

obese population reduces energy intake 

by at least 100 calories per week, then 

the benefits of section 4205 of the 

Affordable Care Act and this rule would 

be at least as large as the costs. 

Risks: Americans now consume an 

estimated one-third of their total 

calories on foods prepared outside the 

home, and spend almost half of their 

food dollars on such foods. Unlike 

packaged foods that are labeled with 

nutrition information, foods in 

restaurants, for the most part, do not 

have nutrition information that is 

readily available when ordered. Dietary 

intake data have shown that obese 

Americans consume over 100 calories 

per meal more when eating food away 

from home, rather than food at home. 

This rule will provide consumers 

information about the nutritional 

content of food to enable them to make 

healthier food choices, and may help 

mitigate the trend of increasing obesity 

in America. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/06/11 76 FR 19192 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

07/05/11 

Final Action ......... 11/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

EO 13132. 

Agency Contact: Daniel Reese, Food 

Technologist, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Food and Drug 

Administration, Center for Food Safety 

and Applied Nutrition (HFS–820), 5100 

Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 

20740, Phone: 240 402–2126, Email: 

daniel.reese@fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AG57 

HHS—FDA 

56. Accreditation of Third-Party 

Auditors/Certification Bodies To 

Conduct Food Safety Audits and To 

Issue Certifications 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 384d; Pub. 

L. 111–353; sec 307 FDA Food Safety 

Modernization Act; other sections of 

FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, as 

appropriate; 21 U.S.C. 371; 21 U.S.C. 

381; 21 U.S.C. 384b; . . . 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76522 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

CFR Citation: 21 CFR 1. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 

2012, Promulgate implementing 

regulations. 

Final, Judicial, October 31, 2015. 

Per Public Law 111–353, section 307, 

promulgate, within 18 months of 

enactment, certain implementing 

regulations for accreditation of third– 

party auditors to conduct food safety 

audits. Per consent decree, FDA will 

submit the final rule to the Federal 

Register for publication by 10/31/15. 

Abstract: This rule establishes 

regulations for accreditation of thirdparty auditors to conduct food safety 

audits. FDA is taking this action to 

improve the safety of food that is 

imported into the United States. 

Statement of Need: The use of 

accredited third-party auditors to certify 

food imports will assist in ensuring the 

safety of food from foreign origin 

entering U.S. commerce. Accredited 

third-party auditors auditing foreign 

facilities can increase FDA’s 

information about foreign facilities that 

FDA may not have adequate resources 

to inspect in a particular year. FDA will 

establish identified standards creating 

overall uniformity to complete the task. 

Audits that result in issuance of facility 

certificates will provide FDA 

information about the compliance status 

of the facility. Additionally, auditors 

will be required to submit audit reports 

that may be reviewed by FDA for 

purposes of compliance assessment and 

work planning. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 808 

of the FD&C Act directs FDA to 

establish, not later than 2 years after the 

date of enactment, a system for the 

recognition of accreditation bodies that 

accredit third-party auditors, who, in 

turn, certify that their eligible entities 

meet the requirements. If within 2 years 

after the date of the establishment of the 

system, FDA has not identified and 

recognized an accreditation body, FDA 

may directly accredit third party 

auditors. 

Alternatives: FSMA described in 

detail the framework for, and 

requirements of, the accredited thirdparty auditor program. Alternatives 

include certain oversight activities 

required of recognized accreditation 

bodies that accredit third-party auditors, 

as distinguished from third-party 

auditors directly accredited by FDA. 

Another alternative relates to the nature 

of the required standards and the degree 

to which those standards are 

prescriptive or flexible. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

benefits of the proposed rule would be 

less unsafe or misbranded food entering 

U.S. commerce. Additional benefits 

include the increased flow of credible 

information to FDA regarding the 

compliance status of foreign firms and 

their foods that are ultimately offered 

for import into the United States, which 

information, in turn, would inform 

FDA’s work planning for inspection of 

foreign food facilities and might result 

in a signal of possible problems with a 

particular firm or its products, and with 

sufficient signals, might raise questions 

about the rigor of the food safety 

regulatory system of the country of 

origin. The compliance costs of the 

proposed rule would result from the 

additional labor and capital required of 

accreditation bodies seeking FDA 

recognition and of third-party auditors 

seeking accreditation to the extent that 

will involve the assembling of 

information for an application unique to 

the FDA third-party program. The 

compliance costs associated with 

certification will be accounted for 

separately under the costs associated 

with participation in the voluntary 

qualified importer program, and the 

costs associated with mandatory 

certification for high-risk food imports. 

The third-party program is funded 

through revenue neutral-user fees, 

which will be developed by FDA 

through rulemaking. User fee costs will 

be accounted for in that rulemaking. 

Risks: FDA is proposing this rule to 

provide greater assurance the food 

offered for import into the United States 

is safe and will not cause injury or 

illness to animals or humans. The rule 

would implement a program for 

accrediting third-party auditors to 

conduct food safety audits of foreign 

food entities, including registered 

foreign food facilities, and based on the 

findings of the regulatory audit, to issue 

certifications to foreign food entities 

found to be in compliance with FDA 

requirements. The certifications could 

be used by importers seeking to 

participate in the Voluntary Qualified 

Importer Program for expedited review 

and entry of product, and would be a 

means to provide assurance of 

compliance as required by FDA based 

on risk-related considerations. The rule 

would apply to any foreign or domestic 

accreditation body seeking FDA 

recognition, any foreign or domestic 

third-party auditor seeking 

accreditation, any registered foreign 

food facility or other foreign food entity 

subject to a food safety audit (including 

a regulatory audit conducted for 

purposes of certification), and any 

importer seeking to participate in the 

Voluntary Qualified Importer Program. 

Fewer instances of unsafe or 

misbranded food entering U.S. 

commerce would reduce the risk of 

serious illness and death to humans and 

animals. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/29/13 78 FR 45781 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

11/26/13 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

11/20/13 78 FR 69603 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

01/27/14 

Final Action ......... 10/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Agency Contact: Charlotte A. Christin, 

Acting Director, Division of Dietary 

Supplement Programs, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Food and 

Drug Administration, Division of 

Dietary Supplement Programs, Center 

for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 

4D042, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 

240 402–3708, Email: 

charlotte.christin@fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AG66 

HHS—FDA 

57. Revision of Postmarketing 

Reporting Requirements 

Discontinuance or Interruption in 

Supply of Certain Products (Drug 

Shortages) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: secs 506c, 506c–1, 

506d, and 506f of the FDA&C Act, as 

amended by title X (Drug Shortages) of 

FDASIA, Pub. L. 112–144, July 9, 2012 

CFR Citation: 21 CFR 314.81; 21 CFR 

314.91. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

January 9, 2014, Not later than 18 

months after the date of enactment of 

FDASIA, FDA must adopt the final 

regulation implementing section 506C 

as amended. 

Section 1001 of FDASIA states that 

not later than 18 months after the date 

of enactment of FDASIA, the Secretary 

shall adopt a final regulation 

implementing section 506(c) as 

amended. 

Abstract: This rule would require 

manufacturers of certain drug products 

to report discontinuances or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76523 

interruptions in the manufacturing of 

these products 6 months prior to the 

discontinuance or interruption, or if that 

is not possible, as soon as practicable. 

Manufacturers must notify FDA of a 

discontinuance or interruption in the 

manufacture of drugs that are lifesupporting, life-sustaining, or intended 

for use in the prevention or treatment of 

a debilitating disease or condition. 

Statement of Need: The Food and 

Drug Administration Safety and 

Innovation Act (FDASIA), Public Law 

112–144 (July 9, 2012), amends the 

FD&C Act to require manufacturers of 

certain drug products to report to FDA 

discontinuances or interruptions in the 

production of these products that are 

likely to meaningfully disrupt supply 6 

months prior to the discontinuance or 

interruption, or if that is not possible, as 

soon as practicable. FDASIA also 

amends the FD&C Act to include other 

provisions related to drug shortages. 

Drug shortages have a significant impact 

on patient access to critical medications, 

and the number of drug shortages has 

risen steadily since 2005 to a high of 

251 shortages in 2011. Notification to 

FDA of a shortage or an issue that may 

lead to a shortage is critical—FDA was 

able to prevent more than 100 shortages 

in the first 3 quarters of 2012 due to 

early notification. This rule will 

implement the FDASIA drug shortages 

provisions, allowing FDA to more 

quickly and efficiently respond to 

shortages, thereby improving patient 

access to critical medications, and 

promoting public health. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 

506(c), 506(c)–1, 506(d), 506(e), and 

506(f) of the FD&C Act, as amended by 

title X (Drug Shortages) of FDASIA. 

Alternatives: The principal 

alternatives assessed were to provide 

guidance on voluntary notification to 

FDA, or to continue to rely on the 

requirements under the current interim 

final rule on notification. These 

alternatives would not meet the 

statutory requirement to issue the final 

regulation required by title X, section 

1001 of FDASIA. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

rule would increase the modest 

reporting costs associated with notifying 

FDA of discontinuances or interruptions 

in the production of certain drug 

products. The rule would generate 

benefits in the form of the value of 

public health gains through more rapid 

and effective FDA responses to 

potential, or actual drug shortages that 

otherwise would limit patient access to 

critical medications. 

Risks: Drug shortages can significantly 

impede patient access to critical, 

sometimes life-saving, medications. 

Drug shortages, therefore, can pose a 

serious risk to public health and patient 

safety. This rule will require early 

notification of potential shortages, 

enabling FDA to more quickly and 

effectively respond to potential or actual 

drug shortages that otherwise would 

limit patient access to critical 

medications. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/04/13 78 FR 65904 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/03/14 

Final Action ......... 01/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Valerie Jensen, 

Associate Director, CDER Drug Shortage 

Staff, Department of Health and Human 

Services, Food and Drug 

Administration, Center for Drug 

Evaluation and Research, WO Building 

22, Room 6202, 10903 New Hampshire 

Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20903, 

Phone: 301 796–0737. 

RIN: 0910–AG88 

HHS—FDA 

58. Supplemental Applications 

Proposing Labeling Changes for 

Approved Drugs and Biological 

Products 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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

U.S.C. 331; 21 U.S.C. 352; 21 U.S.C. 353; 

21 U.S.C. 355; 21 U.S.C. 371; 42 U.S.C. 

262; . . . 

CFR Citation: 21 CFR 314.70; 21 CFR 

314.97; 21 CFR 314.150; 21 CFR 601.12. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule would amend the 

regulations regarding new drug 

applications (NDAs), abbreviated new 

drug applications (ANDAs), and 

biologics license applications (BLAs) to 

revise and clarify procedures for 

changes to the labeling of an approved 

drug to reflect certain types of newly 

acquired information in advance of 

FDA’s review of such change. 

Statement of Need: In the current 

marketplace, approximately 80 percent 

of drugs dispensed are generic drugs 

approved in ANDAs. ANDA holders, 

like NDA holders and BLA holders, are 

required to promptly review all adverse 

drug experience information obtained or 

otherwise received, and comply with 

applicable reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. However, under current 

FDA regulations, ANDA holders are not 

permitted to use the CBE supplement 

process in the same manner as NDA 

holders and BLA holders to 

independently update product labeling 

with certain newly acquired safety 

information. This regulatory difference 

recently has been determined to mean 

that an individual can bring a product 

liability action for ‘‘failure to warn’’ 

against an NDA holder, but generally 

not an ANDA holder. This may alter the 

incentives for generic drug 

manufacturers to comply with current 

requirements to conduct robust 

postmarketing surveillance, evaluation, 

and reporting, and to ensure that their 

product labeling is accurate and up-todate. Accordingly, there is a need for 

ANDA holders to be able to 

independently update product labeling 

to reflect certain newly acquired safety 

information as part of the ANDA 

holder’s independent responsibility to 

ensure that its product labeling is 

accurate and up-to-date. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The FD&C 

Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) and the PHS 

Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) provide FDA 

with authority over the labeling for 

drugs and biological products, and 

authorize the Agency to enact 

regulations to facilitate FDA’s review 

and approval of applications regarding 

the labeling for those products. FDA’s 

authority to extend the CBE supplement 

process for certain safety-related 

labeling changes to ANDA holders 

arises from the same authority under 

which FDA’s regulations relating to 

NDA holders and BLA holders were 

issued. 

Alternatives: FDA is considering 

several alternatives described in 

comments submitted to the public 

docket established for the proposed 

rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FDA is 

reviewing comments submitted to the 

public docket and evaluating the 

anticipated costs and benefits that 

would be associated with a final rule. 

Risks: This rule is intended to remove 

obstacles to the prompt communication 

of safety-related labeling changes that 

meet the regulatory criteria for a CBE 

supplement. The rule may encourage 

generic drug companies to participate 

more actively with FDA in ensuring the 

timeliness, accuracy, and completeness 

of drug safety labeling in accordance 

with current regulatory requirements. 

FDA’s posting of information on its Web 

site regarding the safety-related labeling 

changes proposed in pending CBE 

supplements would enhance 

transparency, and facilitate access by 

health care providers and the public so 

that such information may be used to 

inform treatment decisions. 

Timetable: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76524 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/13/13 78 FR 67985 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/13/14 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

12/27/13 78 FR 78796 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

03/13/14 

Final Rule ............ 09/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Janice L. Weiner, 

Senior Regulatory Counsel, Department 

of Health and Human Services, Food 

and Drug Administration, Center for 

Drug Evaluation and Research, WO 51, 

Room 6268, 10903 New Hampshire 

Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 

Phone: 301 796–3601, Fax: 301 847– 

8440, Email: janice.weiner@fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AG94 

HHS—FDA 

59. Veterinary Feed Directive 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 354; 21 

U.S.C. 360b; 21 U.S.C. 360ccc; 21 U.S.C. 

360ccc–1; 21 U.S.C. 371 

CFR Citation: 21 CFR 514; 21 CFR 

558. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Animal Drug 

Availability Act created a new category 

of products called veterinary feed 

directive (VFD) drugs. This rulemaking 

is intended to provide for the increased 

efficiency of the VFD program. 

Statement of Need: Before 1996, two 

options existed for regulating the 

distribution of animal drugs, including 

drugs in animal feed: (1) Over-thecounter (OTC); and (2) prescription (Rx). 

In 1996, the Animal Drug Availability 

Act (ADAA) created a new category of 

products called veterinary feed directive 

(VFD) drugs. VFD drugs are new animal 

drugs intended for use in or on animal 

feed, which are limited to use under the 

professional supervision of a licensed 

veterinarian in the course of the 

veterinarian’s professional practice. In 

order for animal feed containing a VFD 

drug to be used in animals, a licensed 

veterinarian must first issue an order, 

called a veterinary feed directive (or 

VFD), providing for such use. The Food 

and Drug Administration (FDA, the 

Agency) finalized its regulation to 

implement the VFD-related provisions 

of the ADAA in December 2000. Since 

that time, FDA has received informal 

comments that the VFD process is 

overly burdensome. As a result, FDA 

began exploring ways to improve the 

VFD program’s efficiency. To that end, 

FDA published an advanced notice of 

proposed rulemaking on March 29, 2010 

(75 FR 15387), and draft text of a 

proposed regulation, which it published 

April 13, 2012 (77 FR 22247). The 

proposed revisions to the VFD process 

are also intended to support the 

Agency’s initiative to transition certain 

new animal drug products containing 

medically important antimicrobial drugs 

from an OTC status to a status that 

requires veterinary oversight. The 

proposed rule, if finalized, will make 

the following changes to the VFD 

regulations at section 558.6 (21 CFR 

558.6): (1) Reorganize the VFD 

regulations to make them more userfriendly. This proposal will replace the 

six subsections of the existing 

regulations with three subsections that 

better identify what is expected from 

each party involved in the VFD process; 

(2) provide increased flexibility for 

licensed veterinarians and animal 

producers to align with the most recent 

practice standards, technological and 

medical advances, and practical 

considerations, to assure the safe and 

effective use of VFD drugs; (3) provide 

for the continued availability through 

the current feed mill distribution system 

of those Category I drugs that move to 

VFD dispensing status. This will 

prevent potential shortages of 

antimicrobial drugs needed by food 

animal producers for judicious 

therapeutic uses on their farms and 

ranches; and (4) lower the 

recordkeeping burden for all involved 

parties to align with other feed 

manufacturing recordkeeping 

requirements, thus eliminating the need 

for two separate filing systems. 

Summary of Legal Basis: FDA’s 

authority for issuing this rule is 

provided in the ADAA (Pub. L. 104– 

250), which amended the Federal Food, 

Drug, & Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) by 

establishing section 504. 

Alternatives: An alternative to the 

proposed rule that would ease the 

burden on VFD drug manufacturers 

would be to allow additional time to 

comply with the proposed labeling 

requirements for currently approved 

VFD drugs, for example, 1 or more years 

after the final rule becomes effective. 

This would not affect any new VFD 

drug approvals after the effective date of 

the final rule, and it could provide a 

transition period for current VFD 

manufacturers to coordinate the labeling 

changes to the specimen labeling, 

representative labeling, the VFD form 

itself, and advertising within the usual 

frequency of label changes. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

estimated one-time costs to industry 

from this proposed rule, if finalized, are 

the costs to review the rule and prepare 

a compliance plan. In addition, FDA 

estimates that the government will incur 

costs associated with reviewing the VFD 

drug labeling supplements that are 

expected to be submitted by the existing 

VFD drug manufacturers. The expected 

benefit of this proposal is a general 

improvement in the efficiency of the 

VFD process. Additionally, the 

reduction in veterinarian labor costs due 

to this rule is expected to result in an 

annual cost savings. 

Risks: As FDA continues to 

implement the judicious use principles 

for medically important antimicrobial 

drugs based on the framework set forth 

in Guidance for Industry #209, which 

published April 13, 2012, it is critical 

that the Agency makes the VFD program 

as efficient as possible for stakeholders 

while maintaining adequate protection 

for human and animal health. The 

provisions included in this proposed 

rule are based on stakeholder input 

received in response to multiple 

opportunities for public comment, and 

represent FDA’s best effort to strike the 

appropriate balance between protection 

of human and animal health and 

programmatic efficiency. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 03/29/10 75 FR 15387 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

06/28/10 

NPRM .................. 12/12/13 78 FR 75515 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

03/12/14 

Final Rule ............ 04/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Sujaya Dessai, 

Supervisory Veterinary Medical Officer, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Food and Drug 

Administration, Center for Veterinary 

Medicine, MPN–4, Room 2620, HFV– 

212, 7529 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 

20855, Phone: 240 276–9075, Email: 

sujaya.dessai@fda.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0910–AG95 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76525 

HHS—CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & 

MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

60. Reform of Requirements for LongTerm Care Facilities (CMS–3260–P) 

(Rulemaking Resulting From a Section 

610 Review) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under Pub. L. 

104–4. 

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

6102; 42 U.S.C. 263a; 42 U.S.C. 1302, 

1395hh, 1395rr 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 405; 42 CFR 

431; 42 CFR 447; 42 CFR 482; 42 CFR 

483; 42 CFR 485; 42 CFR 488. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

revise the requirements that Long-Term 

Care facilities must meet to participate 

in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. 

These proposed changes are necessary 

to reflect the substantial advances that 

have been made over the past several 

years in the theory and practice of 

service delivery and safety. These 

proposals are also an integral part of our 

efforts to achieve broad-based 

improvements both in the quality of 

health care furnished through Federal 

programs, and in patient safety, while at 

the same time reducing procedural 

burdens on providers. 

Statement of Need: CMS has not 

comprehensively reviewed the entire set 

of requirements for participation it 

imposes on facilities in many years. 

Over the years, the Agency and its 

stakeholders have identified 

problematic requirements. Accordingly, 

we conducted a review of the 

requirements in an effort to improve the 

quality of life, care, and services in 

facilities; optimize resident safety; 

reflect current professional standards; 

and improve the logical flow of the 

regulations. Based on our analysis, we 

decided to pursue those regulatory 

revisions that would reflect the 

advances that have been made in health 

care delivery and that would improve 

resident safety. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Medicare requirements for participation 

for long-term care facilities were 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 2, 1989. These regulations 

have been revised and added to since 

that time, principally as a result of 

legislation or a need to address a 

specific issue; however, they have not 

been comprehensively reviewed and 

updated since September 26, 1991, 

despite substantial changes in service 

delivery in this setting. Additionally, we 

are proposing to add the statutory 

authority citations for sections 1128I(b) 

and (c) of the Act to include the 

compliance and ethics program and 

Quality Assurance and Performance 

Improvement (QAPI) requirements 

under section 6102 of the Affordable 

Care Act. 

Alternatives: The requirements for 

long-term care facilities have not been 

comprehensively updated in many 

years, but the effective and efficient 

delivery of health care services has 

changed substantially in that time. We 

could choose not to make any regulatory 

changes; however, we believe the 

changes we are proposing are necessary 

to ensure the requirements are 

consistent with current standards of 

practice and continue to meet statutory 

obligations. They will ensure that 

residents receive care that maintains or 

enhances quality of life and attains or 

maintains the resident’s highest 

practicable physical, mental, and 

psychosocial well-being. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

proposed rule would implement 

comprehensive changes intended to 

update the current requirements for 

long-term care facilities and create new 

efficiencies and flexibilities for 

facilities. In addition, these changes will 

support improved resident quality of 

life and quality of care. Many of the 

quality of life improvements we are 

proposing are grounded in the concepts 

of person-centered care and culture 

change. These changes not only result in 

improved quality of life for the resident, 

but can result in improvements in the 

caregiver’s quality of work life and in 

savings to the facility. Savings can be 

accrued through reduced turnover, 

decreased use of agency labor and 

decreased worker compensation costs. 

Facilities may also benefit from 

improved bed occupancy rates. As we 

move toward publication, estimates of 

the cost and benefits of these important 

initiatives will be included in the rule. 

Risks: None. The proposed 

requirements in this rule would update 

the existing requirements for long-term 

care facilities to reflect current 

standards of practice. In addition, 

proposed changes would provide added 

flexibility to providers, improve 

efficiency and effectiveness, enhance 

resident quality of care and quality of 

life, and potentially improve clinical 

outcomes. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: State. 

Additional Information: Includes 

Retrospective Review under E.O. 13563. 

Agency Contact: Ronisha Davis, 

Health Insurance Specialist, Department 

of Health and Human Services, Centers 

for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 

Center for Clinical Standards and 

Quality, Mail Stop S3–02–01, 7500 

Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21244, 

Phone: 410 786–6882, Email: 

ronisha.davis@cms.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0938–AR61. 

HHS—CMS 

61. Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008; The Application to 

Medicaid Managed Care, Chip, And 

Alternative Benefit Plans (CMS–2333–P) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

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

L. 110–343; Pub. L. 111–148, Sec 2001 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 438; 42 CFR 

440; 42 CFR 456; 42 CFR 457. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

address the requirements under the Paul 

Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental 

Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act 

of 2008 (MHPAEA) to Medicaid 

Alternative Benefit Plans (ABPs), 

Children’s Health Insurance Program 

(CHIP), and Medicaid managed care 

organizations (MCOs). 

Statement of Need: A final rule 

implementing MHPAEA was published 

in the Federal Register on November 13, 

2013. These final MHPAEA provisions 

do not apply to Medicaid MCOs, ABPs, 

or CHIP State plans. This rule proposes 

to address how MHPAEA requirements, 

including those implemented in the 

November 13, 2013, final rule, apply to 

MCOs, ABPs, and CHIP. 

Summary of Legal Basis: There are 

several statutes that are directly related 

to MHPAEA application to Medicaid. 

These include the MHPAEA, sections 

511 and 512 of the Tax Extenders and 

Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 

2008, the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public 

Health Service Act (PHS Act), and the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code). 

Section 2103(c) of the Social Security 

Act (the Act) added paragraph (6), 

which incorporates, by reference, 

provisions added to section 2705 of the 

Public Health Service Act (PHSA) to 

apply MHPAEA to CHIP. Finally, the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76526 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Affordable Care Act expanded the 

application of MHPAEA to benefits in 

Medicaid ABPs. 

Alternatives: None. A rule is needed 

to address the provisions of MHPAEA as 

they apply to Medicaid benchmark and 

benchmark-equivalent, CHIP, and 

MCOs. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: As we 

move toward publication, estimates of 

the cost and benefits of these provisions 

will be included in the rule. 

Risks: None. This rule approaches the 

application of MHPAEA to Medicaid 

MCOs, ABPs, and CHIP by building 

upon the policies set forth in the final 

MHPAEA regulation. Our goal is to 

align as much as possible with the 

approach taken in the final MHPAEA 

regulation in order to avoid confusion or 

conflict, while remaining true to the 

intent of the MHPAEA statute and the 

Medicaid program and CHIP. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: John O’Brien, Health 

Insurance Specialist, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center 

for Medicaid and CHIP Services, MS: 

S2–14–26, 7500 Security Blvd., 

Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786– 

5529, Email: john.o’brien3@

cms.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0938–AS24 

HHS—CMS 

62. Electronic Health Record (EHR) 

Incentive Programs—Stage 3 (CMS– 

3310–P) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111–5, title IV 

of Division B 

CFR Citation: 45 CFR 170; 42 CFR 

412; 42 CFR 413; 42 CFR 495. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

establish policies related to Stage 3 of 

meaningful use for the Medicare and 

Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs. 

Stage 3 will focus on improving health 

care outcomes and further advance 

interoperability. 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

necessary to implement the provisions 

of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) that provide 

incentive payments to eligible 

professionals (EPs), eligible hospitals, 

and critical access hospitals (CAHs) 

participating in Medicare and Medicaid 

programs that adopt and meaningfully 

use certified EHR technology. The rule 

specifies applicable criteria for 

demonstrating Stage 3 of meaningful 

use. 

Summary of Legal Basis: ARRA 

amended titles XVIII and XIX of the 

Social Security Act (the Act) to 

authorize incentive payments to EPs, 

eligible hospitals, CAHs, and Medicare 

Advantage (MA) Organizations to 

promote the adoption and meaningful 

use of certified EHR technology. 

Alternatives: None. In this proposed 

rule, CMS will implement Stage 3, 

another stage of the Medicare and 

Medicaid EHR Incentive Program as 

required by ARRA. We are proposing 

the Stage 3 criteria that EP’s, eligible 

hospitals, and CAHs must meet in order 

to successfully demonstrate meaningful 

use under the Medicare and Medicaid 

EHR Incentive Programs, focusing on 

advanced use of EHR technology to 

promote improved outcomes for 

patients. Stage 3 will also propose 

changes to the reporting period, 

timelines, and structure of the program, 

including providing a single definition 

of meaningful use. These changes will 

provide a flexible, yet, clearer 

framework to ensure future 

sustainability of the EHR program and 

reduce confusion stemming from 

multiple stage requirements. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

We expect that benefits to the 

program will accrue in the form of 

savings to Medicare through the 

Medicare payment adjustments. 

Expected qualitative benefits, such as 

improved quality of care and better 

health outcomes are unable to be 

quantified at this time, but we believe 

that savings will likely result from 

reductions in the cost of providing care. 

Risks: CMS anticipates many positive 

effects of adopting EHR on health care 

providers, apart from the incentive 

payments to be provided under this 

proposed rule. We believe there are 

benefits that can be obtained by eligible 

hospitals and EPs, including: 

Reductions in medical recordkeeping 

costs, reductions in repeat tests, 

decreases in length of stay, and reduced 

errors. When used effectively, EHRs can 

enable providers to deliver health care 

more efficiently. For example, EHRs can 

reduce the duplication of diagnostic 

tests, prompt providers to prescribe cost 

effective generic medications, remind 

patients about preventive care, reduce 

unnecessary office visits, and assist in 

managing complex care. 

We are working with the Office of the 

National Coordinator for Health 

Information Technology to ensure that 

the Stage 3 meaningful use definition 

coordinates with the standards and 

certification requirements being 

proposed and that there is sufficient 

time to upgrade and implement these 

changes. Stage 2 has been extended so 

that Stage 3 will not begin until 2017. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: State. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Elizabeth S. Holland, 

Director, HIT Initiatives Group, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, Mail Stop S2–26–17, 

7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21244, Phone: 410–786–1309, Email: 

elizabeth.holland@cms.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0938–AS26 

HHS—CMS 

63. • CY 2016 Revisions to Payment 

Policies Under the Physician Fee 

Schedule and Other Revisions to 

Medicare Part B (CMS–1631–P) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: Social Security Act, 

secs 1102, 1871, 1848 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

November 1, 2015. 

Abstract: This annual proposed rule 

would revise payment polices under the 

Medicare physician fee schedule, and 

make other policy changes to payment 

under Medicare Part B. These changes 

would apply to services furnished 

beginning January 1, 2016. 

Statement of Need: The statute 

requires that we establish each year, by 

regulation, payment amounts for all 

physicians’ services furnished in all fee 

schedule areas. This rule would 

implement changes affecting Medicare 

Part B payment to physicians and other 

Part B suppliers. The final rule has a 

statutory publication date of November 

1, 2015, and an implementation date of 

January 1, 2016. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76527 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1848 

of the Social Security Act (the Act) 

establishes the payment for physician 

services provided under Medicare. 

Section 1848 of the Act imposes an 

annual deadline of no later than 

November 1 for publication of the final 

rule or final physician fee schedule. 

Alternatives: None. This implements a 

statutory requirement. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total 

expenditures will be adjusted for CY 

2016. 

Risks: If this regulation is not 

published timely, physician services 

will not be paid appropriately, 

beginning January 1, 2016. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Kathy Bryant, 

Director, Division of Practitioner 

Services, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, Mail Stop C4–01–27, 

7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21244, Phone: 410 786–3448, Email: 

kathy.bryant@cms.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0938–AS40 

HHS—CMS 

64. • Hospital Inpatient Prospective 

Payment System for Acute Care 

Hospitals and the Long-Term Care 

Hospital Prospective Payment System 

and FY 2016 Rates (CMS–1632–P) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: sec 1886(d) of the 

Social Security Act 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

April 1, 2015. 

Final, Statutory, August 1, 2015. 

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 

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 

2016 IPPS and LTCHs at least 60 days 

before October 1, 2015. 

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, 2015. 

Alternatives: None. This implements a 

statutory requirement. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total 

expenditures will be adjusted for FY 

2016. 

Risks: If this regulation is not 

published timely, inpatient hospital and 

LTCH services will not be paid 

appropriately beginning October 1, 

2015. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/15 

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: C4–01–26, 7500 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, 

Phone: 410 786–6504, Email: 

donald.thompson@cms.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0938–AS41 

HHS—CMS 

65. • CY 2016 Hospital Outpatient PPS 

Policy Changes and Payment Rates and 

Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment 

System Policy Changes and Payment 

Rates (CMS–1633–P) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: sec 1833 of the Social 

Security Act 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

November 1, 2015. 

Abstract: This annual proposed rule 

would revise the Medicare hospital 

outpatient prospective payment system 

to implement statutory requirements 

and changes arising from our continuing 

experience with this system. The 

proposed rule describes changes to the 

amounts and factors used to determine 

payment rates for services. In addition, 

the rule proposes changes to the 

ambulatory surgical center payment 

system list of services and rates. 

Statement of Need: Medicare pays 

over 4,000 hospitals for outpatient 

department services under the hospital 

outpatient prospective payment system 

(OPPS). The OPPS is based on groups of 

clinically similar services called 

ambulatory payment classification 

groups (APCs). CMS annually revises 

the APC payment amounts based on the 

most recent claims data, proposes new 

payment policies, and updates the 

payments for inflation using the 

hospital operating market basket. 

Medicare pays roughly 5,000 

Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs) 

under the ASC payment system. CMS 

annually revises the payment under the 

ASC payment system, proposes new 

policies, and updates payments for 

inflation. CMS will issue a final rule 

containing the payment rates for the 

2016 OPPS and ASC payment system at 

least 60 days before January 1, 2016. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1833 

of the Social Security Act establishes 

Medicare payment for hospital 

outpatient services and ASC services. 

The rule revises the Medicare hospital 

OPPS and ASC payment system to 

implement applicable statutory 

requirements. In addition, the rule 

describes changes to the outpatient APC 

system, relative payment weights, 

outlier adjustments, and other amounts 

and factors used to determine the 

payment rates for Medicare hospital 

outpatient services paid under the 

prospective payment system as well as 

changes to the rates and services paid 

under the ASC payment system. These 

changes would be applicable to services 

furnished on or after January 1, 2016. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76528 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Alternatives: None. This is a statutory 

requirement. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total 

expenditures will be adjusted for CY 

2016. 

Risks: If this regulation is not 

published timely, outpatient hospital 

and ASC services will not be paid 

appropriately beginning January 1, 

2016. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Marjorie Baldo, 

Health Insurance Specialist, Department 

of Health and Human Services, Centers 

for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 

Center for Medicare, MS: C4–03–06, 

7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21244, Phone: 410 786–4617, Email: 

marjorie.baldo@cms.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0938–AS42 

HHS—CMS 

Final Rule Stage 

66. Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and 

Appeal Processes for Medicaid and 

Exchange Eligibility Appeals, and Other 

Eligibility and Enrollment Provisions 

(CMS–2334–F2) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

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

1411, 1413, 1557, 1943, 2102, 2201, 

2004, 2303, et al 

CFR Citation: 42 CFR 430; 42 CFR 

431; 42 CFR 433; 42 CFR 435; 42 CFR 

457. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Affordable Care Act 

expands access to health insurance 

through improvements in Medicaid; the 

establishment of Affordable Insurance 

Exchanges; and coordination between 

Medicaid, the Children’s Health 

Insurance Program (CHIP), and 

Exchanges. This rule finalizes the 

remaining provisions proposed in the 

January 19, 2013, proposed rule, but not 

finalized in the July 15, 2013, final rule 

to continue our efforts to assist states in 

implementing Medicaid eligibility, 

appeals, and enrollment changes, and 

other State health subsidy programs. 

Statement of Need: This final rule 

will implement provisions of the 

Affordable Care Act and the Children’s 

Health Insurance Program 

Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA). 

This rule reflects new statutory 

eligibility provisions; changes to 

provide States more flexibility to 

coordinate Medicaid and CHIP 

eligibility notices, appeals, and other 

related administrative procedures with 

similar procedures used by other health 

coverage programs authorized under the 

Affordable Care Act; modernizes and 

streamlines existing rules, eliminates 

obsolete rules, and updates provisions 

to reflect Medicaid eligibility pathways; 

implements other CHIPRA eligibilityrelated provisions, including eligibility 

for newborns whose mothers were 

eligible for and receiving Medicaid or 

CHIP coverage at the time of birth. With 

publication of this final rule, we desire 

to make our implementing regulations 

available to States and the public as 

soon as possible to facilitate continued 

efficient operation of the State flexibility 

authorized under section 1937 of the 

Act. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Affordable Care Act extends and 

simplifies Medicaid eligibility. In the 

July 15, 2013, Federal Register, we 

issued the ‘‘Medicaid and Children’s 

Health Insurance Programs: Essential 

Health Benefits in Alternative Benefit 

Plans, Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing 

and Appeal Processes, and Premiums 

and Cost Sharing; Exchanges: Eligibility 

and Enrollment’’ final rule that finalized 

certain key Medicaid and CHIP 

eligibility provisions included in the 

January 22, 2013, proposed rule. In this 

final rule, we are addressing the 

remaining provisions of the January 22, 

2013, proposed rule. 

Alternatives: The majority of 

Medicaid and CHIP eligibility 

provisions proposed in this rule serve to 

implement the Affordable Care Act. All 

of the provisions in this final rule are a 

result of the passage of the Affordable 

Care Act and are largely selfimplementing. Therefore, alternatives 

considered for this final rule were 

constrained due to the statutory 

provisions. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

March 23, 2012 Medicaid eligibility 

final rule detailed the impact of the 

Medicaid eligibility changes related to 

implementation of the Affordable Care 

Act. The majority of provisions 

included in this final rule were 

described in detail in that rule, but in 

summary, we estimate a total savings of 

$465 million over 5 years, including 

$280 million in cost savings to the 

Federal Government and $185 million 

in savings to States. 

Risks: None. Delaying publication of 

this final rule delays states from moving 

forward with implementing changes to 

Medicaid and CHIP, and aligning 

operations between Medicaid, CHIP and 

the Exchanges. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Final Action ......... 11/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Agency Contact: Sarah DeLone, 

Health Insurance Specialist, Department 

of Health and Human Services, Centers 

for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Mail 

Stop S2–01–16, 7500 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, 

Phone: 410 786–0615, Email: 

sarah.delone@cms.hhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 0938–AR04. 

RIN: 0938–AS27 

HHS—ADMINISTRATION FOR 

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF) 

Final Rule Stage 

67. Child Care and Development Fund 

Reforms To Support Child Development 

and Working Families 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Sec 658E and other 

provisions of the Child Care and 

Development Block Grant Act of 1990, 

as amended 

CFR Citation: 45 CFR 98. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule would provide the 

first comprehensive update of Child 

Care and Development Fund (CCDF) 

regulations since 1998. It would make 

changes in four key areas: (1) Improving 

health and safety; (2) improving the 

quality of child care; (3) establishing 

family-friendly policies; and (4) 

strengthening program integrity. The 

rule seeks to retain much of the 

flexibility afforded to States, territories, 

and tribes consistent with the nature of 

a block grant. 

Statement of Need: The CCDF 

program has far-reaching implications 

for America’s poorest children. It 

provides child care assistance to 1.6 

million children from nearly 1 million 

low-income working families and 

families who are attending school or job 

training. Half of the children served are 

living at or below poverty level. In 

addition, children who receive CCDF 

are cared for alongside children who do 

not receive CCDF, by approximately 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76529 

570,000 participating child care 

providers, some of whom lack basic 

assurances needed to ensure children 

are safe, healthy, and learning. Since 

1996, a body of research has 

demonstrated the importance of the 

early years on brain development and 

has shown that high-quality, consistent 

child care can positively impact later 

success in school and life. This is 

especially true for low-income children 

who face a school readiness and 

achievement gap and can benefit the 

most from high-quality early learning 

environments. In light of this research, 

many States, territories, and tribes, 

working collaboratively with the 

Federal Government, have taken 

important steps over the last 15 years to 

make the CCDF program more childfocused and family-friendly; however, 

implementation of these evidenceinformed practices is uneven across the 

country and critical gaps remain. This 

regulatory action is needed in order to 

increase accountability in the CCDF 

program by ensuring that all children 

receiving federally funded child care 

assistance are in safe, quality programs 

that both support their parent’s labor 

market participation, and help children 

develop the tools and skills they need 

to reach their full potential. A major 

focus of this final rule is to raise the bar 

on quality by establishing a floor of 

health and safety standards for child 

care paid for with Federal funds. 

National surveys have demonstrated 

that most parents logically assume that 

their child care providers have had a 

background check, have had training in 

child health and safety, and are 

regularly monitored. However, State 

policies surrounding the training and 

oversight of child care providers vary 

widely. In some States, many children 

receiving CCDF subsidies are cared for 

by providers that have little to no 

oversight with respect to compliance 

with basic standards designed to 

safeguard children’s well-being, such as 

first-aid and safe sleep practices. This 

can leave children in unsafe conditions, 

even as their care is being funded with 

public dollars. In addition, the final rule 

empowers all parents who choose child 

care, regardless of whether they receive 

a Federal subsidy, with better 

information to make the best choices for 

their children. This includes providing 

parents with information about the 

quality of child care providers and 

making information about providers’ 

compliance with health and safety 

regulations more transparent so that 

parents can be aware of the safety track 

record of providers when it’s time to 

choose child care. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This final 

regulation is being issued under the 

authority granted to the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services by the 

CCDBG Act (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) and 

section 418 of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 618). 

Alternatives: The Administration for 

Children and Families considered a 

range of approaches to improve early 

childhood care and education, 

including administrative and regulatory 

action. ACF has taken administrative 

actions to recommend that States adopt 

stronger health and safety requirements 

and provided technical assistance to 

States. Despite these efforts to assist 

States in making voluntary reforms, 

unacceptable health and safety lapses 

remain. An alternative to this rule 

would be to take no regulatory action or 

to limit the nature of the required 

standards and the degree to which those 

standards are prescriptive. ACF believes 

this rulemaking is the preferable 

alternative to ensure children’s health 

and safety and promote their learning 

and development. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Changes in this final rule directly 

benefit children and parents who use 

CCDF assistance to pay for child care. 

The 1.6 million children who are in 

child care funded by CCDF would have 

stronger protections for their health and 

safety, which addresses every parent’s 

paramount concern. All children in the 

care of a participating CCDF provider 

will be safer because that provider is 

more knowledgeable about health and 

safety issues. In addition, the families of 

the 12 million children who are served 

in child care will benefit from having 

clear, accessible information about the 

safety compliance records and quality 

indicators of providers available to them 

as they make critical choices about 

where their children will be cared for 

while they work. Provisions also will 

benefit child care providers by 

encouraging States to invest in high 

quality child care providers and 

professional development and to take 

into account quality when they 

determine child care payment rates. A 

primary reason for revising the CCDF 

regulations is to better reflect current 

State and local practices to improve the 

quality of child care. Therefore, there 

are a significant number of States, 

territories, and tribes that have already 

implemented many of these policies. 

The cost of implementing the changes in 

this final rule will vary depending on a 

State’s specific situation. ACF does not 

believe the costs of this final regulatory 

action would be economically 

significant and that the tremendous 

benefits to low-income children justify 

costs associated with this final rule. 

Risks: Not applicable. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/20/13 78 FR 29422 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

08/05/13 

Final Action ......... 12/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: State, 

Tribal. 

Agency Contact: Andrew Williams, 

Policy Division Director, Department of 

Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and 

Families, Office of Child Care, 370 

L’Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, 

DC 20447, Phone: 202 401–4795, Fax: 

202 690–5600, Email: andrew.williams@

acf.hhs.gov. 

RIN: 0970–AC53 

BILLING CODE 4150–24–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY (DHS) 

Fall 2014 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. DHS has a vital mission: 

To secure the Nation from the many 

threats we face. This 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. 

Our mission gives us six main areas 

of responsibility: 

1. Prevent Terrorism and Enhance 

Security, 

2. Secure and Manage Our Borders, 

3. Enforce and Administer our 

Immigration Laws, 

4. Safeguard and Secure Cyberspace, 

5. Ensure Resilience to Disasters, and 

6. Mature and Strengthen DHS 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76530 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

leaner, smarter, and more efficient, 

ensuring that every security resource is 

used as effectively as possible. For a 

further discussion of our main areas of 

responsibility, see the DHS Web site at 

http://www.dhs.gov/our-mission. 

The regulations we have summarized 

below in the Department’s fall 2014 

regulatory plan and in the agenda 

support the Department’s responsibility 

areas listed above. These regulations 

will improve the Department’s ability to 

accomplish its mission. 

The regulations we have identified in 

this year’s fall regulatory plan continue 

to address legislative initiatives 

including, but not limited to, the 

following acts: The Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), 

Public Law 110–53 (Aug. 3, 2007); the 

Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 

2008 (CNRA), Public Law 110–229 (May 

8, 2008); the Security and 

Accountability for Every Port Act of 

2006 (SAFE Port Act), Public Law 109– 

347 (Oct. 13, 2006); and the 

Consolidated Security, Disaster 

Assistance, and Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2009, Public Law 

110–329 (Sep. 30, 2008). 

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. 

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 rules have 

on small businesses. DHS and each of 

its components continue to emphasize 

the use of plain language in our notices 

and rulemaking documents to promote 

a better understanding of regulations 

and increased public participation in 

the Department’s rulemakings. 

Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13563 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’ (Jan. 18, 2011), DHS identified 

the following regulatory actions as 

associated with retrospective review 

and analysis. Some of the regulatory 

actions on the below list may be 

completed actions, which do not appear 

in The Regulatory Plan. You can find 

more information about these completed 

rulemakings in past publications of the 

Unified Agenda (search the Completed 

Actions sections) on www.reginfo.gov. 

Some of the entries on this list, 

however, are active rulemakings. You 

can find entries for these rulemakings 

on www.regulations.gov. 

RIN Rule 

1601–AA58 ..................................... Professional Conduct for Practitioners Rules and Procedures, and Representation and Appearances. 

1615–AB92 ..................................... Employment Authorization for Certain H–4 Spouses. 

1615–AB95 ..................................... Immigration Benefits Business Transformation: Nonimmigrants; Student and Exchange Visitor Program. 

1615–AC00 .................................... Enhancing Opportunities for H–1B1, CW–1, and E–3 Nonimmigrants and EB–1 Immigrants. 

1625–AB38 ..................................... Update to Maritime Security. 

1625–AB80 ..................................... Revision to Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Requirements for Mariners. 

1651–AA96 ..................................... Definition of Form I–94 to Include Electronic Format. 

1651–AB05 ..................................... Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Procedures. 

1652–AA61 ..................................... Standardized Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Services. 

1653–AA44 ..................................... Amendment to Accommodate Process Changes with SEVIS II Implementation. 

1653–AA63 ..................................... Adjustments to Limitations on Designated School Official Assignment and Study By F–2 and M–2 Nonimmigrants. 

1660–AA77 ..................................... Change in Submission Requirements for State Mitigation Plans. 

Promoting International Regulatory 

Cooperation 

Pursuant to Sections 3 and 4(b) of 

Executive Order 13609 ‘‘Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation’’ 

(May 1, 2012), DHS has identified the 

following regulatory actions that have 

significant international impacts. Some 

of the regulatory actions on the below 

list may be completed actions. You can 

find more information about these 

completed rulemakings in past 

publications of the Unified Agenda 

(search the Completed Actions sections) 

on www.reginfo.gov. Some of the entries 

on this list, however, are active 

rulemakings. You can find entries for 

these rulemakings on 

www.regulations.gov. 

RIN Rule 

1625–AB38 ..................................... Updates to Maritime Security. 

1651–AA70 ..................................... Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements. 

1651–AA72 ..................................... Changes to the Visa Waiver Program To Implement the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) 

Program. 

1651–AA98 ..................................... Amendments to Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements. 

1651–AA96 ..................................... Definition of Form I–94 to Include Electronic Format. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76531 

DHS participates in some 

international regulatory cooperation 

activities that are reasonably anticipated 

to lead to significant regulations. For 

example, the U.S. Coast Guard is the 

primary U.S. representative to the 

International Maritime Organization 

(IMO) and plays a major leadership role 

in establishing international standards 

in the global maritime community. 

IMO’s work to establish international 

standards for maritime safety, security, 

and environmental protection closely 

aligns with the U.S. Coast Guard 

regulations. As an IMO member nation, 

the U.S. is obliged to incorporate IMO 

treaty provisions not already part of U.S. 

domestic policy into regulations for 

those vessels affected by the 

international standards. Consequently, 

the U.S. Coast Guard initiates 

rulemakings to harmonize with IMO 

international standards such as treaty 

provisions and the codes, conventions, 

resolutions, and circulars that 

supplement them. 

Also, President Obama and Prime 

Minister Harper created the Canada-U.S. 

Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) 

in February 2011. The RCC is an 

initiative between both federal 

governments aimed at pursuing greater 

alignment in regulation, increasing 

mutual recognition of regulatory 

practices and establishing smarter, more 

effective and less burdensome 

regulations in specific sectors. The 

Canada-U.S. RCC initiative arose out of 

the recognition that high level, focused, 

and sustained effort would be required 

to reach a more substantive level of 

regulatory cooperation. Since its 

creation in early 2011, the U.S. Coast 

Guard has participated in stakeholder 

consultations with their Transport 

Canada counterparts and the public, 

drafted items for inclusion in the RCC 

Action Plan, and detailed work plans for 

each included Action Plan item. 

The fall 2014 regulatory plan for DHS 

includes regulations from 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), and the 

Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA), which have active regulatory 

programs. In addition, it includes 

regulations from the Department’s major 

offices and directorates such as the 

National Protection and Programs 

Directorate (NPPD). Below is a 

discussion of the fall 2014 regulatory 

plan for DHS regulatory components, 

offices, and directorates. 

United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Services 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS) administers 

immigration benefits and services while 

protecting and securing our homeland. 

USCIS has a strong commitment to 

welcoming individuals who seek entry 

through the U.S. immigration system, 

providing clear and useful information 

regarding the immigration process, 

promoting the values of citizenship, and 

assisting those in need of humanitarian 

protection. Based on a comprehensive 

review of the planned USCIS regulatory 

agenda, USCIS will promulgate several 

rulemakings to directly support these 

commitments and goals. 

Regulations to Facilitate Retention of 

High-Skilled Workers 

Employment Authorization for 

Certain H–4 Dependent Spouses. On 

May 12, 2014, USCIS published a 

proposed rule intended to encourage 

professionals with high-demand skills 

to remain in the country and help spur 

innovation and growth of U.S. 

businesses. In the proposed rule, USCIS 

proposed to extend eligibility for 

employment authorization to H–4 

dependent spouses of principal H–1B 

nonimmigrants who have begun the 

process of seeking lawful permanent 

resident status through employment and 

have extended their authorized period 

of admission or ‘‘stay’’ in the United 

States under section 104(c) or 106(a) of 

Public Law 106–313, also known as the 

American Competitiveness in the 

Twenty-First Century Act of 2000. 

USCIS plans to issue a final rule in the 

coming year. 

Enhancing Opportunities for HighSkilled Workers. Also on May 12, 2014, 

USCIS published a proposed rule 

intended to encourage and facilitate the 

employment and retention of certain 

high-skilled and transitional workers. In 

the proposed rule, USCIS proposed to 

amend its regulations relating to the 

nonimmigrant classifications for 

specialty occupation professionals from 

Chile and Singapore (H–1B1) and from 

Australia (E–3), to include these 

classifications in the list of classes of 

aliens authorized for employment 

incident to status with a specific 

employer, to extend automatic 

employment authorization extensions 

with pending extension of stay requests, 

and to update filing procedures. USCIS 

also proposed to amend regulations 

regarding continued employment 

authorization for nonimmigrant workers 

in the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands (CNMI)-only 

Transitional Worker (CW–1) 

classification. Finally, USCIS also 

proposed to amend regulations related 

to the immigration classification for 

employment-based first preference (EB– 

1) outstanding professors or researchers 

to allow the submission of comparable 

evidence. USCIS plans to issue a final 

rule in the coming year. 

Improvements to the Immigration 

System 

Requirements for Filing Motions and 

Administrative Appeals. USCIS will 

propose to revise the procedural 

regulations governing appeals and 

motions to reopen or reconsider before 

its Administrative Appeals Office, and 

to require that applicants and 

petitioners exhaust administrative 

remedies before seeking judicial review 

of an unfavorable decision. The changes 

proposed by the rule will streamline the 

procedures before the Administrative 

Appeals Office and improve the 

efficiency of the adjudication process. 

Regulations Related to the 

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana 

Islands. This final rule amends DHS and 

Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations 

to comply with the Consolidated 

Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA). 

The CNRA extends the immigration 

laws of the United States to the 

Consolidated Northern Mariana Islands 

(CNMI). In 2009, USCIS issued an 

interim final rule to implement 

conforming amendments to the DHS 

and DOJ regulations. This joint DHS– 

DOJ final rule titled ‘‘Application of 

Immigration Regulations to the CNMI’’ 

would finalize the 2009 interim final 

rule. 

Regulatory Changes Involving 

Humanitarian Benefits 

Asylum and Withholding Definitions. 

USCIS plans a regulatory proposal to 

amend the regulations that govern 

asylum eligibility and refugee status 

determinations. The amendments are 

expected to revise the portions of the 

existing regulations that deal with 

determinations of whether suffered or 

feared persecution is on account of a 

protected ground, the requirements for 

establishing that the government is 

unable or unwilling to protect the 

applicant, and the definition of 

membership in a particular social group. 

This proposal would provide greater 

clarity and consistency in this important 

area of the law. 

Exception to the Persecution Bar for 

Asylum, Refugee, or Temporary 

Protected Status, and Withholding of 

Removal. In a joint rulemaking, DHS 

and DOJ will propose amendments to 

existing DHS and DOJ regulations to 

resolve ambiguity in the statutory 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76532 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

language precluding eligibility for 

asylum, refugee resettlement, temporary 

protected status, and withholding or 

removal of an applicant who ordered, 

incited, assisted, or otherwise 

participated in the persecution of 

others. The proposed rule would 

provide a limited exception for 

persecutory actions taken by the 

applicant under duress and would 

clarify the required level of the 

applicant’s knowledge of the 

persecution. 

‘‘T’’ and ‘‘U’’ Nonimmigrants. USCIS 

plans additional regulatory initiatives 

related to T nonimmigrants (victims of 

trafficking) and U nonimmigrants 

(victims of criminal activity). Through 

these regulatory initiatives, USCIS 

hopes to provide greater consistency in 

eligibility and application requirements 

for these vulnerable groups, their 

advocates, and the community. These 

rulemakings will contain provisions to 

adjust documentary requirements for 

this vulnerable population and provide 

greater clarity to the law enforcement 

community. 

Special Immigrant Juvenile Petitions. 

This final rule makes procedural 

changes and resolves interpretive issues 

following statutory amendments. The 

Secretary may grant Special Immigrant 

Juvenile classification to aliens whose 

reunification with one or both parents is 

not viable due to abuse, neglect, 

abandonment, or a similar basis found 

under State law. Such classification can 

regularize immigration status for these 

aliens and allow for adjustment of status 

to lawful permanent resident. 

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 maritime safety, security, and 

stewardship and 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. The Coast Guard’s ability 

to field versatile capabilities and highlytrained personnel is one of the U.S. 

Government’s most significant and 

important strengths in the maritime 

environment. 

America is a maritime nation, and our 

security, resilience, and economic 

prosperity are intrinsically linked to the 

oceans. Safety, efficient waterways, and 

freedom of transit on the high seas are 

essential to our well-being. The Coast 

Guard is leaning forward, poised to 

meet the demands of the modern 

maritime environment. The Coast Guard 

creates value for the public through 

solid prevention and response efforts. 

Activities involving oversight and 

regulation, enforcement, maritime 

presence, and public and private 

partnership foster increased maritime 

safety, security, and stewardship. 

The statutory responsibilities of the 

Coast Guard include ensuring marine 

safety and security, preserving maritime 

mobility, protecting the marine 

environment, enforcing U.S. laws and 

international treaties, and performing 

search and rescue. The Coast Guard 

supports the Department’s overarching 

goals of mobilizing and organizing our 

Nation to secure the homeland from 

terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and 

other emergencies. The rulemaking 

projects identified for the Coast Guard 

in the Unified Agenda, and the rules 

appearing in the fall 2014 Regulatory 

Plan below, contribute to the fulfillment 

of those responsibilities and reflect our 

regulatory policies. 

Vessel Requirements for Notices of 

Arrival and Departure, and Automatic 

Identification System. The Coast Guard 

intends to expand the applicability of 

notice of arrival and departure (NOAD) 

and automatic identification system 

(AIS) requirements to include more 

commercial vessels. This rule, once 

final, would expand the applicability of 

notice of arrival (NOA) requirements to 

include additional vessels, establish a 

separate requirement for certain vessels 

to submit notices of departure (NOD), 

set forth a mandatory method for 

electronic submission of NOA and NOD, 

and modify related reporting content, 

timeframes, and procedures. This rule 

would also extend the applicability of 

AIS requirements beyond Vessel Traffic 

Service (VTS) areas and require 

additional commercial vessels install 

and use AIS. These changes are 

intended to improve navigation safety, 

enhance our ability to identify and track 

vessels, and heighten the Coast Guard’s 

overall maritime domain awareness, 

thus helping the Coast Guard address 

threats to maritime transportation safety 

and security and mitigate the possible 

harm from such threats. 

Inspection of Towing Vessels. The 

Coast Guard has proposed regulations 

governing the inspection of towing 

vessels, including an optional towing 

safety management system (TSMS). The 

regulations for this large class of vessels 

would establish operations, lifesaving, 

fire protection, machinery and electrical 

systems and equipment, and 

construction and arrangement standards 

for towing vessels. This rulemaking 

would also set standards for the 

optional TSMS and related third-party 

organizations, as well as procedures for 

obtaining a certificate of inspection 

under either the TSMS or Coast Guard 

annual-inspection option. This 

rulemaking would implement section 

415 of the Coast Guard and Maritime 

Transportation Act of 2004. The intent 

of this rulemaking, which would 

establish a new subchapter dedicated to 

towing vessels, is to promote safer work 

practices and reduce towing vessel 

casualties. 

Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential (TWIC)—Reader 

Requirements. In accordance with the 

Maritime Transportation Safety Act of 

2002 (MTSA) and the Security and 

Accountability For Every Port Act of 

2006 (SAFE Port Act), the Coast Guard 

is establishing rules requiring electronic 

TWIC readers at high-risk vessels and 

facilities. These rules would ensure that 

prior to being granted unescorted access 

to a designated secure area at a high-risk 

vessel or facility: (1) The individual will 

have his or her TWIC electronically 

authenticated; (2) the status of the 

individual’s credential will be 

electronically validated against an upto-date list maintained by the TSA; and 

(3) the individual’s identity will be 

electronically confirmed by comparing 

his or her fingerprint with a biometric 

template stored on the credential. By 

promulgating these rules, the Coast 

Guard seeks to improve security at the 

highest risk vessels and facilities with 

broader use of electronic inspection of 

biometric credentials. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76533 

United States. This includes regulating 

and facilitating international trade; 

collecting import duties; enforcing U.S. 

trade, immigration and other laws of the 

United States at our borders; inspecting 

imports, overseeing the activities of 

persons and businesses engaged in 

importing; enforcing the laws 

concerning smuggling and trafficking in 

contraband; apprehending individuals 

attempting to enter the United States 

illegally; protecting our agriculture and 

economic interests from harmful pests 

and diseases; servicing all people, 

vehicles and cargo entering the United 

States; maintaining export controls; and 

protecting U.S. businesses from theft of 

their intellectual property. 

In carrying out its priority 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 rules during the next fiscal year 

that are intended to improve security at 

our borders and ports of entry. CBP is 

also automating some procedures that 

increase efficiencies and reduce the 

costs and burdens to travelers. We have 

highlighted some of these rules below. 

Electronic System for Travel 

Authorization (ESTA). During the next 

fiscal year, CBP intends to issue a final 

rule that will finalize two Electronic 

System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) 

rulemakings, the 2008 ESTA interim 

final rule and the 2010 ESTA fee interim 

final rule. On June 9, 2008, CBP 

published an interim final rule 

implementing the ESTA for aliens who 

wish to enter the United States under 

the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) at air or 

sea ports of entry. This rule was 

intended to fulfill the requirements of 

section 711 of the Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act). The 

rule established ESTA and required that 

each alien traveling to the United States 

under the VWP must obtain electronic 

travel authorization via the ESTA 

System in advance of such travel. VWP 

travelers may obtain the required ESTA 

authorization by electronically 

submitting to CBP biographic and other 

information that was previously 

submitted to CBP via the I–94W 

Nonimmigrant Alien Arrival/Departure 

Form (I–94W). ESTA became mandatory 

on January 12, 2009. Therefore, VWP 

travelers must either obtain travel 

authorization in advance of travel under 

ESTA or obtain a visa prior to traveling 

to the United States. On August 9, 2010, 

CBP published an interim final rule 

amending the ESTA regulations to 

require ESTA applicants to pay a 

congressionally mandated fee which is 

the sum of two amounts, a $10.00 travel 

promotion fee for an approved ESTA 

and a $4.00 operational fee for the use 

of ESTA set by the Secretary of 

Homeland Security to at least ensure the 

recovery of the full costs of providing 

and administering the ESTA system. 

Importer Security Filing and 

Additional Carrier Requirements. On 

November 25, 2008, CBP published an 

interim final rule amending CBP 

regulations to require carriers and 

importers to provide to CBP, via a CBP 

approved electronic data interchange 

system, information necessary to enable 

CBP to identity high-risk shipments to 

prevent smuggling and ensure cargo 

safety and security. This rule, which 

became effective on January 26, 2009, 

improves CBP risk assessment and 

targeting capabilities, facilitates the 

prompt release of legitimate cargo 

following its arrival in the United 

States, and assists CBP in increasing the 

security of the global trading system. To 

increase the accuracy and reliability of 

the advance information, CBP intends to 

publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 

during the next fiscal year that proposes 

some changes to the current importer 

security filing regulations. 

Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS). 

The Trade Act of 2002, as amended, 

authorizes the Secretary of Homeland 

Security to promulgate regulations 

providing for the transmission to CBP 

through an electronic data interchange 

system, of information pertaining to 

cargo to be brought into the United 

States or to be sent from the United 

States, prior to the arrival or departure 

of the cargo. The cargo information 

required is that which the Secretary 

determines to be reasonably necessary 

to ensure cargo safety and security. 

CBP’s current Trade Act regulations 

pertaining to air cargo require the 

electronic submission of various 

advance data to CBP no later than either 

the time of departure of the aircraft for 

the United States (from specified 

locations) or four hours prior to arrival 

in the United States for all other 

locations. CBP intends to propose 

amendments to these regulations to 

implement the Air Cargo Advance 

Screening (ACAS) program. To improve 

CBP’s risk assessment and targeting 

capabilities and to enable CBP to target, 

and identify risky 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 as 

early as practicable but no later than 

prior to loading the cargo onto an 

aircraft destined to or transiting through 

the United States at the last foreign port 

of departure. CBP, in conjunction with 

TSA, has been operating ACAS as a 

voluntary pilot program since 2010 and 

would like to implement ACAS as a 

regulatory program. 

Implementation of the GuamCommonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands (CNMI) Visa Waiver 

Program. CBP published an interim 

final rule in November 2008 amending 

the DHS regulations to replace the 

current Guam Visa Waiver Program with 

a new Guam-Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) Visa 

Waiver Program. This rule implements 

portions of the Consolidated National 

Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), which 

extends the immigration laws of the 

United States to the CNMI and among 

others things, provides for a visa waiver 

program for travel to Guam and the 

CNMI. The amended regulations set 

forth the requirements for nonimmigrant 

visitors who seek admission for 

business or pleasure and solely for entry 

into and stay on Guam or the CNMI 

without a visa. The rule also establishes 

six ports of entry in the CNMI for 

purposes of administering and enforcing 

the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. 

CBP intends to issue a final rule during 

the next fiscal year. 

Definition of Form I–94 to Include 

Electronic Format. DHS issues the Form 

I–94 to certain aliens and uses the Form 

I–94 for various purposes such as 

documenting status in the United States, 

the approved length of stay, and 

departure. DHS generally issues the 

Form I–94 to aliens at the time they 

lawfully enter the United States. On 

March 27, 2013, CBP published an 

interim final rule amending existing 

regulations to add a new definition of 

the term ‘‘Form I–94.’’ The new 

definition includes the collection of 

arrival/departure and admission or 

parole information by DHS, whether in 

paper or electronic format. The 

definition also clarified various terms 

that are associated with the use of the 

Form I–94 to accommodate an 

electronic version of the Form I–94. The 

rule also added a valid, unexpired 

nonimmigrant DHS admission or parole 

stamp in a foreign passport to the list of 

documents designated as evidence of 

alien registration. These revisions 

enabled DHS to transition to an 

automated process whereby DHS creates 

a Form I–94 in an electronic format 

based on passenger, passport and visa 

information that DHS obtains 

electronically from air and sea carriers 

and the Department of State as well as 

through the inspection process. CBP 

intends to publish a final rule during 

the next fiscal year. 

In addition to the regulations that CBP 

issues to promote DHS’s mission, CBP 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76534 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

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. It is noted that 

certain regulatory authority of the U.S. 

Customs Service relating to customs 

revenue function was retained by the 

Department of the Treasury (see the 

Department of the Treasury Regulatory 

Plan). In addition to its plans to 

continue issuing regulations to enhance 

border security, CBP, during fiscal year 

2015, expects to continue to issue 

regulatory documents that will facilitate 

legitimate trade and implement trade 

benefit program. CBP regulations 

regarding the customs revenue function 

are discussed in the Regulatory Plan of 

the Department of the Treasury. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

The Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) does not have any 

significant regulatory actions planned 

for fiscal year 2015. 

Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center 

The Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center (FLETC) does not have 

any significant regulatory actions 

planned for fiscal year 2015. 

United States Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement 

ICE is the principal criminal 

investigative arm of the Department of 

Homeland Security 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 2015, 

ICE will focus rulemaking efforts on 

implementing and planning 

improvements in the area of student and 

exchange visitor programs and to 

advance initiatives related to F–1 and 

M–1 nonimmigrant students. 

Adjustments to Limitations on 

Designated School Official Assignment 

and Study by F–2 and M–2 

Nonimmigrants. On November 21, 2013, 

DHS published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking to revise the regulatory cap 

on the number of designated school 

officials (DSOs) that may be nominated 

for the oversight of each school’s 

campus(es) where F–1 and/or M–1 

students are enrolled. Currently, schools 

are limited to ten DSOs per school or 

per campus in a multi-campus school. 

In addition, the proposed rule sought to 

modify the regulatory restrictions 

placed on the dependents of an F–1 or 

M–1 student, to permit F–2 and M–2 

nonimmigrants to enroll in less than a 

full course of study at a school certified 

by the ICE Student and Exchange Visitor 

Program (SEVP). ICE intends to issue a 

final rule in FY 2015. ICE believes that, 

in many circumstances, elimination of a 

DSO limit may improve the capability of 

DSOs to meet their liaison, reporting, 

and oversight responsibilities. In 

addition, ICE recognizes that there is 

increasing global competition to attract 

the best and brightest international 

students to study in our schools. 

Allowing a more flexible approach to 

permit F–2 and M–2 spouses and 

children to engage in less than a full 

course of study at SEVP-certified 

schools will provide a greater incentive 

for international students to travel to the 

United States for their education. 

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. 

Ammonium Nitrate Security Program. 

Recognizing both the economic 

importance of ammonium nitrate and 

the fact that ammonium nitrate is 

susceptible to use by terrorists in 

explosive devices, Congress, in section 

563 of the Fiscal Year 2008 DHS 

Appropriations Act, granted DHS the 

authority to ‘‘regulate the sale and 

transfer of ammonium nitrate by an 

ammonium nitrate facility . . . to 

prevent the misappropriation or use of 

ammonium nitrate in an act of 

terrorism.’’ The statute directs DHS to 

promulgate regulations requiring 

potential buyers and sellers of 

ammonium nitrate to register with DHS, 

in order to obtain ammonium nitrate 

registration numbers from DHS. The 

statute also requires DHS to screen each 

applicant against the Terrorist Screening 

Database. The statute also requires 

sellers of ammonium nitrate to verify 

the identities of those individuals 

seeking to purchase ammonium nitrate; 

to record certain information about each 

sale or transfer of ammonium nitrate; 

and to report thefts and losses of 

ammonium nitrate to federal authorities. 

On October 29, 2008, DHS published 

an Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) for a Secure 

Handling of Ammonium Nitrate 

Program. DHS reviewed the public 

comments and, on August 3, 2011, 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM). DHS received 

comment on the NPRM until December 

1, 2011, and is now reviewing and 

adjudicating the public comments in 

order to develop a final rule. The final 

rule is intended to aid the Federal 

Government in its efforts to protect 

against the misappropriation of 

ammonium nitrate for use in acts of 

terrorism and to limit terrorists’ abilities 

to threaten the Nation’s critical 

infrastructure and key resources. By 

protecting the Nation’s supply of 

ammonium nitrate through the 

implementation of this rule, it will be 

more difficult for terrorists to obtain 

ammonium nitrate materials for use in 

terrorist acts. 

Transportation Security Administration 

The Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) protects the 

Nation’s transportation systems to 

ensure freedom of movement for people 

and commerce. TSA is committed to 

continuously setting the standard for 

excellence in transportation security 

through its people, processes, and 

technology as we work to meet the 

immediate and long-term needs of the 

transportation sector. 

In fiscal year 2014, responding to new 

legislative mandates in the Bipartisan 

Budget Act of 2013, Pub. L. 113–67 

(Dec. 26, 2013) TSA published two 

statutorily-required regulations: One 

that restructured the fee imposed on 

passengers (known as the September 

11th Security Fee) and another that 

repealed TSA’s authority to impose a fee 

on air carriers (known as the Aviation 

Security Infrastructure Fee). 

In fiscal year 2015, TSA will promote 

the DHS mission by emphasizing 

regulatory efforts that allow TSA to 

better identify, detect, and protect 

against threats against various modes of 

the transportation system, while 

facilitating the efficient movement of 

the traveling public, transportation 

workers, and cargo. 

Passenger Screening Using Advanced 

Imaging Technology (AIT). TSA intends 

to issue a final rule to amend its civil 

aviation regulations to address whether 

screening and inspection of an 

individual, conducted to control access 

to the sterile area of an airport or to an 

aircraft, may include the use of 

advanced imaging technology (AIT). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76535 

TSA published an NPRM on March 26, 

2012, to comply with the decision 

rendered by the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District Columbia Circuit in 

Electronic Privacy Information Center 

(EPIC) v. U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security on July 15, 2011. 653 F.3d 1 

(D.C. Cir. 2011). The Court directed TSA 

to conduct notice and comment 

rulemaking on the use of AIT in the 

primary screening of passengers. 

Security Training for Surface Mode 

Employees. TSA will propose 

regulations to enhance the security of 

several non-aviation modes of 

transportation. In particular, TSA will 

propose regulations requiring freight 

railroad carriers, public transportation 

agencies (including rail mass transit and 

bus systems), passenger railroad 

carriers, and over-the-road bus operators 

to conduct security training for front 

line employees. This regulation would 

implement sections 1408 (Public 

Transportation), 1517 (Freight 

Railroads), and 1534(a) (Over-the-RoadBuses) of the Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act). In 

compliance with the definitions of 

frontline employees in the pertinent 

provisions of the 9/11 Act, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) would 

propose to define which employees are 

required to undergo training. This 

NPRM would also propose definitions 

for transportation of security-sensitive 

materials as required by section 1501 of 

the 9/11 Act. 

Standardized Vetting, Adjudication, 

and Redress Process and Fees. TSA is 

developing a proposed rule to revise 

and standardize the procedures, 

adjudication criteria, and fees for most 

of the security threat assessments 

(STAs) of individuals that TSA 

conducts. TSA is considering a proposal 

that would include procedures for 

conducting STAs for transportation 

workers from almost all modes of 

transportation, including those covered 

under the 9/11 Act. In addition, TSA 

will propose equitable fees to cover the 

cost of the STAs and credentials for 

some personnel. TSA plans to identify 

new efficiencies in processing STAs and 

ways to streamline existing regulations 

by simplifying language and removing 

redundancies. As part of this proposed 

rule, TSA will propose revisions to the 

Alien Flight Student Program (AFSP) 

regulations. TSA published an interim 

final rule for the AFSP on September 20, 

2004. TSA regulations require aliens 

seeking to train at Federal Aviation 

Administration-regulated flight schools 

to complete an application and undergo 

an STA prior to beginning flight 

training. There are four categories under 

which students currently fall; the nature 

of the STA depends on the student’s 

category. TSA is considering changes to 

the AFSP that would improve equity 

among fee payers and enable the 

implementation of new technologies to 

support vetting. 

United States Secret Service 

The United States Secret Service does 

not have any significant regulatory 

actions planned for fiscal year 2015. 

DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 

2015 

A more detailed description of the 

priority regulations that comprise DHS’s 

fall 2014 regulatory plan follows. 

DHS—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

(OS) 

Final Rule Stage 

68. Ammonium Nitrate Security 

Program 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under Pub. L. 

104–4. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110–161, 

2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

sec. 563, subtitle J––Secure Handling of 

Ammonium Nitrate 

CFR Citation: 6 CFR 31 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

May 26, 2008, Publication of Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. Final, Statutory, 

December 26, 2008, Publication of Final 

Rule. 

Abstract: This rulemaking will 

implement the December 2007 

amendment to the Homeland Security 

Act entitled ‘‘Secure Handling of 

Ammonium Nitrate.’’ The amendment 

requires the Department of Homeland 

Security to ‘‘regulate the sale and 

transfer of ammonium nitrate by an 

ammonium nitrate facility . . . to 

prevent the misappropriation or use of 

ammonium nitrate in an act of 

terrorism.’’ 

Statement of Need: Pursuant to 

section 563 of the 2008 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, subtitle J—Secure 

Handling of Ammonium Nitrate, Public 

Law 110–161, the Department of 

Homeland Security is required to 

promulgate a rulemaking to create a 

registration regime for certain buyers 

and sellers of ammonium nitrate. This 

rule would create that regime, and 

would aid the Federal Government in its 

efforts to protect against the 

misappropriation of ammonium nitrate 

for use in acts of terrorism. By 

protecting against such 

misappropriation, this rule could limit 

terrorists’ abilities to threaten the public 

and to threaten the Nation’s critical 

infrastructure and key resources. By 

securing the Nation’s supply of 

ammonium nitrate, it should be much 

more difficult for terrorists to obtain 

ammonium nitrate materials for use in 

improvised explosive devices. As a 

result, there is a direct value in the 

deterrence of a catastrophic terrorist 

attack using ammonium nitrate, such as 

the Oklahoma City attack that killed 

over 160 and injured 853 people. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 563 

of the 2008 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, subtitle J—Secure 

Handling of Ammonium Nitrate, Public 

Law 110–161, authorizes and requires 

this rulemaking. 

Alternatives: The Department 

considered several alternatives when 

developing the Ammonium Nitrate 

Security Program proposed rule. The 

alternatives considered were: (a) 

Register individuals applying for an AN 

registered user number using a paper 

application (via facsimile or the U.S. 

mail) rather than through in person 

application at a local cooperative 

extension office or only through a Webbased portal; (b) verify AN purchasers 

through both an Internet-based 

verification portal and call center rather 

than only a verification portal or call 

center; (c) communicate with applicants 

for an AN registered user number 

through U.S. Mail rather than only 

through email or a secure Web-based 

portal; (d) establish a specific capability 

within the Department to receive, 

process, and respond to reports of theft 

or loss rather than leverage a similar 

capability which already exists with the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives (ATF); (e) require AN 

facilities to maintain records 

electronically in a central database 

provided by the Department rather than 

providing flexibility to the AN facility to 

maintain their own records either in 

paper or electronically; (f) require agents 

to register with the Department prior to 

the sale or transfer of ammonium nitrate 

involving an agent rather than allow 

oral confirmation of the agent with the 

AN purchaser on whose behalf the agent 

is working; and (g) exempt explosives 

from this regulation rather than not 

exempting them. As part of its notice of 

proposed rulemaking, the Department 

sought public comment on the 

numerous alternative ways in which the 

Department could carry out the 

requirements of the Secure Handling of 

Ammonium Nitrate provisions of the 

Homeland Security Act. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In its 

proposed rule, the Department 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76536 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

estimated the number of entities that 

purchase ammonium nitrate to range 

from 64,950 to 106,200. These 

purchasers include farms, fertilizer 

mixers, farm supply wholesalers and 

cooperatives (co-ops), golf courses, 

landscaping services, explosives 

distributors, mines, retail garden 

centers, and lab supply wholesalers. 

The Department estimated the number 

of entities that sell ammonium nitrate to 

be between 2,486 and 6,236, many of 

which are also purchasers. These sellers 

include ammonium nitrate fertilizer and 

explosive manufacturers, fertilizer 

mixers, farm supply wholesalers and coops, retail garden centers, explosives 

distributors, fertilizer applicator 

services, and lab supply wholesalers. 

Individuals or firms that provide 

transportation services within the 

distribution chain may be categorized as 

sellers, agents, or facilities depending 

upon their business relationship with 

the other parties to the transaction. The 

total number of potentially regulated 

farms and other businesses ranges from 

64,986 to 106,236 (including overlap 

between the categories). The cost of the 

proposed rule ranges from $300 million 

to $1,041 million over 10 years at a 7 

percent discount rate. The primary 

estimate is the mean which is $670.6 

million. For comparison, at a 3 percent 

discount rate, the cost of the program 

ranges from $364 million to $1.3 billion 

with a primary (mean) estimate of $814 

million. The average annualized cost for 

the program ranges from $43 million to 

$148 million (with a mean of $96 

million), also employing a 7 percent 

discount rate. Because the value of the 

benefits of reducing risk of a terrorist 

attack is a function of both the 

probability of an attack and the value of 

the consequence, it is difficult to 

identify the particular risk reduction 

associated with the implementation of 

this rule. These elements and related 

qualitative benefits include point of sale 

identification requirements and 

requiring individuals to be screened 

against the Terrorist Screening Database 

(TSDB), resulting in known bad actors 

being denied the ability to purchase 

ammonium nitrate. 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 

preventing the misappropriation or use 

of ammonium nitrate in acts of 

terrorism, this rulemaking will support 

the Department’s efforts to prevent 

terrorist attacks and reduce the Nation’s 

vulnerability to terrorist attacks. This 

rulemaking is complementary to other 

Department programs seeking to reduce 

the risks posed by terrorism, including 

the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 

Standards program (which seeks in part 

to prevent terrorists from gaining access 

to dangerous chemicals) and the 

Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential program (which seeks in part 

to prevent terrorists from gaining access 

to certain critical infrastructure), among 

other programs. 

Risks: Explosives containing 

ammonium nitrate are commonly used 

in terrorist attacks. Such attacks have 

been carried out both domestically and 

internationally. The 1995 Murrah 

Federal Building attack in Oklahoma 

City claimed the lives of 167 individuals 

and demonstrated firsthand to America 

how ammonium nitrate could be 

misused by terrorists. In addition to the 

Murrah Building attack, the Provisional 

Irish Republican Army used ammonium 

nitrate as part of its London, England, 

bombing campaign in the early 1980s. 

More recently, ammonium nitrate was 

used in the 1998 East African Embassy 

bombings and in the November 2003 

bombings in Istanbul, Turkey. 

Additionally, since the events of 9/11, 

stores of ammonium nitrate have been 

confiscated during raids on terrorist 

sites around the world, including sites 

in Canada, England, India, and the 

Philippines. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 10/29/08 73 FR 64280 

Correction ............ 11/05/08 73 FR 65783 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

12/29/08 

NPRM .................. 08/03/11 76 FR 46908 

Notice of Public 

Meetings.

10/07/11 76 FR 62311 

Notice of Public 

Meetings.

11/14/11 76 FR 70366 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

12/01/11 

Final Rule ............ 04/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

EO 13132. 

URL for More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Jon MacLaren, Chief, 

Rulemaking Section, Department of 

Homeland Security, National Protection 

and Programs Directorate, Infrastructure 

Security Compliance Division (NPPD/

ISCD), 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 

0610, Arlington, VA 20598–0610, 

Phone: 703 235–5263, Fax: 703 603– 

4712, Email: jon.m.maclaren@

hq.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1601–AA52 

DHS—U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 

IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

69. Asylum and Withholding 

Definitions 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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

U.S.C. 1158; 8 U.S.C. 1226; 8 U.S.C. 

1252; 8 U.S.C. 1282 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 2; 8 CFR 208. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule proposes to amend 

Department of Homeland Security 

regulations that govern eligibility for 

asylum and withholding of removal. 

The amendments focus on portions of 

the regulations that deal with the 

definitions of membership in a 

particular social group, the 

requirements for failure of State 

protection, and determinations about 

whether persecution is inflicted on 

account of a protected ground. This rule 

codifies long-standing concepts of the 

definitions. It clarifies that gender can 

be a basis for membership in a 

particular social group. It also clarifies 

that a person who has suffered or fears 

domestic violence may under certain 

circumstances be eligible for asylum on 

that basis. After the Board of 

Immigration Appeals published a 

decision on this issue in 1999, Matter of 

R–A–, Int. Dec. 3403 (BIA 1999), it 

became clear that the governing 

regulatory standards required 

clarification. The Department of Justice 

began this regulatory initiative by 

publishing a proposed rule addressing 

these issues in 2000. 

Statement of Need: This rule provides 

guidance on a number of key 

interpretive issues of the refugee 

definition used by adjudicators deciding 

asylum and withholding of removal 

(withholding) claims. The interpretive 

issues include whether persecution is 

inflicted on account of a protected 

ground, the requirements for 

establishing the failure of State 

protection, and the parameters for 

defining membership in a particular 

social group. This rule will aid in the 

adjudication of claims made by 

applicants whose claims fall outside of 

the rubric of the protected grounds of 

race, religion, nationality, or political 

opinion. One example of such claims 

which often fall within the particular 

social group ground concerns people 

who have suffered or fear domestic 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76537 

violence. This rule is expected to 

consolidate issues raised in a proposed 

rule in 2000 and to address issues that 

have developed since the publication of 

the proposed rule. This rule should 

provide greater stability and clarity in 

this important area of the law. This rule 

will also provide guidance to the 

following adjudicators: USCIS asylum 

officers, Department of Justice Executive 

Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) 

immigration judges, and members of the 

EOIR Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA). 

Summary of Legal Basis: The purpose 

of this rule is to provide guidance on 

certain issues that have arisen in the 

context of asylum and withholding 

adjudications. The 1951 Geneva 

Convention relating to the Status of 

Refugees contains the internationally 

accepted definition of a refugee. United 

States immigration law incorporates an 

almost identical definition of a refugee 

as a person outside his or her country 

of origin ‘‘who is unable or unwilling to 

return to, and is unable or unwilling to 

avail himself or herself of the protection 

of, that country because of persecution 

or a well-founded fear of persecution on 

account of race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, 

or political opinion.’’ Section 101(a)(42) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Alternatives: A sizable body of 

interpretive case law has developed 

around the meaning of the refugee 

definition. Historically, much of this 

case law has addressed more traditional 

asylum and withholding claims based 

on the protected grounds of race, 

religion, nationality, or political 

opinion. In recent years, however, the 

United States increasingly has 

encountered asylum and withholding 

applications with more varied bases, 

related, for example, to an applicant’s 

gender or sexual orientation. Many of 

these new types of claims are based on 

the ground of ‘‘membership in a 

particular social group,’’ which is the 

least well-defined of the five protected 

grounds within the refugee definition. 

On December 7, 2000, DOJ published 

a proposed rule in the Federal Register 

providing guidance on the definitions of 

‘‘persecution’’ and ‘‘membership in a 

particular social group.’’ Before DHS 

publishes a new proposed rule, DHS 

will consider how the nexus between 

persecution and a protected ground 

might be further conceptualized; how 

membership in a particular social group 

might be defined and evaluated; and 

what constitutes a State’s inability or 

unwillingness to protect the applicant 

where the persecution arises from a 

non-State actor. The alternative to 

publishing this rule would be to allow 

the standards governing this area of law 

to continue to develop piecemeal 

through administrative and judicial 

precedent. This approach has resulted 

in inconsistent and confusing standards, 

and the Department has therefore 

determined that promulgation of the 

new proposed rule is necessary. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: By 

providing a clear framework for key 

asylum and withholding issues, we 

anticipate that adjudicators will have 

clear guidance, increasing 

administrative efficiency and 

consistency in adjudicating these cases. 

The rule will also promote a more 

consistent and predictable body of 

administrative and judicial precedent 

governing these types of cases. We 

anticipate that this will enable 

applicants to better assess their 

potential eligibility for asylum, and to 

present their claims more efficiently 

when they believe that they may 

qualify, thus reducing the resources 

spent on adjudicating claims that do not 

qualify. In addition, a more consistent 

and predictable body of law on these 

issues will likely result in fewer 

appeals, both administrative and 

judicial, and reduce associated litigation 

costs. The Department has no way of 

accurately predicting how this rule will 

impact the number of asylum 

applications filed in the United States. 

Based on anecdotal evidence and on the 

reported experience of other nations 

that have adopted standards under 

which the results are similar to those we 

anticipate for this rule, we do not 

believe this rule will cause a change in 

the number of asylum applications filed. 

Risks: The failure to promulgate a 

final rule in this area presents 

significant risk of further inconsistency 

and confusion in the law. The 

Government’s interests in fair, efficient, 

and consistent adjudications would be 

compromised. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/07/00 65 FR 76588 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/22/01 

NPRM .................. 05/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: CIS No. 

2092–00. 

Transferred from RIN 1115–AF92 

URL for More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Ted Kim, Deputy 

Chief, Asylum Division, Office of 

Refugee, Asylum, and International 

Operations, Department of Homeland 

Security, U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts 

Avenue NW., Suite 6030, Washington, 

DC 20259, Phone: 202 272–1614, Fax: 

202 272–1994, Email: ted.h.kim@

uscis.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1615–AA41 

DHS—USCIS 

70. New Classification for Victims of 

Criminal Activity; Eligibility for the U 

Nonimmigrant Status 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 

552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1101 

(note); 8 U.S.C. 1102; Pub. L. 113–4 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 204; 

8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 299. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule proposes new 

application and eligibility requirements 

for U nonimmigrant status. The U 

classification is for non-U.S. citizen/

lawful permanent resident victims of 

certain crimes who cooperate with an 

investigation or prosecution of those 

crimes. There is a limit of 10,000 

principals per fiscal year. This rule 

would propose to establish new 

procedures to be followed to petition for 

the U nonimmigrant classifications. 

Specifically, the rule would address the 

essential elements that must be 

demonstrated to receive the 

nonimmigrant classification, procedures 

that must be followed to file a petition 

and evidentiary guidance to assist in the 

petitioning process. Eligible victims 

would be allowed to remain in the 

United States if granted U 

nonimmigrant status. The Trafficking 

Victims Protection Reauthorization Act 

of 2008, Public Law 110–457, and the 

Violence Against Women 

Reauthorization Act (VAWA) of 2013, 

Public Law 113–4, made amendments to 

the U nonimmigrant status provisions of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

The Department of Homeland Security 

had issued an interim final rule in 2007. 

Statement of Need: This regulation is 

necessary to allow alien victims of 

certain crimes to petition for U 

nonimmigrant status. U nonimmigrant 

status is available to eligible victims of 

certain qualifying criminal activity who: 

(1) Has suffered substantial physical or 

mental abuse as a result of the 

qualifying criminal activity; (2) the alien 

possesses information about the crime; 

(3) the alien has been, is being, or is 

likely to be helpful in the investigation 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76538 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

or prosecution of the crime; and (4) the 

criminal activity took place in the 

United States, including military 

installations and Indian country, or the 

territories or possessions of the United 

States. This rule addresses the eligibility 

requirements that must be met for 

classification as a U nonimmigrant alien 

and implements statutory amendments 

to these requirements, streamlines the 

procedures to petition for U 

nonimmigrant status, and provides 

evidentiary guidance to assist in the 

petition process. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Congress 

created the U nonimmigrant 

classification in the Battered Immigrant 

Women Protection Act of 2000 (BIWPA) 

to provide immigration relief for alien 

victims of certain qualifying criminal 

activity and who are helpful to law 

enforcement in the investigation or 

prosecution of these crimes. 

Alternatives: To provide victims with 

immigration benefits and services and 

keeping in mind the purpose of the U 

visa as a law enforcement tool, DHS is 

considering and using suggestions from 

stakeholders in developing this 

regulation. These suggestions came in 

the form of public comment from the 

2007 interim final rule as well as USCIS’ 

6 years of experience with the U 

nonimmigrant status program, including 

regular meetings and outreach events 

with stakeholders and law enforcement. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS 

estimated the total annual cost of the 

interim rule to petitioners to be $6.2 

million in the interim final rule 

published in 2007. This cost included 

the biometric services fee, the 

opportunity cost of time needed to 

submit the required forms, the 

opportunity cost of time required and 

cost of traveling to visit a USCIS 

Application Support Center. DHS is 

currently in the process of updating our 

cost estimates since U nonimmigrant 

visa petitioners are no longer required to 

pay the biometric services fee. The 

anticipated benefits of these 

expenditures include assistance to 

victims of qualifying criminal activity 

and their families and increases in 

arrests and prosecutions of criminals 

nationwide. Additional benefits include 

heightened awareness by law 

enforcement of victimization of aliens in 

their community, and streamlining the 

petitioning process so that victims may 

benefit from this immigration relief. 

Risks: There is a statutory cap of 

10,000 principal U nonimmigrant visas 

that may be granted per fiscal year at 8 

U.S.C. 1184(p)(2). Eligible petitioners 

who are not granted principal U–1 

nonimmigrant status due solely to the 

numerical limit will be placed on a 

waiting list maintained by U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS). To protect U–1 petitioners and 

their families, USCIS will use various 

means to prevent the removal of U–1 

petitioners and their eligible family 

members on the waiting list, including 

exercising its authority to allow deferred 

action, parole, and stays of removal, in 

cooperation with other DHS 

components. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 09/17/07 72 FR 53013 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

10/17/07 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

11/17/07 

NPRM .................. 10/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Additional Information: Transferred 

from RIN 1115–AG39. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Maureen A. Dunn, 

Chief, Family Immigration and Victim 

Protection Division, Department of 

Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, Office of 

Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts 

Avenue NW., Suite 1200, Washington, 

DC 20529, Phone: 202 272–1470, Fax: 

202 272–1480, Email: maureen.a.dunn@

uscis.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1615–AA67 

DHS—USCIS 

71. Exception to the Persecution Bar for 

Asylum, Refugee, and Temporary 

Protected Status, and Withholding of 

Removal 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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

U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1158; 8 U.S.C. 

1226; Pub. L. 107–26; Pub. L. 110–229. 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1; 8 CFR 207; 8 

CFR 208; 8 CFR 240; 8 CFR 244; 8 CFR 

1001; 8 CFR 1208; 8 CFR 1240. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This joint rule proposes 

amendments to Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) and 

Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations 

to describe the circumstances under 

which an applicant will continue to be 

eligible for asylum, refugee, or 

temporary protected status, special rule 

cancellation of removal under the 

Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central 

American Relief Act, and withholding 

of removal, even if DHS or DOJ has 

determined that the applicant’s actions 

contributed, in some way, to the 

persecution of others when the 

applicant’s actions were taken when the 

applicant was under duress. 

Statement of Need: This rule resolves 

ambiguity in the statutory language 

precluding eligibility for asylum, 

refugee, and temporary protected status 

of an applicant who ordered, incited, 

assisted, or otherwise participated in the 

persecution of others. The proposed 

amendment would provide a limited 

exception for actions taken by the 

applicant under duress and clarify the 

required levels of the applicant’s 

knowledge of the persecution. 

Summary of Legal Basis: In Negusie v. 

Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1159 (2009), the 

Supreme Court addressed whether the 

persecutor bar should apply where an 

alien’s actions were taken under duress. 

DHS believes that this is an appropriate 

subject for rulemaking and proposes to 

amend the applicable regulations to set 

out its interpretation of the statute. In 

developing this regulatory initiative, 

DHS has carefully considered the 

purpose and history behind enactment 

of the persecutor bar, including its 

international law origins and the 

criminal law concepts upon which they 

are based. 

Alternatives: DHS did consider the 

alternative of not publishing a 

rulemaking on these issues. To leave 

this important area of the law without 

an administrative interpretation would 

confuse adjudicators and the public. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

programs affected by this rule exist so 

that the United States may respond 

effectively to global humanitarian 

situations and assist people who are in 

need. USCIS provides a number of 

humanitarian programs and protection 

to assist individuals in need of shelter 

or aid from disasters, oppression, 

emergency medical issues, and other 

urgent circumstances. This rule will 

advance the humanitarian goals of the 

asylum/refugee program, and other 

specialized programs. The main benefits 

of such goals tend to be intangible and 

difficult to quantify in economic and 

monetary terms. These forms of relief 

have not been available to individuals 

who engaged in persecution of others 

under duress. This rule will allow an 

exception to this bar from protection for 

applicants who can meet the 

appropriate evidentiary standard. 

Consequently, this rule may result in a 

small increase in the number of 

applicants for humanitarian programs. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76539 

To the extent a small increase in 

applicants occurs, there could be 

additional fee costs incurred by these 

applicants. 

Risks: If DHS were not to publish a 

regulation, the public would face a 

lengthy period of confusion on these 

issues. There could also be inconsistent 

interpretations of the statutory language, 

leading to significant litigation and 

delay for the affected public. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Ronald W. Whitney, 

Deputy Chief, Refugee and Asylum Law 

Division, Department of Homeland 

Security, U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, Office of Chief 

Counsel, 20 Massachusetts Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 

415 293–1244, Fax: 415 293–1269, 

Email: ronald.w.whitney@uscis.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1615–AB89 

DHS—USCIS 

72. Administrative Appeals Office: 

Procedural Reforms To Improve 

Efficiency 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 

552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 

U.S.C. 1304; 6 U.S.C. 112. 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 204; 

8 CFR 205; 8 CFR 210; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 

245a; 8 CFR 320; 8 CFR 105 (new); . . . 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule revises 

the requirements and procedures for the 

filing of motions and appeals before the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS), and its 

Administrative Appeals Office. The 

proposed changes are intended to 

streamline the existing processes for 

filing motions and appeals and will 

reduce delays in the review and 

appellate process. This rule also 

proposes additional changes 

necessitated by the establishment of 

DHS and its components. 

Statement of Need: This rule proposes 

to make numerous changes to 

streamline the current appeal and 

motion processes which: (1) Will result 

in cost savings to the Government, 

applicants, and petitioners; and (2) will 

provide for a more efficient use of 

USCIS officer and clerical staff time, as 

well as more uniformity with Board of 

Immigration Appeals appeal and motion 

processes. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 5 U.S.C. 301; 

5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8 U.S.C. 

1101 and notes 1102, 1103, 1151, 1153, 

1154, 1182, 1184, 1185 note (sec. 7209 

of Pub. L. 108–458; title VII of Pub. L. 

110–229), 1186a, 1187, 1221,1223, 1225 

to 1227, 1255a, and 1255a note, 1281, 

1282, 1301 to 1305, 1324a, 1356, 1372, 

1379, 1409(c), 1443 to 1444, 1448, 1452, 

1455, 1641, 1731 to 1732; 31 U.S.C. 

9701; 48 U.S.C. 1901, 1931 note; section 

643, Public Law 104–208, 110, Stat. 

3009–708; section 141 of the Compacts 

of Free Association with the Federated 

States of Micronesia and the Republic of 

the Marshall Islands, and with the 

Government of Palau; title VII of Public 

Law 110–229; Public Law 107–296, 116 

Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); Public 

Law 82–414, 66 Stat. 173, 238, 254, 264; 

title VII of Public Law 110–229; 

Executive Order 12356. 

Alternatives: The alternative to this 

rule would be to continue under the 

current process without change. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: As a 

result of streamlining the appeal and 

motion process, DHS anticipates 

quantitative and qualitative benefits to 

DHS and the public. We also anticipate 

cost savings to DHS and applicants as a 

result of the proposed changes. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Governmental 

Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: Previously 

1615–AB29 (CIS 2311–04), which was 

withdrawn in 2007. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: William K. Renwick, 

Supervisory Citizenship and 

Immigration Appeals Officer, 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

Administrative Appeals Office, 

Washington, DC 20529–2090, Phone: 

703 224–4501, Email: 

william.k.renwick@uscis.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Duplicate of 1615–AB29 

RIN: 1615–AB98 

DHS—USCIS 

Final Rule Stage 

73. Classification for Victims of Severe 

Forms of Trafficking in Persons; 

Eligibility for T Nonimmigrant Status 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 

552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101 to 1104; 8 U.S.C. 

1182; 8 U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 

U.S.C. 1201; 8 U.S.C. 1224 to 1227; 8 

U.S.C. 1252 to 1252a; 22 U.S.C. 7101; 22 

U.S.C. 7105; Pub. L. 113–4 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 212; 

8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 274a; 8 CFR 299. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The T nonimmigrant 

classification was created by the Victims 

of Trafficking and Violence Protection 

Act of 2000, Public Law 106–386. The 

classification was designed for eligible 

victims of severe forms of trafficking in 

persons who aid law enforcement with 

their investigation or prosecution of the 

traffickers, and who can establish that 

they would suffer extreme hardship 

involving unusual and severe harm if 

they were removed from the United 

States. The rule streamlines application 

procedures and responsibilities for the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) and provides guidance to the 

public on how to meet certain 

requirements to obtain T nonimmigrant 

status. Several reauthorizations, 

including the Violence Against Women 

Reauthorization Act of 2013, Public Law 

113–4, have made amendments to the T 

nonimmigrant status provisions of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act. This 

rule implements those amendments. 

Statement of Need: This rule 

addresses the essential elements that 

must be demonstrated for classification 

as a T nonimmigrant alien and 

implements statutory amendments to 

these elements, streamlines the 

procedures to be followed by applicants 

to apply for T nonimmigrant status, and 

evidentiary guidance to assist in the 

application process. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

107(e) of the Victims of Trafficking and 

Violence Protection Act of 2000 Public 

Law 106–386, as amended, established 

the T classification to provide 

immigration relief for certain eligible 

victims of severe forms of trafficking in 

persons who assist law enforcement 

authorities in investigating and 

prosecuting the perpetrators of these 

crimes. 

Alternatives: To provide victims with 

immigration benefits and services, 

keeping in mind the purpose of the T 

visa also being a law enforcement tool, 

DHS is considering and using 

suggestions from stakeholders in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76540 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

developing this regulation. These 

suggestions came in the form of public 

comment to the 2002 interim final rule, 

as well as from over 10 years of 

experience with the T nonimmigrant 

status program, including regular 

meetings with stakeholders and regular 

outreach events. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Applicants for T nonimmigrant status 

do not pay application or biometric fees. 

The anticipated benefits of these 

expenditures include: Assistance to 

trafficked victims and their families, 

prosecution of traffickers in persons, 

and the elimination of abuses caused by 

trafficking activities. Benefits which 

may be attributed to the implementation 

of this rule are expected to be: (1) An 

increase in the number of cases brought 

forward for investigation and/or 

prosecution; (2) heightened awareness 

by the law enforcement community of 

trafficking in persons; and (3) 

streamlining the application process for 

victims. 

Risks: There is a 5,000-person limit to 

the number of individuals who can be 

granted T–1 status per fiscal year. 

Eligible applicants who are not granted 

T–1 status due solely to the numerical 

limit will be placed on a waiting list 

maintained by U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS). To 

protect T–1 applicants and their 

families, USCIS will use various means 

to prevent the removal of T–1 applicants 

on the waiting list, and their family 

members who are eligible for derivative 

T status, including its existing authority 

to grant deferred action, parole, and 

stays of removal, in cooperation with 

other DHS components. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 01/31/02 67 FR 4784 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

03/04/02 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

04/01/02 

Interim Final Rule 04/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Additional Information: Transferred 

from RIN 1115–AG19. 

Agency Contact: Maureen A. Dunn, 

Chief, Family Immigration and Victim 

Protection Division, Department of 

Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, Office of 

Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts 

Avenue NW., Suite 1200, Washington, 

DC 20529, Phone: 202 272–1470, Fax: 

202 272–1480, Email: maureen.a.dunn@

uscis.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1615–AA59 

DHS—USCIS 

74. Application of Immigration 

Regulations to the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110–229; 8 

U.S.C. 1101 and note; 8 U.S.C. 1102; 8 

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

U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 U.S.C. 

1223; 8 U.S.C. 1225; 8 U.S.C. 1226; 8 

U.S.C. 1227; 8 U.S.C. 1255; 8 U.S.C. 

1185 note; 8 U.S.C. 48; U.S.C. 1806; 8 

U.S.C. 1186a; 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 U.S.C. 

1221; 8 U.S.C. 1281; 8 U.S.C. 1282; 8 

U.S.C. 1301 to 1305 and 1372; Pub. L. 

104–208; Pub. L. 106–386; Compacts of 

Free Association with the Federated 

States of Micronesia and the Republic of 

the Marshall Islands, and with the 

Government of Palau, sec 141; 48 U.S.C. 

1901 note and 1931 note; Pub. L. 105– 

100; Pub. L. 105–277; 8 U.S.C. 1324a 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 212.4(k)(1) and 

(2); 8 CFR 214.16(a), (b), (c) and (d); 8 

CFR 245.1(d)(1)(v) and (vi); 8 CFR 

274a.12(b)(24); 8 CFR 1245.1(d)(1)(v), 

(vi), and (vii); 8 CFR part 2 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

November 28, 2009, Consolidated 

Natural Resources Act (CNRA) of 2008. 

Public Law 110–229, the Consolidated 

Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), 

was enacted on May 8, 2008. Title VII 

of this statute extended the provisions 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

(INA) to the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). 

Abstract: This final rule amends the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) and the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) regulations to comply with the 

CNRA. The CNRA extends the 

immigration laws of the United States to 

the CNMI. This rule finalizes the 

interim rule and implements 

conforming amendments to their 

respective regulations. 

Statement of Need: This rule finalizes 

the interim rule to conform existing 

regulations with the CNRA. Some of the 

changes implemented under the CNRA 

affect existing regulations governing 

both DHS immigration policy and 

procedures and proceedings before the 

immigration judges and the Board. 

Accordingly, it is necessary to make 

amendments both to the DHS 

regulations and to the DOJ regulations. 

The Secretary and the Attorney General 

are making conforming amendments to 

their respective regulations in this 

single rulemaking document. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Congress 

extended the immigration laws of the 

United States to the CNMI. The stated 

purpose of the CNRA is to ensure 

effective border control procedures, to 

properly address national security and 

homeland security concerns by 

extending U.S. immigration law to the 

CNMI (phasing-out the CNMI’s 

nonresident contract worker program 

while minimizing to the greatest extent 

practicable the potential adverse 

economic and fiscal effects of that 

phase-out), to maximize the CNMI’s 

potential for future economic and 

business growth, and to assure worker 

protections from the potential for abuse 

and exploitation. 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs: 

The interim rule established basic 

provisions necessary for the application 

of the INA to the CNMI and updated 

definitions and existing DHS and DOJ 

regulations in areas that were confusing 

or in conflict with how they are to be 

applied to implement the INA in the 

CNMI. As such, that rule made no 

changes that had identifiable direct or 

indirect economic impacts that could be 

quantified. Benefits: This final rule 

makes regulatory changes in order to 

lessen the adverse impacts of the CNRA 

on employers and employees in the 

CNMI and assist the CNMI in its 

transition to the INA. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 10/28/09 74 FR 55725 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

11/27/09 

Correction ............ 12/22/09 74 FR 67969 

Final Action ......... 03/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: CIS 2460–08. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Kevin J. Cummings, 

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 20529–2140, 

Phone: 202 272–1470, Fax: 202 272– 

1480, Email: kevin.j.cummings@

uscis.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1615–AB76, 

Related to 1615–AB75 

RIN: 1615–AB77 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76541 

DHS—USCIS 

75. Special Immigrant Juvenile 

Petitions 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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

U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1151; 8 U.S.C. 

1153; 8 U.S.C. 1154. 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 205; 

8 CFR 245. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to 

amend its regulations governing the 

Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) 

classification and related applications 

for adjustment of status to permanent 

resident. The Secretary may grant SIJ 

classification to aliens whose 

reunification with one or both parents is 

not viable due to abuse, neglect, 

abandonment, or a similar basis found 

under State law. This proposed rule 

would require a petitioner to be under 

the age of 21 only at the time of filing 

for SIJ classification. This proposed rule 

would require that juvenile court 

dependency be in effect at the time of 

filing for SIJ classification and continue 

through the time of adjudication unless 

the age of the juvenile prevents such 

continued dependency. Aliens granted 

SIJ classification are eligible 

immediately to apply for adjustment of 

status to that of permanent resident. The 

Department received comments on the 

proposed rule in 2011 and intends to 

issue a final rule in the coming year. 

Statement of Need: SIJ classification 

is available to eligible alien children 

who: (1) Are present in the United 

States; (2) have been declared 

dependent on a juvenile court or an 

individual or entity appointed by a State 

or juvenile court; (3) cannot reunify 

with one or both of the alien’s parents 

due to abuse, abandonment, neglect, or 

a similar basis under State law; (4) it is 

not in the best interest to be returned to 

the home country. DHS must also 

consent to the grant of SIJ classification. 

This rule would address the eligibility 

requirements that must be met for SIJ 

classification and related adjustment of 

status, implement statutory 

amendments to these requirements, and 

provide procedural and evidentiary 

guidance to assist in the petition 

process. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Congress 

established the SIJ classification in the 

Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT). 

The 1998 Appropriations Act amended 

the SIJ classification by linking 

eligibility to aliens declared dependent 

on a juvenile court due to abuse, 

abandonment, or neglect and creating 

consent functions. The Trafficking 

Victims Protection Reauthorization Act 

of 2008 made many changes to the SIJ 

classification including: (1) Creating a 

requirement that the alien’s 

reunification with one or both parents 

not be viable due to abuse, 

abandonment, neglect, or a similar basis 

under State law; (2) expanding the 

aliens who may be eligible to include 

those placed by a juvenile court with an 

individual or entity; (3) modifying the 

consent functions; (4) providing age-out 

protection; and (5) creating a timeframe 

for adjudications. 

Alternatives: To provide victims with 

immigration benefits and services, 

keeping in mind the humanitarian 

purpose of the SIJ classification and the 

vulnerable nature of alien children who 

have been abused, abandoned or 

neglected, DHS is considering and using 

suggestions from stakeholders in 

developing this regulation. These 

suggestions came in the form of public 

comment from the 2011 proposed rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In the 

2011 proposed rule, DHS estimated 

there would be no additional regulatory 

compliance costs for petitioning 

individuals or any program costs for the 

government as a result of the proposed 

amendments. Qualitatively, DHS 

estimated that the proposed rule would 

codify the practices and procedures 

currently implemented via internal 

policy directives issued by USCIS, 

thereby establishing clear guidance for 

petitioners. DHS is currently in the 

process of updating our final cost and 

benefit estimates. 

Risks: The failure to promulgate a 

final rule in this area presents 

significant risk of further inconsistency 

and confusion in the law. The 

Government’s interests in fair, efficient, 

and consistent adjudications would be 

compromised. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 09/06/11 76 FR 54978 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

11/07/11 

Final Rule ............ 07/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

State. 

URL for More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Maureen A. Dunn, 

Chief, Family Immigration and Victim 

Protection Division, Department of 

Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, Office of 

Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts 

Avenue NW., Suite 1200, Washington, 

DC 20529, Phone: 202 272–1470, Fax: 

202 272–1480, Email: maureen.a.dunn@

uscis.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1615–AB81 

DHS—USCIS 

76. Employment Authorization for 

Certain H–4 Dependent Spouses 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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

U.S.C. 1102; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 

1182; 8 U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C. 1186a; 8 

U.S.C. 1187; 8 U.S.C. 1221; 8 U.S.C. 

1281; 8 U.S.C. 1282; 8 U.S.C. 1301 to 

1305 and 1372; Pub. L. 104–208, sec 

643; Pub. L. 106–386; Compacts of Free 

Association with the Federated States of 

Micronesia and the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands, and with the 

Government of Palau, sec 141; 48 U.S.C. 

1901 note and 1931 note; 48 U.S.C. 

1806; 8 U.S.C. 1324a; Pub. L. 110–229. 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(26); 8 

CFR part 2; 8 CFR 214.2(h)(9)(iv). 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to 

amend its regulations by extending the 

availability of employment 

authorization to certain H–4 dependent 

spouses of principal H–1B 

nonimmigrants who have begun the 

process of seeking lawful permanent 

resident status through employment. 

Allowing the eligible class of H–4 

dependent spouses to work encourages 

professionals with high demand skills to 

remain in the country and help spur the 

innovation and growth of U.S. 

companies. 

Statement of Need: Under current 

regulations, DHS does not list H–4 

dependents (spouses and unmarried 

children under 21) of H–1B 

nonimmigrant workers among the 

classes of aliens eligible to work in the 

United States. See 8 CFR 274a.12. The 

lack of employment authorization for 

H–4 dependent spouses often gives rise 

to personal and economic hardship for 

the families of H–1B nonimmigrants the 

longer they remain in the United States. 

In many cases, for those H–1B 

nonimmigrants and their families who 

wish to remain permanently in the 

United States, the timeframe required 

for an H–1B nonimmigrant to acquire 

lawful permanent residence through his 

or her employment may be many years. 

As a result, retention of highly educated 

and highly skilled nonimmigrant 

workers in the United States can 

become problematic for employers. 

Retaining highly skilled persons who 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76542 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

intend to acquire lawful permanent 

residence is important to the United 

States given the contributions of these 

individuals to the U.S. economy, 

including advances in entrepreneurial 

and research and development 

endeavors, which correlate highly with 

overall economic growth and job 

creation. In this rule, DHS proposes to 

extend employment authorization to 

certain H–4 dependent spouses of H–1B 

nonimmigrants. DHS believes that this 

rule would further encourage H–1B 

skilled workers to remain in the United 

States, continue contributing to the U.S. 

economy, and not abandon their efforts 

to become lawful permanent residents, 

to the detriment of their U.S. employer, 

because their H–4 nonimmigrant 

spouses are unable to obtain work 

authorization. This rule would also 

remove the disincentive for many H–1B 

families to start the immigrant process 

due to the lengthy waiting periods 

associated with acquiring status as a 

lawful permanent resident of the United 

States. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 

103(a), and 274A(h)(3) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 

generally authorize the Secretary to 

provide for employment authorization 

for aliens in the United States. In 

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

authorizes the Secretary to prescribe 

regulations setting terms and conditions 

of admission of nonimmigrants. 

Alternatives: In enacting the 

American Competitiveness in the 

Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 

(AC21), Congress was especially 

concerned with avoiding the disruption 

to U.S. businesses caused by the 

required departure of H–1B 

nonimmigrant workers (for whom the 

businesses intended to file employmentbased immigrant visa petitions) upon 

the expiration of workers’ maximum 6- 

year period of authorized stay. See S. 

Rep. No. 106–260, at 15 (2000). DHS 

rejected this alternative as overbroad, 

since such an alternative would offer 

eligibility for employment authorization 

to those spouses of nonimmigrant 

workers who have not taken steps to 

demonstrate a desire to continue to 

remain in and contribute to the U.S. 

economy by seeking lawful permanent 

residence. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

changes would impact spouses of H–1B 

workers who have been admitted or 

have extended their stay under the 

provisions of AC21 or who have an 

approved Immigrant Petition for Alien 

Worker, Form I–140. This population 

would include H–4 dependent spouses 

of H–1B nonimmigrants if the H–1B 

nonimmigrants are either the 

beneficiaries of an approved Immigrant 

Petition for Alien Worker, Form I–140, 

or have been granted an extension of 

their authorized period of admission in 

the United States under the AC21, 

amended by the 21st Century 

Department of Justice Appropriations 

Authorization Act. The costs of the rule 

stem from filing fees and the 

opportunity costs of time associated 

with filing an Application for 

Employment Authorization for those 

eligible H–4 spouses who decide to seek 

employment while residing in the 

United States. Allowing certain H–4 

spouses the opportunity to work results 

in a negligible increase to the overall 

domestic labor force. The benefits of 

this rule would accrue to U.S. 

employers and the U.S. economy by 

increasing the likelihood of retaining 

highly-skilled persons who intend to 

adjust to lawful permanent resident 

status. This is important when 

considering the contributions of these 

individuals to the U.S. economy, 

including advances in entrepreneurial 

and research and development 

endeavors, which are highly correlated 

with overall economic growth and job 

creation. In addition, the amendments 

bring U.S. immigration laws more in 

line with other countries that seek to 

attract skilled foreign workers. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/12/14 79 FR 26886 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

07/11/14 

Final Action ......... 12/00/14 

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. 

Additional Information: Includes 

Retrospective Review under E.O. 13563. 

Agency Contact: Kevin J. Cummings, 

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 20529–2140, 

Phone: 202 272–1470, Fax: 202 272– 

1480, Email: kevin.j.cummings@

uscis.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1615–AB92 

DHS—USCIS 

77. Enhancing Opportunities for H–1B1, 

CW–1, and E–3 Nonimmigrants and EB– 

1 Immigrants 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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

U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1151; 8 U.S.C. 

1153; 8 U.S.C. 1154; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 

U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C. 1186a; 8 U.S.C. 

1255; 8 U.S.C. 1641; 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 

U.S.C. 1221; 8 U.S.C. 1281; 8 U.S.C. 

1282; 8 U.S.C. 1301–1305 and 1372; 

Pub. L. 104–208, sec 643; Pub. L. 106– 

386; Compacts of Free Association with 

the Federated States of Micronesia and 

the Republic of Marshall Islands, and 

with the Government of Palau, sec 141; 

48 U.S.C. 1901 note and 1931 note; Pub. 

L. 110–229; 8 U.S.C. 1258; 8 U.S.C. 

1324a; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 U.S.C. 1102 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204.5(i)(3)(ii)– 

(iv); 8 CFR 214.1(c)(1); 8 CFR 248.3(a); 

8 CFR 274a.12(b)(9), (b)(20), (b)(23)– 

(25); 8 CFR part 2. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) is updating 

the regulations to include nonimmigrant 

high-skilled specialty occupation 

professionals from Chile and Singapore 

(H–1B1) and from Australia (E–3) in the 

list of classes of aliens authorized for 

employment incident to status with a 

specific employer, to clarify that H–1B1 

and principal E–3 nonimmigrants are 

allowed to work without having to 

separately apply to DHS for 

employment authorization. DHS is also 

amending the regulations to provide 

authorization for continued 

employment with the same employer if 

the employer has timely filed for an 

extension of the nonimmigrant’s stay. 

DHS is also providing for this same 

continued work authorization for 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands (CNMI)-Only Transitional 

Worker (CW–1) nonimmigrants if a 

Petition for a CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant 

Transitional Worker, Form I–129CW, is 

timely filed to apply for an extension of 

stay. In addition, DHS is updating the 

regulations describing the filing 

procedures for extensions of stay and 

change of status requests to include the 

principal E–3 and H–1B1 nonimmigrant 

classifications. These changes 

harmonize the regulations for E–3, H– 

1B1, and CW–1 nonimmigrant 

classifications with existing regulations 

for other, similarly situated 

nonimmigrant classifications. Finally, 

DHS is expanding the current list of 

evidentiary criteria for employmentbased first preference (EB–1) 

outstanding professors and researchers 

to allow the submission of evidence 

comparable to the other forms of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76543 

evidence already listed in the 

regulations. This harmonizes the 

regulations for EB–1 outstanding 

professors and researchers with other 

employment-based immigrant categories 

that already allow for submission of 

comparable evidence. DHS is amending 

the regulations to benefit these highskilled workers and CW–1 transitional 

workers by removing unnecessary 

hurdles that place such workers at a 

disadvantage when compared to 

similarly situated workers in other visa 

classifications. 

Statement of Need: The proposal 

would improve the programs serving the 

E–3, H–1B1, and CW–1 nonimmigrant 

classifications and the EB–1 immigrant 

classification for outstanding professors 

and researchers. The proposed changes 

harmonize the regulations governing 

these classifications with regulations 

governing similar visa classifications by 

removing unnecessary hurdles that 

place E–3, H–1B1, CW–1 and certain 

EB–1 workers at a disadvantage. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–296, section 102, 116 Stat. 

2135 (Nov. 25, 2002), 6 U.S.C. 112, and 

the Immigration and Nationality Act of 

1952 (INA), charge the Secretary of 

Homeland Security (Secretary) with 

administration and enforcement of the 

immigration and nationality laws. See 

INA section 103, 8 U.S.C. 1103. 

Alternatives: A number of the changes 

are part of DHS’s Retrospective Review 

Plan for Existing Regulations. During 

development of DHS’s Retrospective 

Review Plan, DHS received a comment 

from the public requesting specific 

changes to the DHS regulations that 

govern continued work authorization for 

E–3 and H–1B1 nonimmigrants when an 

extension of status petition is timely 

filed, and to expand the types of 

evidence allowable in support of 

immigrant petitions for outstanding 

researchers or professors. This rule is 

responsive to that comment, and with 

the retrospective review principles of 

Executive Order 13563. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The E– 

3 and H–1B1 provisions do not impose 

any additional costs on petitioning 

employers, individuals or government 

entities, including the Federal 

government. The regulatory 

amendments provide equity for E–3 and 

H–1B1 nonimmigrants relative to other 

employment-based nonimmigrants 

listed in 8 CFR 274a.12.(b)(20). 

Additionally, this provision may allow 

employers of E–3 or H–1B1 

nonimmigrant workers to avoid the cost 

of lost productivity resulting from 

interruptions of work while an 

extension of stay petition is pending. 

Additionally, the regulatory changes 

that clarify principal E–3 and H–1B1 

nonimmigrant classifications are 

employment authorized incident to 

status with a specific employer, and that 

these nonimmigrant classifications that 

must file a petition with USCIS to make 

an extension of stay or change of status 

request simply codify current practice 

and impose no additional costs. 

Likewise, the regulatory amendments 

governing CW–1 nonimmigrants would 

not impose any additional costs for 

petitioning employers or for CW–1 

nonimmigrant workers. The benefits of 

the rule are to provide equity for CW– 

1 nonimmigrant workers whose 

extension of stay request is filed by the 

same employer relative to other CW–1 

nonimmigrant workers. Additionally, 

this provision mitigates any potential 

distortion in the labor market for 

employers of CW–1 nonimmigrant 

workers created by current inconsistent 

regulatory provisions which currently 

offer an incentive to file for extensions 

of stay with new employers rather than 

current employers. The portion of the 

rule addressing the evidentiary 

requirements for the EB–1 outstanding 

professor and researcher employmentbased immigrant classification allows 

for the submission of comparable 

evidence (achievements not listed in the 

criteria such as important patents or 

prestigious, peer-reviewed funding 

grants) for that listed in 8 CFR 

204.5(i)(3)(i)(A) through (F) to establish 

that the EB–1 professor or researcher is 

recognized internationally as 

outstanding in his or her academic field. 

Harmonizing the evidentiary 

requirements for EB–1 outstanding 

professors and researchers with other 

comparable employment-based 

immigrant classifications provides 

equity for EB–1 outstanding professors 

and researchers relative to those other 

employment-based visa categories. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/12/14 79 FR 26870 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

07/11/14 

Final Action ......... 04/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Organizations. 

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: Includes 

Retrospective Review under Executive 

Order 13563. 

Agency Contact: Kevin J. Cummings, 

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 20529–2140, 

Phone: 202 272–1470, Fax: 202 272– 

1480, Email: kevin.j.cummings@

uscis.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1615–AC00 

DHS—U.S. COAST GUARD (USCG) 

Final Rule Stage 

78. Vessel Requirements for Notices of 

Arrival and Departure, and Automatic 

Identification System 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223; 33 

U.S.C. 1225; 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

3716; 46 U.S.C. 8502; 46 U.S.C. 701; sec 

102 of Pub. L. 107–295; EO 12234 

CFR Citation: 33 CFR 62; 33 CFR 66; 

33 CFR 160; 33 CFR 161; 33 CFR 164; 

33 CFR 165; 33 CFR 101; 33 CFR 110; 

33 CFR 117; 33 CFR 151; 46 CFR 4; 46 

CFR 148. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

expand the applicability for Notice of 

Arrival and Departure (NOAD) and 

Automatic Identification System (AIS) 

requirements. These expanded 

requirements would better enable the 

Coast Guard to correlate vessel AIS data 

with NOAD data, enhance our ability to 

identify and track vessels, detect 

anomalies, improve navigation safety, 

and heighten our overall maritime 

domain awareness. The NOAD portion 

of this rulemaking could expand the 

applicability of the NOAD regulations 

by changing the minimum size of 

vessels covered below the current 300 

gross tons, require a notice of departure 

when a vessel is departing for a foreign 

port or place, and mandate electronic 

submission of NOAD notices to the 

National Vessel Movement Center. The 

AIS portion of this rulemaking would 

expand current AIS carriage 

requirements for the population 

identified in the Safety of Life at Sea 

(SOLAS) Convention and the Marine 

Transportation Marine Transportation 

Security Act (MTSA) of 2002. 

Statement of Need: There is no central 

mechanism in place to capture vessel, 

crew, passenger, or specific cargo 

information on vessels less than or 

equal to 300 gross tons (GT) intending 

to arrive at or depart from U.S. ports 

unless they are arriving with certain 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76544 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

dangerous cargo (CDC) or at a port in the 

7th Coast Guard District; nor is there a 

requirement for vessels to submit 

notification of departure information. 

The lack of NOAD information of this 

large and diverse population of vessels 

represents a substantial gap in our 

maritime domain awareness (MDA). We 

can minimize this gap and enhance 

MDA by expanding NOAD applicability 

to vessels greater than 300 GT, all 

foreign commercial vessels and all U.S. 

commercial vessels coming from a 

foreign port, and further enhance (and 

corroborate) MDA by tracking those 

vessels (and others) with AIS. This 

information is necessary in order to 

expand our MDA and provide the 

Nation maritime safety and security. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This 

rulemaking is based on congressional 

authority provided in the Ports and 

Waterways Safety Act (see 33 U.S.C. 

1223(a)(5), 1225, 1226, and 1231) and 

section 102 of the Maritime 

Transportation Security Act of 2002 

(codified at 46 U.S.C. 70114). 

Alternatives: Our goal is to extend our 

MDA and to identify anomalies by 

correlating vessel NOAD data with AIS 

data. NOAD and AIS information from 

a greater number of vessels, as proposed 

in this rulemaking, would expand our 

MDA. We considered expanding NOAD 

and AIS to even more vessels, but we 

determined that we needed additional 

legislative authority to expand AIS 

beyond what we propose in this 

rulemaking, and that it was best to 

combine additional NOAD expansion 

with future AIS expansion. Although 

not in conjunction with a proposed rule, 

the Coast Guard sought comment 

regarding expansion of AIS carriage to 

other waters and other vessels not 

subject to the current requirements (68 

FR 39369, July 1, 2003; USCG 2003– 

14878; see also 68 FR 39355). Those 

comments were reviewed and 

considered in drafting this rule and are 

available in this docket. To fulfill our 

statutory obligations, the Coast Guard 

needs to receive AIS reports and NOADs 

from vessels identified in this 

rulemaking that currently are not 

required to provide this information. 

Policy or other nonbinding statements 

by the Coast Guard addressed to the 

owners of these vessels would not 

produce the information required to 

sufficiently enhance our MDA to 

produce the information required to 

fulfill our Agency obligations. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

rulemaking will enhance the Coast 

Guard’s regulatory program by making it 

more effective in achieving the 

regulatory objectives, which, in this 

case, is improved MDA. We provide 

flexibility in the type of AIS system that 

can be used, allowing for reduced cost 

burden. This rule is also streamlined to 

correspond with Customs and Border 

Protection’s APIS requirements, thereby 

reducing unjustified burdens. We are 

further developing estimates of cost and 

benefit that were published in 2008. In 

the 2008 NPRM, we estimated that both 

segments of the proposed rule would 

affect approximately 42,607 vessels. The 

total number of domestic vessels 

affected is approximately 17,323 and the 

total number of foreign vessels affected 

is approximately 25,284. We estimated 

that the 10-year total present discounted 

value or cost of the proposed rule to 

U.S. vessel owners is between $132.2 

and $163.7 million (7 and 3 percent 

discount rates, respectively, 2006 

dollars) over the period of analysis. The 

Coast Guard believes that this rule, 

through a combination of NOAD and 

AIS, would strengthen and enhance 

maritime security. The combination of 

NOAD and AIS would create a 

synergistic effect between the two 

requirements. Ancillary or secondary 

benefits exist in the form of avoided 

injuries, fatalities, and barrels of oil not 

spilled into the marine environment. In 

the 2008 NPRM, we estimated that the 

total discounted benefit (injuries and 

fatalities) derived from 68 marine 

casualty cases analyzed over an 8-year 

data period from 1996 to 2003 for the 

AIS portion of the proposed rule is 

between $24.7 and $30.6 million using 

$6.3 million for the value of statistical 

life (VSL) at 7 percent and 3 percent 

discount rates, respectively. Just based 

on barrels of oil not spilled, we expect 

the AIS portion of the proposed rule to 

prevent 22 barrels of oil from being 

spilled annually. The Coast Guard may 

revise costs and benefits for the final 

rule to reflect changes resulting from 

public comments. 

Risks: Considering the economic 

utility of U.S. ports, waterways, and 

coastal approaches, it is clear that a 

terrorist incident against our U.S. 

Maritime Transportation System (MTS) 

would have a direct impact on U.S. 

users and consumers and could 

potentially have a disastrous impact on 

global shipping, international trade, and 

the world economy. By improving the 

ability of the Coast Guard both to 

identify potential terrorists coming to 

the United States while the terrorists are 

far from our shores and to coordinate 

appropriate responses and intercepts 

before the vessel reaches a U.S. port, 

this rulemaking would contribute 

significantly to the expansion of MDA, 

and consequently is instrumental in 

addressing the threat posed by terrorist 

actions against the MTS. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/16/08 73 FR 76295 

Notice of Public 

Meeting.

01/21/09 74 FR 3534 

Notice of Second 

Public Meeting.

03/02/09 74 FR 9071 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

04/15/09 

Notice of Second 

Public Meeting 

Comment Period End.

04/15/09 

Final Rule ............ 12/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: We have 

indicated in past notices and 

rulemaking documents, and it remains 

the case, that we have worked to 

coordinate implementation of AIS 

MTSA requirements with the 

development of our ability to take 

advantage of AIS data (68 FR 39355 and 

39370, Jul. 1, 2003). 

Docket ID USCG–2005–21869. 

URL for More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact:, LCDR Michael D. 

Lendvay, Program Manager, Office of 

Commercial Vessel, Foreign and 

Offshore Vessel Activities Div. (CG– 

CVC–2), Department of Homeland 

Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin 

Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7501, 

Washington, DC 20593–7501, Phone: 

202 372–1218, Email: 

michael.d.lendvay@uscg.mil. 

Jorge Arroyo, Project Manager, Office 

of Navigation Systems (CG–NAV–1), 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 

Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King 

Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7418, Washington, 

DC 20593–7418, Phone: 202 372–1563, 

Email: jorge.arroyo@uscg.mil. 

Related RIN: Related to 1625–AA93, 

Related to 1625–AB28 

RIN: 1625–AA99 

DHS—USCG 

79. Inspection of Towing Vessels 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3103; 46 

U.S.C. 3301; 46 U.S.C. 3306; 46 U.S.C. 

3308; 46 U.S.C. 3316; 46 U.S.C. 3703; 46 

U.S.C. 8104; 46 U.S.C. 8904; DHS 

Delegation No 0170.1 

CFR Citation: 46 CFR 2; 46 CFR 15; 

46 CFR 136 to 144. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76545 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

January 13, 2011. Final, Statutory, 

October 15, 2011. On October 15, 2010, 

the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 

2010 was enacted as Public Law 111– 

281. It requires that a proposed rule be 

issued within 90 days after enactment 

and that a final rule be issued within 1 

year of enactment. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

implement a program of inspection for 

certification of towing vessels, which 

were previously uninspected. It would 

prescribe standards for safety 

management systems and third-party 

auditors and surveyors, along with 

standards for construction, operation, 

vessel systems, safety equipment, and 

recordkeeping. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking 

would implement section 415 of the 

Coast Guard and Maritime 

Transportation Act of 2004. The intent 

of the proposed rule is to promote safer 

work practices and reduce casualties on 

towing vessels by ensuring that towing 

vessels adhere to prescribed safety 

standards. This proposed rule was 

developed in cooperation with the 

Towing Vessel Safety Advisory 

Committee. It would establish a new 

subchapter dedicated to towing vessels, 

covering vessel equipment, systems, 

operational standards, and inspection 

requirements. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Proposed 

new subchapter authority: 46 U.S.C. 

3103, 3301, 3306, 3308, 3316, 8104, 

8904; 33 CFR 1.05; DHS Delegation 

0170.1. The Coast Guard and Maritime 

Transportation Act of 2004 (CGMTA 

2004), Public Law 108–293, 118 Stat. 

1028, (Aug. 9, 2004), established new 

authorities for towing vessels as follows: 

section 415 added towing vessels, as 

defined in section 2101 of title 46, 

United States Code (U.S.C.), as a class 

of vessels that are subject to safety 

inspections under chapter 33 of that 

title (Id. at 1047). Section 415 also 

added new section 3306(j) of title 46, 

authorizing the Secretary of Homeland 

Security to establish, by regulation, a 

safety management system appropriate 

for the characteristics, methods of 

operation, and nature of service of 

towing vessels (Id.). Section 409 added 

new section 8904(c) of title 46, U.S.C., 

authorizing the Secretary to establish, 

by regulation, ‘‘maximum hours of 

service (including recording and 

recordkeeping of that service) of 

individuals engaged on a towing vessel 

that is at least 26 feet in length 

measured from end to end over the deck 

(excluding the sheer).’’ (Id. at 1044–45.) 

Alternatives: We considered the 

following alternatives for the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM): One 

regulatory alternative would be the 

addition of towing vessels to one or 

more existing subchapters that deal with 

other inspected vessels, such as cargo 

and miscellaneous vessels (subchapter 

I), offshore supply vessels (subchapter 

L), or small passenger vessels 

(subchapter T). We do not believe, 

however, that this approach would 

recognize the often ‘‘unique’’ nature and 

characteristics of the towing industry in 

general and towing vessels in particular. 

The same approach could be adopted 

for use of a safety management system 

by requiring compliance with title 33, 

Code of Federal Regulations, part 96 

(Rules for the Safe Operation of Vessels 

and Safety Management Systems). 

Adoption of these requirements, 

without an alternative safety 

management system, would also not be 

‘‘appropriate for the characteristics, 

methods of operation, and nature of 

service of towing vessels.’’ The Coast 

Guard has had extensive public 

involvement (four public meetings, over 

100 separate comments submitted to the 

docket, as well as extensive ongoing 

dialogue with members of the Towing 

Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC)) 

regarding development of these 

regulations. Adoption of one of the 

alternatives discussed above would 

likely receive little public or industry 

support, especially considering the 

TSAC efforts toward development of 

standards to be incorporated into a 

separate subchapter dealing specifically 

with the inspection of towing vessels. 

An approach that would seem to be 

more in keeping with the intent of 

Congress would be the adoption of 

certain existing standards from those 

applied to other inspected vessels. In 

some cases, these existing standards 

would be appropriately modified and 

tailored to the nature and operation of 

certain categories of towing vessels. The 

adopted standards would come from 

inspected vessels that have 

demonstrated ‘‘good marine practice’’ 

within the maritime community. These 

regulations would be incorporated into 

a subchapter specifically addressing the 

inspection for certification of towing 

vessels. The law requiring the 

inspection for certification of towing 

vessels is a statutory mandate, 

compelling the Coast Guard to develop 

regulations appropriate for the nature of 

towing vessels and their specific 

industry. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We 

estimate that owners and operators of 

towing vessels would incur additional 

annualized costs in the range of $14.3 

million to $17.1 million at 7 percent 

discounted from this rulemaking. The 

cost of this rulemaking would involve 

provisions for safety management 

systems, standards for construction, 

operation, vessel systems, safety 

equipment, and recordkeeping. Our cost 

assessment includes existing and new 

vessels. The Coast Guard developed the 

requirements in the proposed rule by 

researching both the human factors and 

equipment failures that caused towing 

vessel accidents. We believe that the 

proposed rule would address a wide 

range of causes of towing vessel 

accidents and supports the main goal of 

improving safety in the towing industry. 

The primary benefit of the proposed 

rule is an increase in vessel safety and 

a resulting decrease in the risk of towing 

vessel accidents and their 

consequences. We estimate an 

annualized benefit of $28.5 million from 

this rule. 

Risks: This regulatory action would 

reduce the risk of towing vessel 

accidents and their consequences. 

Towing vessel accidents result in 

fatalities, injuries, property damage, 

pollution, and delays. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/11/11 76 FR 49976 

Notice of Public 

Meetings.

09/09/11 76 FR 55847 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

12/09/11 

Final Rule ............ 08/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: State. 

Additional Information: Docket ID 

USCG–2006–24412. 

URL for More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: LCDR William 

Nabach, Project Manager, Office of 

Design & Engineering Standards, CG– 

OES–2, Department of Homeland 

Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin 

Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7509, 

Washington, DC 20593–7509, Phone: 

202 372–1386, Email: 

william.a.nabach@uscg.mil. 

RIN: 1625–AB06 

DHS—USCG 

80. Transportation Worker 

Identification Credential (TWIC); Card 

Reader Requirements 

Priority: Other Significant. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76546 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226; 33 

U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 701; 50 U.S.C. 

191; 50 U.S.C. 192; EO 12656 

CFR Citation: 33 CFR, subchapter H. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

August 20, 2010, SAFE Port Act, 

codified at 46 U.S.C. 70105(k). The final 

rule is required 2 years after the 

commencement of the pilot program. 

The final rule is required 2 years after 

the commencement of the pilot 

program. 

Abstract: The Coast Guard is 

establishing electronic card reader 

requirements for maritime facilities and 

vessels to be used in combination with 

TSA’s Transportation Worker 

Identification Credential (TWIC). 

Congress enacted several statutory 

requirements within the Security and 

Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port 

Act of 2006 to guide regulations 

pertaining to TWIC readers, including 

the need to evaluate TSA’s final pilot 

program report as part of the TWIC 

reader rulemaking. During the 

rulemaking process, we will take into 

account the final pilot data and the 

various conditions in which TWIC 

readers may be employed. For example, 

we will consider the types of vessels 

and facilities that will use TWIC 

readers, locations of secure and 

restricted areas, operational constraints, 

and need for accessibility. 

Recordkeeping requirements, 

amendments to security plans, and the 

requirement for data exchanges (i.e., 

Canceled Card List) between TSA and 

vessel or facility owners/operators will 

also be addressed in this rulemaking. 

Statement of Need: The Maritime 

Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 

2002 explicitly required the issuance of 

a biometric transportation security card 

to all U.S. merchant mariners and to 

workers requiring unescorted access to 

secure areas of MTSA-regulated 

facilities and vessels. On May 22, 2006, 

the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) and the Coast 

Guard published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to carry out this 

statute, proposing a Transportation 

Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) 

Program where TSA conducts security 

threat assessments and issues 

identification credentials, while the 

Coast Guard requires integration of the 

TWIC into the access control systems of 

vessels, facilities, and Outer Continental 

Shelf facilities. Based on comments 

received during the public comment 

period, TSA and the Coast Guard split 

the TWIC rule. The final TWIC rule, 

published in January of 2007, addressed 

the issuance of the TWIC and use of the 

TWIC as a visual identification 

credential at access control points. In an 

ANPRM, published in March of 2009, 

and a NPRM, published in April of 

2013, the Coast Guard proposed a riskbased approach to TWIC reader 

requirements and included proposals to 

classify MTSA-regulated vessels and 

facilities into one of three risk groups, 

based on specific factors related to TSI 

consequence, and apply TWIC reader 

requirements for vessels and facilities in 

conjunction with their relative riskgroup placement. This rulemaking is 

necessary to comply with the SAFE Port 

Act and to complete the implementation 

of the TWIC Program in our ports. By 

requiring electronic card readers at 

vessels and facilities, the Coast Guard 

will further enhance port security and 

improve access control measures. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The statutory 

authorities for the Coast Guard to 

prescribe, change, revise, or amend 

these regulations are provided under 33 

U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. chapter 

701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 192; Executive Order 

12656, 3 CFR 1988 Comp., p. 585; 33 

CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–11, 6.14, 6.16, and 

6.19; Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

Alternatives: The implementation of 

TWIC reader requirements is mandated 

by the SAFE Port Act. We considered 

several alternatives in the formulation of 

this proposal. These alternatives were 

based on risk analysis of different 

combinations of facility and vessel 

populations facing TWIC reader 

requirements. The preferred alternative 

selected allowed the Coast Guard to 

target the highest risk entities while 

minimizing the overall burden. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

main cost drivers of this rule are the 

acquisition and installation of TWIC 

readers and the maintenance of the 

affected entity’s TWIC reader system. 

Initial costs, which we would distribute 

over a phased-in implementation 

period, consist predominantly of the 

costs to purchase, install, and integrate 

approved TWIC readers into their 

current physical access control system. 

Recurring annual costs will be driven by 

costs associated with canceled card list 

updates, opportunity costs associated 

with delays and replacement of TWICs 

that cannot be read, and maintenance of 

the affected entity’s TWIC reader 

system. As reported in the NPRM 

Regulatory Analysis, the total 10-year 

total industry and government cost for 

the TWIC is $234.3 million 

undiscounted and $186.1 discounted at 

7 percent. We estimate the annualized 

cost of this rule to industry to be $26.5 

million at a 7 percent discount rate. The 

benefits of the rulemaking include the 

enhancement of the security of vessel 

ports and other facilities by ensuring 

that only individuals who hold valid 

TWICs are granted unescorted access to 

secure areas at those locations. 

Risks: USCG used risk-based decisionmaking to develop this rulemaking. 

Based on this analysis, the Coast Guard 

has proposed requiring higher-risk 

vessels and facilities to meet the 

requirements for electronic TWIC 

inspection, while continuing to allow 

lower-risk vessels and facilities to use 

TWIC as a visual identification 

credential. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 03/27/09 74 FR 13360 

Notice of Public 

Meeting.

04/15/09 74 FR 17444 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

05/26/09 

Notice of Public 

Meeting Comment Period 

End.

05/26/09 

NPRM .................. 03/22/13 78 FR 20558 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

05/10/13 78 FR 27335 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

06/20/13 

Final Rule ............ 04/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: Docket ID 

USCG–2007–28915. 

URL for More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: LT Mason Wilcox, 

Project Manager, Department of 

Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 

Commandant (CG–FAC–2), 2703 Martin 

Luther King Jr Ave. SE., STOP 7501, 

Washington, DC 20593–7501, Phone: 

202 372–1123, Email: mason.c.wilcox@

uscg.mil. 

Related RIN: Related to 1625–AB02 

RIN: 1625–AB21 

DHS—U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER 

PROTECTION (USCBP) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

81. Amendments to Importer Security 

Filing and Additional Carrier 

Requirements 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 109–347, sec 

203; 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66; 19 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76547 

U.S.C. 1431; 19 U.S.C. 1433; 19 U.S.C. 

1434; 19 U.S.C. 1624; 19 U.S.C. 2071 

(note); 46 U.S.C. 60105 

CFR Citation: 19 CFR 4.7c; 19 CFR 

149.1 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Importer Security Filing 

(ISF) regulations require carriers and 

importers to provide to CBP, via a CBPapproved electronic data interchange 

system, information necessary to assist 

CBP in identifying high-risk shipments 

to prevent smuggling and ensure cargo 

safety and security. Importers and 

carriers must currently submit specified 

information before the cargo is brought 

into the United States by vessel in 

accordance with specified time frames. 

To increase the accuracy and reliability 

of the advance information, this rule 

will propose changes to the ISF 

regulations. 

Statement of Need: Since 2009 CBP 

has collected advance data elements 

from importers and carriers carrying 

cargo to the United States by vessel. 

CBP uses these data to target incoming 

cargo and prevent dangerous or 

otherwise illegal cargo from arriving in 

the United States. To increase the 

accuracy and reliability of this 

information CBP intends to publish a 

notice of proposed rulemaking that 

proposes some changes to the current 

importer security filing regulations. This 

rule is needed to provide CBP with 

additional data that are needed to 

conduct security screening and to 

ensure that the party with the best 

access to the data is the party 

responsible for providing this 

information to CBP. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: CBP 

anticipates that this rule will result in 

a cost to ISF importers to submit the 

additional data to CBP and a security 

benefit resulting from improved 

targeting. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

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: Craig Clark, Program 

Manager, Vessel Manifest & Importer 

Security Filing, Office of Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Department of 

Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229, 

Phone: 202 344–3052, Email: 

craig.clark@cbp.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1651–AA70 

RIN: 1651–AA98 

DHS—USCBP 

82. • Air Cargo Advance Screening 

(ACAS) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined. 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) is proposing to amend 

the implementing regulations of the 

Trade Act of 2002 regarding the 

submission of advance electronic 

information for air cargo and other 

provisions to provide for the Air Cargo 

Advance Screening (ACAS) program. 

ACAS would require the submission of 

certain advance electronic information 

for air cargo. This will allow CBP to 

better target and identify dangerous 

cargo and ensure that any risk 

associated with such cargo is mitigated 

before the aircraft departs for the United 

States. CBP, in conjunction with TSA, 

has been operating ACAS as a voluntary 

pilot program since 2010 and would like 

to implement ACAS as a regulatory 

program. 

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 takeoff. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs 

of this program to carriers include onetime costs to upgrade systems to 

facilitate transmission of these data to 

CBP and recurring per transmission 

costs. Benefits of the program include 

improved security that will result from 

having these data further in advance. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Agency Contact: Regina Kang, Cargo 

and Conveyance Security, Office of 

Field Operations, Department of 

Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229, 

Phone: 202 344–2368, Email: 

regina.kang@cbp.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1651–AB04 

DHS—USCBP 

Final Rule Stage 

83. Changes to the Visa Waiver 

Program to Implement the Electronic 

System for Travel Authorization 

(ESTA) Program 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

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

U.S.C. 1187. 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 217.5. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On June 9, 2008, CBP issued 

an interim final rule which 

implemented the Electronic System for 

Travel Authorization (ESTA) for aliens 

who travel to the United States under 

the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) at air or 

sea ports of entry. Under the rule, VWP 

travelers must provide certain 

biographical information to CBP 

electronically before departing for the 

United States. This advance information 

allows CBP to determine before their 

departure whether these travelers are 

eligible to travel to the United States 

under the VWP and whether such travel 

poses a security risk. The interim final 

rule also fulfilled the requirements of 

section 711 of the Implementing 

recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act). In 

addition to fulfilling a statutory 

mandate, the rule served the two goals 

of promoting border security and 

legitimate travel to the United States. By 

modernizing the VWP, the ESTA 

increases national security and provides 

for greater efficiencies in the screening 

of international travelers by allowing for 

vetting of subjects of potential interest 

well before boarding, thereby reducing 

traveler delays at the ports of entry. CBP 

requested comments on all aspects of 

the interim final rule and plans to issue 

a final rule after completion of the 

comment analysis. 

Statement of Need: The rule fulfills 

the requirements of section 711 of the 9/ 

11 Act to develop and implement a fully 

automated electronic travel 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76548 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

authorization system in advance of 

travel for VWP travelers. The advance 

information allows CBP to determine 

before their departure whether VWP 

travelers are eligible to travel to the 

United States and to determine whether 

such travel poses a law enforcement or 

security risk. In addition to fulfilling a 

statutory mandate, the rule serves the 

twin goals of promoting border security 

and legitimate travel to the United 

States. ESTA increases national security 

by allowing for vetting of subjects of 

potential interest before they depart for 

the United States. It promotes legitimate 

travel to the United States by providing 

for greater efficiencies in the screening 

of travelers thereby reducing traveler 

delays upon arrival at U.S. ports of 

entry. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The ESTA 

program is based on congressional 

authority provided under section 711 of 

the Implementing Recommendations of 

the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. 

L. 110–53) and section 217 of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 

8 U.S.C. 1187. 

Alternatives: When developing the 

interim final rule, CBP considered three 

alternatives to this rule: (1) The ESTA 

requirements in the rule, but with a 

$1.50 fee per each travel authorization 

(more costly) (2) The ESTA 

requirements in the rule, but with only 

the name of the passenger and the 

admissibility questions on the I–94W 

form (less burdensome) (3) The ESTA 

requirements in the rule, but only for 

the countries entering the VWP after 

2009 (no new requirements for VWP, 

reduced burden for newly entering 

countries). CBP determined that the rule 

provides the greatest level of enhanced 

security and efficiency at an acceptable 

cost to traveling public and potentially 

affected air carriers. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

purpose of ESTA is to allow DHS and 

CBP to establish the eligibility of certain 

foreign travelers to travel to the United 

States under the VWP, and whether the 

alien’s proposed travel to the United 

States poses a law enforcement or 

security risk. Upon review of such 

information, DHS will determine 

whether the alien is eligible to travel to 

the United States under the VWP. Costs 

to Air & Sea Carriers: CBP estimated that 

8 U.S.-based air carriers and 11 sea 

carriers will be affected by the rule. An 

additional 35 foreign-based air carriers 

and 5 sea carriers will be affected. CBP 

concluded that costs to air and sea 

carriers to support the requirements of 

the ESTA program could cost $137 

million to $1.1 billion over the next 10 

years depending on the level of effort 

required to integrate their systems with 

ESTA, how many passengers they need 

to assist in applying for travel 

authorizations, and the discount rate 

applied to annual costs. Costs to 

Travelers: ESTA will present new costs 

and burdens to travelers in VWP 

countries who were not previously 

required to submit any information to 

the U.S. Government in advance of 

travel to the United States. Travelers 

from Roadmap countries who become 

VWP countries will also incur costs and 

burdens, though these are much less 

than obtaining a nonimmigrant visa 

(category B1/B2), which is currently 

required for short-term pleasure or 

business to travel to the United States. 

CBP estimated that the total quantified 

costs to travelers will range from $1.1 

billion to $3.5 billion depending on the 

number of travelers, the value of time, 

and the discount rate. Annualized costs 

are estimated to range from $133 million 

to $366 million. Benefits: As set forth in 

section 711 of the 9/11 Act, it was the 

intent of Congress to modernize and 

strengthen the security of the Visa 

Waiver Program under section 217 of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act 

(INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187) by simultaneously 

enhancing program security 

requirements and extending visa-free 

travel privileges to citizens and eligible 

nationals of eligible foreign countries 

that are partners in the war on terrorism. 

By requiring passenger data in advance 

of travel, CBP may be able to determine, 

before the alien departs for the United 

States, the eligibility of citizens and 

eligible nationals from VWP countries to 

travel to the United States under the 

VWP, and whether such travel poses a 

law enforcement or security risk. In 

addition to fulfilling a statutory 

mandate, the rule serves the twin goals 

of promoting border security and 

legitimate travel to the United States. By 

modernizing the VWP, ESTA is 

intended to both increase national 

security and provide for greater 

efficiencies in the screening of 

international travelers by allowing for 

the screening of subjects of potential 

interest well before boarding, thereby 

reducing traveler delays based on 

potentially lengthy processes at U.S. 

ports of entry. CBP concluded that the 

total benefits to travelers could total 

$1.1 billion to $3.3 billion over the 

period of analysis. Annualized benefits 

could range from $134 million to $345 

million. In addition to these benefits to 

travelers, CBP and the carriers should 

also experience the benefit of not having 

to administer the I–94W except in 

limited situations. While CBP has not 

conducted an analysis of the potential 

savings, it should accrue benefits from 

not having to produce, ship, and store 

blank forms. CBP should also be able to 

accrue savings related to data entry and 

archiving. Carriers should realize some 

savings as well, though carriers will still 

have to administer the Customs 

Declaration forms for all passengers 

aboard the aircraft and vessel. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Action.06/09/08 73 FR 32440 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

08/08/08 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

08/08/08 

Notice—Announcing Date Rule 

Becomes Mandatory.

11/13/08 73 FR 67354 

Final Action ......... 03/00/15 

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: http://

www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id_visa/

esta/. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Suzanne Shepherd, 

Director, Electronic System for Travel 

Authorization, Department of Homeland 

Security, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20229, Phone: 

202 344–2073, Email: 

suzanne.m.shepherd@cbp.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1651–AA83 

RIN: 1651–AA72 

DHS—USCBP 

84. Implementation of the Guam–Cnmi 

Visa Waiver Program (Section 610 

Review) 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110–229, sec. 

702. 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 100.4; 8 CFR 

212.1; 8 CFR 233.5; 8 CFR 235.5; 19 CFR 

4.7b; 19 CFR 122.49a. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

November 4, 2008, Pub. L. 110–229. 

Abstract: The IFR (or the final rule 

planned for the coming year) rule 

amends Department of Homeland 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76549 

Security (DHS) regulations to 

implement section 702 of the 

Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 

2008 (CNRA). This law extends the 

immigration laws of the United States to 

the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands (CNMI) and provides 

for a joint visa waiver program for travel 

to Guam and the CNMI. This rule 

implements section 702 of the CNRA by 

amending the regulations to replace the 

current Guam Visa Waiver Program with 

a new Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver 

Program. The amended regulations set 

forth the requirements for nonimmigrant 

visitors who seek admission for 

business or pleasure and solely for entry 

into and stay on Guam or the CNMI 

without a visa. This rule also establishes 

six ports of entry in the CNMI for 

purposes of administering and enforcing 

the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. 

Section 702 of the Consolidated Natural 

Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), subject 

to a transition period, extends the 

immigration laws of the United States to 

the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands (CNMI) and provides 

for a visa waiver program for travel to 

Guam and/or the CNMI. On January 16, 

2009, the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP), issued an interim final 

rule in the Federal Register replacing 

the then-existing Guam Visa Waiver 

Program with the Guam-CNMI Visa 

Waiver Program and setting forth the 

requirements for nonimmigrant visitors 

seeking admission into Guam and/or the 

CNMI under the Guam-CNMI Visa 

Waiver Program. As of November 28, 

2009, the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver 

Program is operational. This program 

allows nonimmigrant visitors from 

eligible countries to seek admission for 

business or pleasure for entry into Guam 

and/or the CNMI without a visa for a 

period of authorized stay not to exceed 

45 days. This rulemaking would finalize 

the January 2009 interim final rule. 

Statement of Need: Previously, aliens 

who were citizens of eligible countries 

could apply for admission to Guam at a 

Guam port of entry as nonimmigrant 

visitors for a period of 15 days or less, 

for business or pleasure, without first 

obtaining a nonimmigrant visa, 

provided that they are otherwise eligible 

for admission. Section 702(b) of the 

CNRA supersedes the Guam visa waiver 

program by providing for a visa waiver 

program for Guam and the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands (Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver 

Program). Section 702(b) required DHS 

to promulgate regulations within 180 

days of enactment of the CNRA to allow 

nonimmigrant visitors from eligible 

countries to apply for admission into 

Guam and the CNMI, for business or 

pleasure, without a visa, for a period of 

authorized stay of no longer than 45 

days. Under the interim final rule, a 

visitor seeking admission under the 

Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program must 

be a national of an eligible country and 

must meet the requirements enumerated 

in the current Guam visa waiver 

program as well as additional 

requirements that bring the Guam-CNMI 

Visa Waiver Program into soft alignment 

with the U.S. Visa Waiver Program 

provided for in 8 CFR 217. The country 

eligibility requirements take into 

account the intent of the CNRA and 

ensure that the regulations meet current 

border security needs. The country 

eligibility requirements are designed to: 

(1) ensure effective border control 

procedures, (2) properly address 

national security and homeland security 

concerns in extending U.S. immigration 

law to the CNMI, and (3) maximize the 

CNMI’s potential for future economic 

and business growth. This interim rule 

also provided that visitors from the 

People’s Republic of China and Russia 

have provided a significant economic 

benefit to the CNMI. However, nationals 

from those countries cannot, at this 

time, seek admission under the GuamCNMI Visa Waiver Program due to 

security concerns. Pursuant to section 

702(a) of the CNRA, which extends the 

immigration laws of the United States to 

the CNMI, this rule also establishes six 

ports of entry in the CNMI to enable the 

Secretary of Homeland Security (the 

Secretary) to administer and enforce the 

Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The GuamCNMI Visa Waiver Program is based on 

congressional authority provided under 

702(b) of the Consolidated Natural 

Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA). 

Alternatives: None. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: CBP is 

currently evaluating the costs and 

benefits associated with finalizing the 

interim final rule. The most significant 

change for admission to the CNMI as a 

result of the rule was for visitors from 

those countries who are not included in 

either the existing U.S. Visa Waiver 

Program or the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver 

Program established by the rule. These 

visitors must apply for U.S. visas, which 

require in-person interviews at U.S. 

embassies or consulates and higher fees 

than the CNMI assessed for its visitor 

entry permits. These are losses 

associated with the reduced visits from 

foreign travelers who no longer visited 

the CNMI upon implementation of this 

rule. The anticipated benefits of the rule 

were enhanced security that would 

result from the federalization of the 

immigration functions in the CNMI. 

Risks: No risks. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 01/16/09 74 FR 2824 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

01/16/09 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

03/17/09 

Technical Amendment; Change 

of Implementation Date.

05/28/09 74 FR 25387 

Final Action ......... 08/00/15 

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: Paul Minton, CBP 

Officer (Program Manager), Department 

of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection, 1300 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20229, Phone: 202 344–2723, Email: 

paul.a.minton@cbp.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1651–AA81 

RIN: 1651–AA77 

DHS—USCBP 

85. Definition of Form I–94 To Include 

Electronic Format. 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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

U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1201; 8 U.S.C. 

1301; 8 U.S.C. 1303 to 1305; 5 U.S.C. 

301; Pub. L. 107–296, 116 stat 2135; 6 

U.S.C. 1 et seq.. 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1.4; 8 CFR 

264.1(b). 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Form I–94 is issued to 

certain aliens upon arrival in the United 

States or when changing status in the 

United States. The Form I–94 is used to 

document arrival and departure and 

provides evidence of the terms of 

admission or parole. CBP is 

transitioning to an automated process 

whereby it will create a Form I–94 in an 

electronic format based on passenger, 

passport, and visa information currently 

obtained electronically from air and sea 

carriers and the Department of State as 

well as through the inspection process. 

Prior to this rule, the Form I–94 was 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76550 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

solely a paper form that was completed 

by the alien upon arrival. After the 

implementation of the Advance 

Passenger Information System (APIS) 

following 9/11, CBP began collecting 

information on aliens traveling by air or 

sea to the United States electronically 

from carriers in advance of arrival. For 

aliens arriving in the United States by 

air or sea, CBP obtains almost all of the 

information contained on the paper 

Form I–94 electronically and in advance 

via APIS. The few fields on the Form I– 

94 that are not collected via APIS are 

either already collected by the 

Department of State and transmitted to 

CBP or can be collected by the CBP 

officer from the individual at the time 

of inspection. This means that CBP no 

longer needs to collect Form I–94 

information as a matter of course 

directly from aliens traveling to the 

United States by air or sea. At this time, 

the automated process will apply only 

to aliens arriving at air and sea ports of 

entry. 

Statement of Need: This rule makes 

the necessary changes to the regulations 

to enable CBP to transition to an 

automated process whereby CBP will 

create an electronic Form I–94 based on 

the information in its databases. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

103(a) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (INA) generally 

authorizes the Secretary of Homeland 

Security to establish such regulations 

and prescribe such forms of reports, 

entries, and other papers necessary to 

carry out his or her authority to 

administer and enforce the immigration 

and nationality laws and to guard the 

borders of the United States against 

illegal entry of aliens. 

Alternatives: CBP considered two 

alternatives to this rule: eliminating the 

paper Form I–94 in the air and sea 

environments entirely and providing the 

paper Form I–94 to all travelers who are 

not B–1/B–2 travelers. Eliminating the 

paper Form I–94 option for refugees, 

applicants for asylum, parolees, and 

those travelers who request one would 

not result in a significant cost savings to 

CBP and would harm travelers who 

have an immediate need for an 

electronic Form I–94 or who face 

obstacles to accessing their electronic 

Form I–94. A second alternative to the 

rule is to provide a paper Form I–94 to 

any travelers who are not B–1/B–2 

travelers. Under this alternative, 

travelers would receive and complete 

the paper Form I– 94 during their 

inspection when they arrive in the 

United States. The electronic Form I–94 

would still be automatically created 

during the inspection, but the CBP 

officer would need to verify that the 

information appearing on the form 

matches the information in CBP’s 

systems. In addition, CBP would need to 

write the Form I–94 number on each 

paper Form I–94 so that their paper 

form matches the electronic record. As 

noted in the analysis, 25.1 percent of 

aliens are non-B–1/B–2 travelers. Filling 

out and processing this many paper 

Forms I–94 at airports and seaports 

would increase processing times 

considerably. At the same time, it would 

only provide a small savings to the 

individual traveler. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: With 

the implementation of this rule, CBP 

will no longer collect Form I–94 

information as a matter of course 

directly from aliens traveling to the 

United States by air or sea. Instead, CBP 

will create an electronic Form I–94 for 

foreign travelers based on the 

information in its databases. This rule 

makes the necessary changes to the 

regulations to enable CBP to transition 

to an automated process. Both CBP and 

aliens would bear costs as a result of 

this rule. CBP would bear costs to link 

its data systems and to build a Web site 

so aliens can access their electronic 

Forms I–94. CBP estimates that the total 

cost for CBP to link data systems, 

develop a secure Web site, and fully 

automate the Form I–94 fully will equal 

about $1.3 million in calendar year 

2012. CBP will incur costs of $0.09 

million in subsequent years to operate 

and maintain these systems. Aliens 

arriving as diplomats and students 

would bear costs when logging into the 

Web site and printing electronic I–94s. 

The temporary workers and aliens in the 

’’Other/Unknown’’ category bear costs 

when logging into the Web site, 

traveling to a location with public 

internet access, and printing a paper 

copy of their electronic Form I–94. 

Using the primary estimate for a 

traveler’s value of time, aliens would 

bear costs between $36.6 million and 

$46.4 million from 2013 to 2016. Total 

costs for this rule for 2013 would range 

from $34.2 million to $40.1 million, 

with a primary estimate of costs equal 

to $36.7 million. CBP, carriers, and 

foreign travelers would accrue benefits 

as a result of this rule. CBP would save 

contract and printing costs of $15.6 

million per year of our analysis. Carriers 

would save a total of $1.3 million in 

printing costs per year. All aliens would 

save the eight-minute time burden for 

filling out the paper Form I–94 and 

certain aliens who lose the Form I–94 

would save the $330 fee and 25-minute 

time burden for filling out the Form I– 

102. Using the primary estimate for a 

traveler’s value of time, aliens would 

obtain benefits between $112.6 million 

and $141.6 million from 2013 to 2016. 

Total benefits for this rule for 2013 

would range from $110.7 million to 

$155.6 million, with a primary estimate 

of benefits equal to $129.5 million. 

Overall, this rule results in substantial 

cost savings (benefits) for foreign 

travelers, carriers, and CBP. CBP 

anticipates a net benefit in 2013 of 

between $59.7 million and $98.7 

million for foreign travelers, $1.3 

million for carriers, and $15.5 million 

for CBP. Net benefits to U.S. entities 

(carriers and CBP) in 2013 total $16.8 

million. CBP anticipates the total net 

benefits to both domestic and foreign 

entities in 2013 range from $76.5 

million to $115.5 million. In our 

primary analysis, the total net benefits 

are $92.8 million in 2013. For the 

primary estimate, annualized net 

benefits range from $78.1 million to 

$80.0 million, depending on the 

discount rate used. More information on 

costs and benefits can be found in the 

interim final rule. 

Risks: N/A. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 03/27/13 78 FR 18457 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period End.

04/26/13 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective.

04/26/13 

Final Action ......... 03/00/15 

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: Includes 

Retrospective Review under E.O. 13563. 

URL for More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Suzanne Shepherd, 

Director, Electronic System for Travel 

Authorization, Department of Homeland 

Security, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20229, Phone: 

202 344–2073, Email: 

suzanne.m.shepherd@cbp.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1651–AA96 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76551 

DHS—TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION (TSA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

86. Security Training for Surface Mode 

Employees 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

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

110–53, secs 1408, 1517, and 1534. 

CFR Citation: 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 

1 year after date of enactment. 

Final, Statutory, February 3, 2008, 

Rule for railroads and over–the–road 

buses are due 6 months after date of 

enactment. 

According to section 1408 of Public 

Law 110–53, Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 

121 Stat. 266), interim final regulations 

for public transportation agencies are 

due 90 days after the date of enactment 

(Nov. 1, 2007), and final regulations are 

due 1 year after the date of enactment 

of this Act. According to section 1517 of 

the same Act, final regulations for 

railroads and over–the–road buses are 

due no later than 6 months after the date 

of enactment. 

Abstract: The Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) intends to 

propose a new regulation to address the 

security of freight railroads, public 

transportation, passenger railroads, and 

over-the-road buses in accordance with 

the Implementing Recommendations of 

the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 

Act). As required by the 9/11 Act, the 

rulemaking will propose that certain 

railroads, public transportation 

agencies, and over-the-road bus 

companies provide security training to 

their frontline employees in the areas of 

security awareness, operational security, 

and incident prevention and response. 

The rulemaking will also propose 

extending security coordinator and 

reporting security incident requirements 

applicable to rail operators under 

current 49 CFR part 1580 to the non-rail 

transportation components of covered 

public transportation agencies and overthe-road buses. The regulation will take 

into consideration any current security 

training requirements or best practices 

and will propose definitions for 

transportation of security-sensitive 

materials, as required by the 9/11 Act. 

Statement of Need: Employee training 

is an important and effective tool for 

averting or mitigating potential terrorist 

attacks by terrorists or others 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 1408, 1517, 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 will seek 

public comment on the alternative ways 

in which the final rule could carry out 

the requirements of the statute. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits:, TSA is 

in the process of determining the costs 

and benefits of this rulemaking. 

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 .................. 10/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Local. 

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, Fax: 571 227–2935, Email: 

jack.kalro@tsa.dhs.gov. 

Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, 

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: 571 227–3329, Email: 

monica.grasso@tsa.dhs.gov. 

David Kasminoff, Senior Counsel, 

Regulations and Security Standards 

Division, Department of Homeland 

Security, Transportation Security 

Administration, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, 

Arlington, VA 20598–6002, Phone: 571 

227–3583, Fax: 571 227–1378, Email: 

david.kasminoff@tsa.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN:, Related to 1652–AA56, 

Merged with 1652–AA57, Merged with 

1652–AA59 

RIN: 1652–AA55 

DHS—TSA 

87. Standardized Vetting, Adjudication, 

and Redress Services 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

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

5103A, 44903 and 44936; 46 U.S.C. 

70105; 6 U.S.C. 469; Pub. L. 110–53, 

secs 1411, 1414, 1520, 1522 and 1602. 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) intends to 

propose new regulations to revise and 

standardize the procedures, 

adjudication criteria, and fees for most 

of the security threat assessments (STA) 

of individuals for which TSA is 

responsible. The scope of the 

rulemaking will include transportation 

workers who are required to undergo an 

STA, including surface, maritime, and 

aviation workers. TSA will propose fees 

to cover the cost of all STAs. TSA plans 

to improve efficiencies in processing 

STAs and streamline existing 

regulations by simplifying language and 

removing redundancies. As part of this 

proposed interim final rule (IFR), TSA 

will propose revisions to the Alien 

Flight Student Program (AFSP) 

regulations. TSA published an interim 

final rule for AFSP on September 20, 

2004. TSA regulations require aliens 

seeking to train at Federal Aviation 

Administration-regulated flight schools 

to complete an application and undergo 

an STA prior to beginning flight 

training. There are four categories under 

which students currently fall; the nature 

of the STA depends on the student’s 

category. TSA is considering changes to 

the AFSP that would improve the equity 

among fee payers and enable the 

implementation of new technologies to 

support vetting. 

Statement of Need: TSA proposes to 

meet the requirements of 6 U.S.C. 469, 

which requires TSA to fund security 

threat assessment and credentialing 

activities through user fees. The 

proposed rulemaking should reduce 

reliance on appropriations for certain 

vetting services; minimize redundant 

background checks; and increase 

transportation security by enhancing 

identification and immigration 

verification standards. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76552 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

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

114(f): Under the Aviation and 

Transportation Security Act (ATSA) 

(Pub. L. 170–71, Nov. 19, 2001, 115 Stat. 

597), TSA assumed responsibility to 

assess security in all modes of 

transportation and minimize threats to 

national and transportation security. 

TSA is required to vet certain aviation 

workers pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44903 

and 44936. TSA is required to vet 

individuals with unescorted access to 

maritime facilities pursuant to the 

Maritime Transportation Security Act 

(MTSA) (Pub. L. 107–295, sec. 102, Nov. 

25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2064), codified at 46 

U.S.C. 70105. Pursuant to the Uniting 

and Strengthening America by 

Providing Appropriate Tools Required 

to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act 

(USA PATRIOT Act) (Pub. L. 107–56, 

Oct. 25, 2001, 115 Stat. 272), TSA vets 

individuals seeking hazardous materials 

endorsements (HME) for commercial 

drivers licensed by the States. In 6 

U.S.C. 469, Congress directed TSA to 

fund vetting and credentialing programs 

in the field of transportation through 

user fees. 

Alternatives: TSA considered a 

number of viable alternatives to the 

proposed regulation. These alternatives 

are discussed in detail in the proposed 

rule and regulatory impact analysis. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA is 

in the process determining the costs and 

benefits of this proposed rulemaking. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 08/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Additional Information: Includes 

Retrospective Review under Executive 

Order 13563. 

URL for More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Chang Ellison, 

Branch Manager, Program Initiatives 

Branch, Department of Homeland 

Security, Transportation Security 

Administration, Office of Intelligence 

and Analysis, TSA–10, HQ E6, 601 

South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598– 

6010, Phone: 571 227–3604, Email: 

chang.ellison@tsa.dhs.gov. 

Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, 

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: 571 227–3329, Email: 

monica.grasso@tsa.dhs.gov. 

John Vergelli, Senior Counsel, 

Regulations and Security Standards 

Division, Department of Homeland 

Security, Transportation Security 

Administration, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, 

Arlington, VA 20598–6002, Phone: 571 

227–4416, Fax: 571 227–1378, Email: 

john.vergelli@tsa.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1652–AA35 

RIN: 1652–AA61 

DHS—TSA 

Final Rule Stage 

88. Passenger Screening Using 

Advanced Imaging Technology 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 44925. 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1540.107. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) intends to issue a 

final rule to address whether screening 

and inspection of an individual, 

conducted to control access to the 

sterile area of an airport or to an aircraft, 

may include the use of advanced 

imaging technology (AIT). The notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was 

published on March 26, 2012, to comply 

with the decision rendered by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit in Electronic Privacy 

Information Center (EPIC) v. U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security on 

July 15, 2011. 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 

2011). The Court directed TSA to 

conduct notice and comment 

rulemaking on the use of AIT in the 

primary screening of passengers. 

Statement of Need: TSA is issuing 

this rulemaking to respond to the 

decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit in EPIC 

v. DHS 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011). 

Summary of Legal Basis: In its 

decision in EPIC v. DHS 653 F.3d 1 

(D.C. Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit found 

that TSA failed to justify its failure to 

conduct notice and comment 

rulemaking and remanded to TSA for 

further proceedings. 

Alternatives: As alternatives to the 

preferred regulatory proposal presented 

in the NPRM, TSA examined three other 

options. These alternatives include a 

continuation of the screening 

environment prior to 2008 (no action), 

increased use of physical pat-down 

searches that supplements primary 

screening with walk through metal 

detectors (WTMDs), and increased use 

of explosive trace detection (ETD) 

screening that supplements primary 

screening with WTMDs. These 

alternatives, and the reasons why TSA 

rejected them in favor of the proposed 

rule, are discussed in detail in chapter 

3 of the AIT NPRM regulatory 

evaluation. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA 

reports that the net cost of AIT 

deployment from 2008–2011 has been 

$841.2 million (undiscounted) and that 

TSA has borne over 99 percent of all 

costs related to AIT deployment. TSA 

projects that from 2012–2015 net AIT 

related costs will be approximately $1.5 

billion (undiscounted), $1.4 billion at a 

three percent discount rate, and $1.3 

billion at a seven percent discount rate. 

During 2012–2015, TSA estimates it will 

also incur over 98 percent of AIT-related 

costs with equipment and personnel 

costs being the largest categories of 

expenditures. The operations described 

in this rule produce benefits by 

reducing security risks through the 

deployment of AIT that is capable of 

detecting both metallic and non-metallic 

weapons and explosives. Terrorists 

continue to test security measures in an 

attempt to find and exploit 

vulnerabilities. The threat to aviation 

security has evolved to include the use 

of non-metallic explosives. AIT is a 

proven technology based on laboratory 

testing and field experience and is an 

essential component of TSA’s security 

screening because it provides the best 

opportunity to detect metallic and 

nonmetallic anomalies concealed under 

clothing. More information about costs 

and benefits can be found in the Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking. 

Risks: DHS aims to prevent terrorist 

attacks and to reduce the vulnerability 

of the United States to terrorism. By 

screening passengers with AIT, TSA 

will reduce the risk that a terrorist will 

smuggle a non-metallic threat on board 

an aircraft. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/26/13 78 FR 18287 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

06/24/13 

Final Rule ............ 07/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76553 

1Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs 

Committee Confirmation Hearing on the 

Nomination of Julian Castro to be Housing and 

Urban Development Secretary and Laura S. 

Wertheimer to be the Federal Housing Finance 

Agency Inspector General, 113th Cong. (June 17, 

2014) (Statement of Julia ́n Castro). 

Agency Contact: Chawanna 

Carrington, Project Manager, Passenger 

Screening Program, Department of 

Homeland Security, Transportation 

Security Administration, Office of 

Security Capabilities, 601 South 12th 

Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6016, 

Phone: 571 227–2958, Fax: 571 227– 

1931, Email: 

chawanna.carrington@tsa.dhs.gov. 

Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, 

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: 571 227–3329, Email: 

monica.grasso@tsa.dhs.gov. 

Linda L. Kent, Asst. Chief Counsel for 

Regulations and Security Standards, 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Transportation Security Administration, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 

12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6002, 

Phone: 571 227–2675, Fax: 571 227– 

1381, Email: linda.kent@tsa.dhs.gov. 

RIN: 1652–AA67 

DHS—U.S. IMMIGRATION AND 

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (USICE) 

Final Rule Stage 

89. Adjustments to Limitations on 

Designated School Official Assignment 

and Study by F–2 and M–2 

Nonimmigrants 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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

1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 1184 

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214.2(f)(15); 8 

CFR 214.3(a); 8 CFR 214. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This final rule will revise 8 

CFR parts 214.2 and 214.3. As proposed, 

it would provide additional flexibility to 

schools in determining the number of 

designated school officials (DSOs) to 

nominate for the oversight of the 

school’s campuses where F–1 and M–1 

nonimmigrant students are enrolled. 

Current regulation limits the number of 

DSOs to 10 per school, or 10 per campus 

in a multi-campus school. Second, as 

proposed, the rule would permit F–2 

and M–2 spouses and children 

accompanying academic and vocational 

nonimmigrant students with F–1 or M– 

1 nonimmigrant status to enroll in study 

at an SEVP-certified school so long as 

any study remains less than a full 

course of study. 

Statement of Need: The rule would 

improve management of international 

student programs and increase 

opportunities for study by spouses and 

children of nonimmigrant students. The 

rule would grant school officials more 

flexibility in determining the number of 

designated school officials (DSOs) to 

nominate for the oversight of campuses. 

The rule would also provide greater 

incentive for international students to 

study in the United States by permitting 

accompanying spouses and children of 

academic and vocational nonimmigrant 

students with F–1 or M–1 nonimmigrant 

status to enroll in less than a full course 

of study at an SEVP-certified school. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

anticipated costs of the rule derive from 

the existing requirement for reporting to 

DHS additional DSOs and any training 

that new DSOs would undertake. The 

primary benefits of the NPRM are 

providing flexibility to schools in the 

number of DSOs allowed and providing 

greater incentive for international 

students to study in the United States by 

permitting accompanying spouses and 

children of academic and vocational 

nonimmigrant students in F–1 or M–1 

status to enroll in study at an SEVPcertified school so long as they are not 

engaged in a full course of study. 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/21/13 78 FR 69778 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/21/14 

Final Rule ............ 02/00/15 

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: Katherine H. 

Westerlund, Acting Unit Chief, SEVP 

Policy, Student and Exchange Visitor 

Program, Department of Homeland 

Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, Potomac Center North, 

500 12th Street, SW., STOP 5600, 

Washington, DC 20536–5600, Phone: 

703 603–3414, Email: 

katherine.h.westerlund@ice.dhs.gov. 

Related RIN: Previously reported as 

1615–AA19 

RIN: 1653–AA63 

BILLING CODE 9110–9B–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

The Regulatory Plan for the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) for Fiscal Year (FY) 

2015, together with HUD’s Fall 

Semiannual Agenda of Regulations, 

highlights the most significant 

regulatory initiatives that HUD seeks to 

complete during the upcoming fiscal 

year. As described by Secretary Castro 

during his confirmation hearings, HUD 

is a critical federal agency because it 

directly impacts American families, 

from enforcing fair housing rights to 

revitalizing distressed areas, from 

assisting veterans and finding 

permanent housing, to helping 

communities rebuild after a natural 

disaster hits, HUD impacts small towns, 

big cities, rural communities and tribal 

communities across the country.1

Through its programs, HUD works to 

strengthen the housing market and 

protect consumers; meet the need for 

quality affordable rental homes; utilize 

housing as a platform for improving 

quality of life; and build inclusive and 

sustainable communities free from 

discrimination. 

As discussed in HUD’s 2010–2015, 

Strategic Plan, a central feature of 

HUD’s mission is nurturing 

opportunities for job growth and 

business expansion in American 

communities, particularly those that are 

economically distressed. HUD’s 

experience is that job growth and 

business expansion are essential to 

creating viable communities that 

provide residents opportunities that 

enhance their quality of life. Economic 

development, however, must be tailored 

to the assets and needs of the 

community in a way that maintains and 

enhances affordability and local 

character. HUD utilizes several tools to 

achieve this goal, including the 

providing tax incentives and Federal 

financial assistance that assist 

communities to carry out a wide range 

of community development activities 

directed toward neighborhood 

revitalization, economic development, 

and improved community facilities and 

services. Another tool that HUD has to 

support job growth and economic 

activity is Section 3 of the Housing and 

Urban Development Act of 1968, as 

amended, which ensures that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76554 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

employment and other economic 

opportunities generated by Federal 

financial assistance for housing and 

community development programs are, 

to the greatest extent feasible, directed 

toward low- and very low-income 

persons, particularly those who are 

recipients of government assistance for 

housing. 

Consistent with its 2010–2015 

Strategic Plan, HUD’s Regulatory Plan 

for FY2015 focuses on strengthening, 

through regulation, Section 3 to update 

and better align it with the statutory 

changes to HUD’s housing and 

community development programs 

since HUD issued the regulation in 

1994. This effort will also provide 

recipients of HUD financial assistance 

more discretion when carrying out their 

Section 3 responsibilities while 

simultaneously increasing their 

accountability to HUD and the 

communities that they serve. 

Priority: Enhancing Economic 

Development and Job Creation Through 

Section 3 

The purpose of Section 3 is to ensure 

that the employment and other 

economic opportunities generated by 

Federal financial assistance, to the 

greatest extent feasible, be directed to 

low-and very low-income persons, 

particularly those who are recipients of 

government assistance for housing. In 

this regard, the statute recognizes that 

the employment and other economic 

opportunities generated by projects and 

activities that receive Federal housing 

and community development assistance 

offer an effective means of empowering 

low- and very low-income persons and 

to business concerns that provide 

economic opportunities to these 

persons. Notwithstanding, HUD’s 

Section 3 regulations have not been 

updated since 1994. In the 20 years that 

have passed since HUD promulgated its 

Section 3 regulations, significant 

legislation has been enacted that affects 

HUD programs that are subject Section 

3. These legislative changes are not 

adequately addressed by HUD’s current 

Section 3 regulations. 

In addition, recipients of Section 3 

covered HUD financial assistance, 

community advocates, representatives 

from national housing organizations, 

Section 3 residents and businesses, and 

other interested parties have expressed, 

in HUD’s organized listening sessions, 

that the existing regulations are not 

sufficiently explicit about specific 

actions that could be undertaken to 

achieve compliance; that the existing 

regulations do not clearly describe the 

extent to which recipients may require 

subrecipients, contractors, and 

subcontractors to comply with Section 

3; and actions that recipients may take 

to impose meaningful sanctions for 

noncompliance by their subrecipients, 

contractors, and subcontractors. Finally, 

HUD’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

conducted an audit in 2013 to assess 

HUD’s oversight of Section 3 in 

response to concerns about economic 

opportunities that were provided (or 

should have been provided) as a result 

of the expenditure of financial 

assistance under the American 

Reinvestment and Recovery Act 

(Recovery Act) (Public Law 111–5, 

approved February 17, 2009). 

As a result, HUD proposes to update 

and clarify its Section 3 regulations to 

better fulfill the purpose of Section 3 

and maximize the employment and 

contracting opportunities available to 

the low and very low-income residents 

of communities enjoying the benefit of 

Federal financial assistance in support 

of economic development and to 

business concerns that provide 

economic opportunities to these 

persons. 

Regulatory Action: Creating Economic 

Opportunities for Low- and Very LowIncome Persons and Eligible Businesses 

Through Strengthened ‘‘Section 3’’ 

Requirements 

Section 3 of the Housing and Urban 

Development Act of 1968, as amended 

by the Housing and Community 

Development Act of 1992, contributes to 

the establishment of stronger, more 

sustainable communities by ensuring 

that employment and other economic 

opportunities generated by Federal 

financial assistance for housing and 

community development programs are, 

to the greatest extent feasible, directed 

toward low- and very low-income 

persons, particularly those who are 

recipients of government assistance for 

housing and to business concerns that 

provide economic opportunities to these 

persons. HUD is statutorily charged 

with the authority and responsibility to 

implement and enforce Section 3. 

HUD’s regulations implementing the 

requirements of Section 3 have not been 

updated since 1994. This proposed rule 

would update HUD’s Section 3 

regulations to address new programs 

established since 1994 that are subject 

to the Section 3 requirements, and 

revise the regulations to both better 

promote compliance with the 

requirements of Section 3 by recipients 

of Section 3 covered financial 

assistance, while also recognizing 

barriers to compliance that may exist, 

and overall strengthening HUD’s 

oversight of Section 3. 

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 made effective in calendar year 2015. 

HUD expects that the neither the total 

economic costs nor the total efficiency 

gains will exceed $100 million. 

Priority Regulations in HUD’s FY 2015 

Regulatory Plan 

HUD—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

Proposed Rule Stage 

Creating Economic Opportunities for 

Low- and Very Low-Income Persons and 

Eligible Businesses Through 

Strengthened ‘‘Section 3’’ Requirements 

Priority: Significant. 

Legal Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701u; 42 

U.S.C. 1450; 42 U.S.C. 3301; 42 U.S.C. 

3535(d). 

CFR Citation: 24 CFR 135. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

revise HUD’s regulations found at 24 

CFR part 135, which ensure that 

employment, training, and contracting 

opportunities generated by certain HUD 

financial assistance shall, to the greatest 

extent feasible, and consistent with 

existing Federal, State, and local laws 

and regulations, be directed to low- and 

very low-income persons, particularly 

those who are recipients of Government 

assistance for housing and to business 

concerns that provide economic 

opportunities to these persons. Part 135 

was last revised to incorporate the 

statutory amendments of the Housing 

and Community Development Act of 

1992. This proposed rule would update 

part 135 to: (1) Reflect certain changes 

in the design and implementation of 

HUD programs that are subject to the 

section 3 regulations; (2) clarify the 

obligations of covered recipient 

agencies; and (3) simplify the 

Department’s section 3 complaint 

processing procedures. 

Statement of Need: Section 3 

requirements have been governed by an 

interim regulation since 1994 and the 

Department is obligated to promulgate 

final regulations. Equally important, 

HUD programs subject to Section 3 have 

undergone significant legislative 

change. This includes, reforms made to 

HUD’s Indian housing programs by the 

Native American Housing Assistance 

and Self-Determination Act of 1996 

(NAHASDA) (Public Law 104–330, 

approved October 26, 1996); public 

housing reforms made by the Quality 

Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 

1998 (QHWRA) (Public Law 105–276, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76555 

2https://nhlp.org/files/09%20Section%203%20

Barriers%20and%20best%20practices

%208%2024%2010%20Final%20with%20

attachment.pdf 

3See: http://www.hudoig.gov/reportspublications/audit-reports/hud-did-not-enforcereporting-requirements-of-section-3-of. 

4http://www.hudoig.gov/reports-publications/

audit-reports/hud-did-not-enforce-reportingrequirements-of-section-3-of 

approved by October 21, 1998); reforms 

made to HUD’s supportive housing 

programs by the Section 202 Supportive 

Housing for the Elderly Act of 2010 

(Public Law 111–372, approved January 

4, 2011), and the Frank Melville 

Supportive Housing Investment Act of 

2010 (Public Law 111–347, approved 

January 4, 2011); and more recently 

reforms made to HUD’s public housing 

by the Rental Assistance Demonstration 

program authorized by the act 

appropriating 2012 funding for HUD, 

the Consolidated and Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 

(Public Law 112–55, approved 

November 18, 2011). HUD proposes to 

clarify and strengthen its Section 3 

regulations to incorporate new programs 

established since 1994 that are subject 

to Section 3 requirements, revise the 

existing regulation to enhance 

compliance by recipients of covered 

HUD assistance, and mitigate barriers to 

achieving compliance. 

In August 2010, HUD hosted a Section 

3 Listening Forum 2 that brought 

together recipients of Section 3 covered 

HUD financial assistance, community 

advocates, representatives from national 

housing organizations, Section 3 

residents and businesses, and other 

interested parties to highlight best 

practices and to discuss barriers to 

implementation across the country. The 

forum offered recipients of Section 3 

covered financial assistance the 

opportunity to identify challenges they 

were facing in complying with Section 

3. Participants stated that the existing 

regulations are not sufficiently explicit 

about specific actions that could be 

undertaken to achieve compliance; that 

the existing regulations do not clearly 

describe the extent to which recipients 

may require subrecipients, contractors, 

and subcontractors to comply with 

Section 3; and actions that recipients 

may take to impose meaningful 

sanctions for noncompliance by their 

subrecipients, contractors, and 

subcontractors. 

In addition, HUD’s Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) conducted an audit in 

2013 to assess HUD’s oversight of 

Section 3 in response to concerns about 

economic opportunities that were 

provided (or should have been 

provided) as a result of the expenditure 

of financial assistance under the 

American Reinvestment and Recovery 

Act (Recovery Act) (Public Law 111–5, 

approved February 17, 2009). HUD’s 

OIG concluded that HUD did not 

enforce the reporting requirements of 

Section 3 for recipients of FY 2009 

Recovery Act Public Housing Capital 

funds from HUD.3 HUD’s OIG made 

several recommendations to address its 

findings including developing 

procedures to take administrative 

measures against recipients that fail to 

comply with Section 3 requirements 

and publishing a Section 3 final rule. 

Alternatives: Efforts have been made 

to improve HUD’s Section 3 efforts 

independent of regulatory change, by 

increased reporting compliance, use of 

Notices of Financial Assistance (NOFA) 

competitions for Section 3 coordinators, 

and a business registry. These initiatives 

have been helpful, but as HUD’s Office 

of Inspector General 4 noted, regulatory 

change is important and necessary to 

clarify areas of confusion without 

subjecting recipients who operated in 

good faith to legal problems. 

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The 

proposed rule will enhance employment 

opportunities for Section 3 residents 

and contracting opportunities for 

Section 3 businesses. In doing so, the 

proposed rule imposes additional 

recordkeeping, verification, 

procurement, monitoring, and 

complaint processing requirements on 

covered recipients. Additional 

administrative work will be one of the 

outcomes of an invigorated effort to 

provide economic opportunities to the 

greatest extent feasible. HUD has 

estimated that total reporting and record 

keeping burden would be $6.5 million 

the first year the rule goes into effect 

and $2.2 million annually in succeeding 

years. 

Section 3 does not create additional 

jobs. Instead, a more rigorous targeting 

of economic opportunity will direct 

(transfer) positions and contracts to 

those eligible under Section 3. A 

reasonable estimate of the impact would 

be protection for an additional 1,400 

Section 3 jobs annually from increased 

oversight and clarification of program 

standards. Finally, as tenant incomes 

rise, the federal rental subsidy for those 

tenants would decline. Such an effect 

would constitute a transfer from tenants 

to the U.S. government and could be as 

large as $19 million annually. 

This rule will not have any impact on 

the level of funding for the impacted 

programs. Funding is determined 

independently by congressional 

appropriations. It will, however, affect 

the allocation of resources. 

Risks: This rule poses no risk to 

public health, safety, or the 

environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR 

CITE 

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

2014 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

# Federalism Affected: No. 

# Energy Affected: No. 

International Impacts: No. 

Agency Contact:Agency Contact: Sara 

K. Pratt, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Programs, Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, 

451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 

20410, Phone: 202 402–6978. 

RIN: 2529–AA91 

HUD—Office of Fair Housing and Equal 

Opportunity (FHEO) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

90. Economic Opportunities for Lowand Very Low-Income Persons (FR– 

4893) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701u; 42 

U.S.C. 1450; 42 U.S.C. 3301; 42 U.S.C. 

3535(d) 

CFR Citation: 24 CFR 135. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

revise HUD’s regulations found at 24 

CFR part 135, which ensure that 

employment, training, and contracting 

opportunities generated by certain HUD 

financial assistance shall, to the greatest 

extent feasible, and consistent with 

existing Federal, State, and local laws 

and regulations, be directed to low- and 

very low-income persons, particularly 

those who are recipients of Government 

assistance for housing and to business 

concerns that provide economic 

opportunities to these persons. Part 135 

was last revised to incorporate the 

statutory amendments of the Housing 

and Community Development Act of 

1992. This proposed rule would update 

part 135 to: (1) Reflect certain changes 

in the design and implementation of 

HUD programs that are subject to the 

section 3 regulations; (2) clarify the 

obligations of covered recipient 

agencies; and (3) simplify the 

Department’s section 3 complaint 

processing procedures. 

Statement of Need: Section 3 

requirements have been governed by an 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76556 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

5https://nhlp.org/files/09%20Section%203%

20Barriers%20and%20best%20practices%208%

2024%2010%20Final%20with%20attachment.pdf. 

6See: http://www.hudoig.gov/reportspublications/audit-reports/hud-did-not-enforcereporting-requirements-of-section-3-of. 7http://www.hudoig.gov/reports-publications/

audit-reports/hud-did-not-enforce-reportingrequirements-of-section-3-of. 

interim regulation since 1994 and the 

Department is obligated to promulgate 

final regulations. Equally important, 

HUD programs subject to Section 3 have 

undergone significant legislative 

change. This includes, reforms made to 

HUD’s Indian housing programs by the 

Native American Housing Assistance 

and Self-Determination Act of 1996 

(NAHASDA) (Public Law 104–330, 

approved October 26, 1996); public 

housing reforms made by the Quality 

Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 

1998 (QHWRA) (Public Law 105–276, 

approved by October 21, 1998); reforms 

made to HUD’s supportive housing 

programs by the Section 202 Supportive 

Housing for the Elderly Act of 2010 

(Public Law 111–372, approved January 

4, 2011), and the Frank Melville 

Supportive Housing Investment Act of 

2010 (Public Law 111–347, approved 

January 4, 2011); and more recently 

reforms made to HUD’s public housing 

by the Rental Assistance Demonstration 

program authorized by the act 

appropriating 2012 funding for HUD, 

the Consolidated and Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 

(Public Law 112–55, approved 

November 18, 2011). HUD proposes to 

clarify and strengthen its Section 3 

regulations to incorporate new programs 

established since 1994 that are subject 

to Section 3 requirements, revise the 

existing regulation to enhance 

compliance by recipients of covered 

HUD assistance, and mitigate barriers to 

achieving compliance. 

In August 2010, HUD hosted a Section 

3 Listening Forum 5 that brought 

together recipients of Section 3 covered 

HUD financial assistance, community 

advocates, representatives from national 

housing organizations, Section 3 

residents and businesses, and other 

interested parties to highlight best 

practices and to discuss barriers to 

implementation across the country. The 

forum offered recipients of Section 3 

covered financial assistance the 

opportunity to identify challenges they 

were facing in complying with Section 

3. Participants stated that the existing 

regulations are not sufficiently explicit 

about specific actions that could be 

undertaken to achieve compliance; that 

the existing regulations do not clearly 

describe the extent to which recipients 

may require subrecipients, contractors, 

and subcontractors to comply with 

Section 3; and actions that recipients 

may take to impose meaningful 

sanctions for noncompliance by their 

subrecipients, contractors, and 

subcontractors. 

In addition, HUD’s Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) conducted an audit in 

2013 to assess HUD’s oversight of 

Section 3 in response to concerns about 

economic opportunities that were 

provided (or should have been 

provided) as a result of the expenditure 

of financial assistance under the 

American Reinvestment and Recovery 

Act (Recovery Act) (Public Law 111–5, 

approved February 17, 2009). HUD’s 

OIG concluded that HUD did not 

enforce the reporting requirements of 

Section 3 for recipients of FY 2009 

Recovery Act Public Housing Capital 

funds from HUD 6. HUD’s OIG made 

several recommendations to address its 

findings including developing 

procedures to take administrative 

measures against recipients that fail to 

comply with Section 3 requirements 

and publishing a Section 3 final rule. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 3 

was enacted as a part of the Housing 

and Urban Development Act of 1968 

(Public Law 90–448, approved August 1, 

1968) to bring economic opportunities, 

generated by the expenditure of certain 

HUD financial assistance, to the greatest 

extent feasible, to low- and very lowincome persons residing in 

communities where the financial 

assistance is expended. Section 3 

recognizes that HUD funds are often one 

of the largest sources of funds expended 

in low-income communities and, where 

such funds are spent on activities such 

as construction and rehabilitation of 

housing and other public facilities, the 

expenditure results in new jobs and 

other opportunities. By directing new 

economic opportunities to residents and 

businesses in the community in which 

the funds are expended, the expenditure 

can have the double benefit of creating 

new or rehabilitated housing or other 

facilities in such communities while 

also creating jobs for the residents of 

these communities. Section 3 was 

amended by the Housing and 

Community Development Act of 1992 

(Public Law 102–550, approved October 

28, 1992), which required the Secretary 

of HUD to promulgate regulations to 

implement Section 3, codified at 12 

U.S.C. 1701u. HUD’s Section 3 

regulations were promulgated through 

an interim rule published on June 30, 

1994, at 59 FR 33880, and are codified 

in 24 CFR part 135. This proposed rule 

would update HUD’s Section 3 

regulations to address new programs 

established since 1994 that are subject 

to the Section 3 requirements, and 

revise the regulations to both better 

promote compliance with the 

requirements of Section 3 by recipients 

of Section 3 covered financial 

assistance, while also recognizing 

barriers to compliance that may exist, 

and overall strengthening HUD’s 

oversight of Section 3. 

Alternatives: Efforts have been made 

to improve HUD’s Section 3 efforts 

independent of regulatory change, by 

increased reporting compliance, use of 

Notices of Financial Assistance (NOFA) 

competitions for Section 3 coordinators, 

and a business registry. These initiatives 

have been helpful, but as HUD’s Office 

of Inspector General 7 noted, regulatory 

change is important and necessary to 

clarify areas of confusion without 

subjecting recipients who operated in 

good faith to legal problems. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

proposed rule will enhance employment 

opportunities for Section 3 residents 

and contracting opportunities for 

Section 3 businesses. In doing so, the 

proposed rule imposes additional 

recordkeeping, verification, 

procurement, monitoring, and 

complaint processing requirements on 

covered recipients. Additional 

administrative work will be one of the 

outcomes of an invigorated effort to 

provide economic opportunities to the 

greatest extent feasible. HUD has 

estimated that total reporting and record 

keeping burden would be $6.5 million 

the first year the rule goes into effect 

and $2.2 million annually in succeeding 

years. 

Section 3 does not create additional 

jobs. Instead, a more rigorous targeting 

of economic opportunity will direct 

(transfer) positions and contracts to 

those eligible under Section 3. A 

reasonable estimate of the impact would 

be protections for an additional 1,400 

Section 3 jobs annually from increased 

oversight and clarification of program 

standards. Finally, as tenant incomes 

rise, the federal rental subsidy for those 

tenants would decline. Such an effect 

would constitute a transfer from tenants 

to the U.S. government and could be as 

large as $19 million annually. 

This rule will not have any impact on 

the level of funding for the impacted 

programs. Funding is determined 

independently by congressional 

appropriations. It will, however, affect 

the allocation of resources. 

Risks: This rule poses no risk to 

public health, safety, or the 

environment. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76557 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Sara K. Pratt, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Programs, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 402– 

6978. 

RIN: 2529–AA91 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI) 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

The Department of the Interior (DOI) 

is the principal Federal steward of our 

Nation’s public lands and resources, 

including many of our cultural 

treasures. DOI serves as trustee to Native 

Americans and Alaska native trust 

assets and is responsible for relations 

with the island territories under United 

States jurisdiction. The Department 

manages more than 500 million acres of 

Federal lands, including 401 park units, 

560 wildlife refuges, and approximately 

1.7 billion submerged offshore acres. 

These areas include natural resources 

that are essential for America’s 

industry—oil and gas, coal, and 

minerals such as gold and uranium. On 

public lands and the Outer Continental 

Shelf, Interior provides access for 

renewable and conventional energy 

development and manages the 

protection and restoration of surfacemined lands. 

The Department protects and recovers 

endangered species; protects natural, 

historic, and cultural resources; 

manages water projects that are a 

lifeline and economic engine for many 

communities in the West; manages 

forests and fights wildfires; manages 

Federal energy resources; regulates 

surface coal mining operations; reclaims 

abandoned coal mines; educates 

children in Indian schools; and provides 

recreational opportunities for over 400 

million visitors annually in the Nation’s 

national parks, public lands, national 

wildlife refuges, and recreation areas. 

DOI will continue to review and 

update its regulations and policies to 

ensure that they are effective and 

efficient, and that they promote 

accountability and sustainability. DOI 

will emphasize regulations and policies 

that: 

• Promote environmentally 

responsible, safe, and balanced 

development of renewable and 

conventional energy on our public lands 

and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS); 

• Use the best available science to 

ensure that public resources are 

protected, conserved, and used wisely; 

• Preserve America’s natural 

treasures for future generations; 

• Improve the nation-to-nation 

relationship with American Indian 

tribes and promote tribal selfdetermination and self-governance; 

• Promote partnerships with States, 

tribes, local governments, other groups, 

and individuals to achieve common 

goals; and 

• Promote transparency, fairness, 

accountability, and the highest ethical 

standards while maintaining 

performance goals. 

Major Regulatory Areas 

The Department’s bureaus implement 

congressionally mandated programs 

through their regulations. Some of these 

regulatory programs include: 

• Developing onshore and offshore 

energy, including renewable, mineral, 

oil and gas, and other energy resources; 

• Regulating surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations on public and 

private lands; 

• Managing migratory birds and 

preserving marine mammals and 

endangered species; 

• Managing dedicated lands, such as 

national parks, wildlife refuges, 

National Landscape Conservation 

System lands, and American Indian 

trust lands; 

• Managing public lands open to 

multiple use; 

• Managing revenues from American 

Indian and Federal minerals; 

• Fulfilling trust and other 

responsibilities pertaining to American 

Indians and Alaska Natives; 

• Managing natural resource damage 

assessments; and 

• Managing assistance programs. 

Regulatory Policy 

DOI’s regulatory programs seek to 

operate programs transparently, 

efficiently, and cooperatively while 

maximizing protection of our land, 

resources, and environment in a fiscally 

responsible way by: 

(1) Protecting Natural, Cultural, and 

Heritage Resources. 

The Department’s mission includes 

protecting and providing access to our 

Nation’s natural and cultural heritage 

and honoring our trust responsibilities 

to tribes. We are committed to this 

mission and to applying laws and 

regulations fairly and effectively. Our 

priorities include protecting public 

health and safety, restoring and 

maintaining public lands, protecting 

threatened and endangered species, 

ameliorating land- and resourcemanagement problems on public lands, 

and ensuring accountability and 

compliance with Federal laws and 

regulations. 

(2) Sustainably Using Energy, Water, 

and Natural Resources. 

Since the beginning of the Obama 

Administration, the Department has 

focused on renewable energy issues and 

has established priorities for 

environmentally responsible 

development of renewable energy on 

public lands and the OCS. Industry has 

responded by investing in the 

development of wind farms off the 

Atlantic seacoast and solar, wind, and 

geothermal energy facilities throughout 

the West. Power generation from these 

new energy sources produces virtually 

no greenhouse gases and, when done in 

an environmentally responsible manner, 

harnesses with minimum impact 

abundant renewable energy. The 

Department will continue its intra- and 

inter-departmental efforts to move 

forward with the environmentally 

responsible review and permitting of 

renewable energy projects on public 

lands, and will identify how its 

regulatory processes can be improved to 

facilitate the responsible development 

of these resources. 

In implementing these priorities 

through its regulations, the Department 

will create jobs and contribute to a 

healthy economy while protecting our 

signature landscapes, natural resources, 

wildlife, and cultural resources. 

(3) Empowering People and 

Communities. 

The Department strongly encourages 

public participation in the regulatory 

process and will continue to actively 

engage the public in the implementation 

of priority initiatives. Throughout the 

Department, individual bureaus and 

offices are ensuring that the American 

people have an active role in managing 

our Nation’s public lands and resources. 

For example, every year FWS 

establishes migratory bird hunting 

seasons in partnership with flyway 

councils composed of State fish and 

wildlife agencies. FWS also holds a 

series of public meetings to give other 

interested parties, including hunters 

and other groups, opportunities to 

participate in establishing the upcoming 

season’s regulations. Similarly, BLM 

uses Resource Advisory Councils to 

advise on management of public lands 

and resources. These citizen-based 

groups allow individuals from all 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76558 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

backgrounds and interests to have a 

voice in management of public lands. 

Retrospective Review of Regulations 

President Obama’s Executive Order 

13563 directs agencies to make the 

regulatory system work better for the 

American public. Regulations should 

‘‘. . . protect public health, welfare, 

safety, and our environment while 

promoting economic growth, 

innovation, competitiveness, and job 

creation.’’ DOI’s plan for retrospective 

regulatory review identifies specific 

efforts to relieve regulatory burdens, add 

jobs to the economy, and make 

regulations work better for the American 

public while protecting our 

environment and resources. The DOI 

plan seeks to strengthen and maintain a 

culture of retrospective review by 

consolidating all regulatory review 

requirements into DOI’s annual 

regulatory plan. 

The Department routinely meets with 

stakeholders to solicit feedback and 

gather input on how to incorporate 

performance based standards. DOI has 

received helpful public input through 

this process and will continue to 

participate in this effort with relevant 

interagency partners as part of its 

retrospective regulatory review. 

Under section 6 of Executive Order 

13563 ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review’’ (Jan. 18, 2011), the 

following Regulation Identifier Numbers 

(RINs) were identified as associated 

with retrospective review and analysis 

in the Department’s final retrospective 

review of regulations plan, which can be 

viewed at http://www.doi.gov/open/

regsreview. 

Bureau Title & RIN Description Reduces burdens on 

small business? 

Office of Natural Resources 

Revenue.

Oil and Gas Royalty Valuation.

1012–AA13 

DOI is exploring a simplified market-based approach to 

arrive at the value of oil and gas for royalty purposes 

that could dramatically reduce accounting and paperwork requirements and costs on industry and better 

ensure proper royalty valuation by creating a more 

transparent royalty calculation method.

Yes. 

Fish and Wildlife Service ...... ESA Section 7 Consultation 

Process; Incidental Take 

Statements.

1018–AX85 

Court decisions over the last decade have prompted us, 

along with the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NOAA, Commerce), to consider clarifying our regulations concerning incidental take statements during section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act. 

A proposed rule published on September 4, 2013. The 

proposed changes address use of surrogates to express the limit of exempted take and how to determine 

when deferral of an incidental take exemption is appropriate. This is a joint rulemaking with NOAA.

No. 

Fish and Wildlife Service ...... Regulations Governing Designation of Critical Habitat 

Under Section 4 of the 

ESA.

1018–AX86 

The proposed rule would revise requirements for designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species 

Act. The proposed revisions would make minor edits to 

the scope and purpose, add and remove some definitions, and clarify the criteria for designating critical 

habitat. A number of factors, including litigation and experience in interpreting and applying the statutory definition of critical habitat, have highlighted the need to 

clarify or revise the current regulations. This is a joint 

rulemaking with NOAA.

No. 

Fish and Wildlife Service ...... Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of 

the Endangered Species 

Act.

1018–AX87 

This draft policy would explain how we consider partnerships and conservation plans; habitat conservation 

plans; and tribal, military, and Federal lands in the exclusion process. This draft policy is meant to complement our proposed regulatory amendments regarding exclusions from critical habitat and to clarify expectations regarding critical habitat. The policy would provide a credible, predictable, and simplified critical-habitat-exclusion process and foster clarity and consistency 

in designation of critical habitat. We will seek public review and comment on the proposed policy. This is a 

joint policy with NOAA.

No. 

Fish and Wildlife Service ...... ESA Section 7 Consultation 

Regulations; Definition of 

‘‘Destruction or Adverse 

Modification’’ of Critical 

Habitat.

1018–AX88 

The proposed rule would amend the existing regulations 

governing section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act to revise the definition of ‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’ of critical habitat. The 

current regulatory definition has been invalidated by 

the courts for being inconsistent with the language of 

the Endangered Species Act. The revised definition will 

provide the Services and Federal agencies with greater clarity in how to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, consistent with section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. This is a joint 

rulemaking with NOAA.

No. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76559 

Bureau Title & RIN Description Reduces burdens on 

small business? 

Bureau of Indian Affairs ........ Procedures for Establishing 

that an Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe.

1076–AF18 

The Department is examining its regulations governing 

the process and criteria by which Indian groups are 

federally acknowledged as Indian tribes to determine 

how regulatory changes could increase transparency, 

timeliness, efficiency, and flexibility, while maintaining 

the integrity of the acknowledgment process.

No. 

DOI bureaus work to make our 

regulations easier to comply with and 

understand. Our regulatory process 

ensures that bureaus share ideas on how 

to reduce regulatory burdens while 

meeting the requirements of the laws 

they enforce and improving their 

stewardship of the environment and 

resources. Results include: 

• Effective stewardship of our 

Nation’s resources in a way that is 

responsive to the needs of small 

businesses; 

• Increased benefits per dollar spent 

by careful evaluation of the economic 

effects of planned rules; and 

• Improved compliance and 

transparency by use of plain language in 

our regulations and guidance 

documents. 

Bureaus and Offices Within DOI 

The following sections give an 

overview of some of the major 

regulatory priorities of DOI bureaus and 

offices. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

provides services to approximately 1.9 

million Indians and Alaska Natives, and 

maintains a government-to-government 

relationship with the 566 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. BIA’s mission 

is to enhance the quality of life, promote 

economic opportunity, and protect and 

improve the trust assets of American 

Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska 

Natives, as well as to provide quality 

education opportunities to students in 

Indian schools. 

In the coming year, BIA will continue 

its focus on improved management of 

trust responsibilities with each 

regulatory review and revision. The 

Bureau will also continue to promote 

economic development in Indian 

communities by ensuring the 

regulations support, rather than hinder, 

productive land management. 

In addition, BIA will focus on 

updating Indian education regulations 

and on other regulatory changes to 

increase transparency in support of the 

President’s Open Government Initiative. 

In the coming year, BIA’s regulatory 

priorities are to: 

• Develop regulations to meet the 

Indian trust reform goals for rights-ofways across Indian land. 

• Develop regulatory changes 

necessary for improved Indian 

education. 

BIA is reviewing regulations that 

require the Bureau of Indian Education 

to follow 23 different State adequate 

yearly progress standards; the review 

will determine whether a uniform 

standard would better meet the needs of 

students at Bureau-funded schools. 

With regard to undergraduate education, 

the Bureau of Indian Education is 

reviewing regulations that address 

grants to tribally controlled community 

colleges and other Indian education 

regulations. These reviews will identify 

provisions that need to be updated to 

comply with applicable statutes and 

ensure that the proper regulatory 

framework is in place to support 

students in Bureau-funded schools. 

• Develop regulatory changes to 

reform the process for Federal 

acknowledgment of Indian tribes. 

Over the years, BIA has received 

significant comments from American 

Indian groups and members of Congress 

on the Federal acknowledgment 

process. Most of these comments 

criticize the current process as 

cumbersome, overly restrictive, and 

lacking transparency. BIA is reviewing 

the Federal acknowledgment regulations 

to determine how regulatory changes 

may streamline the acknowledgment 

process and clarify criteria by which an 

Indian group is examined. 

• Revise regulations to reflect 

updated statutory provisions and 

increase transparency. 

BIA is making a concentrated effort to 

improve the readability and precision of 

its regulations. Because trust 

beneficiaries often turn to the 

regulations for guidance on how a given 

BIA process works, BIA is ensuring that 

each revised regulation is written as 

clearly as possible and accurately 

reflects the current organization of the 

Bureau. The Bureau is also simplifying 

language and eliminating obsolete 

provisions. In the coming year, the 

Bureau also plans to revise regulations 

regarding rights-of-way (25 CFR 169); 

Indian Reservation Roads (25 CFR 170); 

and certain regulations specific to the 

Osage Nation. 

Bureau of Land Management 

BLM manages the 245-million-acre 

National System of Public Lands, 

located primarily in the western States, 

including Alaska, and the 700-millionacre subsurface mineral estate located 

throughout the Nation. In doing so, BLM 

manages such varied uses as energy and 

mineral development, outdoor 

recreation, livestock grazing, and 

forestry and woodlands products. BLM’s 

complex multiple-use mission affects 

the lives of millions of Americans, 

including those who live near and visit 

the public lands, as well as those who 

benefit from the commodities, such as 

minerals, energy, or timber, produced 

from the lands’ rich resources. In 

undertaking its management 

responsibilities, BLM seeks to conserve 

our public lands’ natural and cultural 

resources and sustain the health and 

productivity of the public lands for the 

use and enjoyment of present and future 

generations. In the coming year, BLM’s 

highest regulatory priorities include: 

• Revising outdated hydraulic 

fracturing regulations. 

BLM’s existing regulations applicable 

to hydraulic fracturing were 

promulgated over 20 years ago and do 

not reflect modern technology. In 

seeking to modernize its requirements 

and ensure the protection of our 

Nation’s public lands, BLM will finalize 

a rule that will disclose to the public 

chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing 

on public land and Indian land, 

strengthen regulations related to wellbore integrity, and address issues 

related to recovered fluids. 

• Creating a competitive process for 

offering lands for solar and wind energy 

development. 

BLM recently published a proposed 

rule that would establish an efficient 

competitive process for leasing public 

lands for solar and wind energy 

development. The amended regulations 

would establish competitive bidding 

procedures for lands within designated 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76560 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

solar and wind energy development 

leasing areas, define qualifications for 

potential bidders, and structure the 

financial arrangements necessary for the 

process. The rule would enhance BLM’s 

ability to capture fair market value for 

the use of public lands, ensure fair 

access to leasing opportunities for 

renewable energy development, and 

foster the growth and development of 

the renewable energy sector of the 

economy. 

• Preventing waste of produced gas 

and ensuring fair return to the taxpayer. 

BLM’s current requirements regarding 

venting and flaring from oil and gas 

operations are over three decades old. 

The agency is currently preparing a 

proposed rule to address emissions 

reductions and minimize waste through 

improved standards for venting, flaring, 

and fugitive losses of methane from oil 

and gas production facilities on Federal 

and Indian lands. 

• Seeking public input on managing 

waste mine methane. 

BLM issued an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) 

requesting information from the public 

that might assist the bureau in the 

establishment of a program to capture, 

use, or destroy waste mine methane 

from Federal coal leases and Federal 

leases for other solid minerals. The BLM 

is currently reviewing the information 

received through that process to identify 

potential appropriate regulatory 

approaches to reduce the waste of 

methane from mining operations on 

public lands. 

• Ensuring a fair return to the 

American taxpayer for oil shale 

development. 

BLM is preparing a final rule that 

would ensure responsible development 

of federal oil shale resources and 

evaluate necessary safeguards to protect 

scarce water resources and important 

wildlife habitat while ensuring a fair 

royalty to the American people. 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

(BOEM) 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM) promotes energy 

independence, environmental 

protection, and economic development 

through responsible, science-based 

management of offshore conventional 

and renewable energy resources. It is 

dedicated to fostering the development 

of both conventional and renewable 

energy and mineral resources on the 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in an 

efficient and effective manner, 

balancing the need for economic growth 

with the protection of the environment. 

BOEM thoughtfully considers and 

balances the potential environmental 

impacts involved in exploring and 

extracting these resources. BOEM’s 

near-term regulatory agenda will focus 

on a number of issues, including: 

• Expanding renewable energy 

resources. 

As part of President Obama’s 

comprehensive plan to expand domestic 

clean energy sources, BOEM has held 

multiple offshore renewable energy 

lease sales along the Atlantic coast. 

These lease sales are the result of years 

of collaboration, data gathering and 

analysis, and outreach and have 

resulted in the identification of areas 

that are rich with potential wind 

resources but also minimize conflicts 

with other important OCS uses. . Based 

on the experiences to date in the 

offshore renewable energy program, 

BOEM is evaluating lessons learned and 

identifying opportunities for 

improvement in the program. As a part 

of this effort, BOEM is conducting a 

comprehensive review of our renewable 

energy regulations and highlighting 

areas for potential revision. For 

example, the Bureau recently completed 

a rulemaking to provide additional time 

for renewable energy developers to 

submit certain plans, after BOEM 

determined that the previous timelines 

for submission were proving to be 

unreasonable. This change provides an 

appropriate balance between ensuring 

diligent progress on our renewable 

energy leases and accounting for the 

needs of the renewable energy 

development community. 

Two proposed rulemakings address 

recommendations submitted to BOEM 

by the Transportation Research Board of 

the National Academies and its 

stakeholders. Specifically, these include 

recommendations to: develop and 

incorporate state of the art wind turbine 

design standards and to clarify the role 

of Certified Verification Agents as part 

of the process of designing, fabricating, 

and installing offshore wind energy 

facilities for the OCS. 

• Promoting safe drilling activities on 

the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf 

BOEM, jointly with the Bureau of 

Safety and Environmental Enforcement 

(BSEE), is developing proposed rules to 

promote safe, responsible, and effective 

drilling activities on the Alaska Outer 

Continental Shelf, while also ensuring 

the protection of Alaska’s coastal 

communities and the marine 

environment. 

• Protecting the Environment. 

In a continuing effort to ensure that 

the effects of any future potential oil 

spills can be minimized and fully 

mitigated, BOEM is amending its 

regulations to raise the limits of liability 

associated with future spills. BOEM has 

teamed with the U.S. Coast Guard and 

the Department of Justice in developing 

new regulations to ensure that necessary 

resources will be made available to 

address potential contingencies of any 

future oil spill and associated damages. 

• Updating BOEM’s Air Quality 

Program. 

BOEM’s original air quality rules date 

largely from 1980 and have not been 

updated substantially since that time. 

From 1990 to 2012, DOI has exercised 

jurisdiction for air quality only for OCS 

sources operating in the Gulf of Mexico. 

In fiscal year 2012, Congress expanded 

DOI’s authority by transferring to it 

responsibility for monitoring OCS air 

quality off the North Slope Borough of 

the State of Alaska, including the 

Beaufort Sea, the Chukchi Sea, and part 

of the Hope Basin. BOEM is in the 

process of updating its regulations to 

reflect changes that have occurred over 

the past thirty-four years and the new 

regulatory jurisdiction. In its 

development of proposed regulations, 

BOEM will continue to consult and 

coordinate its efforts with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, the National Park 

Service and the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

• Modernizing Oil and Gas Leasing 

Regulations. 

BOEM is developing a final rule to 

update and streamline the existing OCS 

leasing regulations to better reflect 

modern policy priorities, including 

incentivizing diligent development, as 

well as to reflect changes in applicable 

laws that have occurred over the past 

several years. The final rule reorganizes 

leasing requirements to communicate 

more effectively and clearly the leasing 

process as it has evolved, and to better 

delineate the roles, responsibilities and 

associated liabilities of all parties 

having an economic interest in leases or 

facilities on the OCS. 

• Protecting OCS Sand, Gravel, and 

Shell Resources. 

In light of the continuing need to 

provide resources to protect the coast 

from natural disasters like Hurricane 

Sandy, BOEM is developing policies 

and goals to formally address the use of 

OCS sand, gravel, or shell resources 

funded by the Federal government. 

These policies are intended to ensure 

that necessary sand and gravel resources 

remain available to help communities 

that have been harmed by hurricanes 

and other disasters, so that beaches and 

other natural resources can effectively 

be restored, without adversely 

impacting the development of 

transmission lines and pipelines needed 

for energy development projects. Taken 

together, these policies will ensure that 

the development of renewable and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76561 

conventional energy resources 

continues to take place in areas adjacent 

to key sand and gravel resource zones 

and that sand and gravel resources 

continue to be available for construction 

projects, shore protection, beach 

replenishment, or wetlands restoration 

purposes. 

• Promoting Effective Financial 

Assurance and Risk Management. 

BOEM has the responsibility to ensure 

that lessees and operators on the OCS 

do not engage in activities that could 

generate an undue risk of financial loss 

to the government. BOEM formally 

established a program office to review 

these issues, and issued an advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking seeking 

feedback on potential regulatory 

approaches to promote effective 

financial assurance and risk 

management. Agency staff will continue 

to work with industry and others to 

determine how to improve the 

regulatory regime to better align with 

the realities of aging offshore 

infrastructure, hazard risks, and 

increasing costs of decommissioning. 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement 

BSEE’s mission is to regulate safety, 

emergency preparedness, environmental 

responsibility and appropriate 

development and conservation of 

offshore oil and natural gas resources. 

BSEE’s regulatory priorities are guided 

by the BSEE FY 2012–2015 Strategic 

Plan, which includes two strategic goals 

to focus the Bureau’s priorities in 

fulfillment of its mission: 

• Regulate, enforce, and respond to 

OCS development using the full range of 

authorities, policies, and tools to 

compel safety and environmental 

responsibility and appropriate 

development of offshore oil and natural 

gas resources. 

• Build and sustain the 

organizational, technical, and 

intellectual capacity within and across 

BSEE’s key functions—capacity that 

keeps pace with OCS industry 

technology improvements, innovates in 

regulation and enforcement, and 

reduces risk through systemic 

assessment and regulatory and 

enforcement actions. 

BSEE has identified the following four 

areas of regulatory priorities: (1) Safety; 

(2) Oil Spill Response; (3) Arctic; and 

(4) Managing and Mitigating Risk via 

Improved Technology. Other regulatory 

topics under development include 

decommissioning costs, pipelines, and 

renewable energy. 

• Safety 

BSEE will be requesting comments on 

regulatory options for improving 

aviation safety, crane safety, and safety 

management systems. 

• Oil Spill Response 

BSEE will update regulations for 

offshore oil spill response planning and 

preparedness. This rule will incorporate 

lessons learned from the Deepwater 

Horizon incident, improved 

preparedness capability standards, and 

applicable research findings. 

• Arctic 

BSEE is working with BOEM on a 

joint proposed rule to promote safe, 

responsible, and effective drilling 

activities on the Arctic OCS while 

ensuring protection of the Arctic’s 

communities and marine environment. 

• Managing and Mitigating Risk via 

Improved Technology 

BSEE will develop a proposed rule 

containing requirements on blowout 

preventers and critical reforms in the 

areas of well design, well control, 

casing, cementing, real-time monitoring, 

and subsea containment. This proposed 

rule will address and implement 

multiple recommendations resulting 

from various investigations from the 

Deepwater Horizon incident. 

Additionally, BSEE will finalize 

revisions of its rule on production safety 

systems and life cycle analysis. This 

rule will expand the use of life cycle 

management of critical equipment. The 

rule addresses issues such as subsurface 

safety devices, safety device testing, and 

expands the requirements for operating 

production systems on the OCS. 

Office of Natural Resources Revenue 

ONRR will continue to collect, 

account for, and disburse revenues from 

Federal offshore energy and mineral 

leases and from onshore mineral leases 

on Federal and Indian lands. The 

program operates nationwide and is 

primarily responsible for timely and 

accurate collection, distribution, and 

accounting for revenues associated with 

mineral and energy production. ONRR’s 

regulatory plan is as follows: 

• Simplify valuation regulations 

ONRR plans to simplify the 

regulations at title 30 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 1206 for 

establishing the value for royalty 

purposes of (1) oil and natural gas 

produced from Federal leases; and (2) 

coal produced from Federal and Indian 

leases. Additionally, the proposed rules 

would consolidate sections of the 

regulations common to all minerals, 

such as definitions and instructions 

regarding how a payor should request a 

valuation determination. ONRR 

published Advance Notices of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRMs) to initiate the 

rulemaking process and to obtain input 

from interested parties. 

• Clarify and simplify issuing notices 

of noncompliance and civil penalties 

This rule would amend ONRR civil 

penalty regulations to: (1) Codify 

application of those regulations to solid 

minerals and geothermal leases as the 

Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 

authorizes; (2) adjust Federal Oil and 

Gas Royalty Management Act civil 

penalty amounts for inflation as the 

Federal Civil Penalty Inflation 

Adjustment Act requires; (3) clarify and 

simplify the existing regulations for 

issuing notices of noncompliance and 

civil penalties under 30 CFR part 1241; 

and (4) provide notice that ONRR will 

post its matrices for civil penalty 

assessments on the ONRR Web site. 

• Clarify and simplify distribution 

and disbursement of qualified revenues 

from certain leases under the GOMESA 

ONRR would amend the regulations 

on the distribution and disbursement of 

qualified revenues from certain leases 

on the Gulf of Mexico’s Outer 

Continental Shelf, under the provisions 

of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security 

Act of 2006. These proposed regulations 

set forth the formulas and 

methodologies for calculating and 

allocating revenues during the second 

phase of revenue sharing to: The States 

of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and 

Texas; their eligible Coastal Political 

Subdivisions; the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund; and the United 

States Treasury. Additionally, in this 

proposed rule, the Department of the 

Interior moves the Gulf of Mexico 

Energy Security Act of 2006’s Phase I 

regulations from the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management’s 30 CFR chapter V 

to ONRR’s 30 CFR chapter XII, and 

proposes additional clarification and 

minor definition changes to the current 

revenue-sharing regulations. 

• Clarify and simplify valuation 

regulations for Indian oil leases 

ONRR would ensure that Indian 

lessors receive maximum revenues from 

their mineral resources, as required by 

statute and the Secretary’s trust 

responsibility. The existing rule was 

published in 1988 with some 

amendments published in December 

2007. Changes in the oil markets have 

raised concerns regarding the valuation 

methods for Indian oil. Generally, 

Indian leases have a provision that place 

the value of their oil at the highest price 

paid for a major portion of production 

of like-quality oil from the same field or 

area. Proposed changes that followed 

the 1988 rule were met with 

disagreement from Tribes and industry. 

In 2011, the Secretary convened the 

Indian Oil Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee (Committee), established 

under the Federal Advisory Committee 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76562 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Act, to address the major portion 

provision of the current Indian oil and 

gas rule. The Committee submitted its 

recommendations to ONRR in 

September 2013. Those 

recommendations form the basis of this 

proposed rule. By revising the method 

for valuing oil produced on Indian 

leases, the proposed rule provides 

clarity and certainty to all concerned 

parties while additionally assuring that 

Tribes and allottees receive, in a timely 

fashion, royalties that satisfy the major 

portion provision contained in most 

Indian leases. 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

The Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) 

was created by the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA). Under SMCRA, OSM 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 OSM 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.’’ In response to its 

statutory mandate, OSM has sought to 

develop and maintain a stable 

regulatory program that is safe, costeffective, and environmentally sound. A 

stable regulatory program ensures that 

the coal mining industry has clear 

guidelines for operation and 

reclamation, and that citizens know 

how the program is being implemented. 

OSM’s Federal regulatory program 

sets minimum requirements for 

obtaining a permit for surface and 

underground coal mining operations, 

sets performance standards for those 

operations, requires reclamation of 

lands and waters disturbed by mining, 

and requires enforcement to ensure that 

the standards are met. OSM is the 

primary regulatory authority for SMCRA 

enforcement until a State or Indian tribe 

develops its own regulatory program, 

which is no less effective than the 

Federal program. When a State or Indian 

tribe achieves ‘‘primacy,’’ it assumes 

direct responsibility for permitting, 

inspection, and enforcement activities 

under its federally approved regulatory 

program. The regulatory standards in 

Federal program states and in primacy 

states are essentially the same with only 

minor, non-substantive differences. 

Today, 24 States have primacy, 

including 23 of the 24 coal producing 

States. OSM’s regulatory priorities for 

the coming year will focus on: 

• Stream Protection. 

Protect streams and related 

environmental resources from the 

adverse effects of surface coal mining 

operations. OSM plans to revise its 

regulations to improve the balance 

between environmental protection and 

the Nation’s need for coal by better 

protecting streams from the adverse 

impacts of surface coal mining 

operations. 

• Coal Combustion Residues. 

Establish Federal standards for the 

beneficial use of coal combustion 

residues on active and abandoned coal 

mines. 

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; 

• Restore native aquatic populations 

and nationally significant fisheries; 

• 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-millionacre National Wildlife Refuge System, 

which protects and conserves fish and 

wildlife and their habitats and allows 

the public to engage in outdoor 

recreational activities. 

During the next year, FWS regulatory 

priorities will include: 

Regulations under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA): 

We will issue multiple rules to add 

species to, remove species from, and 

reclassify species on the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants and to designate critical 

habitat for certain listed species, and 

rules to transform the processes for 

listing species and designating critical 

habitat. We will improve the listing 

process by issuing rules to more clearly 

describe areas where listed species are 

protected and revise the process for 

submitting petitions to list, delist, or 

reclassify species. We will further the 

protection of native species and their 

ecosystems through a policy that will 

provide incentives for voluntary 

conservation actions taken for species 

prior to their listing under the ESA. We 

will issue rules to improve the process 

of critical habitat designation, including 

clarifying definitions of ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ and ‘‘destruction or adverse 

modification’’ of critical habitat, and a 

policy to explain how we consider 

various factors in determining 

exclusions to critical habitat under 

section 4(b)(2) of the ESA. 

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 ensure proper administration of the 

MBTA, we will revise our regulations to 

prevent the wanton waste of migratory 

game birds to clarify that the hunting 

public must make reasonable efforts to 

retrieve birds that have been killed or 

injured. We will also revise our 

regulations regarding permits for certain 

take of eagles and eagle nests and 

propose regulations for the use of 

raptors other than eagles for abatement 

(the use of trained raptors to mitigate 

depredation problems caused by birds 

or other wildlife). 

Regulations to administer the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS): 

In carrying out our statutory 

responsibility to provide wildlifedependent recreational opportunities on 

NWRS lands, we issue an annual rule to 

update the hunting and fishing 

regulations on specific refuges. To 

ensure protection of NWRS resources, 

we will issue a proposed rule to ensure 

that businesses conducting oil or gas 

operations on NWRS lands do so in a 

manner that prevents or minimizes 

damage to the lands, visitor values, and 

management objectives. We will also 

issue a policy for managing cultural 

resources (archaeological resources, 

historic and architectural properties, 

and areas or sites of traditional or 

religious significance to Native 

Americans) on NWRS lands. 

Regulations to carry out the Wildlife 

and Sport Fish Restoration (WSFR) Act: 

To strengthen our partnership with 

State conservation organizations, we are 

working on several rules to update and 

clarify our WSFR regulations. States rely 

on FWS to distribute finances, and the 

FWS relies on the States to implement 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76563 

eligible conservation projects. We will 

expand on existing regulations that 

prescribe processes that applicants and 

grantees must follow when applying for 

and managing grants from FWS. Among 

other rules, we will also revise our 

regulations under the Clean Vessel Act 

and Boating Infrastructure Grant 

programs to improve management and 

execution of those programs. 

In accordance with section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 13609 (‘‘Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation’’), 

we will issue the following rulemaking 

actions: 

Regulations to carry out the Convention 

on International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES): 

We will update our CITES regulations 

to incorporate provisions resulting from 

the 16th Conference of the Parties to 

CITES. The revisions will help us more 

effectively promote species conservation 

and help U.S. importers and exporters 

of wildlife products understand how to 

conduct lawful international trade. We 

will also rewrite a substantial portion of 

our regulations for the importation, 

exportation, and transportation of 

wildlife by proposing changes to the 

port structure and inspection fees and 

making the regulations easier to 

understand. 

To help protect African elephants, we 

will revise our regulations regarding 

ivory from African elephants to prohibit 

interstate commerce and export, except 

for antique specimens and certain other 

items. Import of sport-hunted trophies 

would still be allowed, but the number 

of trophies that could be imported by a 

hunter in a given year would be limited. 

Finally, to protect native species and 

prevent the spread of injurious species, 

we will propose regulations to improve 

our process for making injurious 

wildlife determinations for foreign 

species under the Lacey Act to prevent 

the interstate transportation and 

commerce of injurious wildlife. 

National Park Service 

The NPS preserves unimpaired the 

natural and cultural resources and 

values within more than 400 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. NPS also cooperates with 

partners to extend the benefits of natural 

and resource conservation and outdoor 

recreation throughout the United States 

and the world. 

To achieve this mission NPS adheres 

to the following guiding principles: 

• Excellent Service: Providing the 

best possible service to park visitors and 

partners. 

• Productive Partnerships: 

Collaborating with Federal, State, tribal, 

and local governments, private 

organizations, and businesses to work 

toward common goals. 

• Citizen Involvement: Providing 

opportunities for citizens to participate 

in the decisions and actions of the 

National Park Service. 

• Heritage Education: Educating park 

visitors and the general public about 

their history and common heritage. 

• Outstanding Employees: 

Empowering a diverse workforce 

committed to excellence, integrity, and 

quality work. 

• Employee Development: Providing 

developmental opportunities and 

training so employees have the ‘‘tools to 

do the job’’ safely and efficiently. 

• Wise Decisions: Integrating social, 

economic, environmental, and ethical 

considerations into the decision-making 

process. 

• Effective Management: Instilling a 

performance management philosophy 

that fosters creativity, focuses on results, 

and requires accountability at all levels. 

• Research and Technology: 

Incorporating research findings and new 

technologies to improve work practices, 

products, and services. 

NPS regulatory priorities for the 

coming year include: 

• Managing Off-Road Vehicle Use 

Rules for Fire Island National 

Seashore, Lake Meredith National 

Recreation Area, Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area, and Cape Lookout 

National Seashore would allow for 

management of off-road vehicle (ORV) 

use, to protect and preserve natural and 

cultural resources, and provide a variety 

of visitor use experiences while 

minimizing conflicts among user 

groups. Further, the rules would 

designate ORV routes and establish 

operational requirements and 

restrictions. 

• Managing Bicycling 

New rules would authorize and 

manage bicycling at Cuyahoga Valley 

National Park, and Bryce Canyon 

National Park. 

• Implementing the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(1) A new rule would establish a 

process for disposition of Unclaimed 

Human Remains and Funerary Objects 

discovered after November 16, 1990, on 

Federal or Indian Lands. 

(2) A rule revising the existing 

regulations would describe the 

NAGPRA process in plain language, 

eliminate ambiguity, clarify terms, and 

include Native Hawaiians in the 

process. The rule would eliminate 

unnecessary requirements for museums 

and would not add processes or collect 

additional information. 

• Regulating non-Federal oil and gas 

activity on NPS land 

The rule would account for new 

technology and industry practices, 

eliminate regulatory exemptions, update 

new legal requirements, remove caps on 

bond amounts, and allow the NPS to 

recover compliance costs associated 

with administering the regulations. 

• Authorizing and managing service 

animals 

The rule will define and differentiate 

service animals from pets, and will 

describe the circumstances under which 

service animals would be allowed in a 

park area. The rule will ensure NPS 

compliance with Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (28 U.S.C. 

794) and better align NPS regulations 

with the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1211 et seq.) and 

the Department of Justice Service 

Animal regulations of 2011 (28 CFR 

36.104). 

• Preserving and managing 

paleontological resources 

This rule would implement 

provisions of the Paleontological 

Resources Protection Act. The rule 

would preserve, manage, and protect 

paleontological resources on Federal 

lands and ensure that these resources 

are available for current and future 

generations to enjoy as part of America’s 

national heritage. The rule would 

address management, collection, and 

curation of paleontological resources 

from Federal lands using scientific 

principles and expertise. Provisions of 

the rule will ensure that resources are 

collected in accordance with permits 

and curated in an approved repository. 

The rule would also protect confidential 

locality data, and authorize penalties for 

illegally collecting, damaging, altering, 

defacing, or selling paleontological 

resources. 

• Collecting plants for traditional 

cultural practices 

The rule would propose authorizing 

Park Superintendents to enter into 

agreements with federally recognized 

tribes to permit tribal members to 

collect limited quantities of plant 

resources in parks to be used for 

traditional cultural practices and 

activities. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76564 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

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. 

Our regulatory program focus in fiscal 

year 2015 is to publish a proposed 

minor amendment to 43 CFR part 429 to 

bring it into compliance with the 

requirements of the recently published 

final rule, 43 CFR part 5, Commercial 

Filming and Similar Projects and Still 

Photography on Certain Areas under 

Department Jurisdiction. Publishing this 

rule will 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. 

BILLING CODE 4310–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)— 

FALL 2014 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

The mission of the Department of 

Justice is to enforce the law and defend 

the interests of the United States 

according to the law, to ensure public 

safety against foreign and domestic 

threats, to provide Federal leadership in 

preventing and controlling crime, to 

seek just punishment for those guilty of 

unlawful behavior, and to ensure the 

fair and impartial administration of 

justice for all Americans. In carrying out 

its mission, the Department is guided by 

four core values: (1) Equal justice under 

the law; (2) honesty and integrity; (3) 

commitment to excellence; and (4) 

respect for the worth and dignity of each 

human being. The Department of Justice 

is primarily a law enforcement agency, 

not a regulatory agency; it carries out its 

principal investigative, prosecutorial, 

and other enforcement activities 

through means other than the regulatory 

process. 

The regulatory priorities of the 

Department include initiatives in the 

areas of civil rights, criminal law 

enforcement and immigration. 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. 

Civil Rights Division 

The Department is including five 

disability nondiscrimination rulemaking 

initiatives in its Regulatory Plan: (1) 

Implementation of the ADA 

Amendments Act of 2008 in the ADA 

regulations (titles II and III); (2) 

Implementation of the ADA 

Amendments Act of 2008 in the 

Department’s section 504 regulations; 

(3) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability by Public Accommodations: 

Movie Captioning and Audio 

Description; (4) Accessibility of Web 

Information and Services of State and 

Local Governments; and (5) 

Accessibility of Web Information and 

Services of Public Accommodations. 

The Department’s other disability 

nondiscrimination rulemaking 

initiatives, while important priorities for 

the Department’s rulemaking agenda, 

will be included in the Department’s 

long-term actions for fiscal year 2016. 

As will be discussed more fully below, 

these initiatives include: (1) 

Accessibility of Medical Equipment and 

Furniture; (2) Accessibility of Beds in 

Guestrooms with Mobility Features in 

Places of Lodging; (3) Next Generation 

9–1–1 Services; and (4) Accessibility of 

Equipment and Furniture. The 

Department will also be revising its 

regulations for Coordination of 

Enforcement of Non-Discrimination in 

Federally Assisted Programs, as well as 

revising regulations implementing 

section 274B of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act. 

ADA Amendments Act. In September 

2008, Congress passed the ADA 

Amendments Act, which revises the 

definition of ‘‘disability’’ to more 

broadly encompass impairments that 

substantially limit a major life activity. 

On January 30, 2014, the Department 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing 

amendments to both its title II and title 

III ADA regulations in order to 

incorporate the statutory changes set 

forth in the ADA Amendments Act. The 

comment period closed on March 31, 

2014. The Department expects to 

publish a final rule incorporating these 

changes into the ADA implementing 

regulations in the second quarter of 

fiscal year 2015. The Department also 

plans to propose amendments to its 

section 504 regulations to implement 

the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 in 

the third quarter of fiscal year 2015. 

Captioning and Audio Description in 

Movie Theaters. Title III of the ADA 

requires public accommodations to take 

‘‘such steps as may be necessary to 

ensure that no individual with a 

disability is treated differently because 

of the absence of auxiliary aids and 

services, unless the covered entity can 

demonstrate that taking such steps 

would cause a fundamental alteration or 

would result in an undue burden.’’ 42 

U.S.C. 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). Both open 

and closed captioning and audio 

recordings are examples of auxiliary 

aids and services that should be 

provided by places of public 

accommodations, 28 CFR 36.303(b)(1)– 

(2). The Department stated in the 

preamble to its 1991 rule that ‘‘[m]ovie 

theaters are not required . . . to present 

open-captioned films,’’ 28 CFR part 36, 

app. C (2011), but it did not address 

closed captioning and audio description 

in movie theaters. In the movie theater 

context, ‘‘closed captioning’’ refers to 

captions that only the patron requesting 

the closed captions can see because the 

captions are delivered to the patron at 

or near the patron’s seat. Audio 

description is a technology that enables 

individuals who are blind or have low 

vision to enjoy movies by providing a 

spoken narration of key visual elements 

of a visually delivered medium, such as 

actions, settings, facial expressions, 

costumes, and scene changes. 

Since 1991, there have been many 

technological advances in the area of 

closed captioning and audio description 

for first-run movies. In June 2008, the 

Department issued an NPRM to revise 

the ADA title III regulation, 73 FR 

34466, in which the Department stated 

that it was considering options for 

requiring that movie theater owners or 

operators exhibit movies that are 

captioned or that provide video 

(narrative) description. The Department 

issued an ANPRM on July 26, 2010, to 

obtain more information regarding 

issues raised by commenters; to seek 

comment on technical questions that 

arose from the Department’s research; 

and to learn more about the status of 

digital conversion. In addition, the 

Department sought information 

regarding whether other technologies or 

areas of interest (e.g., 3D) have 

developed or are in the process of 

development that would either replace 

or augment digital cinema or make any 

regulatory requirements for captioning 

and audio description more difficult or 

expensive to implement. The 

Department received approximately 

1171 public comments in response to its 

movie captioning and video description 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76565 

ANPRM. On August 1, 2014, the 

Department published its NPRM 

proposing to revise the ADA title III 

regulation to require movie theaters to 

have the capability to exhibit movies 

with closed movie captioning and audio 

description (which was described in the 

ANPRM as video description) for all 

showings of movies that are available 

with closed movie captioning or audio 

description, to require theaters to 

provide notice to the public about the 

availability of these services, and to 

ensure that theaters have staff available 

who can provide information to patrons 

about the use of these services. In 

response to a request for an extension of 

the public comment period, the 

Department has issued a notice 

extending the comment period for 60 

days until December 1, 2014. 

Web site Accessibility. The Internet as 

it is known today did not exist when 

Congress enacted the ADA, yet today 

the World Wide Web plays a critical 

role in the daily personal, professional, 

civic, and business life of Americans. 

The ADA’s expansive 

nondiscrimination mandate reaches 

goods and services provided by public 

accommodations and public entities 

using Internet Web sites. Being unable 

to access Web sites puts individuals at 

a great disadvantage in today’s society, 

which is driven by a dynamic electronic 

marketplace and unprecedented access 

to information. On the economic front, 

electronic commerce, or ‘‘e-commerce,’’ 

often offers consumers a wider selection 

and lower prices than traditional, 

‘‘brick-and-mortar’’ storefronts, with the 

added convenience of not having to 

leave one’s home to obtain goods and 

services. For individuals with 

disabilities who experience barriers to 

their ability to travel or to leave their 

homes, the Internet may be their only 

way to access certain goods and 

services. Beyond goods and services, 

information available on the Internet 

has become a gateway to education, 

socializing, and entertainment. 

The Internet is also dramatically 

changing the way that governmental 

entities serve the public. Public entities 

are increasingly providing their 

constituents access to government 

services and programs through their 

Web sites. Through Government Web 

sites, the public can obtain information 

or correspond with local officials 

without having to wait in line or be 

placed on hold. They can also pay fines, 

apply for benefits, renew State-issued 

identification, register to vote, file taxes, 

request copies of vital records, and 

complete numerous other everyday 

tasks. The availability of these services 

and information online not only makes 

life easier for the public but also often 

enables governmental entities to operate 

more efficiently and at a lower cost. 

The ADA’s promise to provide an 

equal opportunity for individuals with 

disabilities to participate in and benefit 

from all aspects of American civic and 

economic life will be achieved in 

today’s technologically advanced 

society only if it is clear to State and 

local governments, businesses, 

educators, and other public 

accommodations that their Web sites 

must be accessible. Consequently, the 

Department is considering amending its 

regulations implementing title II and 

title III of the ADA to require public 

entities and public accommodations 

that provide products or services to the 

public through Internet Web sites to 

make their sites accessible to and usable 

by individuals with disabilities. 

In particular, the Department’s 

ANPRM on Web site accessibility 

sought public comment regarding what 

standards, if any, it should adopt for 

Web site accessibility, whether the 

Department should adopt coverage 

limitations for certain entities, like 

small businesses, and what resources 

and services are available to make 

existing Web sites accessible to 

individuals with disabilities. The 

Department also solicited comments on 

the costs of making Web sites accessible 

and on the existence of any other 

effective and reasonably feasible 

alternatives to making Web sites 

accessible. The Department received 

approximately 440 public comments 

and is in the process of reviewing these 

comments. The Department will be 

publishing separate NPRMs addressing 

Web site accessibility pursuant to titles 

II and III of the ADA. On July 9, 2014, 

the Department submitted its title II 

Web site Accessibility NPRM to OMB 

for E.O. 12866 review with a goal of 

publishing the NPRM before the end of 

the 2014 calendar year. The Department 

plans to follow with the publication of 

the title III NPRM in the third quarter of 

fiscal year 2015. 

The final rulemaking initiatives from 

the 2010 ANPRMs are included in the 

Department’s long-term priorities 

projected for fiscal year 2016: 

Next Generation 9–1–1. This ANPRM 

sought information on possible 

revisions to the Department’s regulation 

to ensure direct access to Next 

Generation 9–1–1 (NG 9–1–1) services 

for individuals with disabilities. In 

1991, the Department of Justice 

published a regulation to implement 

title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). That 

regulation requires public safety 

answering points (PSAPs) to provide 

direct access to persons with disabilities 

who use analog telecommunication 

devices for the deaf (TTYs), 28 CFR 

35.162. Since that rule was published, 

there have been major changes in the 

types of communications technology 

used by the general public and by 

people who have disabilities that affect 

their hearing or speech. Many 

individuals with disabilities now use 

the Internet and wireless text devices as 

their primary modes of 

telecommunications. At the same time, 

PSAPs are planning to shift from analog 

telecommunications technology to new 

Internet-Protocol (IP)-enabled NG 9–1–1 

services that will provide voice and data 

(such as text, pictures, and video) 

capabilities. As PSAPs transition from 

the analog systems to the new 

technologies, it is essential that people 

with communication disabilities be able 

to use the new systems. Therefore, the 

Department published this ANPRM to 

begin to develop appropriate regulatory 

guidance for PSAPs that are making this 

transition. The Department is in the 

process of completing its review of the 

approximately 146 public comments it 

received in response to its NG 9–1–1 

ANPRM and expects to publish an 

NPRM addressing accessibility of NG 9– 

1–1 in the first quarter of fiscal year 

2016. 

Equipment and Furniture. Both title II 

and title III of the ADA require covered 

entities to make reasonable 

modifications in their programs or 

services to facilitate participation by 

persons with disabilities. In addition, 

covered entities are required to ensure 

that people are not excluded from 

participation because facilities are 

inaccessible or because the entity has 

failed to provide auxiliary aids. The use 

of accessible equipment and furniture is 

often critical to an entity’s ability to 

provide a person with a disability equal 

access to its services. Changes in 

technology have resulted in the 

development and improved availability 

of accessible equipment and furniture 

that benefit individuals with 

disabilities. The 2010 ADA Standards 

include accessibility requirements for 

some types of fixed equipment (e.g., 

ATMs, washing machines, dryers, 

tables, benches and vending machines) 

and the Department plans to look to 

these standards for guidance, where 

applicable, when it proposes 

accessibility standards for equipment 

and furniture that is not fixed. The 

ANPRM sought information about other 

categories of equipment, including beds 

in accessible guest rooms, and medical 

equipment and furniture. The 

Department received approximately 420 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76566 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

comments in response to its ANPRM 

and is in the process of reviewing these 

comments. The Department plans to 

publish in early fiscal year 2016 a 

separate NPRM pursuant to title III of 

the ADA on beds in accessible guest 

rooms and a more detailed ANPRM 

pursuant to titles II and III of the ADA 

that focuses solely on accessible 

medical equipment and furniture. The 

remaining items of equipment and 

furniture addressed in the 2010 ANPRM 

will be the subject of an NPRM that the 

Department anticipates publishing in 

mid-fiscal year 2016. 

Coordination of Enforcement of NonDiscrimination in Federally Assisted 

Programs. In addition, the Department 

is planning to revise the co-ordination 

regulations implementing title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act, which have not been 

updated in over 30 years. Among other 

things, the updates will revise outdated 

provisions, streamline procedural steps, 

streamline and clarify provisions 

regarding information and data 

collection, promote opportunities to 

encourage public engagement, and 

incorporate current law regarding 

meaningful access for individuals who 

are limited English proficient. 

Implementation of Section 247B of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

The Department also proposes to revise 

regulations implementing section 274B 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

The proposed revisions are appropriate 

to conform the regulations to the 

statutory text as amended, simplify and 

add definitions of statutory terms, 

update and clarify the procedures for 

filing and processing charges of 

discrimination, ensure effective 

investigations of unfair immigrationrelated employment practices, and 

update outdated references. The 

regulations will also be revised to reflect 

the new name of the office within the 

Department charged with enforcing this 

statute. 

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 to, among other 

objectives, curb illegal traffic in, and 

criminal use of, firearms and explosives, 

and to assist State, local, and other 

Federal law enforcement agencies in 

reducing crime and violence. The 

Department is including one rulemaking 

initiative from ATF in its Regulatory 

Plan. The Department is planning to 

finalize a proposed rule to amend ATF’s 

regulations regarding the making or 

transferring of a firearm under the 

National Firearms Act. As proposed, 

this rule would (1) add a definition for 

the term ‘‘responsible person’’; (2) 

require each responsible person of a 

corporation, trust or legal entity to 

complete a specified form, and to 

submit photographs and fingerprints; 

and (3) modify the requirements 

regarding the certificate of the chief law 

enforcement officer. 

ATF will continue, as a priority 

during fiscal year 2014, to seek 

modifications to its regulations 

governing commerce in firearms and 

explosives. ATF plans to issue 

regulations to finalize the current 

interim rules implementing the 

provisions of the Safe Explosives Act, 

title XI, subtitle C, of Public Law 107– 

296, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

(enacted Nov. 25, 2002). ATF also has 

begun a rulemaking process that will 

lead to promulgation of a revised set of 

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. 

In addition, ATF also has several other 

rulemaking initiatives as part of the 

Department’s rulemaking agenda. 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13563 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review,’’ ATF has published a final rule 

to amend existing regulations and 

extend the term of import permits for 

firearms, ammunition, and defense 

articles from 1 year to 2 years. The 

additional time will allow importers 

sufficient time to complete the 

importation of an authorized 

commodity before the permit expires 

and eliminate the need for importers to 

submit new and duplicative import 

applications. ATF believes that 

extending the term of import permits 

will result in substantial cost and time 

savings for both ATF and industry. 

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, and 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. DEA promulgates the CSA 

implementing regulations in title 21 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

parts 1300 to 1321. 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 2015, in addition to initiating 

temporary scheduling actions to prevent 

imminent hazard to the public safety, 

DEA will also consider petitions to 

control or reschedule various 

substances. Among other regulatory 

reviews and initiatives, the DEA will 

initiate the notice of proposed 

rulemaking titled, ‘‘Transporting 

Controlled Substances Away from 

Principal Places of Business or Principal 

Places of Professional Practice on an As 

Needed and Random Basis.’’ In this 

rule, the DEA proposes to amend its 

regulations governing the registration, 

security, reporting, recordkeeping, and 

ordering requirements in circumstances 

where practitioners transport controlled 

substances for dispensing to patients on 

an as needed and random basis. Lastly, 

the DEA will finalize its Interim Final 

Rule for Electronic Prescriptions for 

Controlled Substances. By this final 

rule, the DEA would finalize its 

regulations to clarify: (1) the criteria by 

which DEA-registered practitioners may 

electronically issue controlled substance 

prescriptions; and (2) the criteria by 

which DEA-registered pharmacies may 

receive and archive these electronic 

prescriptions. 

Bureau of Prisons 

The Federal Bureau of Prisons issues 

regulations to enforce the Federal laws 

relating to its mission: to protect 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, in addition to other 

regulatory objectives aimed at 

accomplishing its mission, the Bureau 

will continue its ongoing efforts to: 

streamline regulations, eliminating 

unnecessary language and improving 

readability; improve disciplinary 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76567 

procedures through a revision of the 

subpart relating to the disciplinary 

process; reduce the introduction of 

contraband through various means, such 

as clarifying drug and alcohol 

surveillance testing programs; protect 

the public from continuing criminal 

activity committed within prison; and 

enhance the Bureau’s ability to more 

closely monitor the communications of 

high-risk inmates. 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review (EOIR) 

On March 1, 2003, pursuant to the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), 

the responsibility for immigration 

enforcement and border security and for 

providing immigration-related services 

and benefits, such as naturalization, 

immigrant petitions, and work 

authorization, was transferred from the 

Justice Department’s former 

Immigration and Naturalization Service 

(INS) to the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS). However, the 

immigration judges and the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (Board) in EOIR 

remain part of the Department of Justice. 

The immigration judges adjudicate 

approximately 400,000 cases each year 

to determine whether aliens should be 

ordered removed from the United States 

or should be granted some form of relief 

from removal. The Board has 

jurisdiction over appeals from the 

decisions of immigration judges, as well 

as other matters. Accordingly, the 

Attorney General has a continuing role 

in the conducting of removal hearings, 

the granting of relief from removal, 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 removal proceedings in order 

to improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the hearings, including, 

but not limited to: a joint regulation 

with DHS to provide guidance on a 

number of issues central to the 

adjudication of applications for asylum 

and withholding of removal; a joint 

regulation with DHS to provide, with 

respect to applicants who are found to 

have engaged in persecution of others, 

a limited exception for actions taken by 

the applicant under duress; a joint 

regulation with DHS to implement 

procedures that address the specialized 

needs of unaccompanied alien children 

in removal proceedings pursuant to the 

William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims 

Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008; 

a proposed regulation to establish 

procedures for the filing and 

adjudication of motions to reopen 

removal, deportation, and exclusion 

proceedings based upon a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel; and a 

proposed regulation to improve the 

recognition and accreditation process 

for organizations and representatives 

that appear in immigration proceedings 

before EOIR. Finally, in response to 

Executive Order 13653, the Department 

is retrospectively reviewing EOIR’s 

regulations to eliminate regulations that 

unnecessarily duplicate DHS’s 

regulations and update outdated 

references to the pre-2002 immigration 

system. 

Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive 

Order 13563 ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review’’ (Jan. 18, 2011), the 

following Regulatory Identifier Numbers 

(RINs) have been identified as 

associated with retrospective review 

and analysis in the Department’s final 

retrospective review of regulations plan. 

Some of these entries on this list may 

be completed actions, which do not 

appear in The Regulatory Plan. 

However, more information can be 

found about these completed 

rulemakings in past publications of the 

Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the 

Completed Actions section for that 

agency. These rulemakings can also be 

found on Regulations.gov. The final 

Justice Department plan can be found at: 

http://www.justice.gov/open/doj-rrfinal-plan.pdf 

RIN Title Description 

1140–AA40 ......................... Rules of Practice in Explosives License and Permit Proceedings.ATF has begun a rulemaking process that will lead to promulgation of a 

revised set of regulations governing the procedure and practice for disapproval of applications for explosives licenses or permits. This new set 

of regulations, 27 C.F.R. part 771 will replace the regulations previously 

codified at 27 C.F.R. part 71 (2002), many of which are outmoded and 

need to be revised. 

1125–AA71 ......................... Retrospective Regulatory Review 

Under E.O. 13563 of 8 CFR Parts 

1003, 1103, 1211, 1212, 1215, 

1216, 1235.

Advance notice of future rulemaking concerning appeals of DHS decisions 

(8 C.F.R. part 1103), documentary requirements for aliens (8 C.F.R. 

parts 1211 and 1212), control of aliens departing from the United States 

(8 C.F.R. part 1215), procedures governing conditional permanent resident status (8 C.F.R. part 1216), and inspection of individuals applying 

for admission to the United States (8 C.F.R. part 1235). A number of attorneys, firms, and organizations in immigration practice are small entities. EOIR believes this rule will improve the efficiency and fairness of 

adjudications before EOIR by, for example, eliminating duplication, ensuring consistency with the Department of Homeland Security’s regulations in chapter I of title 8 of the CFR, and delineating more clearly the 

authority and jurisdiction of each agency. 

1125–AA78 ......................... Separate Representation for Custody 

and Bond Proceedings.

This rule proposes to amend the Executive Office for Immigration Review 

(EOIR) regulations relating to the representation of aliens in custody and 

bond proceedings. Specifically, this rule proposes to allow a representative to enter an appearance in custody and bond proceedings before 

EOIR without committing to appear on behalf of the alien for all proceedings before the Immigration Court. 

1117–NYD ........................... Implementation of the International 

Trade Data System.

DEA is continuing to consider possible changes to its existing regulations 

(e.g., 21 CFR 1312.14, 1312.24) to take account of the submission of 

import and export permits to U.S. Customs and Border Protection in 

electronic form. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76568 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Executive Order 13609—Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

The Department is not currently 

engaged in international regulatory 

cooperation activities that are 

reasonably anticipated to lead to 

significant regulations. 

Executive Order 13659 

Executive Order 13659, ‘‘Streamlining 

the Export/Import Process for America’s 

Businesses,’’ provided new directives 

for agencies to improve the 

technologies, policies, and other 

controls governing the movement of 

goods across our national borders. This 

includes additional steps to implement 

the International Trade Data System as 

an electronic information exchange 

capability, or ‘‘single window,’’ through 

which businesses will transmit data 

required by participating agencies for 

the importation or exportation of cargo. 

At the Department of Justice, 

stakeholders must obtain pre-import 

and pre-export authorizations from the 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA) (relating to controlled substances 

and listed chemicals), or from the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives (ATF) (relating to 

firearms, ammunition, and explosives). 

The ITDS ‘‘single window’’ will work in 

conjunction with these pre-import and 

pre-export authorizations. 

Pursuant to section 6 of E.O. 13659, 

DEA and ATF have consulted with CBP 

and are continuing to study whether 

some modifications or technical changes 

to their existing regulations are needed 

to achieve the goals of E.O. 13659. 

DOJ—CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION (CRT) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

91. Implementation of the ADA 

Amendments Act of 2008 (Section 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110–325; 29 

U.S.C. 794 (sec 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, as amended); E.O. 12250 

(45 FR 72955; 11/04/1980) 

CFR Citation: 28 CFR 39; 28 CFR 41; 

28 CFR 42, subpart G. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: 

This rule would propose to amend the 

Department’s regulations implementing 

section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, as amended, 28 CFR part 39 and 

part 42, subpart G, and its regulation 

implementing Executive Order 12250, 

28 CFR part 41, to reflect statutory 

amendments to the definition of 

disability applicable to section 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act, which were 

enacted in the ADA Amendments Act of 

2008, Public Law 110–325, 122 Stat. 

3553 (Sep. 25, 2008). The ADA 

Amendments Act took effect on January 

1, 2009. 

The ADA Amendments Act revised 29 

U.S.C. 705, to make the definition of 

disability used in the nondiscrimination 

provisions in title V of the 

Rehabilitation Act consistent with the 

amended ADA requirements. These 

amendments (1) add illustrative lists of 

‘‘major life activities,’’ including ‘‘major 

bodily functions,’’ that provide more 

examples of covered activities and 

covered conditions than are now 

contained in agency regulations (sec. 

3[2]); (2) clarify that a person who is 

‘‘regarded as’’ having a disability does 

not have to be regarded as being 

substantially limited in a major life 

activity (sec. 3[3]); and (3) add rules of 

construction regarding the definition of 

disability that provide guidance in 

applying the term ‘‘substantially limits’’ 

and prohibit consideration of mitigating 

measures in determining whether a 

person has a disability (sec. 3[4]). 

The Department anticipates that these 

changes will be published for comment 

in a proposed rule within the next 12 

months. During the drafting of these 

revisions, the Department will also 

review the currently published rules to 

ensure that any other legal requirements 

under the Rehabilitation Act have been 

properly addressed in these regulations. 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

necessary to bring the Department’s 

prior section 504 regulations into 

compliance with the ADA Amendments 

Act of 2008, which became effective on 

January 1, 2009. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

summary of the legal basis of authority 

for this regulation is set forth above in 

the abstract. 

Alternatives: Because this NPRM 

implements statutory changes to the 

section 504 definition of disability, 

there are no appropriate alternatives to 

issuing this NPRM. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Department’s preliminary assessment in 

this early stage of the rulemaking 

process is that this rule will not be 

‘‘economically significant,’’ that is, that 

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’s section 

504 rule will incorporate the same 

changes made by the ADA Amendments 

Act to the definition of disability as are 

included in the proposed changes to the 

ADA title II and title III rules (1190– 

AA59), which will be published in the 

Federal Register in the near future. 

Therefore, we do not believe that the 

revisions to the Department’s existing 

section 504 federally assisted 

regulations will have any additional 

economic impact, because public and 

private entities that receive federal 

financial assistance from the 

Department are also likely to be subject 

to titles II or III of the ADA. The 

Department expects to consider further 

the economic impact of the proposed 

rule on the Department’s existing 

section 504 federally conducted 

regulations, but anticipates that the rule 

will not be economically significant 

within the meaning of Executive Order 

12866. This is because the revisions to 

these regulations will only apply to the 

Department’s programs and activities 

and how those programs and activities 

are operated so as to ensure compliance 

with the nondiscrimination 

requirements of section 504. In the 

NPRM, the Department will be soliciting 

public comment in response to its initial 

assessment of the impact of the 

proposed rule. 

Risks: Failure to update the 

Department’s section 504 regulations to 

conform to statutory changes will 

interfere with the Department’s 

enforcement efforts and lead to 

confusion about the law’s requirements 

among entities that receive Federal 

financial assistance from the 

Department or who participate in its 

federally conducted programs. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, 

Chief, Department of Justice, Civil 

Rights Division, Disability Rights 

Section, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514– 

0301. 

RIN: 1190–AA60 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76569 

DOJ—CRT 

92. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability; Accessibility of Web 

Information and Services of Public 

Accommodations 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101, et 

seq. 

CFR Citation: 28 CFR 36. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Justice is 

considering proposed revisions to the 

regulation implementing title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

in order to address the obligations of 

public accommodations to make goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, 

accommodations, or advantages they 

offer via the Internet, specifically at sites 

on the World Wide Web (Web), 

accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. The ADA requires that 

public accommodations provide 

individuals with disabilities with full 

and equal enjoyment of their goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages, and accommodations. 42. 

U.S.C. 12182. The Internet as it is 

known today did not exist when 

Congress enacted the ADA. Today the 

Internet, most notably the sites on the 

Web, plays a critical role in the daily 

personal, professional, and business life 

of most Americans. Increasingly, private 

entities of all types are providing goods 

and services to the public through Web 

sites that operate as places of public 

accommodation under title III of the 

ADA. Many Web sites of public 

accommodations, however, render use 

by individuals with disabilities difficult 

or impossible due to barriers posed by 

Web sites designed without accessible 

features. Being unable to access Web 

sites puts individuals with disabilities 

at a great disadvantage in today’s 

society, which is driven by a global 

marketplace and unprecedented access 

to information. On the economic front, 

electronic commerce, or ‘‘e-commerce,’’ 

often offers consumers a wider selection 

and lower prices than traditional ‘‘brickand-mortar’’ storefronts, with the added 

convenience of not having to leave one’s 

home to obtain goods and services. 

Beyond goods and services, information 

available on the Internet has become a 

gateway to education. Schools at all 

levels are increasingly offering programs 

and classroom instruction through Web 

sites. Many colleges and universities 

offer degree programs online; some 

universities exist exclusively on the 

Internet. The Internet also is changing 

the way individuals socialize and seek 

entertainment. Social networks and 

other online meeting places provide a 

unique way for individuals to meet and 

fraternize. These networks allow 

individuals to meet others with similar 

interests and connect with friends, 

business colleagues, elected officials, 

and businesses. They also provide an 

effective networking opportunity for 

entrepreneurs, artists, and others 

seeking to put their skills and talents to 

use. Web sites also bring a myriad of 

entertainment and information options 

for Internet users-from games and music 

to news and videos. The ADA’s promise 

to provide an equal opportunity for 

individuals with disabilities to 

participate in and benefit from all 

aspects of American civic and economic 

life will be achieved in today’s 

technologically advanced society only if 

it is clear to businesses, educators, and 

other public accommodations, that their 

Web sites must be accessible. 

Consequently, the Department is 

proposing to amend its title III 

regulation to expressly address the 

obligations of public accommodations to 

make the Web sites they use to provide 

their goods and services to the public 

accessible to and usable by individuals 

with disabilities under the legal 

framework established by the ADA. The 

proposed regulation will propose the 

scope of the obligation to provide 

accessibility when persons with 

disabilities attempt to access Web sites 

of public accommodations, as well as 

propose the technical standards 

necessary to comply with the ADA. 

Statement of Need: Many people with 

disabilities use ‘‘assistive technology’’ to 

enable them to use computers and 

access the Internet. Individuals who are 

blind or have low vision who cannot see 

computer monitors may use screen 

readers—devices that speak the text that 

would normally appear on a monitor. 

People who have difficulty using a 

computer mouse can use voice 

recognition software to control their 

computers with verbal commands. 

People with other types of disabilities 

may use still other kinds of assistive 

technology. New and innovative 

assistive technologies are being 

introduced every day. Web sites that do 

not accommodate assistive technology, 

for example, can create unnecessary 

barriers for people with disabilities, just 

as buildings not designed to 

accommodate individuals with 

disabilities can prevent some 

individuals from entering and accessing 

services. Web designers may not realize 

how simple features built into a Web 

site will assist someone who, for 

instance, cannot see a computer monitor 

or use a mouse. In addition, in many 

cases, these Web sites do not provide 

captioning for videos or live events 

streamed over the Web, leaving persons 

who are deaf or hard of hearing unable 

to access the information that is being 

provided. Although the Department has 

been clear that the ADA applies to Web 

sites of private entities that meet the 

definition of ‘‘public accommodations,’’ 

inconsistent court decisions, differing 

standards for determining Web 

accessibility, and repeated calls for 

Department action indicate remaining 

uncertainty regarding the applicability 

of the ADA to Web sites of entities 

covered by title III. For these reasons, 

the Department plans to propose 

amendments to its regulation so as to 

make clear to entities covered by the 

ADA their obligations to make their 

Web sites accessible. Despite the need 

for action, the Department appreciates 

the need to move forward deliberatively. 

Any regulations the Department adopts 

must provide specific guidance to help 

ensure Web access to individuals with 

disabilities without hampering 

innovation and technological 

advancement on the Web. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The ADA 

requires that public accommodations 

provide individuals with disabilities 

with full and equal enjoyment of their 

goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages, and accommodations. 42. 

U.S.C. 12182. Increasingly, private 

entities of all types are providing goods 

and services to the public through Web 

sites that operate as places of public 

accommodation under title III of the 

ADA. 

Alternatives: The Department intends 

to consider various alternatives for 

ensuring full access to Web sites of 

public accommodations, including 

alternative implementation schedules 

and technical requirements applicable 

to certain Web features or based on a 

covered entity’s size. The Department 

will solicit public comment addressing 

its proposed alternatives. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Department anticipates that this rule 

will be ‘‘economically significant.’’ The 

Department believes that revising its 

title III rule to clarify the obligations of 

public accommodations to provide 

accessible Web sites will significantly 

increase the opportunities of 

individuals with disabilities to access 

the variety of goods and services public 

accommodations offer on the Web, 

while increasing the number of 

customers that access the Web sites to 

procure the goods and services offered 

by these public accommodations. In 

drafting this NPRM, the Department will 

attempt to minimize the compliance 

costs to public accommodations, while 

ensuring the benefits of compliance to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76570 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

persons with disabilities. At this stage 

in the process, the Department is not yet 

able to provide a preliminary estimate of 

costs and benefits. 

Risks: If the Department does not 

revise its ADA title III regulations to 

address Web site accessibility, persons 

with disabilities will continue to be 

unable to access the many goods and 

services of public accommodations 

available on the Web to individuals 

without disabilities. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 07/26/10 75 FR 43460 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/24/11 

NPRM .................. 06/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: See also RIN 

1190–AA65 which was split from this 

RIN of 1190–AA61. 

Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, 

Chief, Department of Justice, Civil 

Rights Division, Disability Rights 

Section, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514– 

0301. 

RIN: 1190–AA61 

DOJ—CRT 

93. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability; Movie Captioning and Audio 

Description 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101, et 

seq. 

CFR Citation: 28 CFR 36. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Following its advance notice 

of proposed rulemaking published on 

July 26, 2010, the Department plans to 

publish a proposed rule addressing the 

requirements for captioning and video 

description of movies exhibited in 

movie theatres under title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

(ADA). Title III prohibits discrimination 

on the basis of disability in the activities 

of places of public accommodation 

(private entities whose operations affect 

commerce and that fall into one of 

twelve categories listed in the ADA). 42 

U.S.C. 12181–12189. Title III makes it 

unlawful for places of public 

accommodation, such as movie theaters, 

to discriminate against individuals with 

disabilities in the full and equal 

enjoyment of the goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages, or 

accommodations of a place of public 

accommodation (42 U.S.C. 12182[a]). 

Moreover, title III prohibits places of 

public accommodation from affording 

an unequal or lesser service to 

individuals or classes of individuals 

with disabilities than is offered to other 

individuals (42 U.S.C. 

12182(b)(1)(A)(ii)). Title III requires 

places of public accommodation to take 

‘‘such steps as may be necessary to 

ensure that no individual with a 

disability is excluded, denied services, 

segregated or otherwise treated 

differently because of the absence of 

auxiliary aids and services, such as 

captioning and video description, 

unless the entity can demonstrate that 

taking such steps would fundamentally 

alter the nature of the good, service, 

facility, privilege, advantage, or 

accommodation being offered or would 

result in an undue burden,’’ (42 U.S.C. 

12182(b)(2)(A)(iii)). 

Statement of Need: A significant-and 

increasing-proportion of Americans 

have hearing or vision disabilities that 

prevent them from fully and effectively 

understanding movies without 

captioning or audio description. For 

persons with hearing and vision 

disabilities, the unavailability of 

captioned or audio-described movies 

inhibits their ability to socialize and 

fully take part in family outings and 

deprives them of the opportunity to 

meaningfully participate in an 

important aspect of American culture. 

Many individuals with hearing or vision 

disabilities who commented on the 

Department’s 2010 ANPRM remarked 

that they have not been able to enjoy a 

commercial movie unless they watched 

it on TV, or that when they took their 

children to the movies they could not 

understand what they were seeing or 

discuss what was happening with their 

children. Today, more and more movies 

are produced with captions and audio 

description. However, despite the 

underlying ADA obligation, the 

advancement of digital technology and 

the availability of captioned and audiodescribed films, many movie theaters 

are still not exhibiting captioned or 

audio-described movies, and when they 

do exhibit them, they are only for a few 

showings of a movie, and usually at offtimes. Recently, a number of theater 

companies have committed to provide 

greater availability of captioning and 

audio description. In some cases, these 

have been nationwide commitments; in 

other cases it has only been in a 

particular State or locality. A uniform 

Federal ADA requirement for captioning 

and audio description is necessary to 

ensure that access to movies for persons 

with hearing and vision disabilities is 

not dictated by the individual’s 

residence or the presence of litigation in 

their locality. In addition, the movie 

theater industry is in the process of 

converting its movie screens to use 

digital technology, and the Department 

believes that it will be extremely helpful 

to provide timely guidance on the ADA 

requirements for captioning and audio 

description so that the industry may 

factor this into its conversion efforts and 

minimize costs. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

summary of the legal basis of authority 

for this regulation is set forth above in 

the abstract. 

Alternatives: The Department will 

consider any public comments that 

propose achievable alternatives that will 

still accomplish the goal of providing 

access to movies for persons with 

hearing and vision disabilities. 

However, the Department believes that 

the baseline alternative of not providing 

such access would be inconsistent with 

the provisions of title III of the ADA. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Department’s preliminary analysis 

indicates that the proposed rule would 

not be ‘‘economically significant,’’ that 

is, that 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. In the NPRM, the 

Department will be soliciting public 

comment in response to its preliminary 

analysis regarding the costs imposed by 

the rule. 

Risks: Without the proposed changes 

to the Department’s title III regulation, 

persons with hearing and vision 

disabilities will continue to be denied 

access to movies shown in movie 

theaters and movie theater owners and 

operators will not understand what they 

are required to do in order to provide 

auxiliary aids and services to patrons 

with hearing and vision disabilities. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 07/26/10 75 FR 43467 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/24/11 

NPRM .................. 08/01/14 79 FR 44975 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

09/08/14 79 FR 53146 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

09/30/14 

NPRM Extended 

Comment Period End.

12/01/14 

Final Action ......... 09/00/15 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76571 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, 

Chief, Department of Justice, Civil 

Rights Division, Disability Rights 

Section, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514– 

0301. 

RIN: 1190–AA63 

DOJ—CRT 

94. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability: Accessibility of Web 

Information and Services of State and 

Local Governments 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

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

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101 et 

seq. 

CFR Citation: 28 CFR 35. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Department published 

an ANPRM on July 26, 2010, RIN 1190– 

AA61, that addressed issues relating to 

proposed revisions of both the title II 

and title III ADA regulations in order to 

provide guidance on the obligations of 

covered entities to make programs, 

services and activities offered over the 

Web accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. The Department has now 

divided the rulemakings in the next step 

of the rulemaking process so as to 

proceed with separate notices of 

proposed rulemakings for title II and 

title III. The title III rulemaking on Web 

accessibility will continue under RIN 

1190–AA61 and the title II rulemaking 

will continue under the new RIN 1190– 

AA65. This rulemaking will provide 

specific guidance to State and local 

governments in order to make services, 

programs, or activities offered to the 

public via the Web accessible to 

individuals with disabilities. The ADA 

requires that State and local 

governments provide qualified 

individuals with disabilities equal 

access to their programs, services, or 

activities unless doing so would 

fundamentally alter the nature of their 

programs, services, or activities or 

would impose an undue burden. 42. 

U.S.C. 12132. The Internet as it is 

known today did not exist when 

Congress enacted the ADA; yet today 

the Internet is dramatically changing the 

way that governmental entities serve the 

public. Taking advantage of new 

technology, citizens can now use State 

and local government Web sites to 

correspond online with local officials; 

obtain information about government 

services; renew library books or driver’s 

licenses; pay fines; register to vote; 

obtain tax information and file tax 

returns; apply for jobs or benefits; and 

complete numerous other civic tasks. 

These Government Web sites are 

important because they allow programs 

and services to be offered in a more 

dynamic, interactive way in order to 

increase citizen participation; increase 

convenience and speed in obtaining 

information or services; reduce costs in 

providing information about 

Government services and administering 

programs; reduce the amount of 

paperwork; and expand the possibilities 

of reaching new sectors of the 

community or offering new programs or 

services. Many States and localities 

have begun to improve the accessibility 

of portions of their Web sites. However, 

full compliance with the ADA’s promise 

to provide an equal opportunity for 

individuals with disabilities to 

participate in and benefit from all 

aspects of the programs, services, and 

activities provided by State and local 

governments in today’s technologically 

advanced society will only occur if it is 

clear to public entities that their Web 

sites must be accessible. Consequently, 

the Department intends to publish a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

to amend its title II regulations to 

expressly address the obligations of 

public entities to make the Web sites 

they use to provide programs, activities, 

or services or information to the public 

accessible to and usable by individuals 

with disabilities under the legal 

framework established by the ADA. The 

proposed regulation will propose the 

scope of the obligation to provide 

accessibility when persons with 

disabilities access public Web sites, as 

well as propose the technical standards 

necessary to comply with the ADA. 

Statement of Need: Many people with 

disabilities use ‘‘assistive technology’’ to 

enable them to use computers and 

access the Internet. Individuals who are 

blind or have low vision who cannot see 

computer monitors may use screen 

readers—devices that speak the text that 

would normally appear on a monitor. 

People who have difficulty using a 

computer mouse can use voice 

recognition software to control their 

computers with verbal commands. 

People with other types of disabilities 

may use still other kinds of assistive 

technology. New and innovative 

assistive technologies are being 

introduced every day. 

Web sites that do not accommodate 

assistive technology, for example, can 

create unnecessary barriers for people 

with disabilities, just as buildings not 

designed to accommodate people with 

disabilities prevent some individuals 

from entering and accessing services. 

Web designers may not realize how 

simple features built into a Web site will 

assist someone who, for instance, 

cannot see a computer monitor or use a 

mouse. In addition, in many cases, these 

Web sites do not provide captioning for 

videos or live events streamed over the 

web, leaving persons who are deaf or 

hard of hearing unable to access the 

information that is being provided. 

Although an increasing number of State 

and local Governments are making 

efforts to provide accessible Web sites, 

because there are no specific ADA 

standards for Web site accessibility, 

these Web sites vary in actual usability. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The ADA 

requires that State and local 

Governments provide qualified 

individuals with disabilities equal 

access to their programs, services, or 

activities unless doing so would 

fundamentally alter the nature of their 

programs, services, or activities or 

would impose an undue burden. 42. 

U.S.C. 12132. 

Alternatives: The Department intends 

to consider various alternatives for 

ensuring full access to Web sites of State 

and local Governments and will solicit 

public comment addressing these 

alternatives. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Department anticipates that this rule 

will be ‘‘economically significant,’’ that 

is, that the rule will 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. However, the Department 

believes that revising its title II rule to 

clarify the obligations of State and local 

Governments to provide accessible Web 

sites will significantly increase the 

opportunities for citizens with 

disabilities to participate in, and benefit 

from, State and local Government 

programs, activities, and services. It will 

also ensure that individuals have access 

to important information that is 

provided over the Internet, including 

emergency information. The Department 

also believes that providing accessible 

Web sites will benefit State and local 

Governments as it will increase the 

numbers of citizens who can use these 

Web sites, and thus improve the 

efficiency of delivery of services to the 

public. In drafting this NPRM, the 

Department will attempt to minimize 

the compliance costs to State and local 

Governments while ensuring the 

benefits of compliance to persons with 

disabilities. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76572 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Risks: If the Department does not 

revise its ADA title II regulations to 

address Web site accessibility, persons 

with disabilities in many communities 

will continue to be unable to access 

their State and local governmental 

services in the same manner available to 

citizens without disabilities, and in 

some cases will not be able to access 

those services at all. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 07/26/10 75 FR 43460 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/21/11 

NPRM .................. 12/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Small Entities Affected: Governmental 

Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Additional Information: Split from 

RIN 1190–AA61. 

Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, 

Chief, Department of Justice, Civil 

Rights Division, Disability Rights 

Section, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514– 

0301. 

RIN: 1190–AA65 

DOJ—CRT 

Final Rule Stage 

95. Implementation of the ADA 

Amendments Act of 2008 (Title II and 

Title III of The ADA) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110–325; 42 

U.S.C. 12134(a); 42 U.S.C. 12186(b) 

CFR Citation: 28 CFR 35; 28 CFR 36. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rule would propose to 

amend the Department’s regulations 

implementing title II and title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 

28 CFR part 35 and 28 CFR part 36, to 

implement changes to the ADA enacted 

in the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, 

Public Law 110–325, 122 Stat. 3553 

(Sept. 25, 2008). The ADA Amendments 

Act took effect on January 1, 2009. 

The ADA Amendments Act amended 

the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 

U.S.C. 12101, et seq., to clarify terms 

within the definition of disability and to 

establish standards that must be applied 

to determine if a person has a covered 

disability. These changes are intended 

to mitigate the effects of the Supreme 

Court’s decisions in Sutton v. United 

Airlines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999), and 

Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. 

Williams, 534, U.S. 184 (2002). 

Specifically, the ADA Amendments Act 

(1) adds illustrative lists of ‘‘major life 

activities,’’ including ‘‘major bodily 

functions,’’ that provide more examples 

of covered activities and covered 

conditions than are now contained in 

agency regulations (sec. 3[2]); (2) 

clarifies that a person who is ‘‘regarded 

as’’ having a disability does not have to 

be regarded as being substantially 

limited in a major life activity (sec. 

3[3]); and (3) adds rules of construction 

regarding the definition of disability 

that provide guidance in applying the 

term ‘‘substantially limits’’ and prohibit 

consideration of mitigating measures in 

determining whether a person has a 

disability (sec. 3[4]). 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

necessary to bring the Department’s 

ADA regulations into compliance with 

the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, 

which became effective on January 1, 

2009. In addition, this rule is necessary 

to make the Department’s ADA title II 

and title III regulations consistent with 

the ADA title I regulations issued on 

March 25, 2011 by the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission 

(EEOC) incorporating the ADA 

Amendments Act definition of 

disability. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

summary of the legal basis of authority 

for this regulation is set forth above in 

the abstract. 

Alternatives: In order to ensure 

consistency in application of the ADA 

Amendments Act across titles I, II and 

III of the ADA, this rule is intended to 

be consistent with the language of the 

EEOC’s rule implementing the ADA 

Amendments Act with respect to title I 

of the ADA (employment). The 

Department will, however, consider 

alternative regulatory language 

suggested by commenters so long as it 

maintains that consistency. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

The Department’s preliminary 

analysis indicates that the proposed rule 

would 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. 

According to the Department’s 

preliminary analysis, it is anticipated 

that the rule will cost between $36.32 

million and $61.8 million in the first 

year (the year with the highest costs). 

The Department estimates that in the 

first year of the implementation of the 

proposed rule, approximately 142,000 

students will take advantage of 

additional testing accommodations than 

otherwise would have been able to 

without the changes made to the 

definition of disability to conform to the 

ADA Amendments Act. The Department 

believes that this will result in benefits 

for many of these individuals in the 

form of significantly higher earnings 

potential. The Department expects that 

the rule will also have significant nonquantifiable benefits to persons with 

newly covered disabilities in other 

contexts, such as benefits of nonexclusion from the programs, services 

and activities of State and local 

governments and public 

accommodations, and the benefits of 

access to reasonable modifications of 

policies, practices and procedures to 

meet their needs in a variety of contexts. 

In this NPRM, the Department will be 

soliciting public comment in response 

to its preliminary analysis. 

Risks: The ADA authorizes the 

Attorney General to enforce the ADA 

and to promulgate regulations 

implementing the law’s requirements. 

Failure to update the Department’s 

regulations to conform to statutory 

changes and to be consistent with the 

EEOC regulations under title I of the 

ADA will interfere with the 

Department’s enforcement efforts and 

lead to confusion about the law’s 

requirements among entities covered by 

titles I, II and III of the ADA, as well as 

members of the public. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/30/14 79 FR 4839 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

03/31/14 

Final Action ......... 03/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, 

Chief, Department of Justice, Civil 

Rights Division, Disability Rights 

Section, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514– 

0301. 

RIN: 1190–AA59 

BILLING CODE 4410–BP–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76573 

1Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

(RIN: 1205–AB73). 

2Equal Employment Opportunity in 

Apprenticeship Amendment of Regulations (RIN: 

1205–AB59). 

3Conflict of Interest Rule: Investment Advice 

(RIN: 1210–AB32). 

4Pension Benefit Statement (RIN 1210–AB20). 

5Selection of Annuity Providers—Safe Harbor for 

Individual Account Plans (RIN: 1201–AB58). 

6 (RIN: 1210–AB18). 

7 (RIN: 1210–AB59). 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Fall 2014 Statement of Regulatory 

Priorities 

Introduction 

For over 100 years, the U.S. 

Department of Labor has been central to 

safeguarding and expanding the 

American Dream for America’s working 

families. The Department’s Fall 2014 

Regulatory Agenda is driven by a 

commitment to the basic bargain of 

America—if you work hard and play by 

the rules and take responsibility for 

yourself and your family, you can 

succeed in and climb the rungs of the 

middle class. There are many 

components to Secretary Thomas E. 

Perez’s opportunity agenda that are 

reflected in the Department’s regulatory 

agenda: 

• training more people, including 

veterans and people with disabilities, to 

have the skills they need for the indemand jobs of the 21st century; 

• ensuring that people have the peace 

of mind that comes with access to 

health care, retirement, and Federal 

workers’ compensation benefits when 

they need them; 

• safeguarding a fair day’s pay for a 

fair day’s work for all hardworking 

Americans, regardless of race, gender, 

religion, sexual orientation, or gender 

identity; 

• giving workers a voice in their 

workplaces; and 

• protecting the safety and health of 

workers so they do not have to risk their 

lives for a paycheck. 

The values embodied in the 

Department’s regulatory agenda are 

America’s values. In developing the 

Department’s regulatory agenda, with a 

focus on strengthening our economy, 

the Department has sought input and 

expertise from a broad cross section of 

American society, including business 

leaders, workers, labor organizations, 

academics and state and local officials. 

Expanding opportunity benefits all of 

us. When the middle class is strong, our 

nation is strong. 

The Fall 2014 Regulatory Agenda 

reflects the Department’s commitment 

to rebuilding this strength through 

expanding opportunity. 

The Department’s Regulatory Priorities 

The Department of Labor 2014 

Regulatory Plan highlights the most 

noteworthy and significant regulatory 

projects that will be undertaken by its 

regulatory agencies: the Employee 

Benefits Security Administration 

(EBSA), Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA), Mine Safety and 

Health Administration (MSHA), Office 

of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs (OFCCP), Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA), 

Office of Labor-Management Standards 

(OLMS), Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs (OWCP), 

Veterans’ Employment Service (VETS), 

and Wage and Hour Division (WHD). 

The initiatives and priorities listed in 

the regulatory plan exemplify the five 

components of the Secretary’s 

opportunity agenda. 

Training More People for Twenty-First 

Century Jobs 

The Department’s regulatory priorities 

reflect the Secretary’s vision for a 

demand-driven workforce investment 

system that serves the needs of 

businesses and workers alike. For 

example: 

• ETA seeks to develop and issue a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

that implements the important changes 

made to the public workforce system by 

the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act (WIOA) (Pub. L. 113– 

128), which was signed by the President 

on July 22, 2014, replacing the 

Workforce Investment Act of 1998 

(WIA). This NPRM will help the 

Department implement WIOA, 

empowering the public workforce 

system and its partners to increase 

employment, retention, and earnings of 

participants, meet the skill requirements 

of employers, and enhance the 

productivity and competitiveness of the 

nation.1

• ETA also proposes to update the 

National Apprenticeship Act of 1937’s 

equal opportunity regulations, which 

prohibit discrimination in registered 

apprenticeship on the basis of race, 

color, religion, national origin, and sex, 

and which require that program 

sponsors take affirmative action to 

provide equal opportunity. Most 

notably, the proposed rule would 

update equal opportunity standards to 

include age (40 and older) and disability 

among the list of protected bases. It 

would also strengthen the affirmative 

action provisions by detailing 

mandatory actions that sponsors must 

take, and by requiring affirmative action 

for individuals with disabilities.2

Ensuring Access to Health Care, 

Retirement, and Workers’ Compensation 

Benefits 

The Department is pursuing a 

regulatory program that is designed to 

safeguard the retirement security of 

participants and beneficiaries by 

protecting their rights and benefits 

under pension plans and by 

encouraging, fostering, and promoting 

openness, transparency, and 

communication with respect to the 

management and operations of such 

plans. Examples include: 

• EBSA’s rulemaking to help assure 

workers’ retirement security by reducing 

harmful conflicts of interest in the 

retirement savings marketplace so that 

the millions of plan sponsors, workers, 

and retirees get the impartial advice 

they have a right to expect when they 

rely on an adviser to help them invest 

their retirement savings. The regulation 

would clarify the circumstances under 

which a person will be considered a 

‘‘fiduciary’’ when providing investment 

advice related to retirement plans, 

individual retirement accounts, and 

other employee benefit plans, and to 

participants, beneficiaries, and owners 

of such plans and accounts.3

• EBSA continues to pursue 

initiatives to encourage the offering of 

lifetime annuities or similar lifetime 

benefit distribution options for 

participants and beneficiaries of defined 

contribution plans. EBSA is developing 

a proposal relating to the presentation of 

a participant’s accrued benefits (account 

balance) as a lifetime income stream of 

payments.4 EBSA is also developing 

proposed amendments to a safe harbor 

regulation that will provide plan 

fiduciaries with more certainty that they 

have discharged their obligations under 

section 404(a)(1)(B) of ERISA in 

selecting an annuity plan provider and 

contract for benefit distributions from 

an individual account retirement plan.5

EBSA’s regulatory program also 

includes initiatives involving Annual 

Funding Notices 6 and Standards for 

Brokerage Windows.7

In addition, EBSA will continue to 

issue guidance implementing the health 

reform provisions of the Affordable Care 

Act to help provide better quality health 

care for America’s workers and their 

families. EBSA’s regulations reduce 

discrimination in health coverage, 

promote better access to quality 

coverage, and protect the ability of 

individuals and businesses to keep their 

current health coverage. Many 

regulations are joint rulemakings with 

the Departments of Health and Human 

Services and the Treasury. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76574 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

8Black Lung Benefits Act: Medical Evidence and 

Benefit Payments (RIN: 1240–AA10). 

9 Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for 

Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside 

Sales, and Computer Employees (RIN: 1235–AA11). 

10Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, as 

amended (RIN: 1235–AA09). 

11 Implementation of Executive Order 13672 

Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual 

Orientation and Gender Identity by Contractors and 

Subcontractors (RIN: 1250–AA07). 

12Requirement to Report Summary Data on 

Employee Compensation (RIN: 1250–AA03). 

13 (RIN: 1250–AA01). 

14Prohibitions Against Pay Secrecy Policies and 

Actions (RIN: 1250–AA06). 15Persuader Agreements: Employer and Labor 

Relations Consultant Reporting Under the LMRDA 

(RIN: 1245–AA03). 

The Department also pursues 

regulations to ensure that Federal 

workers’ compensation benefits 

programs are fairly administered: 

• OWCP plans to propose several 

modifications and clarifications to the 

regulations implementing the Black 

Lung Benefits Act, including a rule that 

addresses claimants’ and coal mine 

operators’ responsibility to disclose 

medical evidence developed in 

connection with a claim for benefits. In 

addition, the proposed regulation would 

make several clarifications regarding 

reimbursement rates for medical 

treatment, the modification procedure, 

evidence-submission limits, and 

compensation payments.8

Safeguarding Fair Pay for All Americans 

The Department’s regulatory agenda 

prioritizes ensuring that all Americans 

receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s 

work, and are not discriminated against 

with respect to hiring, employment, or 

benefits on the basis of race, gender, 

sexual orientation, or gender identity. 

For example, WHD recently published a 

Final Rule to implement Executive 

Order 13658, which the President 

signed in February 2014 to ensure that 

certain Federal contractors pay a 

minimum wage of at least $10.10 per 

hour beginning on January 1, 2015. 

Other notable proposals include: 

• WHD plans to publish an NPRM 

proposing revisions to the Fair Labor 

Standards Act’s (FLSA’s) overtime 

exemptions as directed by a March 2014 

Presidential Memorandum. The FLSA 

generally requires covered employers to 

pay their employees at least the Federal 

minimum wage for all hours worked, 

and one-and-one-half times their regular 

rate of pay for hours worked in excess 

of 40 in a workweek (‘‘overtime’’). 

However, there are a number of 

exemptions from the FLSA’s minimum 

wage and overtime requirements, 

including an exemption for bona fide 

executive, administrative, or 

professional employees. The President’s 

Memorandum directed the Secretary to 

modernize and streamline the existing 

overtime regulations for these ‘‘white 

collar’’ employees to ensure that 

hardworking middle-class workers are 

not denied overtime protections that 

Congress intended.9

• WHD also plans to publish a Final 

Rule revising the definition of ‘‘spouse’’ 

in the Family and Medical Leave Act 

(FMLA) in light of the United States 

Supreme Court’s decision in United 

States v. Windsor. This Department 

previously issued an NPRM proposing 

that eligible employees in legal samesex marriages may take unpaid, jobprotected leave to care for their spouse 

or family member, regardless of whether 

their state of residence recognizes their 

same-sex marriage.10

• OFCCP’s rulemaking implementing 

Executive Order 13672, signed by the 

President in July 2014 to amend 

Executive Order 11246, ensures that 

Federal contractors do not engage in 

hiring or employment discrimination 

based on sexual orientation or gender 

identity. The Executive Order required 

the Department to prepare regulations 

within 90 days of the date of the Order 

to insert ‘‘sexual orientation, gender 

identity’’ into identified paragraphs of 

section 2 of Executive Order 11246.11

• OFCCP plans to issue a Final Rule 

pursuant to a Presidential Memorandum 

directing the Department to require 

Federal contractors and subcontractors 

to submit summary data on the 

compensation paid to their employees. 

The use of this sort of ‘‘Equal Pay 

Report’’ is one component of a larger 

strategy to address the reality that, 

despite five decades of extraordinary 

legal and social progress, working 

women still earn only 78 cents for every 

dollar that working men earn, and the 

amount is even less for African 

American women and Latinas. The new 

rule will enable OFCCP to direct its 

enforcement resources toward Federal 

contractors whose summary data 

indicate potential pay disparities, while 

reducing the likelihood of reviewing 

companies that are in compliance with 

anti-discrimination laws.12

OFCCP also continues to pursue an 

initiative on Construction Contractor 

Affirmative Action Requirements.13

Giving Workers a Voice in Their 

Workplaces 

The Department’s regulatory program 

also promotes policies that give workers 

a voice in their workplaces, including 

by ensuring that workers have 

information that is critical to their 

effective participation in the workplace. 

Two key examples include: 

• OFCCP plans to issue a Final Rule 

implementing Executive Order 13665, 

which the President signed on April 8, 

2014, prohibiting discrimination by 

Federal contractors and subcontractors 

against certain of their employees for 

disclosing compensation information. 

This Executive Order was intended to 

address policies inhibiting workers’ 

ability to advocate for themselves about 

their pay and prohibiting employee 

conversations about compensation. 

Such policies can serve as a significant 

barrier to Federal enforcement of the 

laws against compensation 

discrimination.14

• OLMS plans to publish a Final Rule 

following an NPRM that proposed 

regulations to better implement the 

public disclosure objectives of the 

Labor-Management Reporting and 

Disclosure Act (LMRDA) in situations 

where an employer engages a consultant 

in order to persuade employees 

concerning their rights to organize and 

bargain collectively. Workers are better 

able to make an informed choice about 

representation when they have the 

necessary information about 

arrangements that have been made by 

their employer to persuade them 

whether or not to form, join, or assist a 

union. While the LMRDA requires 

employers to file reports of any 

agreement or arrangement with a 

consultant to persuade employees 

concerning their rights to organize and 

collectively bargain, the statute provides 

an exception for consultants giving or 

agreeing to give ‘‘advice’’ to the 

employer. The Department’s NPRM 

reconsidered the current policy 

concerning the scope of the ‘‘advice’’ 

exception.15

Protecting the Safety and Health of 

Workers 

The Department’s regulatory agenda 

prioritizes efforts to protect the safety 

and health of workers so they do not 

have to risk their lives for a paycheck. 

These efforts encompass protecting 

workers in all workplaces, including 

above- and below-ground coal and 

metal/nonmetal mines, in addition to 

efforts to ensure that benefits programs 

are available to workers and their 

families when they are injured on the 

job. Notable examples of these efforts 

include: 

• OSHA continues to pursue 

regulations aimed at curbing lung 

cancer, silicosis, chronic obstructive 

pulmonary disease and kidney disease 

in America’s workers by lowering 

worker exposure to crystalline silica, 

which kills hundreds and sickens 

thousands more each year. OSHA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76575 

16Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica 

(RIN: 1218–AB70). 

17Respirable Crystalline Silica Standard (RIN: 

1219–AB36). 

18 Infectious Diseases (RIN: 1218–AC46). 

19 Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and 

Illnesses (RIN: 1218–AC49). 

20Proximity Detection Systems for Continuous 

Mining Machines in Underground Coal Mines (RIN: 

1219–AB65). 

21Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile 

Machines in Underground Mines (RIN: 1219– 

AB78). 

22 (RIN: 1218–AC48). 

23 (RIN: 1218–AB76). 

24 (RIN: 1218–AC51). 

estimates that the proposed rule would 

ultimately save nearly 700 lives and 

prevent 1,600 new cases of silicosis 

annually. After publishing a proposed 

rule in September 2013, OSHA received 

over 1,700 comments from the public on 

the proposed rule, and over 200 

stakeholders provided testimony during 

public hearings on the proposal. In the 

coming months, the agency will review 

and consider the evidence in the 

rulemaking record. Based upon this 

review, OSHA will determine an 

appropriate course of action with regard 

to workplace exposure to respirable 

crystalline silica.16 As a part of the 

Secretary’s strategy for securing safe and 

healthy work environments, MSHA will 

utilize information provided by OSHA 

to undertake regulatory action related to 

silica exposure in mines.17

• OSHA is considering the need for 

regulatory action to address the risk to 

workers exposed to infectious diseases 

in healthcare and other related high-risk 

environments. Especially given recent 

events necessitating the careful 

treatment of individuals with lifethreatening infectious diseases, OSHA is 

concerned about the risk posed to 

healthcare workers with the movement 

of healthcare delivery from the 

traditional hospital setting into more 

diverse and smaller workplace settings. 

The Agency initiated the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA) Panel process in the spring of 

2014.18

• OSHA is developing a Final Rule 

exploring a requirement for employers 

to electronically submit data required by 

agency regulations governing the 

Recording and Reporting of 

Occupational Injuries. An updated and 

modernized reporting system would 

enable a more efficient and timely 

collection of data and would improve 

the accuracy and availability of relevant 

records and statistics, in addition to 

leveraging data already maintained 

electronically by many large 

employers.19

• MSHA plans to issue a Final Rule 

that would build upon a proposed rule 

to address the danger that miners face 

when working near continuous mining 

machines in underground coal mines. 

From 1984 through 2014, there have 

been 35 fatalities resulting from 

pinning, crushing or striking accidents 

involving continuous mining 

machines—the types of accidents that 

proximity detection technology can 

prevent. The proposed rule would 

reduce the potential for such hazards.20

MSHA also plans to publish a proposed 

rule that would require underground 

mine operators to equip certain mobile 

machines with proximity detection 

systems.21

OSHA’s regulatory program also 

includes initiatives involving Injury and 

Illness Prevention Programs,22

Occupational Exposure to Beryllium,23

Preventing Backover Injuries and 

Fatalities,24 and various Whistleblower 

regulations. 

Regulatory Review and Burden 

Reduction 

On January 18, 2011, the President 

issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 

entitled ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review.’’ The E.O. aims to 

strike the right balance between 

protecting the health, welfare, safety, 

and the environment for all 

Americans—a goal at the core of the 

Labor Department’s mission—while 

fostering economic growth, job creation, 

and competitiveness. The Department’s 

Fall 2014 Regulatory Agenda also aims 

to achieve more efficient and less 

burdensome regulations through a 

retrospective review of the Labor 

Department regulations. 

In August 2011, as part of a 

governmentwide response to E.O. 

13563, the Department published its 

‘‘Plan for Retrospective Analysis of 

Existing Rules.’’ This plan, and each 

subsequent update, can be found at 

www.dol.gov/regulations/. The 

Department’s Fall 2014 Agenda includes 

12 retrospective review projects, which 

are listed below pursuant to section 6 of 

E.O. 13563. More information about 

completed rulemakings no longer 

included in the plan can be found on 

Reginfo.gov. 

Agency Regulatory 

Identifier No. Title of rulemaking 

Whether it is expected 

to significantly reduce 

burdens on small businesses 

EBSA ..... 1210–AB47 Amendment of Abandoned Plan Program ............................................................................... Yes. 

EBSA ..... 1210–AB63 21st Century Initiative to Modernize the Form 5500 Series and Implementing and Related 

Regulations.

No. 

ETA ........ 1205–AB59 Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship and Training, Amendment of Regulations To Be Determined. 

ETA ........ 1205–AB62 Implementation of Total Unemployment Rate Extended Benefits Trigger and Rounding 

Rule.

No. 

MSHA ..... 1219–AB72 Criteria and Procedures for Proposed Assessment of Civil Penalties (Part 100) .................. To Be Determined. 

OFCCP .. 1250–AA05 Sex Discrimination Guidelines ................................................................................................. To Be Determined. 

OSHA ..... 1218–AC34 Bloodborne Pathogens ............................................................................................................ No. 

OSHA ..... 1218–AC67 Standard Improvement Project—Phase IV (SIP IV) ................................................................ Yes. 

OSHA ..... 1218–AC74 Review/Lookback of OSHA Chemical Standards .................................................................... To Be Determined. 

OSHA ..... 1218–AC81 Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Amendments ............................................................... To Be Determined. 

OSHA ..... 1218–AC82 Process Safety Management and Flammable Liquids ............................................................ To Be Determined. 

OSHA ..... 1218–AC49 Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses ............................................................ To Be Determined. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76576 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

DOL—EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING 

ADMINISTRATION (ETA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

96. • Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: sec 503(f) of the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act (Pub. L. 113–128) 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

January 18, 2015, Public Law 113–128. 

Final, Statutory, January 18, 2016. 

Abstract: On July 22, 2014, the 

President signed the Workforce 

Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA) 

(Pub. L. 113–128). WIOA repeals the 

Workforce Investment Act of 1998 

(WIA). (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) The 

Department of Labor must develop and 

issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) that proposes to implement the 

changes WIOA makes to the public 

workforce system in regulations. 

Through the NPRM, the Department 

will propose ways to carry out the 

purposes of WIOA to provide workforce 

investment activities, through State and 

local workforce development systems, 

that increase employment, retention, 

and earnings of participants, meet the 

skill requirements of employers, and 

enhance the productivity and 

competitiveness of the Nation. 

Statement of Need: On July 22, 2014, 

the President signed the Workforce 

Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA) 

(Pub. L. 113–128) into law. WIOA 

repeals the Workforce Investment Act of 

1998 (WIA) (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) As 

a result, the WIA regulations no longer 

reflect current law and we must change. 

Therefore, the Department of Labor 

seeks to develop and issue a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that 

proposes to implement the WIOA. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act 

(WIOA) (Pub. L. 113–128), signed by the 

President on July 22, 2014. Section 

503(f) of WIOA requires that the 

Department issue a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) and then Final 

Rule that implements the changes 

WIOA makes to the public workforce 

system in regulations. 

Alternatives: Since Congress 

statutorily directed the Department of 

Labor to issue a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) and Final Rule that 

implements the changes WIOA makes to 

the public workforce system there is no 

alternative. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Undetermined. 

Risks: Undetermined. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

EO 13132. 

Agency Contact: Portia Wu, Assistant 

Secretary for Employment and Training, 

Department of Labor, Employment and 

Training Administration, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW., FP Building, 

Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 639– 

2700. 

RIN: 1205–AB73 

DOL—MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH 

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

97. Respirable Crystalline Silica 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811 

CFR Citation: 30 CFR 58. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Current standards limit 

exposures to quartz (crystalline silica) in 

respirable dust. The metal and nonmetal 

mining industry standard is based on 

the 1973 American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

(ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values 

formula: 10 mg/m3 divided by the 

percentage of quartz plus 2. 

Overexposure to crystalline silica can 

result in some miners developing 

silicosis, an irreversible but preventable 

lung disease, which ultimately may be 

fatal. The formula is designed to limit 

exposures to 0.1 mg/m3 (100 ug/m3) of 

silica. The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) recommends a 50 ug/m3 

exposure limit for respirable crystalline 

silica. MSHA will publish a proposed 

rule to address miners’ exposure to 

respirable crystalline silica. 

Statement of Need: MSHA standards 

are outdated; current regulations may 

not protect workers from developing 

silicosis. Evidence indicates that miners 

continue to develop silicosis. MSHA’s 

proposed regulatory action exemplifies 

the Agency’s commitment to protecting 

the most vulnerable populations while 

assuring broad-based compliance. 

MSHA will regulate based on sound 

science to eliminate or reduce the 

hazards with the broadest and most 

serious consequences. MSHA intends to 

use OSHA’s work on the health effects 

and risk assessment, adapting it as 

necessary for the mining industry. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Promulgation of this standard is 

authorized by section 101 of the Federal 

Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. 

Alternatives: This rulemaking would 

improve health protection from that 

afforded by the existing standards. 

MSHA will consider alternative 

methods of addressing miners’ 

exposures based on the capabilities of 

the sampling and analytical methods. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: MSHA 

will prepare estimates of the anticipated 

costs and benefits associated with the 

proposed rule. 

Risks: For over 70 years, toxicology 

information and epidemiological studies 

have shown that exposure to respirable 

crystalline silica presents potential 

health risks to miners. These potential 

adverse health effects include simple 

silicosis and progressive massive 

fibrosis (lung scarring). Evidence 

indicates that exposure to silica may 

cause cancer. MSHA believes that the 

health evidence forms a reasonable basis 

for reducing miners’ exposures to 

respirable crystalline silica. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

URL for More Information: 

www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Sheila McConnell, 

Acting Director, Office of Standards, 

Regulations, and Variances, Department 

of Labor, Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 

Room 2350, Arlington, VA 22209, 

Phone: 202 693–9440, Fax: 202 693– 

9441, Email: mcconnell.sheila.a@

dol.gov. 

RIN: 1219–AB36 

DOL—MSHA 

98. Criteria and Procedures for 

Proposed Assessment of Civil Penalties 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 815; 30 

U.S.C. 820; 30 U.S.C. 957 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76577 

CFR Citation: 30 CFR 100. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) revise the 

process for proposing civil penalties. 

The assessment of civil penalties is a 

key component in MSHA’s strategy to 

enforce safety and health standards. The 

Congress intended that the imposition 

of civil penalties would induce mine 

operators to be proactive in their 

approach to mine safety and health, and 

take necessary action to prevent safety 

and health hazards before they occur. 

MSHA believes that the procedures for 

assessing civil penalties can be revised 

to improve the efficiency of the 

Agency’s efforts and to facilitate the 

resolution of enforcement issues. 

Statement of Need: Section 110(a) of 

the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act 

of 1977 (Mine Act) requires MSHA to 

assess a civil penalty for a violation of 

a mandatory health or safety standard or 

violation of any provision of the Mine 

Act. The mine operator has 30 days 

from receipt of the proposed assessment 

to contest it before the Federal Mine 

Safety and Health Review Commission 

(Commission), an independent 

adjudicatory agency established under 

the Mine Act. A proposed assessment 

that is not contested within 30 days 

becomes a final order of the 

Commission. A proposed assessment 

that is contested within 30 days 

proceeds to the Commission for 

adjudication. The proposed rule would 

promote consistency, objectivity, and 

efficiency in the proposed assessment of 

civil penalties. When issuing citations 

or orders, inspectors are required to 

evaluate safety and health conditions, 

and make decisions about the statutory 

criteria related to assessing penalties. 

The proposed changes in the measures 

of the evaluation criteria would result in 

fewer areas of disagreement and earlier 

resolution of enforcement issues. The 

proposal would require conforming 

changes to the Mine Citation/Order form 

(MSHA Form 7000–3). 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 104 

of the Mine Act requires MSHA to issue 

citations or orders to mine operators for 

any violations of a mandatory health or 

safety standard, rule, order, or 

regulation promulgated under the Mine 

Act. Sections 105 and 110 of the Mine 

Act provide for assessment of these 

penalties. 

Alternatives: The proposal would 

include several alternatives in the 

preamble and requests comments on 

them. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

MSHA’s proposed rule includes an 

estimate of the anticipated costs and 

benefits. 

Risks: MSHA’s existing procedures for 

assessing civil penalties can be revised 

to improve the efficiency of the 

Agency’s efforts and to facilitate the 

resolution of enforcement issues. In the 

overwhelming majority of contested 

cases before the Commission, the issue 

is not whether a violation occurred. 

Rather, the parties disagree on the 

gravity of the violation, the degree of 

mine operator negligence, and other 

criterion. The proposed changes should 

result in fewer areas of disagreement 

and earlier resolution of enforcement 

issues, which should result in fewer 

contests of violations or proposed 

assessments. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/31/14 79 FR 44494 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

09/29/14 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

09/16/14 79 FR 55408 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

12/03/14 

NPRM Notice of 

Public Hearings, Close of 

Comment Period.

11/07/14 79 FR 66345 

NPRM Notice of 

Public Hearings, Close of 

Comment Period End.

01/09/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL for More Information: 

www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Sheila McConnell, 

Acting Director, Office of Standards, 

Regulations, and Variances, Department 

of Labor, Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 

Room 2350, Arlington, VA 22209, 

Phone: 202–693–9440, Fax: 202–693– 

9441, Email: mcconnell.sheila.a@

dol.gov. 

RIN: 1219–AB72 

DOL—MSHA 

99. Proximity Detection Systems for 

Mobile Machines in Underground 

Mines 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) will develop a 

proposed rule to address the hazards 

that miners face when working near 

mobile equipment in underground 

mines. MSHA has concluded, from 

investigations of accidents involving 

mobile equipment and other reports, 

that action is needed to protect miner 

safety. Mobile equipment can pin, 

crush, or strike a miner working near 

the equipment. Proximity detection 

technology can prevent these types of 

accidents. The proposed rule would 

strengthen the protection for 

underground miners by reducing the 

potential of pinning, crushing, or 

striking hazards associated with 

working close to mobile equipment. 

Statement of Need: Mining is one of 

the most hazardous industries in this 

country. Miners continue to be injured 

or killed resulting from pinning, 

crushing, or striking accidents involving 

mobile equipment. Equipment is 

available to help prevent accidents that 

cause debilitating injuries and 

accidental death. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Promulgation of this standard is 

authorized by section 101(a) of the 

Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 

1977, as amended by the Mine 

Improvement and New Emergency 

Response Act of 2006. 

Alternatives: No reasonable 

alternatives to this regulation would be 

as comprehensive or as effective in 

eliminating hazards and preventing 

injuries. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: MSHA 

will develop a preliminary regulatory 

economic analysis to accompany the 

proposed rule. 

Risks: The lack of proximity detection 

systems on mobile equipment in 

underground mines contributes to a 

higher incidence of debilitating injuries 

and accidental deaths. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Request for Information.02/01/10 75 FR 5009 

RFI Comment Period Ended.04/02/10 

NPRM .................. 01/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL for More Information: 

www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Sheila McConnell, 

Acting Director, Office of Standards, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76578 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Regulations, and Variances, Department 

of Labor, Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 

Room 2350, Arlington, VA 22209, 

Phone: 202 693–9440, Fax: 202 693– 

9441, Email: mcconnell.sheila.a@

dol.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1219–AB65 

RIN: 1219–AB78 

DOL—MSHA 

Final Rule Stage 

100. Proximity Detection Systems for 

Continuous Mining Machines in 

Underground Coal Mines 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811. 

CFR Citation: 30 CFR 75.1732. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This final rule addresses 

hazards that miners face when working 

near continuous mining machines in 

underground coal mines. Mine Safety 

and Health Administration (MSHA) has 

concluded, from investigations of 

accidents involving continuous mining 

machines and other reports, that action 

is necessary to protect miners. 

Continuous mining machines can pin, 

crush, or strike a miner working near 

the equipment. Proximity detection 

technology can prevent these types of 

accidents. The final rule would 

strengthen the protection for 

underground coal miners by reducing 

the potential of pinning, crushing, or 

striking hazards associated with 

working close to continuous mining 

machines. 

Statement of Need: Mining is one of 

the most hazardous industries in this 

country. Miners continue to be injured 

or killed resulting from pinning, 

crushing, or striking accidents involving 

mobile equipment. Equipment is 

available to help prevent accidents that 

cause debilitating injuries and 

accidental death. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Promulgation of this standard is 

authorized by section 101(a) of the 

Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 

1977, as amended by the Mine 

Improvement and New Emergency 

Response Act of 2006. 

Alternatives: No reasonable 

alternatives to this regulation would be 

as comprehensive or as effective in 

eliminating hazards and preventing 

injuries. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: MSHA 

will develop a regulatory economic 

analysis to accompany the final rule. 

Risks: The lack of proximity detection 

systems on continuous mining 

machines in underground coal mines 

contributes to a higher incidence of 

debilitating injuries and accidental 

deaths. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Request for Information (RFI).02/01/10 75 FR 5009 

RFI Comment Period Ended.04/02/10 

NPRM .................. 08/31/11 76 FR 54163 

Notice of Public 

Hearing.

10/12/11 76 FR 63238 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

11/14/11 

Final Action ......... 12/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL for More Information: 

www.msha.gov/reginfo.htm. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Sheila McConnell, 

Acting Director, Office of Standards and 

Variances, Department of Labor, Mine 

Safety and Health Administration, 1100 

Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, 

Arlington, VA 22209, Phone: 202 693– 

9440, Fax: 202 693–9441, Email: 

mcconnell.sheila.a@dol.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 1219–AB78 

RIN: 1219–AB65 

DOL—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND 

HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA) 

Prerule Stage 

101. Infectious Diseases 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

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

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 533; 29 

U.S.C. 657 and 658; 29 U.S.C. 660; 29 

U.S.C. 666; 29 U.S.C. 669; 29 U.S.C. 673; 

... 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Employees in health care 

and other high-risk environments face 

long-standing infectious disease hazards 

such as tuberculosis (TB), varicella 

disease (chickenpox, shingles), and 

measles (rubeola), as well as new and 

emerging infectious disease threats, 

such as Severe Acute Respiratory 

Syndrome (SARS) and pandemic 

influenza. Health care workers and 

workers in related occupations, or who 

are exposed in other high-risk 

environments, are at increased risk of 

contracting TB, SARS, Methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus 

(MRSA), and other infectious diseases 

that can be transmitted through a variety 

of exposure routes. OSHA is concerned 

about the ability of employees to 

continue to provide health care and 

other critical services without 

unreasonably jeopardizing their health. 

OSHA is considering the need for a 

standard to ensure that employers 

establish a comprehensive infection 

control program and control measures to 

protect employees from infectious 

disease exposures to pathogens that can 

cause significant disease. Workplaces 

where such control measures might be 

necessary include: Health care, 

emergency response, correctional 

facilities, homeless shelters, drug 

treatment programs, and other 

occupational settings where employees 

can be at increased risk of exposure to 

potentially infectious people. A 

standard could also apply to 

laboratories, which handle materials 

that may be a source of pathogens, and 

to pathologists, coroners’ offices, 

medical examiners, and mortuaries. 

Statement of Need: In 2007, the 

healthcare and social assistance sector 

as a whole had 16.5 million employees. 

Healthcare workplaces can range from 

small private practices of physicians to 

hospitals that employ thousands of 

workers. In addition, healthcare is 

increasingly being provided in other 

settings such as nursing homes, freestanding surgical and outpatient centers, 

emergency care clinics, patients’ homes, 

and prehospitalization emergency care 

settings. The Agency is particularly 

concerned by studies that indicate that 

transmission of infectious diseases to 

both patients and healthcare workers 

may be occurring as a result of 

incomplete adherence to recognized, but 

voluntary, infection control measures. 

Another concern is the movement of 

healthcare delivery from the traditional 

hospital setting, with its greater 

infrastructure and resources to 

effectively implement infection control 

measures, into more diverse and smaller 

workplace settings with less 

infrastructure and fewer resources, but 

with an expanding worker population. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 authorizes the Secretary of Labor 

to set mandatory occupational safety 

and health standards to assure safe and 

healthful working conditions for 

working men and women (29 U.S.C. 

651). 

Alternatives: The alternative to the 

proposed rulemaking would be to take 

no regulatory action. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

estimates of the costs and benefits are 

still under development. 

Risks: Analysis of risks is still under 

development. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76579 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Request for Information (RFI).05/06/10 75 FR 24835 

RFI Comment Period End.08/04/10 

Analyze Comments.12/30/10 

Stakeholder Meetings.07/29/11 

Initiate SBREFA .. 06/04/14 

Complete 

SBREFA.

12/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: William Perry, 

Director, Directorate of Standards and 

Guidance, Department of Labor, 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Room N–3718, 

Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693– 

1950, Fax: 202 693–1678, Email: 

perry.bill@dol.gov. 

RIN: 1218–AC46 

DOL—OSHA 

Proposed Rule Stage 

102. Occupational Exposure to 

Crystalline Silica 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under Pub. L. 

104–4. 

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

U.S.C. 657 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 

1915; 29 CFR 1917; 29 CFR 1918; 29 

CFR 1926. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Crystalline silica is a 

significant component of the earth’s 

crust, and many workers in a wide range 

of industries are exposed to it, usually 

in the form of respirable quartz or, less 

frequently, cristobalite. Chronic silicosis 

is a uniquely occupational disease 

resulting from exposure of employees 

over long periods of time (10 years or 

more). Exposure to high levels of 

respirable crystalline silica causes acute 

or accelerated forms of silicosis that are 

ultimately fatal. The current OSHA 

permissible exposure limit (PEL) for 

general industry is based on a formula 

proposed by the American Conference 

of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

(ACGIH) in 1968 (PEL = 10mg/cubic 

meter/(% silica + 2), as respirable dust). 

The current PEL for construction and 

shipyards (derived from ACGIH’s 1970 

Threshold Limit Value) is based on 

particle counting technology, which is 

considered obsolete. NIOSH and ACGIH 

recommend 50mg/m3 and 25mg/m3 

exposure limits, respectively, for 

respirable crystalline silica. 

Both industry and worker groups have 

recognized that a comprehensive 

standard for crystalline silica is needed 

to provide for exposure monitoring, 

medical surveillance, and worker 

training. ASTM International has 

published recommended standards for 

addressing the hazards of crystalline 

silica. The Building Construction Trades 

Department of the AFL–CIO has also 

developed a recommended 

comprehensive program standard. These 

standards include provisions for 

methods of compliance, exposure 

monitoring, training, and medical 

surveillance. 

The NPRM was published on 

September 12, 2013. OSHA received 

over 1,700 comments from the public on 

the proposed rule, and over 200 

stakeholders provided testimony during 

public hearings on the proposal. In the 

coming months, the agency will review 

and consider the evidence in the 

rulemaking record. Based upon this 

review, OSHA will determine an 

appropriate course of action with regard 

to workplace exposure to respirable 

crystalline silica. 

Statement of Need: Workers are 

exposed to crystalline silica dust in 

general industry, construction, and 

maritime industries. Industries that 

could be particularly affected by a 

standard for crystalline silica include: 

Foundries, industries that have abrasive 

blasting operations, paint manufacture, 

glass and concrete product manufacture, 

brick making, china and pottery 

manufacture, manufacture of plumbing 

fixtures, and many construction 

activities including highway repair, 

masonry, concrete work, rock drilling, 

and tuckpointing. The seriousness of the 

health hazards associated with silica 

exposure is demonstrated by the 

fatalities and disabling illnesses that 

continue to occur. From 2006 to 2010 

silicosis was identified on 617 death 

certificates as an underlying or 

contributing cause of death. It is likely 

that many more cases have occurred 

where silicosis went undetected. In 

addition, the International Agency for 

Research on Cancer has designated 

crystalline silica as carcinogenic to 

humans, and the National Toxicology 

Program has concluded that respirable 

crystalline silica is a known human 

carcinogen. Exposure to crystalline 

silica has also been associated with an 

increased risk of developing 

tuberculosis and other nonmalignant 

respiratory diseases, as well as renal and 

autoimmune diseases. Exposure studies 

and OSHA enforcement data indicate 

that some workers continue to be 

exposed to levels of crystalline silica far 

in excess of current exposure limits. 

Congress has included compensation of 

silicosis victims on Federal nuclear 

testing sites in the Energy Employees’ 

Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act of 2000. There is a 

particular need for the Agency to 

modernize its exposure limits for 

construction and shipyard workers. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal 

basis for the proposed rule is a 

preliminary determination that workers 

are exposed to a significant risk of 

silicosis and other serious disease, and 

that rulemaking is needed to 

substantially reduce the risk. In 

addition, the proposed rule will 

recognize that the PELs for construction 

and maritime are outdated, and need to 

be revised to reflect current sampling 

and analytical technologies. 

Alternatives: Over the past several 

years, the Agency has attempted to 

address this problem through a variety 

of non-regulatory approaches, including 

initiation of a Special Emphasis 

Program on silica in October 1997, 

sponsorship with NIOSH and MSHA of 

the National Conference to Eliminate 

Silicosis, and dissemination of guidance 

information on its Web site. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

scope of the proposed rulemaking and 

estimates of the costs and benefits are 

still under development. 

Risks: A detailed risk analysis is 

under way. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Completed 

SBREFA Report.

12/19/03 

Initiated Peer Review of Health 

Effects and 

Risk Assessment.

05/22/09 

Completed Peer 

Review.

01/24/10 

NPRM .................. 09/12/13 78 FR 56274 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended; Notice 

of Intention to 

Appear at Pub 

Hearing; Scheduling Pub Hearing.

10/31/13 78 FR 65242 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

01/29/14 79 FR 4641 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76580 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Action Date FR Cite 

Informal Public 

Hearing.

03/18/14 

Post Hearing 

Briefs Ends.

08/18/14 

Analyze Comments.06/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

E.O. 13132. 

Agency Contact: William Perry, 

Director, Directorate of Standards and 

Guidance, Department of Labor, 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Room N–3718, 

Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693– 

1950, Fax: 202 693–1678, Email: 

perry.bill@dol.gov. 

RIN: 1218–AB70 

DOL—OSHA 

Final Rule Stage 

103. Improve Tracking of Workplace 

Injuries and Illnesses 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 657 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1904. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) is 

making changes to its reporting system 

for occupational injuries and illnesses. 

An updated and modernized reporting 

system would enable a more efficient 

and timely collection of data, and would 

improve the accuracy and availability of 

the relevant records and statistics. This 

rulemaking involves modification to 29 

CFR part 1904.41 to expand OSHA’s 

legal authority to collect and make 

available injury and illness information 

required under part 1904. 

Statement of Need: The collection of 

establishment specific injury and illness 

data in electronic format on a timely 

basis is needed to help OSHA, 

employers, employees, researchers, and 

the public more effectively prevent 

workplace injuries and illnesses, as well 

as support President Obama’s Open 

Government Initiative to increase the 

ability of the public to easily find, 

download, and use the resulting dataset 

generated and held by the Federal 

Government. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 authorizes the Secretary of Labor 

to develop and maintain an effective 

program of collection, compilation, and 

analysis of occupational safety and 

health statistics (29 U.S.C. 673). 

Alternatives: The alternative to the 

proposed rulemaking would be to take 

no regulatory action. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

estimates of the costs and benefits are 

still under development. 

Risks: Analysis of risks is still under 

development. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Stakeholder Meetings.05/25/10 75 FR 24505 

Comment Period 

End.

06/18/10 

NPRM .................. 11/08/13 78 FR 67253 

Notice of Public 

Meeting.

11/15/13 78 FR 68782 

Public Meeting .... 01/09/13 

NPRM Comment 

Period Reopened.

08/14/14 79 FR 47605 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

10/14/14 

Final Rule ............ 08/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Agency Contact: Francis Yebesi, 

Acting Director, Directorate of 

Evaluation and Analysis, Department of 

Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., FP Bld, Rm N–3641, 

Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693– 

2400, Fax: 202 693–1641, Email: 

yebesi.francis@dol.gov. 

RIN: 1218–AC49 

BILLING CODE 4510–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(DOT) 

Introduction: Department Overview 

and Summary of Regulatory Priorities 

The Department of Transportation 

(DOT) consists of 9 operating 

administrations and the Office of the 

Secretary, each of which has statutory 

responsibility for a wide range of 

regulations. DOT regulates safety in the 

aviation, motor carrier, railroad, motor 

vehicle, commercial space, public 

transportation, and pipeline 

transportation areas. DOT also regulates 

aviation consumer and economic issues 

and provides financial assistance for 

programs involving highways, airports, 

public transportation, the maritime 

industry, railroads, and motor vehicle 

safety. In addition, the Department 

writes regulations to carry out a variety 

of statutes ranging from the Americans 

With Disabilities Act to the Uniform 

Time Act. Finally, DOT develops and 

implements a wide range of regulations 

that govern internal DOT programs such 

as acquisitions and grants, access for the 

disabled, environmental protection, 

energy conservation, information 

technology, occupational safety and 

health, property asset management, 

seismic safety, and the use of aircraft 

and vehicles. 

The Department’s Regulatory Priorities 

The Department’s regulatory priorities 

respond to the challenges and 

opportunities we face. Our mission 

generally is as follows: 

The national objectives of general 

welfare, economic growth and stability, 

and the security of the United States 

require the development of 

transportation policies and programs 

that contribute to providing fast, safe, 

efficient, and convenient transportation 

at the lowest cost consistent with those 

and other national objectives, including 

the efficient use and conservation of the 

resources of the United States. 

To help us achieve our mission, we 

have five goals in the Department’s 

Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012– 

2016: 

• Safety: Improve safety by ‘‘reducing 

transportation-related fatalities and 

injuries.’’ 

• State of Good Repair: Improve the 

condition of our Nation’s transportation 

infrastructure. 

• Economic Competitiveness: Foster 

‘‘smart strategic investments that will 

serve the traveling public and facilitate 

freight movements.’’ 

• Quality of Life: Foster through 

‘‘coordinated, place-based policies and 

investments that increase transportation 

choices and access to transportation 

services.’’ 

• Environmental Sustainability: 

Advance environmental sustainability 

‘‘through strategies such as fuel 

economy standards for cars and trucks, 

more environmentally sound 

construction and operational practices, 

and by expanding opportunities for 

shifting freight from less fuel-efficient 

modes to more fuel-efficient modes.’’ 

In identifying our regulatory priorities 

for the next year, the Department 

considered its mission and goals and 

focused on a number of factors, 

including the following: 

• The relative risk being addressed. 

• Requirements imposed by statute or 

other law. 

• Actions on the National 

Transportation Safety Board ‘‘Most 

Wanted List’’. 

• The costs and benefits of the 

regulations. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76581 

• The advantages of nonregulatory 

alternatives. 

• Opportunities for deregulatory 

action. 

• The enforceability of any rule, 

including the effect on agency 

resources. 

This regulatory plan identifies the 

Department’s regulatory priorities—the 

17 pending rulemakings chosen, from 

among the dozens of significant 

rulemakings listed in the Department’s 

broader regulatory agenda, that the 

Department believes will merit special 

attention in the upcoming year. The 

rules included in the regulatory plan 

embody the Department’s focus on our 

strategic goals. 

The regulatory plan reflects the 

Department’s primary focus on safety— 

a focus that extends across several 

modes of transportation. For example: 

• The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) will continue its 

efforts to implement safety management 

systems. 

• The Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA) continues its 

work to strengthen the requirements for 

Electronic Logging Devices and revise 

motor carrier safety fitness procedures. 

• The National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) will 

continue its rulemaking efforts to reduce 

death and injury resulting from 

incidents involving motorcoaches. 

Each of the rulemakings in the 

regulatory plan is described below in 

detail. In order to place them in context, 

we first review the Department’s 

regulatory philosophy and our 

initiatives to educate and inform the 

public about transportation safety 

issues. We then describe the role of the 

Department’s retrospective reviews and 

its regulatory process and other 

important regulatory initiatives of OST 

and of each of the Department’s 

components. Since each transportation 

‘‘mode’’ within the Department has its 

own area of focus, we summarize the 

regulatory priorities of each mode and 

of OST, which supervises and 

coordinates modal initiatives and has its 

own regulatory responsibilities, such as 

consumer protection in the aviation 

industry. 

The Department’s Regulatory 

Philosophy and Initiatives 

The Department has adopted a 

regulatory philosophy that applies to all 

its rulemaking activities. This 

philosophy is articulated as follows: 

DOT regulations must be clear, simple, 

timely, fair, reasonable, and necessary. 

They will be issued only after an 

appropriate opportunity for public 

comment, which must provide an equal 

chance for all affected interests to 

participate, and after appropriate 

consultation with other governmental 

entities. The Department will fully 

consider the comments received. It will 

assess the risks addressed by the rules 

and their costs and benefits, including 

the cumulative effects. The Department 

will consider appropriate alternatives, 

including nonregulatory approaches. It 

will also make every effort to ensure 

that regulation does not impose 

unreasonable mandates. 

The Department stresses the 

importance of conducting high-quality 

rulemakings in a timely manner and 

reducing the number of old 

rulemakings. To implement this, the 

Department has required the following 

actions: (1) Regular meetings of senior 

DOT officials to ensure effective policy 

leadership and timely decisions, (2) 

effective tracking and coordination of 

rulemakings, (3) regular reporting, (4) 

early briefings of interested officials, (5) 

regular training of staff, and (6) adequate 

allocations of resources. The 

Department has achieved significant 

success because of this effort. It allows 

the Department to use its resources 

more effectively and efficiently. 

The Department’s regulatory policies 

and procedures provide a 

comprehensive internal management 

and review process for new and existing 

regulations and ensure that the 

Secretary and other appropriate 

appointed officials review and concur in 

all significant DOT rules. DOT 

continually seeks to improve its 

regulatory process. A few examples 

include: The Department’s development 

of regulatory process and related 

training courses for its employees; 

creation of an electronic rulemaking 

tracking and coordination system; the 

use of direct final rulemaking; the use 

of regulatory negotiation; a continually 

expanding and improved Internet page 

that provides important regulatory 

information, including ‘‘effects’’ reports 

and status reports (http://www.dot.gov/

regulations); and the continued 

exploration and use of Internet blogs 

and other Web 2.0 technology to 

increase and enhance public 

participation in its rulemaking process. 

In addition, the Department continues 

to engage in a wide variety of activities 

to help cement the partnerships 

between its agencies and its customers 

that will produce good results for 

transportation programs and safety. The 

Department’s agencies also have 

established a number of continuing 

partnership mechanisms in the form of 

rulemaking advisory committees. 

The Department’s Retrospective Review 

of Existing Regulations 

In accordance with Executive Order 

(E.O.) 13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review), the Department 

actively engaged in a special 

retrospective review of our existing 

rules to determine whether they need to 

be revised or revoked. This review was 

in addition to those reviews in 

accordance with section 610 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, E.O. 12866, 

and the Department’s Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures. As part of this 

effort, we also reviewed our processes 

for determining what rules to review 

and ensuring that the rules are 

effectively reviewed. As a result of the 

review, we identified many rules for 

expedited review and changes to our 

retrospective review process. Pursuant 

to section 6 of E.O. 13563, the following 

Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) 

have been identified as associated with 

retrospective review and analysis in the 

Department’s final retrospective review 

of regulations plan. Some of these 

entries on this list may be completed 

actions, which do not appear in The 

Regulatory Plan. If a retrospective 

review action has been completed it will 

no longer appear on the list below. 

However, more information can be 

found about these completed 

rulemakings on the Unified Agenda 

publications at Reginfo.gov in the 

Completed Actions section for that 

agency. These rulemakings can also be 

found on Regulations.gov. The final 

agency retrospective review plan can be 

found at http://www.dot.gov/

regulations. 

RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF EXISTING REGULATIONS

RIN Rulemaking title 

Significantly reduces 

costs on small businesses 

1. 2105–AE29 ............ Transportation Services for Individuals with Disabilities: Over-the-Road Buses (RRR).

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76582 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF EXISTING REGULATIONS—Continued 

RIN Rulemaking title 

Significantly reduces 

costs on small businesses 

2. 2120–AJ90 ............ Effective Tether System (Tether Rule) (RRR).

3. 2120–AJ94 ............ Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) (RRR).

4. 2120–AK24 ............ Fuel Tank and System Lightning Protection (RRR).

5. 2120–AK28 ............ Aviation Training Devices; Pilot Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; Other Provisions 

(RRR).

6. 2120–AK32 ............ Acceptance Criteria for Portable Oxygen Concentrators Used Onboard Aircraft (RRR).

7. 2120–AK34 ............ Flammability Requirements for Transport Category Airplanes (RRR).

8. 2120–AK40 ............ Elimination of the Air Traffic Control Tower Operator Certificate for Controllers Who Hold a 

Federal Aviation Administration Credential With a Tower Rating (RRR).

9. 2120–AK44 ............ Reciprocal Waivers of Claims for Non-Party Customer Beneficiaries, Signature of Waivers of 

Claims by Commercial Space Transportation Customers. And Waiver of Claims and Assumption of Responsibility for Permitted Activities with No Customer (RRR).

10. 2125–AF62 .......... Acquisition of Right-of-Way (RRR) (MAP–21).

11. 2125–AF65 .......... Buy America (RRR).

12. 2126–AB46 .......... Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance; Driver-Vehicle Inspection Report (RRR).

13. 2126–AB47 .......... Electronic Signatures and Documents (E-Signatures) (RRR).

14. 2126–AB49 .......... Elimination of Redundant Maintenance Rule (RRR).

15. 2127–AK98 .......... Pedestrian Safety Global Technical Regulation (RRR).

16. 2127–AL03 .......... Part 571 FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, GTR (RRR).

17. 2127–AL05 .......... Amend FMVSS No. 210 to Incorporate the Use of a New Force Application Device (RRR) .... Y 

18. 2127–AL17 .......... 49 CFR Part 595, Subpart C, Make Inoperative Exemptions, Vehicle Modifications to Accommodate People With Disabilities, from FMVSS No. 226 (RRR).

19. 2127–AL20 .......... Upgrade of LATCH Usability Requirements (MAP–21) (RRR).

20. 2127–AL24 .......... Rapid Tire Deflation Test in FMVSS No. 110 (RRR).

21. 2127–AL41 .......... FMVSS No. 571.108 License Plate Mounting Angle (RRR).

22. 2127–AL58 .......... Upgrade of Rear Impact Guard Requirements for Trailers and Semitrailers (RRR).

23. 2130–AC32 .......... Positive Train Control Systems: De Minimis Exception, Yard Movements, En Route Failures; 

Miscellaneous Grade Crossing/Signal and Train Control Amendments (RRR).

Y 

24. 2130–AC40 .......... Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers; Miscellaneous Revisions (RRR).

25. 2130–AC41 .......... Hours of Service Recordkeeping; Electronic Recordkeeping Amendments (RRR).

26. 2130–AC43 .......... Safety Glazing Standards; Miscellaneous Revisions (RRR).

27. 2130–AC44 .......... Revisions to Signal System Reporting Requirements (RRR).

28. 2137–AE38 .......... Hazardous Materials: Compatibility with the Regulations of the International Atomic Energy 

Agency (IAEA) (RRR).

29. 2137–AE62 .......... Hazardous Materials: Approval and Communication Requirements for the Safe Transportation of Air Bag Inflators, Air Bag Modules, and Seat-Belt Pretensioners (RRR).

30. 2137–AE72 .......... Pipeline Safety: Gas Transmission (RRR) .................................................................................. Y 

31. 2137–AE80 .......... Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous Pressure Vessel Requirements (DOT Spec Cylinders) 

(RRR).

Y 

32. 2137–AE81 .......... Hazardous Materials: Reverse Logistics (RRR) ......................................................................... Y 

33. 2137–AE85 .......... Pipeline Safety: Periodic Updates of Regulatory References to Technical Standards and Miscellaneous Amendments (RRR).

34. 2137–AE86 .......... Hazardous Materials: Requirements for the Safe Transportation of Bulk Explosives (RRR).

35. 2137–AE94 .......... Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, 

and Other Changes (RRR).

Y 

36. 2137–AF04 .......... Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous Amendments (RRR).

37. 2137–AF05 .......... Hazardous Materials: Harmonization with International Standards (RRR).

International Regulatory Cooperation 

E.O. 13609 (Promoting International 

Regulatory Cooperation) stresses that 

‘‘[i]n an increasingly global economy, 

international regulatory cooperation, 

consistent with domestic law and 

prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can 

be an important means of promoting the 

goals of’’ E.O. 13563 to ‘‘protect public 

health, welfare, safety, and our 

environment while promoting economic 

growth, innovation, competitiveness, 

and job creation.’’ DOT has long 

recognized the value of international 

regulatory cooperation and has engaged 

in a variety of activities with both 

foreign governments and international 

bodies. These activities have ranged 

from cooperation in the development of 

particular standards to discussions of 

necessary steps for rulemakings in 

general, such as risk assessments and 

cost-benefit analyses of possible 

standards. Since the issuance of E.O. 

13609, we have increased our efforts in 

this area. For example, many of DOT’s 

Operating Administrations are active in 

groundbreaking government-wide 

Regulatory Cooperation Councils (RCC) 

with Canada, Mexico, and the European 

Union. These RCC working groups are 

setting a precedent in developing and 

testing approaches to international 

coordination of rulemaking to reduce 

barriers to international trade. We also 

have been exploring innovative 

approaches to ease the development 

process. 

Examples of the many cooperative 

efforts we are engaged in include the 

following: The FAA maintains ongoing 

efforts with foreign civil aviation 

authorities, including in particular the 

European Aviation Safety Agency and 

Transport Canada, to harmonize 

standards and practices where doing so 

will improve the safety of aviation and 

aviation-related activities. The FAA also 

plays an active role in the standardsetting work of the International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO), 

particularly on the Air Navigation 

Commission and the Legal Committee. 

In doing so, the FAA works with other 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76583 

Nations to shape the standards and 

recommended practices adopted by 

ICAO. The FAA’s rulemaking actions 

related to safety management systems 

are examples of the FAA’s 

harmonization efforts. 

NHTSA is actively engaged in 

international regulatory cooperative 

efforts on both a multilateral and a 

bilateral basis, exchanging information 

on best practices and otherwise seeking 

to leverage its resources for addressing 

vehicle issues in the U.S. As noted in 

Executive Order 13609: ‘‘(i)n meeting 

shared challenges involving health, 

safety, labor, security, environmental, 

and other issues, international 

regulatory cooperation can identify 

approaches that are at least as protective 

as those that are or would be adopted in 

the absence of such cooperation’’ and 

‘‘can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements.’’ 

As the representative, for vehicle 

safety matters, of the United States, one 

of 33 contracting parties to the 1998 

Agreement on the Harmonization of 

Vehicle Regulations, NHTSA is an 

active participant in the World Forum 

for Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) at the 

UN. Under that umbrella, NHTSA is 

currently working on the development 

of harmonized regulations for the safety 

of electric vehicles; hydrogen and fuel 

cell vehicles; advanced head restraints; 

pole side impact test procedures; 

pedestrian protection; the safety risks 

associated with quieter vehicles, such as 

electric and hybrid electric vehicles; 

and advancements in tires. 

In recognition of the large crossborder market in motor vehicles and 

motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA is 

working bilaterally with Transport 

Canada under the Motor Vehicles 

Working Group of the U.S.-Canada 

Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) 

to facilitate implementation of the 

initial RCC Joint Action Plan. Under this 

Plan, NHTSA and Transport Canada are 

working on the development of 

international standards on quieter 

vehicles, electric vehicle safety, and 

hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles. 

Building on the initial Joint Action 

Plan, the U.S. and Canada issued a Joint 

Forward Plan on August 29, 2014. The 

Forward Plan provides that, over the 

next six months, regulators will develop 

Regulatory Partnership Statements 

(RPSs) outlining the framework for how 

cooperative activities will be managed 

between agencies. In that same period, 

regulators will also develop and 

complete detailed work plans to begin 

to address the commitments in the 

Forward Plan. To facilitate future 

cooperation, the RCC will work over the 

next year on cross-cutting issues in 

areas such as: ‘‘sharing information with 

foreign governments, joint funding of 

new initiatives and our respective 

rulemaking processes.’’ 

To broaden and deepen its 

cooperative efforts with the European 

Union, NHTSA is participating in 

ongoing negotiations regarding the 

Transatlantic Trade and Investment 

Partnership which is ‘‘aimed at 

providing greater compatibility and 

transparency in trade and investment 

regulation, while maintaining high 

levels of health, safety, and 

environmental protection.’’ NHTSA is 

seeking to build on existing levels of 

safety and lay the groundwork for future 

cooperation in addressing emerging 

safety issues and technologies. 

PHMSA’s hazardous material group 

works with ICAO, the UN 

Subcommittee of Experts on Dangerous 

Goods, and the International Maritime 

Organization. Through participation in 

these international bodies, PHMSA is 

able to advocate on behalf of U.S. safety 

and commercial interests to guide the 

development of international standards 

with which U.S. businesses have to 

comply when shipping in international 

commerce. PHMSA additionally 

participates in the RCC with Canada and 

has a Memorandum of Cooperation in 

place to ensure that cross-border 

shipments are not hampered by 

conflicting regulations. The pipeline 

group at PHMSA incorporates many 

standards by reference into the Pipeline 

Safety Regulations, and the 

development of these standards benefit 

from the participation of experts from 

around the world. 

In the areas of airline consumer 

protection and civil rights regulation, 

OST is particularly conscientious in 

seeking international regulatory 

cooperation. For example, the 

Department participates in the standardsetting activities of ICAO and meets and 

works with other governments and 

international airline associations on the 

implementation of U.S. and foreign 

aviation rules. 

For a number of years the Department 

has also provided information on which 

of its rulemaking actions have 

international effects. This information, 

updated monthly, is available at the 

Department’s regulatory information 

Web site, http://www.dot.gov/

regulations, under the heading ‘‘Reports 

on Rulemakings and Enforcement.’’ 

(The reports can be found under 

headings for ‘‘EU,’’ ‘‘NAFTA’’ (Canada 

and Mexico) and ‘‘Foreign.’’) A list of 

our significant rulemakings that are 

expected to have international effects 

follows; the identifying RIN provided 

below can be used to find summary and 

other information about the rulemakings 

in the Department’s Regulatory Agenda 

published along with this Plan: 

DOT SIGNIFICANT RULEMAKINGS WITH INTERNATIONAL IMPACTS

RIN Rulemaking title 

2105–AD90 ............................................... Stowage and Assistive Devices. 

2105–AD91 ............................................... Accessibility of Airports. 

2105–AE06 ............................................... E-Cigarette. 

2120–AJ60 ................................................ Small Unmanned Aircraft. 

2120–AJ69 ................................................ Prohibition Against Certain Flights Within the Territory and Airspace of Afghanistan. 

2120–AJ89 ................................................ Slot Management and Transparency. 

2120–AK09 ............................................... Drug & Alcohol Testing for Repair Stations. 

2126–AA34 ............................................... Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers. 

2126–AA35 ............................................... Safety Monitoring System and Compliance Initiative for Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers Operating 

in the United States. 

2124–AA70 ............................................... Limitations on the Issuance of Commercial Driver Licenses with a Hazardous Materials Endorsement. 

2126–AB56 ............................................... MAP–21 Enhancements and Other Updates to the Unified Registration System. 

2127–AK76 ............................................... Tire Fuel Efficiency Part 2. 

2127–AK93 ............................................... Quieter Vehicles Sound Alert. 

2127–AK95 ............................................... Side Impact Test Procedure for CRS. 

2133–AB74 ............................................... Cargo Preference. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76584 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

DOT SIGNIFICANT RULEMAKINGS WITH INTERNATIONAL IMPACTS—Continued 

RIN Rulemaking title 

2137–AE91 ............................................... Enhanced Rail Tank Car Standards. 

As we identify rulemakings arising 

out of our ongoing regulatory 

cooperation activities that we 

reasonably anticipate will lead to 

significant regulations, we will add 

them to our Web site report and 

subsequent Agendas and Plans. 

The Department’s Regulatory Process 

The Department will also continue its 

efforts to use advances in technology to 

improve its rulemaking management 

process. For example, the Department 

created an effective tracking system for 

significant rulemakings to ensure that 

either rules are completed in a timely 

manner or delays are identified and 

fixed. Through this tracking system, a 

monthly status report is generated. To 

make its efforts more transparent, the 

Department has made this report 

Internet accessible at http://

www.dot.gov/regulations, as well as 

through a list-serve. By doing this, the 

Department is providing valuable 

information concerning our rulemaking 

activity and is providing information 

necessary for the public to evaluate the 

Department’s progress in meeting its 

commitment to completing quality 

rulemakings in a timely manner. 

The Department continues to place 

great emphasis on the need to complete 

high-quality rulemakings by involving 

senior departmental officials in regular 

meetings to resolve issues 

expeditiously. 

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation (OST) 

The Office of the Secretary (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 top 

management in regulatory 

decisionmaking. Through the General 

Counsel’s office, 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, DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures, and 

other legal and policy requirements 

affecting rulemaking. Although OST’s 

principal role concerns the review of the 

Department’s significant rulemakings, 

this office has the lead role in the 

substance of such projects as those 

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. 

OST also leads and coordinates the 

Department’s response to the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) 

intergovernmental review of other 

agencies’ significant rulemaking 

documents and to Administration and 

congressional proposals that concern 

the regulatory process. The General 

Counsel’s office 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. 

During Fiscal Year 2015, OST will 

continue to focus its efforts on 

enhancing airline passenger protections 

by requiring carriers to adopt various 

consumer service practices under the 

following rulemaking initiatives: 

• Accessible In-Flight Entertainment 

• Airline Pricing Transparency and 

Other Consumer Protection Issues 

• Carrier-Supplied Medical Oxygen, 

Accessible In-Flight Entertainment 

Systems, Service Animals, and 

Accessible Lavatories on Single-Aisle 

Aircraft. 

OST will also continue its efforts to 

help coordinate the activities of several 

operating administrations that advance 

various departmental efforts that 

support the Administration’s initiatives 

on promoting safety, stimulating the 

economy and creating jobs, sustaining 

and building America’s transportation 

infrastructure, and improving quality of 

life for the people and communities 

who use transportation systems subject 

to the Department’s policies. It will also 

continue to oversee the Department’s 

rulemaking actions to implement the 

‘‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act’’ (MAP–21). 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

The Federal Aviation Administration 

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. The changing 

technological and industry environment 

compels us to transform the agency. 

And the challenging fiscal environment 

we face only increases the need to 

prioritize our goals. 

We have identified four major 

strategic initiatives where we will focus 

our 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 National Airspace 

System of the future by achieving 

prioritized NextGen benefits, enabling 

the safe and efficient integration of new 

user entrants including Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems (UAS) 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. 

FAA activities that may lead to 

rulemaking in Fiscal Year 2015 include 

continuing to: 

• Promote and expand safety 

information-sharing efforts, such as 

FAA-industry partnerships and datadriven safety programs that prioritize 

and address risks before they lead to 

accidents. Specifically, FAA will 

continue implementing Commercial 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76585 

Aviation Safety Team projects related to 

controlled flight into terrain, loss of 

control of an aircraft, uncontained 

engine failures, runway incursions, 

weather, pilot decision making, and 

cabin safety. Some of these projects may 

result in rulemaking and guidance 

materials. 

• Respond to the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012 (the Act) which 

directed the FAA to initiate a 

rulemaking proceeding to issue 

guidelines and regulations relating to 

ADS–B In technology and 

recommendations from an Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee on ADS–B-In 

capabilities in consideration of the 

FAA’s evolving thinking on how to 

provide an integrated suite of 

communication, navigation, and 

surveillance (CNS) capabilities to 

achieve full NextGen performance. 

• Respond to the Act which also 

recommended we complete the 

rulemaking for small Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems, and consider how to 

fully integrate UAS operations in the 

NAS, which will require future 

rulemaking. 

• Respond to the Airline Safety and 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Extension Act of 2010 (H.R. 5900) 

which requires the FAA to develop and 

implement Safety Management Systems 

(SMS) where these systems will 

improve safety of aviation and aviationrelated activities. An SMS proactively 

identifies potential hazards in the 

operating environment, analyzes the 

risks of those hazards, and encourages 

mitigation prior to an accident or 

incident. In its most general form, an 

SMS is a set of decision-making tools 

that can be used to plan, organize, 

direct, and control activities in a 

manner that enhances safety. 

• Respond to the Small Airplane 

Revitalization Act of 2013 (H.R. 1848) 

which requires the FAA adopt the 

recommendations from Part 23 

Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) 

for improving safety and reducing 

certification costs for general aviation. 

The ARC recommendations include a 

broad range of policy and regulatory 

changes that it believes could 

significantly improve the safety of 

general aviation aircraft while 

simultaneously reducing certification 

and modification costs for these aircraft. 

Among the ARC’s recommendations is a 

suggestion that compliance with part 23 

requirements be performance-based, 

focusing on the complexity and 

performance of an aircraft instead of the 

current regulations based on weight and 

type of propulsion. In announcing the 

ARC’s recommendations, the 

Transportation Secretary said 

‘‘Streamlining the design and 

certification process could provide a 

cost-efficient way to build simple 

airplanes that still incorporate the latest 

in safety initiatives. These changes have 

the potential to save money and 

maintain our safety standing—a winwin situation for manufacturers, pilots 

and the general aviation community as 

a whole.’’ 

• Work cooperatively to harmonize 

the U.S. aviation regulations with those 

of other countries, without 

compromising rigorous safety standards, 

or our requirements to develop cost 

benefit analysis. The differences 

worldwide in certification standards, 

practice and procedures, and operating 

rules must be identified and minimized 

to reduce the regulatory burden on the 

international aviation system. The 

differences between the FAA 

regulations and the requirements of 

other nations impose a heavy burden on 

U.S. aircraft manufacturers and 

operators, some of which are small 

businesses. Standardization should help 

the U.S. aerospace industry remain 

internationally competitive. The FAA 

continues to publish regulations based 

on internal analysis, public comment, 

and recommendations of Aviation 

Rulemaking Committees that are the 

result of cooperative rulemaking 

between the U.S. and other countries. 

• In response to Executive Order 

13610 ‘‘Identifying and Reducing 

Regulatory Burdens,’’ we continue to 

find ways to make our regulatory 

program more effective or less 

burdensome; provide quantifiable 

monetary savings or quantifiable 

reductions in paperwork burdens, and 

modify and streamline regulations in 

light of changed circumstances. One 

example is our response to a petition for 

exemption from the Aircraft Owners 

and Pilots Association and 

Experimental Aircraft Association 

(AOPA–EAA) in which we will address 

through rulemaking to consider medical 

self-certification for certain 

noncommercial operations in lieu of 

airman medical certification. 

FAA top regulatory priorities for 

Fiscal Year 2015 include: 

• Operation and Certification of 

Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

(2120–AJ60) (Pub. L. 112–95 (Feb. 14, 

2012)) 

• Pilot Records Database (2120– 

AK31) (Pub. L. 111–216 (Aug. 1, 2010)) 

• Drug and Alcohol Testing of Certain 

Maintenance Provider Employees 

Located Outside of the United States 

(2120–AK09) (Pub. L. 112–95 (Feb. 14, 

2012)) 

• Congestion Management for 

LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy 

International Airport, and Newark 

Liberty International Airport (2120– 

AJ89) 

• Safety Management System for 

Certificate Holders Operating Under 14 

CFR part 121 (2120–AJ86) (Pub. L. 111– 

216, sec 215 (Aug. 1, 2010)) 

The Operation and Certification of 

Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

rulemaking would: 

• Adopt specific rules for the 

operation of small unmanned aircraft 

systems in the national airspace system; 

and 

• Address the classification of small 

unmanned aircraft, certification of their 

pilots and visual observers, registration, 

approval of operations, and operational 

limits. 

The Pilot Records Database 

rulemaking would: 

• Implement a pilot records database 

into which the FAA, air carriers, and 

other persons that employ pilots would 

enter records; and 

• Require air carriers operating under 

14 CFR parts 121 and 135 access the 

pilot records database electronically and 

evaluate the available data for each 

individual pilot candidate before 

allowing that individual to serve as a 

required pilot flightcrew member. 

The Drug and Alcohol Testing of 

Certain Maintenance Provider 

Employees Located Outside of the 

United States rulemaking would: 

• Require certain air carriers to 

ensure that all employees of certificated 

repair stations, and certain other 

maintenance organizations that are 

located outside the United States, who 

perform safety-sensitive maintenance 

functions on aircraft operated by those 

air carriers, are subject to a drug and 

alcohol testing program; and 

• Require the drug and alcohol testing 

program be determined acceptable by 

the FAA Administrator, and be 

consistent with the applicable laws of 

the country in which the repair station 

is located. 

The Congestion Management 

rulemaking for LaGuardia Airport, John 

F. Kennedy International Airport, and 

Newark Liberty International Airport 

would: 

• Replace the orders limiting 

scheduled operations at John F. 

Kennedy International Airport (JFK), 

limiting scheduled operations at 

Newark Liberty International Airport 

(EWR), and limiting scheduled and 

unscheduled operations at LaGuardia 

Airport (LGA); and 

• Provide a longer-term and 

comprehensive approach to slot 

management at JFK, EWR, and LGA. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76586 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

The Safety Management System for 

Certificate Holders Operating under 14 

CFR part 121 rulemaking would: 

• Require certain certificate holders 

to develop and implement an SMS; 

• Establish a general framework from 

which a certificate holder can build its 

SMS; and Conform to International Civil 

Aviation Organization Annexes and 

adopt several National Transportation 

Safety Board recommendations. 

Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) 

The Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) carries out the Federal highway 

program in partnership with State and 

local agencies to meet the Nation’s 

transportation needs. The 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, the 

FHWA will continue: 

• With ongoing regulatory initiatives 

in support of its surface transportation 

programs; 

• To implement legislation in the 

most cost-effective way possible; and 

• To pursue regulatory reform in 

areas where project development can be 

streamlined or accelerated, duplicative 

requirements can be consolidated, 

recordkeeping requirements can be 

reduced or simplified, and the 

decisionmaking authority of our State 

and local partners can be increased. 

• MAP–21 authorizes the Federal 

surface transportation programs for 

highways, highway safety, and transit 

for the two-year period from 2012–2014. 

The FHWA has analyzed MAP–21 to 

identify congressionally directed 

rulemakings. These rulemakings will be 

the FHWA’s top regulatory priorities for 

the coming year. Additionally, the 

FHWA is in the process of reviewing all 

FHWA regulations to ensure that they 

are consistent with MAP–21 and will 

update those regulations that are not 

consistent with the recently enacted 

legislation. 

• During Fiscal Year 2015, FHWA 

will continue its focus on improving the 

quality and performance of our Nation’s 

highway systems by creating national 

performance management measures and 

standards to be used by the States to 

meet the national transportation goals 

identified in section 1203 of MAP–21 

under the following rulemaking 

initiatives: 

• National Goals and Performance 

Management Measures (Safety) (RIN: 

2125–AF49) 

• National Goals and Performance 

Management Measures (Bridges and 

Pavement) (RIN: 2125–AF53) 

• National Goals and Performance 

Management Measures (Congestion 

Reduction, CMAQ, Freight, and 

Performance of Interstate/Non-Interstate 

NHS) (RIN: 2125–AF54). 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA) 

The mission of the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration (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, maintaining 

high standards, and removing high-risk 

behavior. In addition to Agency-directed 

regulations, FMCSA develops 

regulations mandated by Congress, 

through legislation such as MAP–21 and 

the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU). 

FMCSA regulations establish 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 plan for FY 2015 

includes completion of a number of 

rulemakings that are high priorities for 

the Agency because they would have a 

positive impact on safety. Among the 

rulemakings included in the plan are: 

(1) Electronic Logging Devices (RIN 

2126–AB20), (2) Carrier Safety Fitness 

Determination (RIN 2126–AB11), and 

(3) Commercial Driver’s License Drug 

and Alcohol Clearinghouse (RIN 2126– 

AB18). 

Together, these priority rules could 

help to substantially improve 

commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety 

on our Nation’s highways by improving 

FMCSA’s ability to provide safety 

oversight of motor carriers and 

commercial drivers. 

In FY 2015, FMCSA plans to issue a 

final rule on Electronic Logging Devices 

(RIN 2126–AB20) to establish: (1) 

Minimum performance and design 

standards for hours-of-service (HOS) 

electronic logging devices (ELDs); (2) 

requirements for the mandatory use of 

these devices by drivers currently 

required to prepare HOS records of duty 

status (RODS); (3) requirements 

concerning HOS supporting documents; 

and (4) measures to address concerns 

about harassment resulting from the 

mandatory use of ELDs. 

In FY 2015, FMCSA will continue its 

work on the Compliance, Safety, 

Accountability (CSA) program. The CSA 

program improves the way FMCSA 

identifies and conducts carrier 

compliance and enforcement 

operations. CSA’s goal is to improve 

large truck and bus safety by assessing 

a wider range of safety performance data 

from a larger segment of the motor 

carrier industry through an array of 

progressive compliance interventions. 

FMCSA anticipates that the impacts of 

CSA interventions and an associated 

rulemaking to put into place a new 

safety fitness determination standard 

will enable the Agency to prohibit 

‘‘unfit’’ carriers from operating on the 

Nation’s highways (the Carrier Safety 

Fitness Determination(RIN 2126–AB11)) 

and will contribute further to the 

Agency’s overall goal of decreasing 

CMV-related fatalities and injuries. 

Also in FY 2015, FMCSA plans to 

issue a final rule on the Commercial 

Driver’s License Drug and Alcohol 

Clearinghouse (RIN 2126–AB18). The 

rule would establish a clearinghouse 

requiring employers and service agents 

to report information about current and 

prospective employees’ drug and 

alcohol test results. It would also 

require employers and certain service 

agents to search the Clearinghouse for 

current and prospective employees’ 

positive drug and alcohol test results as 

a condition of permitting those 

employees to perform safety-sensitive 

functions. This would provide FMCSA 

and employers the necessary tools to 

identify drivers who are prohibited from 

operating a CMV based on DOT drug 

and alcohol program violations and 

ensure that such drivers receive the 

required evaluation and treatment 

before resuming safety-sensitive 

functions. 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

The statutory responsibilities of the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) relating to 

motor vehicles include reducing the 

number of, 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 encourage 

the development of nonregulatory 

approaches when feasible in meeting its 

statutory mandates. It 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76587 

the proposed regulatory action. Finally, 

it considers alternatives consistent with 

the Administration’s regulatory 

principles. 

NHTSA continues to focus on the 

high-priority safety issue of heavy 

vehicles and their occupants in Fiscal 

Year 2015, including combination truck 

tractors, large buses, and motorcoaches. 

The agency will continue work towards 

considering promulgation of a new 

Federal motor vehicle safety standard 

(FMVSS) for rollover structural integrity 

requirements for newly manufactured 

motorcoaches in accordance with 

NHTSA’s 2007 Motorcoach Safety Plan, 

DOT’s 2009 departmental Motorcoach 

Safety Action Plan as revised in 2012, 

and requirements of MAP–21. NHTSA 

will also issue a final rule to promulgate 

a new FMVSS for electronic stability 

control systems for motor coaches and 

truck tractors. This final rule is 

mandated by the MAP–21 Act. 

Together, these rulemaking actions will 

address multiple open 

recommendations issued by the 

National Transportation Safety Board 

related to motorcoach safety. NHTSA, in 

conjunction with the Environmental 

Protection Agency, will publish a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in 

Fiscal Year 2015 to address phase two 

of fuel efficiency standards for mediumand heavy-duty on-highway vehicles 

and work trucks for model years beyond 

2018. This NPRM will be responsive to 

requirements of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

as well as the President’s Climate 

Action Plan. 

In Fiscal Year 2015, NHTSA plans to 

issue a final rule that would establish a 

new FMVSS to provide a means of 

alerting blind and other pedestrians of 

motor vehicle operation. This 

rulemaking is mandated by the 

Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 

2010 to further enhance the safety of 

passenger vehicles and pedestrians. 

NHTSA will also continue work toward 

a NPRM on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) 

communications. V2V communications 

is currently perceived to become a 

foundational aspect of vehicle 

automation. 

In addition to numerous programs 

that focus on the safe performance of 

motor vehicles, the Agency is engaged 

in a variety of programs to improve 

driver and occupant behavior. These 

programs emphasize the human aspects 

of motor vehicle safety and recognize 

the important role of the States in this 

common pursuit. NHTSA has identified 

two high-priority areas: Safety belt use 

and impaired driving. To address these 

issue areas, the Agency is focusing 

especially on three strategies— 

conducting highly visible, wellpublicized enforcement; supporting 

prosecutors who handle impaired 

driving cases and expanding the use of 

DWI/Drug Courts, which hold offenders 

accountable for receiving and 

completing treatment for alcohol abuse 

and dependency; and adopting alcohol 

screening and brief intervention by 

medical and health care professionals. 

Other behavioral efforts encourage child 

safety-seat use; combat excessive speed 

and aggressive driving; improve 

motorcycle, bicycle, and pedestrian 

safety; and provide consumer 

information to the public. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

FRA’s current regulatory program 

reflects a number of pending 

proceedings to satisfy mandates 

resulting from the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA08), and 

the Passenger Rail Investment and 

Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), as 

well as actions under its general safety 

rulemaking authority and actions 

supporting a high-performing passenger 

rail network. RSIA08 alone has required 

21 rulemaking actions, 16 of which have 

been completed. FRA continues to 

prioritize its rulemakings according to 

the greatest effect on safety while 

promoting economic growth, 

innovation, competitiveness, and job 

creation, as well as expressed 

congressional interest, while working to 

complete as many mandated 

rulemakings as quickly as possible. 

Through the Railroad Safety Advisory 

Committee (RSAC), FRA is working to 

complete RSIA08 actions, including 

developing requirements related to the 

creation and implementation of railroad 

risk reduction and system safety 

programs, and an RSAC working group 

has developed recommendations for the 

fatigue management provisions related 

to both proceedings. FRA is also in the 

process of producing two regulatory 

actions related to the transportation of 

crude oil and ethanol by rail, focusing 

on the securement of equipment and 

appropriate crew size requirements 

when transporting such commodities. 

FRA’s crew size activity will also 

address other freight and passenger 

operations to ensure FRA will have 

appropriate oversight if a railroad 

chooses to alter its standard method of 

operation. In addition, FRA continues to 

prepare a final rule amending its 

regulations related to roadway workers 

and is developing other RSACsupported actions that advance highperforming passenger rail such as 

proposed rules on standards for 

alternative compliance with FRA’s 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

FTA helps communities support 

public transportation by making grants 

of Federal funding for transit vehicles, 

construction of transit facilities, and 

planning and operation of transit and 

other transit-related purposes. FTA 

regulatory activity implements the laws 

that apply to recipients’ uses of Federal 

funding and the terms and conditions of 

FTA grant awards. FTA policy regarding 

regulations is to: 

• Ensure the safety of public 

transportation systems. 

• Provide maximum benefit to the 

mobility of the Nation’s citizens and the 

connectivity of transportation 

infrastructure; 

• Provide maximum local discretion; 

• Ensure the most productive use of 

limited Federal resources; 

• Protect taxpayer investments in 

public transportation; 

• Incorporate principles of sound 

management into the grant management 

process. 

As the needs for public transportation 

have changed over the years, the Federal 

transit programs have grown in number 

and complexity often requiring 

implementation through the rulemaking 

process. In fact, FTA is currently 

implementing many of its public 

transportation programs authorized 

under MAP–21 through the regulatory 

process. To that end, FTA’s regulatory 

priorities include implementing certain 

requirements of the newly authorized 

Public Transportation Safety Program 

(49 U.S.C. 5329), such as the National 

Public Transportation Safety Plan, 

implementing requirements for Transit 

Asset Management Systems (49 U.S.C. 

5326), amending the State Safety 

Oversight rule (49 CFR part 659). In 

addition FTA is finalizing its Emergency 

Relief rule, which implements FTA’s 

new authority to assist transit agencies 

responding to major disasters. 

Maritime Administration (MARAD) 

The 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76588 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

1http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_

obj_id_

7FD46010F0497123865B976479CFF3952E990200/

filename/

Pipeline%20Reauthorization%20Bill%202011.pdf. 

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 primary regulatory 

activities in Fiscal Year 2015 will be to 

continue the update of existing 

regulations as part of the Department’s 

Retrospective Regulatory Review effort, 

and to propose new regulations where 

appropriate. 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration (PHMSA) 

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration (PHMSA) has 

responsibility for rulemaking under two 

programs. Through the Associate 

Administrator for Hazardous Materials 

Safety, PHMSA administers regulatory 

programs under Federal hazardous 

materials transportation law and the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 

amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990. Through the Associate 

Administrator for Pipeline Safety, 

PHMSA administers regulatory 

programs under the Federal pipeline 

safety laws and the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, as amended by 

the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 

The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory 

Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 

included a number of rulemaking 

studies and mandates and additional 

enforcement authorities that continue to 

impact PHMSA’s regulatory activities in 

Fiscal Year 2015.1

MAP–21 reauthorized the hazardous 

materials safety program and required 

several regulatory actions by PHMSA. 

MAP–21 placed a great deal of emphasis 

on the procedures for issuing special 

permits and the incorporation of special 

permits into regulations. Persons who 

offer for transportation or transport 

hazardous materials in commerce must 

follow the hazardous materials 

regulations. A special permit sets forth 

alternative requirements, or variances, 

to the requirements in the HMR. Federal 

hazardous materials transportation law 

authorizes PHMSA to issue such 

variances in a way that achieves a safety 

level that is at least equal to the safety 

level required under Federal hazmat law 

or is consistent with the public interest 

if a required safety level does not exist. 

A rulemaking was required within two 

years by MAP–21 to set out procedures 

and criteria for evaluating applications 

for special permits and approvals. In 

addition, MAP–21 required PHMSA to 

conduct a review of nearly 1,200 

existing special permits and issue 

another rulemaking within three years 

to incorporate special permits that have 

been in continuous effect for a ten-year 

period into the HMR. 

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. We will concentrate on 

the prevention of high-risk incidents 

identified through the findings of the 

National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) and 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. 

PHMSA will continue to focus on the 

streamlining of 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, and international standards 

to identify inconsistencies, outdated 

provisions, and barriers to regulatory 

compliance. 

PHMSA aims to reduce the risks 

related to the transportation of 

hazardous materials by rail. Preventing 

tank car incidents and minimizing the 

consequences when an incident does 

occur are not only DOT priorities, but 

are also shared by the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 

industry, and the general public. 

Expansion in United States energy 

production has led to significant 

challenges in the transportation system. 

Expansion in oil production has led to 

increasing volumes of product 

transported to refineries. With a growing 

domestic supply, rail transportation, in 

particular, has emerged as an alternative 

to transportation by pipeline or vessel. 

The growing reliance on trains to 

transport large volumes of flammable 

liquids raises risks that have been 

highlighted by the recent instances of 

trains carrying crude oil that have 

derailed. PHMSA and FRA issued a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (79 FR 

45016) designed to lessen the frequency 

and consequences of train accidents/

incidents (train accidents) involving 

certain trains transporting a large 

volume of flammable liquids. In 

addition, PHMSA and FRA issued an 

Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (79 FR 45079) seeking 

comment on potential revisions to its 

regulations that would expand the 

applicability of comprehensive oil spill 

response plans (OSRPs) for crude oil 

trains. PHMSA will continue to usher 

these rules to completion and PHMSA 

may consider further regulatory changes 

to enhance rail safety through enhanced 

operational requirements; 

improvements in tank car standards; 

and revisions of the general 

requirements for rail transport. 

PHMSA will be considering whether 

changes are needed to the regulations 

covering hazardous liquid onshore 

pipelines. In particular, PHMSA will be 

considering if other areas should be 

included as High Consequence Areas 

(HCAs) for integrity management (IM) 

protections, what the repair timeframes 

should be for areas outside the HCAs 

that are assessed as part of the IM 

program, whether leak detection 

standards are necessary, valve spacing 

requirements are needed on new 

construction or existing pipelines, and if 

PHMSA should extend regulation to 

certain pipelines currently exempt from 

regulation. The agency would also 

address the public safety and 

environmental aspects any new 

requirements, as well as the cost 

implications and regulatory burden. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76589 

QUANTIFIABLE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF RULEMAKINGS ON THE 2014 TO 2015 DOT REGULATORY PLAN

[This chart does not account for non-quantifiable benefits, which are often substantial] 

Agency/RIN Number Title Stage 

Quantifiable costs 

discounted 2013 $ 

(millions) 

Quantifiable benefits 

discounted 2013 $ 

(millions) 

FAA 

2120–AJ60 ............ Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems .................. NPRM 01/15 .................... TBD ....................... TBD 

2120–AJ86 ............ SMS for part 121 .............................................. FR 11/14 ......................... $135.1 ................... $142.8 

2120–AJ89 ............ NY Congestion Management ........................... NPRM 11/14 .................... 48.2 ....................... 67.8 

2120–AK09 ........... Drug and Alcohol Testing ................................. ANPRM: Analyzing Comments 02/15.TBD ....................... TBD 

2120–AK31 ........... Pilot Records Database .................................... NPRM 10/15 .................... TBD ....................... TBD 

Total for FAA ........................................................................... .......................................... 183.3 ..................... 210.6 

FHWA 

2125–AF53 ........... Performance Management 2 ............................ NPRM 11/14 .................... TBD ....................... TBD 

2125–AF54 ........... Performance Management 3 ............................ NPRM 03/15 .................... TBD ....................... TBD 

Total for 

FHWA.

........................................................................... .......................................... TBD ....................... TBD 

FMCSA 

2126–AB11 ........... Carrier Safety Fitness Determination ............... NPRM 04/15 .................... 15 .......................... 249 

2126–AB18 ........... Commercial Driver’s License Drug and Alcohol 

Clearinghouse.

FR 10/15 ......................... 186 ........................ 187 

2126–AB20 ........... Electronic On-Board Recorders and Hours of 

Service Supporting Documents.

FR 09/15 ......................... 1,578 ..................... 2,033 

Total for 

FMCSA.

........................................................................... .......................................... 1,745 ..................... 2,361 

NHTSA 

2127–AK93 ........... Quieter Vehicles Sound Alert ........................... FR 11/15 ......................... 24.1 ....................... 154.3 

2127–AK97 ........... Electronic Stability Control Systems for Heavy 

Vehicles.

FR 01/15 ......................... 119.6 ..................... 282.6–445.6 

2127–AL52 ........... Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and 

Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Work Trucks: 

Phase 2.

NPRM 03/15 .................... TBD ....................... TBD 

Total for 

NHTSA.

........................................................................... .......................................... 143.7 ..................... 436.9–599.9 

FTA 

2132–AB19 ........... State Safety Oversight (MAP–21) .................... NPRM 01/15 .................... TBD ....................... TBD 

Total for FTA ........................................................................... .......................................... TBD ....................... TBD 

PHMSA 

2137–AE66 ........... Pipeline Safety: Safety of On-Shore Liquid 

Hazardous Pipelines.

NPRM 01/15 .................... TBD ....................... TBD 

2137–AE72 ........... Pipeline Safety: Gas Transmission (RRR) ....... NPRM 01/15 .................... TBD ....................... TBD 

2137–AE91 ........... Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Tank Car 

Standards and Operational Controls for 

High-Hazard Flammable Trains.

Final Rule 03/15 .............. 2,083 to 5,820 ....... 400 to 4,386 

Total for 

PHMSA.

........................................................................... .......................................... 2,083 to 5,820 ....... 400 to 4,386 

TOTAL FOR 

DOT.

........................................................................... .......................................... 4,155–7,892 .......... 3,408.5–7,394.5 

Notes: Costs and benefits of rulemakings may be forecast over varying periods. Although the forecast periods will be the same for any given 

rulemaking, comparisons between proceedings should be made cautiously. 

Costs and benefits are generally discounted at a 7 percent discount rate over the period analyzed. 

The Department of Transportation 

generally assumes that there are 

economic benefits to avoiding a fatality 

of $9.2 million. That economic value is 

included as part of the benefits 

estimates shown in the chart. As noted 

above, we have not included the nonquantifiable benefits. 

DOT—FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION (FAA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

104. + Operation and Certification of 

Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

(SUAS) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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

L. 112–95 

CFR Citation: 14 CFR 91. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

August 14, 2014, Public Law 112–95, 

section 332(b) requires issuance of final 

rule 18 months after integration plan is 

submitted to Congress. Integration plan 

due Feb. 14, 2013. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

adopt specific rules for the operation of 

small unmanned aircraft systems 

(sUAS) in the National Airspace System. 

These changes would address the 

classification of small unmanned 

aircraft, certification of their pilots and 

visual observers, registration, approval 

of operations, and operational limits in 

order to increase the safety and 

efficiency of the national airspace 

system. 

Statement of Need: The FAA is 

proposing to amend its regulations to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76590 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

adopt specific rules for the operation of 

small unmanned aircraft systems 

(sUAS) in the National Airspace System 

(NAS). These changes would address 

the classification of sUAS, certification 

of sUAS pilots and visual observers, 

registration of sUAS, approval of sUAS 

operations, and sUAS operational 

limits. The NPRM also proposes 

regulations for all sUAS, including 

operating standards for model aircraft 

and low performance (e.g., toy) 

operations, to increase the safety and 

efficiency of the NAS. The FAA and 

sUAS community lack sufficient formal 

safety data regarding unmanned 

operations to support granting 

traditional, routine access to the NAS. 

This proposed rule would result in the 

regular collection of safety data from the 

user community and help the FAA 

develop new regulations and expand 

sUAS access to the NAS. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This 

rulemaking is required by the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, 

Public Law 112–95, sec. 332(b). The 

FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

U.S. Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 

describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator, including the authority 

to issue, rescind, and revise regulations. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Title 49 U.S. Code 

Transportation. Pursuant to Subtitle I, 

Chapter 1, Sections 106(f)(2)(iii) and 

(3)(A), the Administrator is authorized 

to promulgate regulations, rules, orders, 

circulars, bulletins, and other 

publications of the Administrator, and 

to issue, rescind and revise such 

regulations as are necessary to carry out 

those functions. Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart III, Chapter 447 Safety 

Regulation. Pursuant to section 44701 

(a)(5), the FAA is charged with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft by, 

among other things, prescribing 

regulations the FAA finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce and national 

security. 

Alternatives: This rulemaking is 

required by the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112–95, 

sec. 332(b). The FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety is found in Title 

49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle I, Section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator, including the authority 

to issue, rescind, and revise regulations. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Title 49 U.S. Code 

Transportation. Pursuant to Subtitle I, 

Chapter 1, Sections 106(f)(2)(iii) and 

(3)(A), the Administrator is authorized 

to promulgate regulations, rules, orders, 

circulars, bulletins, and other 

publications of the Administrator, and 

to issue, rescind and revise such 

regulations as are necessary to carry out 

those functions. Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart III, Chapter 447 Safety 

Regulation. Pursuant to section 44701 

(a)(5), the FAA is charged with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft by, 

among other things, prescribing 

regulations the FAA finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce and national 

security. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs 

and benefits for this rulemaking are to 

be determined. 

Risks: Commercial operations 

currently have no legal means to 

conduct operations. Due to the time and 

cost of traditional processes and without 

new regulations, commercial operations 

will not be able to operate until the 

necessary standards are developed by 

the UAS community. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL for More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Lance Nuckolls, 

Certification and General Aviation 

Operations, Department of 

Transportation, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20591, 

Phone: 202–267–8212, Email: 

lance.nuckolls@faa.gov. 

RIN: 2120–AJ60 

DOT—FAA 

105. + Slot Management and 

Transparency for Laguardia Airport, 

John F. Kennedy International Airport, 

and Newark Liberty International 

Airport 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101, 

40103, and 40105; 49 U.S.C. 41712; 15 

U.S.C. 21 

CFR Citation: 14 CFR 93. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

replace the current temporary orders 

limiting scheduled operations at 

LaGuardia Airport (LGA), John F. 

Kennedy International Airport (JFK), 

and Newark Liberty International 

Airport (EWR) with a more permanent 

rule to address the issues of congestion 

and delay at the New York area ́s three 

major commercial airports, while also 

promoting fair access and competition. 

The rulemaking would help ensure that 

congestion and delays are managed by 

limiting scheduled and unscheduled 

operations. The rulemaking would also 

establish a secondary market for U.S. 

and foreign air carriers to buy, sell, 

trade, and lease slots amongst each 

other at each of the three airports. This 

would allow carriers serving or seeking 

to serve the New York area airports to 

exchange slots as their business models 

and strategic goals require. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking 

would replace the current temporary 

orders limiting scheduled operations at 

LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy 

International Airport, and Newark 

Liberty International Airport with a 

more permanent rule to address the 

issues of congestion and delay at the 

New York area’s three major commercial 

airports, while also promoting fair 

access and competition. The rulemaking 

would help ensure that congestion and 

delays are managed by limiting 

scheduled and unscheduled operations. 

The rulemaking would also establish a 

secondary market for U.S. and foreign 

air carriers to buy, sell, trade, and lease 

slots amongst each other at each of the 

three airports. This would allow carriers 

serving or seeking to serve the New 

York area airports to exchange slots as 

their business models and strategic 

goals require. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This 

rulemaking is promulgated under the 

authority described in subtitle VII, part 

A, subpart I, sections 40101, 40103, 

40105, and 41712. The Secretary of 

Transportation (Secretary) is the head of 

the DOT and has broad oversight of 

significant FAA decisions. See 49 U.S.C. 

102 and 106. In addition, under 49 

U.S.C. 41712, the Secretary has the 

authority to investigate and prohibit 

unfair and deceptive practices, and 

unfair methods of competition in air 

transportation, or the sale of air 

transportation. The FAA has broad 

authority under 49 U.S.C. 40103 to 

regulate the use of the navigable 

airspace of the United States. This 

section authorizes the FAA to develop 

plans and policy for the use of navigable 

airspace, and to assign the use the FAA 

deems necessary for safe and efficient 

utilization. It further directs the FAA to 

prescribe air traffic rules and regulations 

governing the efficient utilization of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76591 

navigable airspace. Not only is the FAA 

required to ensure the efficient use of 

navigable airspace, but it must do so in 

a manner that does not effectively shut 

out potential operators at the airport, 

and in a manner that acknowledges 

competitive market forces. These 

authorities empower the DOT to ensure 

the efficient utilization of airspace by 

limiting the number of scheduled and 

unscheduled aircraft operations at JFK, 

EWR, and LGA, while balancing 

between promoting competition and 

recognizing historical investments in 

the airport, and the need to provide 

continuity. They also authorize the DOT 

to investigate the transfer of slots and to 

limit or prohibit anticompetitive 

transfers. 

Alternatives: The FAA considered two 

alternatives. The first alternative was to 

simply extend the existing orders. This 

alternative was rejected because the 

FAA wanted to increase competition by 

making slots available to more 

operators. The FAA believes these 

operators are likely to be small entities. 

The second alternative was to remove 

the existing orders. This alternative 

results in unacceptable delay costs from 

the increase in operations. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

FAA estimates the quantitative costs to 

be $48.2 million and the quantitative 

benefits are estimated at $67.8 million, 

with the benefits exceeding the costs. 

This is a preliminary estimate that is 

subject to change based on further 

review and analysis. 

Risks: There are no risks for this 

rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: This 

rulemaking is associated with an RRR 

action. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Molly W Smith, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Ave., SW, Washington, 

DC 20591, Phone: 202–267–3344 Email: 

molly.w.smith@faa.gov. 

RIN: 2120–AJ89 

DOT—FAA 

106. + Drug and Alcohol Testing of 

Certain Maintenance Provider 

Employees Located Outside of the 

United States 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 14 CFR; 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. 

44707; 49 U.S.C. 44709; 49 U.S.C. 44717 

CFR Citation: 14 CFR 145. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

February 14, 2013, NPRM. 

Abstract: This rulemaking is required 

by the FAA Modernization and 

Reauthorization Act of 2012. It would 

require controlled substance testing of 

some employees working in repair 

stations located outside the United 

States. The intended effect is to increase 

participation by companies outside of 

the United States in testing of 

employees who perform safety critical 

functions and testing standards similar 

to those used in the repair stations 

located in the United States. This action 

is necessary to increase the level of 

safety of the flying public. 

Statement of Need: As a project 

identified under congressional mandate, 

the intended effect of this rulemaking 

would be to promote drug and alcohol 

testing standardization within the global 

aviation community in an effort to reach 

an increased level of safety for the flying 

public around the world. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

provides the legal basis for this 

rulemaking. In February 2012 the U.S. 

Congress passed the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. 

Section 308(d)(2) of the Act requires 

that the FAA promulgate a proposed 

rule that requires all part 145 repair 

station employees responsible for safetysensitive maintenance functions on part 

121 commercial air carriers aircraft to be 

subject to an alcohol and controlled 

substances testing program determined 

acceptable by the Administrator and 

consistent with the applicable laws of 

the country in which the repair station 

is located. 

Alternatives: Our alternatives would 

be to work with other aviation leaders 

(e.g. International Civil Aviation 

Organization—ICAO) and develop a 

collective initiative to foster a drug and 

alcohol-free worldwide environment. 

The FAA Modernization and Reform 

Act of 2012, does articulate the idea that 

the Secretaries of State and 

Transportation work with ICAO and 

establish international standards to test 

for drug and alcohol use of employees 

performing safety-sensitive maintenance 

functions on commercial air carrier 

aircraft. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Our 

alternatives would be to work with 

other aviation leaders (e.g. International 

Civil Aviation Organization—ICAO) and 

develop a collective initiative to foster 

a drug and alcohol-free worldwide 

environment. The FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012, does articulate 

the idea that the Secretaries of State and 

Transportation work with ICAO and 

establish international standards to test 

for drug and alcohol use of employees 

performing safety-sensitive maintenance 

functions on commercial air carrier 

aircraft. 

Risks: International implications are 

the risks. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 03/17/14 79 FR 14621 

Comment Period 

Extended.

05/01/14 79 FR 24631 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

05/16/14 

Comment Period 

End.

07/17/14 

Analyzing Comments.02/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions. 

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: Vicky Dunne, 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Ave, SW, Washington, 

DC 20591, Phone: 202 267–8522, Email: 

vicky.dunne@faa.gov. 

RIN: 2120–AK09 

DOT—FAA 

107. + Pilot Records Database (HR 

5900) 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

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; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76592 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

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 (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. 

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 Statute 2348 

(2010). 

Alternatives: The ARC proposed a 

phased implementation as an alternative 

to PRDs statutory requirement to enter 

all historical records dating from August 

1, 2005. Instead, within 60 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 

Rulemaking Team believes that three 

methods of data entry would allow 

larger air carriers to take advantage of 

technology, thereby reducing costs, 

while allowing smaller air carriers the 

flexibility to enter data manually 

without the need for an information 

technology department and 

sophisticated computer knowledge. 

Risks: Any risk mitigation technique 

used to counter this additional security 

threat would significantly add to the 

time and cost required for the FAA to 

properly manage the air carrier user 

accounts and likely delay air carrier 

access to the PRD data. Several options 

were explored that would 

simultaneously provide appropriate 

security controls to protect 

unauthorized access to sensitive data 

while not impeding the air carriers from 

ready access to the PRD data. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

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: Bryan Brown, 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 6424 S 

Denning Ave., Oklahoma City, OK 

73169, Phone: 405 954–4513, Email: 

bryan.w.brown@faa.gov. 

RIN: 2120–AK31 

DOT—FAA 

Final Rule Stage 

108. + Safety Management Systems for 

Certificate Holders 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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

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

41706; 49 U.S.C. 44101; 49 U.S.C. 

44701; 49 U.S.C. 44702; 49 U.S.C. 

44705; 49 U.S.C. 44709 to 44711; 49 

U.S.C. 44713; 49 U.S.C. 44716; 49 U.S.C. 

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

46105; Pub. L. 111–216, sec 215 

CFR Citation: 14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 5. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 

30, 2012, Final Rule. NPRM, Statutory, 

October 29, 2010, NPRM. Congress 

passed Public Law 111–216 that 

instructs FAA to conduct a rulemaking 

to require all part 121 air carriers to 

implement a Safety Management System 

(SMS). This Act further states that the 

FAA shall consider at a minimum each 

of the following as part of the SMS 

rulemaking: (1) an Aviation Safety 

Action Program (ASAP); (2) a Flight 

Operations Quality Assurance Program 

(FOQA); (3) a Line Operations Safety 

Audit (LOSA); and (4) an Advance 

Qualifications Program. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

require each certificate holder operating 

under 14 CFR part 121 to develop and 

implement a safety management system 

(SMS) to improve the safety of its 

aviation related activities. A safety 

management system is a comprehensive, 

process-oriented approach to managing 

safety throughout an organization. An 

SMS includes an organization-wide 

safety policy; formal methods for 

identifying hazards, controlling, and 

continually assessing risk and safety 

performance; and promotion of a safety 

culture. SMS stresses not only 

compliance with technical standards 

but increased emphasis on the overall 

safety performance of the organization. 

This rulemaking is required under 

Public Law 111–216, section 215. 

Statement of Need: This final rule 

requires each air carrier operating under 

14 CFR part 121 to develop and 

implement a safety management system 

(SMS) to improve the safety of its 

aviation-related activities. SMS is a 

comprehensive, process-oriented 

approach to managing safety throughout 

an organization. SMS includes an 

organization-wide safety policy; formal 

methods for identifying hazards; 

controlling, and continually assessing 

risk and safety performance; and 

promotion of a safety culture. SMS 

stresses not only compliance with 

technical standards but also increased 

emphasis on the overall safety 

performance of the organization. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Federal 

Aviation Administration’s (FAA) 

authority to issue rules on aviation 

safety is found in title 49 of the United 

States Code. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), 

which requires the Administrator to 

promulgate regulations and minimum 

standards for other practices, methods, 

and procedures necessary for safety in 

air commerce and national security. In 

addition, the Airline Safety and Federal 

Aviation Administration Extension Act 

of 2010 (the Act), Public Law 111–216, 

section 215 (August 1, 2010), required 

the FAA to conduct rulemaking to 

require all 14 CFR part 121 air carriers 

to implement a safety management 

system. The Act required the FAA to 

issue this final rule within 24 months of 

the passing of the Act (July 30, 2012). 

Alternatives: To relieve the burden of 

this rule on small entities, the FAA 

considered extending the timeframe for 

development of SMS implementation 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76593 

plans. However, the FAA ultimately 

concluded that 1 year for the 

development and approval of 

implementation plans is appropriate. In 

making this determination, the FAA 

considered longer and shorter terms. 

However, it settled on 1 year based on 

information from the SMS Pilot Project, 

which showed that an average of 1 year 

was sufficient to develop and approve 

an implementation plan. As part of its 

analysis, the FAA noted that pilot 

project participants ultimately had 

differing levels of SMS implementation. 

However, because all pilot project 

participants had initially developed 

(and received FAA validation on) an 

implementation plan that provided for 

full SMS implementation, the FAA was 

able to use this data to estimate how 

long it would take a certificate holder to 

develop such a plan, and get the plan 

approved by the FAA. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

FAA estimates the quantitative costs to 

be $135.1 million, and the quantitative 

benefits to be $142.8 million, with 

benefits exceeding costs. 

Risks: While the commercial air 

carrier accident rate in the United States 

has decreased substantially over the 

past 10 years, the FAA has identified a 

recent trend involving hazards that were 

revealed during accident investigations. 

The FAA’s Office of Accident 

Investigation and Prevention identified 

128 accidents involving part 121 air 

carriers from fiscal year (FY) 2001 

through FY 2010 for which identified 

causal factors could have been mitigated 

if air carriers had implemented an SMS 

to identify hazards in their operations 

and developed methods to control the 

risk. This type of approach allows air 

carriers to anticipate and mitigate the 

likely causes of potential accidents. This 

is a significant improvement over 

current reactive safety action emphasis, 

which focuses on discovering and 

mitigating the cause of an accident only 

after that accident has occurred. In order 

to bring about this change in accident 

mitigation, as well as the other reasons 

discussed throughout this document, 

the FAA is requiring part 121 air 

carriers to develop and implement an 

SMS. SMS is a comprehensive, processoriented approach to managing safety 

throughout an organization, and stresses 

not only compliance with technical 

standards, but increased emphasis on 

the overall safety performance of the 

organization. The potential reduction of 

risks would be averted causalities, 

aircraft damage, and accident 

investigation costs by identifying safety 

issues and spotting trends before they 

result in a near-miss, incident, or 

accident. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/05/10 75 FR 68224 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

01/31/11 76 FR 5296 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

02/03/11 

Comment Period 

Extended.

03/07/11 

Final Rule ............ 11/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

URL for More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Scott VanBuren, 

Office of Accident Investigation and 

Prevention, Department of 

Transportation, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence Ave. 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, Phone: 202 

494–8417, Email: scott.vanburen@

faa.gov. 

Related RIN: Split from 2120–AJ15 

RIN: 2120–AJ86 

DOT—FEDERAL HIGHWAY 

ADMINISTRATION (FHWA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

109. + National Goals and 

Performance Management Measures 

(MAP–21) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: sec 1203 Pub. L. 112– 

141; 49 CFR 1.85 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

April 1, 2014, NPRM. 

Section 1203 of MAP–21 requires the 

Secretary to promulgate a rulemaking 

within 18 months after the date of 

enactment. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

create national performance 

management measures and standards to 

be used by the States to meet the 

national transportation goals identified 

in section 1203 of MAP–21. This 

rulemaking would also establish the 

process to be used by States to set 

performance targets that reflect their 

performance measures. The FHWA 

anticipates issuing up to three 

rulemakings in this area. This 

rulemaking, number two, will cover the 

bridges and pavement. 

Statement of Need: The Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

Act (MAP–21) transforms the Federalaid highway program by establishing 

new requirements for performance 

management to ensure the most efficient 

investment of Federal transportation 

funds. Performance management 

refocuses attention on national 

transportation goals, increases the 

accountability and transparency of the 

Federal-aid highway program, and 

improves project decisionmaking 

through performance-based planning 

and programming. This rulemaking is 

the second of 3 that would propose the 

establishment of performance measures 

for State DOTs and MPOs to use to carry 

out Federal-aid highway programs and 

to assess performance in each of the 12 

areas mandated by MAP–21. This 

rulemaking would establish 

performance measures for State DOTs to 

use to carry out the National Highway 

Performance Program (NHPP) and to 

assess: condition of pavements on the 

National Highways System (NHS) 

(excluding the Interstate System), 

condition of pavements on the Interstate 

System, and condition of bridges on the 

NHS. This rulemaking would also 

propose the definitions that will be 

applicable to the new 23 CFR 490; the 

process to be used by State DOTs and 

MPOs to establish performance targets 

that reflect the measures proposed in 

this rulemaking; a methodology to be 

used to assess State DOTs’ compliance 

with the target achievement provision 

specified under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7); and 

the process to be followed by State 

DOTs to report on progress towards the 

achievement of pavement and bridge 

condition-related performance targets. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1203 

of MAP–21 requires the Secretary of 

Transportation to establish performance 

measures and standards through a 

rulemaking to assess performance in 12 

areas. 

Alternatives: N/A. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet 

determined. 

Risks: N/A. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

State. 

URL for More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Francine ShawWhitson, Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76594 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

DC 20590, Phone: 202–366–8028, Email: 

Francine.Shaw-whitson@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2125–AF53 

DOT—FHWA 

110. + National Goals and 

Performance Management Measures 

(MAP–21) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: sec 1203, Pub. L. 

112–141; 49 FR 1.85 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

April 1, 2014, NPRM. 

Section 1203 of MAP–21 requires the 

Secretary to promulgate a rulemaking 

within 18 months after the date of 

enactment. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

create national performance 

management measures and standards to 

be used by the States to meet the 

national transportation goals identified 

in section 1203 of MAP–21. This 

rulemaking would also establish the 

process to be used by States to set 

performance targets that reflect their 

performance measures. The FHWA 

anticipates issuing up to three 

rulemakings in this area. This 

rulemaking covers Congestion 

Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and 

Freight issues. 

Statement of Need: The Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

Act (MAP–21) transforms the Federalaid highway program by establishing 

new requirements for performance 

management to ensure the most efficient 

investment of Federal transportation 

funds. Performance management 

refocuses attention on national 

transportation goals, increases the 

accountability and transparency of the 

Federal-aid highway program, and 

improves project decisionmaking 

through performance-based planning 

and programming. This rulemaking is 

the third of 3 that would propose the 

establishment of performance measures 

for State DOTs and MPOs to use to carry 

out Federal-aid highway programs and 

to assess performance in each of the 12 

areas mandated by MAP–21. This 

rulemaking would establish 

performance measures for State DOTs to 

use in the areas of Congestion 

Reduction, Congestion Mitigation and 

Air quality improvement program 

(CMAQ), Freight, and Performance of 

the Interstate/Non-Interstate National 

Highway System. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1203 

of MAP–21 requires the Secretary of 

Transportation to establish performance 

measures and standards through a 

rulemaking to assess performance in 12 

areas. 

Alternatives: N/A. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet 

determined. 

Risks: N/A. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

State. 

URL for More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Francine ShawWhitson, Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, Phone: 202–366–8028, Email: 

Francine.Shaw-whitson@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2125–AF54 

DOT—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER 

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (FMCSA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

111. + Carrier Safety Fitness 

Determination 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: sec 4009 of TEA–21 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 385. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: FMCSA proposes to amend 

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations (FMCSRs) to adopt revised 

methodologies that would result in a 

safety fitness determination (SFD). The 

proposed methodologies would 

determine when a motor carrier is not 

fit to operate commercial motor vehicles 

(CMVs) in or affecting interstate 

commerce based on (1) the carrier’s 

performance in relation to five of the 

Agency’s Behavioral Analysis and 

Safety Improvement Categories 

(BASICs); (2) an investigation; or (3) a 

combination of on-road safety data and 

investigation information. The intended 

effect of this action is to reduce crashes 

caused by CMV drivers and motor 

carriers, resulting in death, injuries, and 

property damage on U.S. highways, by 

more effectively using FMCSA data and 

resources to identify unfit motor 

carriers, and to remove them from the 

Nation’s roadways. 

Statement of Need: Because of the 

time and expense associated with the 

on-site compliance review, only a small 

fraction of carriers (approximately 

12,000) receive a safety fitness 

determination each year. Since the 

current safety fitness determination 

process is based exclusively on the 

results of an on-site compliance review, 

the great majority of carriers subject to 

FMCSA jurisdiction do not receive a 

timely determination of their safety 

fitness. The proposed methodology for 

determining motor carrier safety fitness 

should correct the deficiencies of the 

current process. In correcting these 

deficiencies, FMCSA has made a 

concerted effort to develop a 

‘‘transparent’’ method for the Safety 

Fitness Determination (SFD) that would 

allow each motor carrier to understand 

fully how FMCSA established that 

carrier’s specific SFD. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is 

based primarily on the authority of 49 

U.S.C. 31144, which directs the 

Secretary of Transportation to 

‘‘determine whether an owner or 

operator is fit to operate a commercial 

motor vehicle’’ and to ‘‘maintain by 

regulation a procedure for determining 

the safety fitness of an owner or 

operator.’’ This statute was first enacted 

as part of the Motor Carrier Safety Act 

of 1984, section 215, Public Law 98– 

554, 98 Stat. 2844 (Oct. 30, 1984). The 

proposed rule also relies on the 

provisions of 49 U.S.C. 31133, which 

gives the Secretary ‘‘broad 

administrative powers to assist in the 

implementation’’ of the provisions of 

the Motor Carrier Safety Act now found 

in chapter 311 of title 49, U.S.C. These 

powers include, among others, authority 

to conduct inspections and 

investigations, compile statistics, 

require production of records and 

property, prescribe recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements, and to perform 

other acts considered appropriate. These 

powers are used to obtain the data used 

by the Safety Management System and 

by the proposed new methodology for 

safety fitness determinations. Under 49 

CFR 1.73(g), the Secretary has delegated 

the authority to carry out the functions 

in subchapters I, III, and IV of chapter 

311, title 49, U.S.C., to the FMCSA 

Administrator. Sections 31133 and 

31144 are part of subchapter III of 

chapter 311. 

Alternatives: The Agency has been 

considering several alternatives. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Agency is continuing to review the 

estimated costs and benefits of the 

proposed rule. 

Risks: A risk of incorrectly identifying 

a compliant carrier as non-compliant— 

and consequently subjecting the carrier 

to unnecessary expenses—has been 

analyzed and has been found to be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76595 

negligible under the process being 

proposed. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

URL for More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: David Miller, 

Regulatory Development Division, 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366– 

5370, Email: fmcsaregs@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2126–AB11 

DOT—FMCSA 

112. + Electronic Logging Devices and 

Hours of Service Supporting Documents 

(MAP–21) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under Pub. L. 

104–4. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31502; 

31136(a); Pub. L. 103.311; 49 U.S.C. 

31137(a) 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 350; 49 CFR 

385; 49 CFR 396; 49 CFR 395 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, 

January 31, 2011, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. 

NPRM, Statutory, October 1, 2013, 

MAP–21 requires FMCSA to issue a 

final rule by October 1, 2013, a deadline 

that FMCSA will not be able to meet, 

due to the need for notice and comment 

on these proposals. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

establish: (1) Minimum performance 

and design standards for hours-ofservice (HOS) electronic logging devices 

(ELDs); (2) requirements for the 

mandatory use of these devices by 

drivers currently required to prepare 

HOS records of duty status (RODS); (3) 

requirements concerning HOS 

supporting documents; and (4) measures 

to address concerns about harassment 

resulting from the mandatory use of 

ELDs. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking 

action would improve commercial 

motor vehicle (CMV) safety and reduce 

the overall paperwork burden for both 

motor carriers and drivers by increasing 

the use of ELDs within the motor carrier 

industry, which would in turn improve 

compliance with the applicable Hours 

of Service (HOS) rules. Specifically, this 

rule would (1) Require new technical 

specifications for ELDs that address 

statutory requirements; (2) mandate 

ELDs for drivers currently using record 

of duty status; (3) clarify supporting 

document requirements so that motor 

carriers and drivers can comply 

efficiently with HOS regulations, and so 

that motor carriers can make the best 

use of ELDs and related support systems 

as their primary means of recording 

HOS information and ensure HOS 

compliance; and (4) adopt procedural 

and technical provisions aimed at 

ensuring that ELDs are not used to 

harass vehicle operators. The Agency 

published a Supplemental Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) on 

March 28, 2014, and the comment 

period ended on June 26, 2014. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 113 

of the Hazardous Materials 

Transportation Authorization Act of 

1994, Public Law 103–311, 108 Stat. 

1673, 16776–1677, August 26, 1994, 

(HMTAA) requires the Secretary to 

prescribe regulations to improve 

compliance by CMV drivers and motor 

carriers with HOS requirements and the 

effectiveness and efficiency of Federal 

and State enforcement officers 

reviewing such compliance. 

Specifically, the Act addresses 

requirements for supporting documents. 

Section 32301(b) of the Commercial 

Motor Vehicle Safety Enhancement Act, 

enacted as part of MAP–21 (Public Law 

112–141, 126 Stat. 405, 786–788 (July 6, 

2012), mandated that the Secretary 

adopt regulations requiring that CMVs 

involved in interstate commerce, 

operated by drivers who are required to 

keep RODS, be equipped with ELDs. 

Alternatives: FMCSA is considering 

several alternatives to the proposal, 

including alternate populations. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

FMCSA estimates costs of $1.6B and 

benefits of $2.0B for the rule, 

discounted at 7% in 2013 dollars. 

Risks: FMCSA has not yet fully 

assessed the risks that might be 

associated with this activity. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/01/11 76 FR 5537 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

02/28/11 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

03/10/11 76 FR 13121 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

05/23/11 

SNPRM ............... 03/28/14 79 FR 17656 

SNPRM Comment 

Period End.

05/27/14 

SNPRM Analyzing 

Comments.

03/00/15 

Final Rule ............ 09/00/15 

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. 

Additional Information: The Agency 

previously published an NPRM on this 

subject under RIN 2126–AA76, ‘‘Hours 

of Service of Drivers; Supporting 

Documents’’ (63 FR 19457, Apr. 20, 

1998) and an SNPRM, ‘‘Hours of Service 

of Drivers: Supporting Documents’’ (69 

FR 63997, Nov. 3, 2004). The Agency 

withdrew the SNPRM on October 25, 

2007, 72 FR 60614. The previous 

proceeding can be found in docket No. 

FMCSA–1998–3706. 

URL for More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Deborah M. Freund, 

Senior Transportation Specialist, 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366– 

5370, Email: deborah.freund@dot.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 2126–AA89, 

Related to 2126–AA76 

RIN: 2126–AB20 

DOT—FMCSA 

Final Rule Stage 

113. + Commercial Driver’s License 

Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (MAP– 

21) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31306 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 382. 

Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, 

October 1, 2014, Clearinghouse required 

to be established by 10/01/2014. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

create a central database for verified 

positive controlled substances and 

alcohol test results for commercial 

driver ́s license (CDL) holders and 

refusals by such drivers to submit to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76596 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

testing. This rulemaking would require 

employers of CDL holders and service 

agents to report positive test results and 

refusals to test into the Clearinghouse. 

Prospective employers, acting on an 

application for a CDL driver position 

with the applicant ́s written consent to 

access the Clearinghouse, would query 

the Clearinghouse to determine if any 

specific information about the driver 

applicant is in the Clearinghouse before 

allowing the applicant to be hired and 

to drive CMVs. This rulemaking is 

intended to increase highway safety by 

ensuring CDL holders, who have tested 

positive or have refused to submit to 

testing, have completed the U.S. DOT ́s 

return-to-duty process before driving 

CMVs in interstate or intrastate 

commerce. It is also intended to ensure 

that employers are meeting their drug 

and alcohol testing responsibilities. 

Additionally, provisions in this 

rulemaking would also be responsive to 

requirements of the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century (MAP–21) 

Act. MAP–21 requires creation of the 

Clearinghouse by 10/1/14. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking 

would improve the safety of the 

Nation’s highways by ensuring that 

employers know when drivers test 

positive for drugs and/or alcohol, and 

are not qualified to drive. It would also 

ensure that drivers who have tested 

positive and have not completed the 

return-to-duty process are not driving, 

and ensure that all employers are 

meeting their drug and alcohol testing 

responsibilities. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

32402 of the Moving Ahead for Progress 

in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21)) (Pub. 

L. 112–141, 126 Stat. 405) directs the 

Secretary of Transportation to establish 

a national clearinghouse for controlled 

substance and alcohol test results of 

commercial motor vehicle operators. In 

addition, FMCSA has general authority 

to promulgate safety standards, 

including those governing drivers’ use 

of drugs or alcohol while operating a 

CMV. The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 

1984 Public Law 98–554 (the 1984 Act) 

provides authority to regulate drivers, 

motor carriers, and vehicle equipment, 

and requires the Secretary of 

Transportation to prescribe minimum 

safety standards for CMVs. These 

standards include: (1) That CMVs are 

maintained, equipped loaded, and 

operated safely; (2) the responsibilities 

imposed on CMV operators do not 

impair their ability to operate the 

vehicles safely; (3) the physical 

condition of CMV operators is adequate 

to enable them to operate the vehicles 

safely; and (4) CMV operation does not 

have a deleterious effect on the physical 

condition of the operators 49 U.S.C. 

31136(a). 

Alternatives: To be determined. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Agency estimates $187 million in 

annual benefits from increased crash 

reduction from the rule. This is against 

an estimated $155 million in total 

annual costs for employers to complete 

the annual and pre-employment queries 

and to designate C/TPAs, for SAPs to 

input information from drivers 

undergoing the return-to-duty process, 

for various entities to report and notify 

positive tests and to register and become 

familiar with the rule, for drivers to 

consent to release of records, and for 

FMCSA to maintain and operate the 

Clearinghouse, and for drivers to go 

through the return-to-duty process. 

Total net benefits of the rule thus are 

$32 million annually. 

Risks: There is a risk of not knowing 

when a driver has not completed the 

return-to-duty process and enabling jobhopping within the industry. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/20/14 79 FR 9703 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

04/21/14 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

04/22/14 79 FR 22467 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

05/21/14 

Final Rule ............ 09/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

E.O. 13132. 

Additional Information: MAP–21 

included provisions for a Drug and 

Alcohol Test Clearinghouse that affect 

this rulemaking. 

URL for More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Juan Moya, 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366– 

4844, Email: juan.moya@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2126–AB18 

DOT—NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

114. +Fuel Efficiency Standards for 

Medium-and Heavy-Duty Vehicles and 

Work Trucks: Phase 2 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 

32902(k)(2); 49 CFR 1.95 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 523; 49 CFR 

534; 49 CFR 534. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

address fuel efficiency standards for 

medium- and heavy-duty on-highway 

vehicles and work trucks for model 

years beyond 2018. This rulemaking 

would respond to requirements of the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 (EISA), title 1, subtitle A, 

sections 102 and 108, as they amend 49 

U.S.C. 32902, which was signed into 

law December 19, 2007. The statute 

requires that NHTSA establish a 

medium- and heavy-duty on-highway 

vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency 

improvement program that achieves the 

maximum feasible improvement, 

including standards that are 

appropriate, cost-effective, and 

technologically feasible. The law 

requires that the new standards provide 

at least 4 full model years of regulatory 

lead-time and 3 full model years of 

regulatory stability (i.e., the standards 

must remain in effect for 3 years before 

they may be amended). This action 

would follow the first ever Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel 

Efficiency Standards for Medium- and 

Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles 

(Phase 1) (76 FR 57106, September 15, 

2011). In June 2013, the President’s 

Climate Action Plan called for the 

Department of Transportation to 

develop fuel efficiency standards and 

the Environmental Protection Agency to 

develop greenhouse gas emission 

standards in joint rulemaking within the 

President’s second term. In February 

2014, the President directed DOT and 

EPA to complete the second phase of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards 

and Fuel Efficiency Standards for 

Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and 

Vehicles during his second term. 

Statement of Need: Setting fuel 

consumption standards for commercial 

medium-duty and heavy-duty onhighway vehicles and work trucks will 

reduce fuel consumption, and will 

thereby improve U.S. energy security by 

reducing dependence on foreign oil, 

which has been a national objective 

since the first oil price shocks in the 

1970s. Net petroleum imports now 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76597 

account for approximately 60 percent of 

U.S. petroleum consumption. World 

crude oil production is highly 

concentrated, exacerbating the risks of 

supply disruptions and price shocks. 

Tight global oil markets led to prices 

over $100 per barrel in 2008, with 

gasoline reaching as high as $4 per 

gallon in many parts of the U.S., causing 

financial hardship for many families 

and businesses. The export of U.S. 

assets for oil imports continues to be an 

important component of the historically 

unprecedented U.S. trade deficits. 

Transportation accounts for about 72 

percent of U.S. petroleum consumption. 

Medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles 

account for about 17 percent of 

transportation oil use, which means that 

they alone account for about 12 percent 

of all U.S. oil consumption. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This 

rulemaking would respond to 

requirements of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA), title 1, subtitle A, sections 102 

and 108, as they amend 49 U.S.C. 

32902, which was signed into law 

December 19, 2007. In June 2013, the 

Presidents Climate Action Plan called 

for the Department of Transportation to 

develop fuel efficiency standards and 

the Environmental Protection Agency to 

develop greenhouse gas emission 

standards in joint rulemaking within the 

Presidents second term. In February 

2014, the President directed DOT and 

EPA to complete the second phase of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards 

and Fuel Efficiency Standards for 

Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and 

Vehicles during his second term. 

Alternatives: In Phase 1, NHTSA 

evaluated nine alternatives; (1) heavyduty engines, only (2) Class 8 

combination tractors and engines in 

Class 8 tractors, (3) heavy-duty engines 

and Class 7 and 8 tractors, (4) heavyduty engines, Class 7 and 8 tractors, and 

Class 2b/3 pickup trucks and vans, (5) 

NPRM Preferred Alternative: heavy-duty 

engines, tractors, and Class 2b through 

8 vehicles, (6) heavy-duty engines, 

tractors, Class 2b through 8 vehicles and 

trailers, (7) heavy-duty engines, tractors, 

Class 2b through 8 vehicles, and trailers 

plus advanced hybrid powertrain 

technology for Class 2b through 8 

vocational vehicles, pickups and vans, 

(8) 15 percent less stringent that the 

NPRM Preferred Alternative, covering 

heavy-duty engines, tractors, and Class 

2b through 8 vehicles, (9) 20 percent 

more stringent that the NPRM Preferred 

Alternative, covering heavy-duty 

engines, tractors, and Class 2b through 

8 vehicles. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

costs and benefits associated with this 

rulemaking have not yet been 

quantified. 

Risks: The agency believes there are 

no substantial risks to this rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Energy Effects: Statement of Energy 

Effects planned as required by Executive 

Order 13211. 

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 Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

Phone: 202–493–0515. Email: 

james.tamm@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2127–AL52 

DOT—NHTSA 

Final Rule Stage 

115. + Sound for Hybrid and Electric 

Vehicles 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111; 49 

U.S.C. 30115; 49 U.S.C. 30117; 49 U.S.C. 

30166; 49 U.S.C. 322; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.95 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 571; 49 CFR 

585. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, July 

5, 2012, Initiate rulemaking. Final, 

Statutory, January 3, 2014, Final Rule. 

Legislation requires the Secretary of 

Transportation to initiate rulemaking by 

July 2012, and issue a final rule not later 

than January 2014. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

respond to the Pedestrian Safety 

Enhancement Act of 2010, which directs 

the Secretary of Transportation to study 

and establish a motor vehicle safety 

standard that provides for a means of 

alerting blind, and other pedestrians of 

motor vehicle operation for hybrid and 

electric vehicles. The PRIA contains an 

estimate of 2,800 fewer injured 

pedestrians and pedalcyclists (35 

equivalent lives saved) at a total 

estimated cost of $23.5 million at the 3 

percent discount rate, and $22.9 million 

at the 7 percent discount rate, should 

the requirements of the NPRM be made 

final. 

Statement of Need: The Pedestrian 

Safety Enhancement Act of 2010, signed 

into law on January 4, 2011, directs the 

Secretary to study and establish a motor 

vehicle safety standard that provides for 

a means of alerting blind and other 

pedestrians of motor vehicle operation. 

The agency’s proposed safety standard, 

issued January 14, 2013, will require 

hybrid and electric passenger cars, light 

trucks and vans (LTVs), medium and 

heavy duty trucks, buses, low speed 

vehicles (LSVs), and motorcycles to 

meet specified sound requirements as 

required by the Act. This standard will 

ensure that blind, visually-impaired, 

and other pedestrians are able to detect 

and recognize nearby hybrid and 

electric vehicles. The proposal 

estimated that 2,800 total pedestrians 

injured will be avoided, due to this 

proposal’s representation of 35 

equivalent lives saved. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

30111, title 49 of the U.S.C., states that 

the Secretary shall prescribe motor 

vehicle safety standards. 

Alternatives: The Agency considered 

and sought public comment on 

alternatives including: (1) Taking no 

action; (2) requiring alert sounds based 

on recordings of internal combustion 

engine (ICE) vehicles; (3) specifying 

acoustic requirements for synthetic 

sounds that would closely resemble 

sounds produced by ICE vehicles; (4) 

setting requirements for alert sounds 

that possess aspects of both sounds 

produced by ICE vehicles and acoustic 

elements that contribute to detectability; 

and (5) using psychoacoustic principals 

to develop requirements for alert sounds 

that would have enhanced detectability, 

but would not necessarily have a 

reference to sounds produced by ICE 

vehicles. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In 

2010 dollars at a 7 percent discount rate, 

the total costs are estimated to be $24.4 

million and monetized benefits at 

$134.1 million, with net benefits 

estimated at $109.7 million. 

Risks: The Agency believes that there 

are no significant risks associated with 

this rulemaking, and that only beneficial 

outcomes will occur. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/14/13 78 FR 2797 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

03/15/13 

Final Rule ............ 04/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76598 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

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: Marisol Medri, 

Safety Engineer, Department of 

Transportation, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 

20590, Phone: 202–366–6987, Email: 

marisol.medri@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2127–AK93 

DOT—NHTSA 

116. +Electronic Stability Control 

Systems for Heavy Vehicles (MAP–21) 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111; 49 

U.S.C. 30115; 49 U.S.C. 30117; 49 U.S.C. 

30166; 49 U.S.C. 322; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.95 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 571. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

October 1, 2014, Final Rule. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

promulgate a new Federal standard that 

would require stability control systems 

on truck tractors and motorcoaches that 

address both rollover and loss-of-control 

crashes, after an extensive research 

program to evaluate the available 

technologies, an evaluation of the costs 

and benefits, and a review of 

manufacturer ́s product plans. Rollover 

and loss-of-control crashes involving 

heavy vehicles is a serious safety issue 

that is responsible for 304 fatalities and 

2,738 injuries annually. They are also a 

major cause of traffic tie-ups, resulting 

in millions of dollars of lost 

productivity, and excess energy 

consumption each year. Suppliers and 

truck and motorcoach manufacturers 

have developed stability control 

technology for heavy vehicles to 

mitigate these types of crashes. Our 

preliminary estimate produces an 

effectiveness range of 37 to 56 percent 

against single-vehicle tractor-trailer 

rollover crashes and 3 to 14 percent 

against loss-of-control crashes that 

result from skidding on the road surface. 

With these effectiveness estimates, 

annually, we estimate 29 to 66 lives 

would be saved, 517 to 979 MAIS 1 to 

5 injuries would be reduced, and 810 to 

1,693 crashes that involved property 

damage only would be eliminated. 

Additionally, it would save $10 to $26 

million in property damage and travel 

delays. Based on the technology unit 

costs and affected vehicles, we estimate 

technology costs would be $55 to 107 

million, annually. However, the costs 

savings from reducing travel delay and 

property damage would produce net 

benefits of $128 to $372 million. This 

rulemaking is responsive to 

requirements of the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century (MAP–21) 

Act. 

Statement of Need: Rollover and lossof-control crashes involving 

combination truck tractors and large 

buses is a serious safety issue that is 

responsible for 268 fatalities and 3,000 

injuries annually. They are also a major 

cause of traffic tie-ups, resulting in 

millions of dollars of lost productivity, 

and excess energy consumption each 

year. This action is consistent with our 

detailed plans for improving 

motorcoach passenger protection, laid 

out in NHTSA’s Approach to 

Motorcoach Safety 2007, and the 

Department of Transportation 2009 

Motorcoach Action Plan (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2007–28793), as well as the 

agency’s Vehicle Safety and Fuel 

Economy Rulemaking and Research 

Priority Plan 2011–2013 (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2009–0108), and is responsive 

to 3 recommendations issued by the 

National Transportation Safety Board. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

30111, title 49 of the U.S.C., states that 

the Secretary shall prescribe motor 

vehicle safety standards. 

Alternatives: The Agency considered 

two regulatory alternatives. First, we 

considered requiring truck tractors and 

large buses to be equipped with roll 

stability control (RSC) systems. The 

second alternative considered was 

requiring trailers to be equipped with 

RSC systems. When compared to the 

proposal, these alternatives provide 

fewer benefits because they are less 

effective at preventing rollover crashes 

and much less effective at preventing 

loss-of-control crashes. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

According to the NPRM, the anticipated 

total costs are expected to be $113.6 

million for the 150,000 truck tractors 

and 2,200 large buses produced in 2012. 

The agency estimates the proposal has 

the potential to save 49 to 60 fatalities, 

649 to 858 injuries, and 1,807 to 2,329 

crashes annually. The net cost per 

equivalent life saved at a 7 percent 

discount rate is estimated to range from 

$2.0 to $2.6 million, and for a 3 percent 

discount rate is $1.5 to $2.0 million. The 

net benefits are $155 to $222 million at 

a 7 percent discount rate, and $228 to 

$310 million at a 3 percent discount 

rate. 

Risks: The Agency believes that there 

are no significant risks associated with 

this rulemaking, and that only beneficial 

outcomes will occur. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/23/12 77 FR 30766 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

08/21/12 

Final Rule ............ 01/00/15 

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: George Soodoo, 

Chief, Vehicle Safety Dynamics Division 

(NVS–122), Department of 

Transportation, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 

20590, Phone: 202–366–2720, Fax: 202– 

366–4329, Email: george.soodoo@

dot.gov. 

RIN: 2127–AK97 

DOT—FEDERAL TRANSIT 

ADMINISTRATION (FTA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

117. +State Safety Oversight (MAP–21) 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 112 to 141, 

sec 20021 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 659. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking will set 

standards for State safety oversight of 

rail transit systems and criteria for 

award of FTA grant funds to help the 

States develop and carry out their 

oversight programs. 

Statement of Need: The Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

Act (MAP–21, effective Oct. 1, 2012) 

made substantial changes to the 

program for State safety oversight of rail 

fixed guideway public transportation 

systems, and created a new program of 

Federal financial assistance to the States 

for the purpose of conducting their 

oversight of rail transit system safety. 

This rulemaking will flesh out the 

statutory changes to the program, and 

set the process for making grants of 

Federal funding to the States. 

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

5329(e)(9) requires the Secretary to issue 

regulations to carry out the State safety 

oversight program for rail fixed 

guideway public transportation systems. 

Alternatives: This rulemaking will 

amend the regulations at 49 CFR part 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76599 

659 that have been in place since 1995. 

The single most important change this 

rulemaking entails is the flexible, 

scalable Safety Management Systems 

(SMS) approach that the U.S. Dept. of 

Transportation is applying to help 

ensure safety in all modes of 

transportation-SMS can be tailored both 

to the size, complexity, and mode of 

operation for a transit system, and the 

State agency that is overseeing the safety 

of a rail transit system. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This 

rulemaking will not entail any 

significant change to the annualized 

monetary costs and benefits of the State 

safety oversight rules that have been in 

place since 1995. The costs and benefits 

will be assessed during the development 

of the NPRM, but it’s critical to note that 

State safety oversight of rail transit 

systems will no longer be an unfunded 

mandate; for the first time, under MAP– 

21, Federal funding will be available to 

the States to assist them in conducting 

their oversight, and this rulemaking will 

set the process for making the FTA 

grants to the States. 

Risks: This rulemaking will not 

regulate any entities other than States 

that have rail fixed guideway public 

transportation systems and the State 

safety oversight Agencies that conduct 

oversight of those rail transit systems. 

The Federal funding for State safety 

oversight will be apportioned by 

formula, based on the statutory criteria 

set forth in 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(6)(B)(i), 

thus, this rulemaking poses no risks for 

the regulated communities other than 

the risks inherent in conducting the 

oversight of the safety of the rail transit 

systems for which they are responsible. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/15 

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: Candace Key, 

Attorney Advisor, Department of 

Transportation, Federal Transit 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

Phone: 202 366–9178, Email: 

candace.key@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2132–AB19 

DOT—PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS SAFETY 

ADMINISTRATION (PHMSA) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

118. +Pipeline Safety: Safety of OnShore Liquid Hazardous Pipelines 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

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

seq. 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 195. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

address effective procedures that 

hazardous liquid operators can use to 

improve the protection of high 

consequence areas (HCA) and other 

vulnerable areas along their hazardous 

liquid onshore pipelines. PHMSA is 

considering whether changes are needed 

to the regulations covering hazardous 

liquid onshore pipelines, whether other 

areas should be included as HCAs for 

integrity management (IM) protections, 

what the repair timeframes should be 

for areas outside the HCAs that are 

assessed as part of the IM program, 

whether leak detection standards are 

necessary, valve spacing requirements 

are needed on new construction or 

existing pipelines, and PHMSA should 

extend regulation to certain pipelines 

currently exempt from regulation. The 

Agency would also address the public 

safety and environmental aspects of any 

new requirements, as well as the cost 

implications and regulatory burden. 

Statement of Need: This NPRM 

responds to NTSB recommendations, a 

GAO recommendation, public safety 

community input, consideration of 

research and technology advancements 

and the review of recent incident and 

accident reports. Additionally, the 

Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, 

and Job Creation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112– 

90), includes several provisions and 

mandates that are relevant to the 49 CFR 

particularly section 195.452. If adopted, 

the proposals in this NPRM will better 

protect the public, property, and the 

environment by ensuring that additional 

pipelines are subject to improved 

regulation, thus increasing the detection 

and remediation of pipeline anomalies. 

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 to 129). Like its predecessor, 

the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 

1968 (Pub. L. 90 to 481), the HLPSA 

provided the Secretary of 

Transportation (Secretary) with 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: The various alternatives 

analyzed included no action ‘‘status 

quo’’ and individualized alternatives 

based on the proposed amendments. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

cost and benefits of this rule are to be 

determined. 

Risks: The proposed rule will provide 

increased safety for the regulated 

entities and reduce pipeline safety risks. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

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

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/18/11 

ANPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

01/04/11 76 FR 303 

ANPRM Extended 

Comment Period End.

02/18/11 

NPRM .................. 04/00/15 

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: John A Gale, 

Transportation Regulations Specialist, 

Department of Transportation, Pipeline 

and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

Phone: 202–366–0434, Email: 

john.gale@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2137–AE66 

DOT—PHMSA 

119. +Pipeline Safety: Gas 

Transmission (RRR) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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

seq. 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 192 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: In this rulemaking, PHMSA 

will be revisiting the requirements in 

the Pipeline Safety Regulations, 

addressing integrity management 

principles for gas transmission 

pipelines. In particular, PHMSA will be 

reviewing the definition of an HCA 

(including the concept of a potential 

impact radius), the repair criteria for 

both HCA and non-HCA areas, requiring 

the use of automatic and remotecontrolled shut off valves, valve 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76600 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

spacing, and whether applying the 

integrity management program 

requirements to additional areas would 

mitigate the need for class location 

requirements. 

Statement of Need: PHMSA will be 

reviewing the definition of an HCA 

(including the concept of a potential 

impact radius), the repair criteria for 

both HCA and non-HCA areas, requiring 

the use of automatic and remotecontrolled shut off valves, valve 

spacing, and whether applying the 

integrity management program 

requirements to additional areas would 

mitigate the need for class location 

requirements. This rulemaking is in 

direct response to Congressional 

mandates in the 2011 Pipeline 

Reauthorization Act, specifically; 

section 4 (e) Gas IM plus 6 months, 

section 5(IM), 8 (leak detection), 23 

(b)(2) (exceedance of MAOP); section 29 

(seismicity). 

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.s 

60101 et seq.), a series of statutes that 

are administered by the DOT and 

PHMSA. PHMSA has used that 

authority to promulgate comprehensive 

minimum safety standards for the 

transportation of gas by pipeline. 

Alternatives: Alternatives analyzed 

included no change, and extension of 

the compliance deadlines associated 

with the major cost of the requirement 

area; namely, development and 

implementation of management-ofchange processes that apply to all gas 

transmission pipelines beyond that 

which already applies to beyond IMPand control center-related processes. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

PHMSA does not expect the proposed 

rule to adversely affect the economy or 

any sector of the economy in terms of 

productivity and employment, the 

environment, public health, safety, or 

State, local, or tribal government. 

PHMSA has also determined, as 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, that the rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities in 

the United States. Additionally, PHMSA 

determined that the rule would not 

impose annual expenditures on State, 

local, or tribal governments in excess of 

$152 million, and thus does not require 

an Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

analysis. However, the rule would 

impose annual expenditure in the 

private sector in excess of $152 million. 

Risks: This proposed rule will 

strengthen current pipeline regulations 

and lower the safety risk of all regulated 

entities. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 08/25/11 76 FR 5308 

ANPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

11/16/11 76 FR 70953 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

12/02/11 

End of ANPRM 

Comment Period Extended.

01/20/12 

NPRM .................. 01/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: SB–Y IC–N 

SLT–N. 

URL for More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Cameron H 

Satterthwaite, Transportation 

Regulations Specialist, Department of 

Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, Phone: 202 366–8553, Email: 

cameron.satterthwaite@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2137–AE72 

DOT—PHMSA 

Final Rule Stage 

120. +Hazardous Materials: Enhanced 

Tank Car Standards and Operational 

Controls for High–Hazard Flammable 

Trains 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under Pub. L. 

104–4. 

Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 171; 49 CFR 

172; 49 CFR 173; 49 CFR 174; 49 CFR 

179 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This rulemaking would 

amend proposes new operational 

requirements for certain trains 

transporting a large volume of 

flammable materials, provide 

improvements in tank car standards, 

and revise the generalmaterials 

improvements in tank car standards and 

revision of the general requirements for 

offerors to ensure proper classification 

and characterization of mined gases and 

liquids. These new requirements are 

designed to lessen the consequences of 

derailments involving ethanol crude oil 

and certain trains transporting a large 

volume of flammable materials. The 

growing reliance on trains to transport 

large volumes of flammable materials 

poses a significant risk to life property 

and the environment. These significant 

risks have been highlighted by the 

recent derailments of trains carrying 

crude oil in Casselton, North Dakota; 

Aliceville, Alabama; and Lac-Me ́gantic, 

Quebec Canada. The proposed changes 

also address National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations 

on accurate classification, enhanced 

tank cars, rail routing, oversight, and 

adequate response capabilities. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is 

a crucial step by DOT to reduce the risks 

related to the transportation of 

hazardous materials by rail. Preventing 

tank car incidents and minimizing the 

consequences when an incident does 

occur are not only DOT priorities, but 

are also shared by the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 

industry, and the general public. These 

same groups also question the 

survivability of general service tank cars 

built to the current regulatory 

requirements. To this end, PHMSA will 

consider regulatory amendments to 

enhance the standards for tank cars, 

most notably, DOT Specification 111 

tank cars used to transport certain 

hazardous materials and explore 

additional operational requirements to 

enhance the safe transportation of 

hazardous materials by rail. 

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.’’ 

Alternatives: PHMSA and FRA are 

committed to a comprehensive 

approach to addressing the risk and 

consequences of derailments involving 

hazardous materials by addressing not 

only survivability of rail car designs, but 

the operational practices of rail carriers. 

Obtaining information and comments in 

an NPRM provided the greatest 

opportunity for public participation in 

the development of regulatory 

amendments, and promote greater 

exchange of information and 

perspectives among the various 

stakeholders to promote future 

regulatory action on these issues. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

NPRM requested comments on both the 

path forward and the economic impacts. 

We are evaluating comments prior to 

developing the final rule, and once the 

final rule is drafted the costs and 

benefits will be detailed. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76601 

Risks: DOT conducted research on 

long-standing safety concerns regarding 

the survivability of the DOT 

Specification 111 tank cars designed to 

current HMR requirements, and used for 

the transportation of flammable liquids. 

The research found that special 

consideration is necessary for the 

transportation of flammable liquids in 

DOT Specification 111 tank cars, 

especially when a train is configured as 

a unit train. Through the research, DOT 

identified and ranked several 

enhancements to the current 

specifications that would increase tank 

car survivability. The highest-ranked 

options are low cost and the most 

effective at preventing loss of 

containment and catastrophic failure of 

a DOT Specification 111 tank car during 

a derailment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 09/06/13 78 FR 54849 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

11/05/13 

ANPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

11/05/13 78 FR 66326 

ANPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

12/05/13 

NPRM .................. 08/01/14 79 FR 45015 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

09/30/14 

Final Rule ............ 03/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Additional Information: HM–251; SB– 

Y, IC–Y, SLT–N; This rulemaking will 

provide the greatest opportunity for 

public participation in the development 

of regulatory amendments, and promote 

greater exchange of information and 

perspectives among the various 

stakeholders. The rulemaking will lead 

to more focused and well-developed 

amendments that reflect the views of all 

regulated entities. Comments received 

to the NPRM were used in our 

evaluation and development of future 

regulatory action on these issues. 

URL for More Information: 

www.regulations.gov. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Ben Supko, 

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: 

ben.supko@dot.gov. 

RIN: 2137–AE91 

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 functions, 

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 the Congress and signed by 

the President. It is the policy of the 

Department to comply with applicable 

requirements to issue a notice of 

proposed rulemaking and carefully 

consider public comments before 

adopting a final rule. Also, the 

Department invites interested parties to 

submit views on rulemaking projects 

while a proposed rule is being 

developed. 

To the extent permitted by law, it is 

the policy of the Department to adhere 

to the regulatory philosophy and 

principles set forth in Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 13609 and to develop 

regulations that maximize aggregate net 

benefits to society while minimizing the 

economic and paperwork burdens 

imposed on persons and businesses 

subject to those regulations. 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau (TTB) issues regulations 

to implement and enforce the 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, firearms and ammunition; 

(2) Protect the consumer by ensuring 

the integrity of alcohol products; and 

(3) Prevent unfair and unlawful 

market activity for alcohol and tobacco 

products. 

In the last several years, TTB has 

recognized the changes in the industries 

it regulates, as well as the modernized 

enforcement tools available to it. As a 

consequence, TTB has focused on 

revising its regulations to ensure that it 

accomplishes its mission in a way that 

facilitates industry growth, while at the 

same time protecting the revenue and 

consumers of alcohol beverages. This 

modernization effort has resulted in the 

updating of Parts 9 (American 

Viticultural Areas) and 19 (Distilled 

Spirits Plants) of Title 27 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. In addition to its 

beverage alcohol regulations, TTB 

published in fiscal year (FY) 2013, a 

temporary rule and concurrent NPRM 

pertaining to permits for importers of 

tobacco products and processed tobacco 

that would extend the duration of new 

permits from three years to five years. 

Furthermore, TTB published an NPRM 

concerning denatured alcohol and 

products made with industrial alcohol. 

The proposed amendments would 

remove unnecessary regulatory burdens 

on the industrial alcohol industry as 

well as TTB, and would align the 

regulations with current industry 

practice. These latter three rules all 

published in June 2013. 

In fiscal year 2014, TTB published a 

direct final rule amending its 

regulations in 27 CFR part 73 regarding 

the electronic submission of forms and 

other documents. To streamline the 

application process through TTB’s 

secure, web-based applications (Permits 

Online, COLAs Online, and Formulas 

Online) and to enable current and 

prospective industry members to submit 

all required application forms 

electronically, TTB amended part 73 to 

provide for the electronic submission to 

TTB of forms requiring third-party 

signatures, such as bond forms and 

powers of attorney. Copies of such 

forms, bearing all required signatures 

and seals, may now be submitted 

electronically, along with a certification 

that the copy is an exact copy of the 

original, provided the submitter 

maintains the original along with other 

records and makes it available or 

submits it to TTB upon request. TTB 

further amended part 73 to provide that 

any requirement in the TTB regulations 

to submit a document to another agency 

may be met by the electronic 

submission of the document to the other 

agency, as long as the other agency 

provides for, and authorizes, the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76602 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

electronic submission of such 

document. 

In that same final rule, TTB amended 

its regulations in 27 CFR part 19 

governing the records that distilled 

spirits plant (DSP) proprietors must 

keep of finished products, by removing 

the requirement that DSP proprietors 

keep a daily summary record of the kind 

of distilled spirits bottled or packaged. 

Finally, TTB amended its regulations in 

27 CFR parts 26 and 27 regarding 

closures that must be affixed to 

containers of imported distilled spirits 

products or of such products brought 

into the United States from Puerto Rico 

or the Virgin Islands. The amendments 

remove a requirement that a part of the 

closure remain attached to the container 

when opened, thereby aligning the 

regulations for such products with those 

applicable to domestic distilled spirits 

products. In summary, the amendments 

made by this final rule have lessened 

the regulatory burden on industry 

members by, among other changes: (1) 

providing for the electronic submission 

of documents requiring third-party 

signatures or corporate seals and of 

documents that the TTB regulations 

require be submitted to other agencies; 

(2) removing a recordkeeping 

requirement in 27 CFR 19.601 for DSP 

proprietors; and (3) removing a 

regulatory requirement related to the 

types of closures that must be used on 

certain distilled spirits containers. 

In FY 2015, TTB will continue its 

multi-year Regulations Modernization 

effort by finalizing its Specially 

Denatured and Completely Denatured 

Alcohol regulations and prioritizing 

projects that will update its Labeling 

Requirements regulations, Import and 

Export regulations, Nonbeverage 

Products regulations, and Distilled 

Spirits Plant Reporting Requirements. 

This fiscal year TTB plans to give 

priority to the following regulatory 

matters: 

Revisions to Specially Denatured and 

Completely Denatured Alcohol 

Regulations. TTB proposed changes to 

regulations for specially denatured 

alcohol (SDA) and completely 

denatured alcohol (CDA) that would 

result in cost savings for both TTB and 

regulated industry members. These 

amendments are necessary because they 

provide a reduction in regulatory 

burden while posing no risk to the 

revenue. 

Under the authority of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986, as amended 

(IRC), TTB regulates denatured alcohol 

that is unfit for beverage use, which may 

be removed from a regulated distilled 

spirits plant free of tax. SDA and CDA 

are widely used in the American fuel, 

medical, and manufacturing sectors. 

The industrial alcohol industry far 

exceeds the beverage alcohol industry in 

size and scope, and it is a rapidly 

growing industry in the United States. 

Some concerns have been raised that the 

current regulations may create 

significant roadblocks for industry 

members in getting products to the 

marketplace quickly and efficiently. To 

help alleviate these concerns, TTB plans 

to issue a final rule that will reclassify 

certain SDA formulas as CDA and issue 

new general-use formulas for articles 

made with SDA. As a result of these 

changes, industry members would need 

to seek formula approval from TTB less 

frequently, and, in turn, TTB could 

decrease the resources it dedicates to 

formula review. 

TTB estimates that these changes will 

result in an 80 percent reduction in the 

formula approval submissions currently 

required from industry members and 

will reduce total annual paperwork 

burden hours on affected industry 

members from 2,415 to 517 hours. The 

reduction in formula submissions will 

enable TTB to redirect its resources to 

address backlogs that exist in other 

areas of TTB’s mission activities, such 

as analyses of compliance samples for 

industrial/fuel alcohol to protect the 

revenue and working with industry to 

test and approve new and more 

environmentally friendly denaturants. 

Additionally, the reclassification of 

certain SDA formulas to CDA formulas 

will not jeopardize the revenue because 

it is more difficult to separate potable 

alcohol from CDA than it is from SDA, 

and because CDA has an offensive taste 

and is less likely to be used for beverage 

purposes. Similarly, authorizing new 

general-use formulas will not jeopardize 

the revenue because it will be difficult 

to remove potable alcohol from articles 

made with the specific SDA 

formulations. Other changes made by 

this final rule will remove unnecessary 

regulatory burdens and update the 

regulations to align them with current 

industry practice. 

Revisions to the Labeling 

Requirements (Parts 4 (Wine), 5 

(Distilled Spirits), and 7 (Malt 

Beverages)). 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 has 

conducted an analysis of its regulations 

to identify any that might be outmoded, 

ineffective, insufficient, or excessively 

burdensome, and to modify, streamline, 

expand, or repeal them in accordance 

with what has been learned. As a result 

of its review, TTB has near-term plans 

to revise the regulations concerning the 

approval of labels for wine, distilled 

spirits, and malt beverages, to reduce 

the cost to TTB of reviewing and 

approving an ever-increasing number of 

applications for label approval (well 

over 130,000 per year). The regulations 

are being reviewed to assess their 

relevance in the 21st century. Revisions 

will provide clarity to industry to 

improve voluntary compliance. 

Currently, the review and approval 

process requires a staff of at least 13 

people for the pre-approval of labels, in 

addition to management review. The 

goal of these regulatory changes, to be 

developed with industry input, is to 

accelerate the approval process, which 

will result in the regulated industries 

being able to bring products to market 

without undue delay. 

Selected Revisions to Export and 

Import Regulations Related to the 

International Trade Data System. TTB is 

currently preparing for the 

implementation of the International 

Trade Data System (ITDS) and, 

specifically, the transition to an allelectronic import and export 

environment. The ITDS, as described in 

section 405 of the Security and 

Accountability for Every Port Act of 

2006 (the ‘‘SAFE Port Act’’) (Public Law 

109–347), is an electronic information 

exchange capability, or ‘‘single 

window,’’ through which businesses 

will transmit data required by 

participating agencies for the 

importation or exportation of cargo. To 

enhance Federal coordination 

associated with the development of the 

ITDS and put in place specific deadlines 

for implementation, President Obama, 

on February 19, 2014, signed an 

Executive Order (EO) on Streamlining 

the Export/Import Process for America’s 

Businesses. In line with section 3(e) of 

the EO, TTB was required to develop an 

implementation timeline for ITDS 

implementation. Regulatory review for 

transition to the all-electronic 

environment is part of that process. 

TTB has completed its review of the 

regulatory requirements and identified 

those that it intends to update to 

account for the new all-electronic 

environment. TTB has not only focused 

on identifying requirements in order to 

align them with the new environment 

(such as amending requirements that 

reference submission of paper 

documents at entry), but also is 

reviewing existing requirements and 

processes to determine where 

modifications could better take 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76603 

advantage of the all-electronic capability 

while reducing burden. TTB is planning 

to publish rulemaking on its import and 

export regulations in FY15, for example, 

this rulemaking will address the 

collection of TTB F 5100.31 

(Application for and Certification/

Exemption of Label/Bottle Approval) 

and foreign certificate data in the ITDS 

environment. 

In recent years, TTB has identified 

selected sections of its export 

regulations (27 CFR part 28) that should 

be amended to assist industry members 

in complying with the regulations. 

Current regulations require industry 

members to obtain documents and 

follow procedures that are outdated and 

not entirely consistent with current 

industry practices regarding 

exportation. As part of its effort to 

accommodate implementation of ITDS, 

TTB’s proposed regulatory revisions 

will also provide industry members 

with clear and updated procedures for 

removal of alcohol for exportation 

without having to pay excise taxes 

(under the IRC, beverage alcohol may be 

removed for exportation without 

payment of tax), thus increasing their 

willingness and ability to export their 

products. Increasing American exports 

benefits the American economy and is 

consistent with Treasury and 

Administration priorities. 

Revision of the Part 17 Regulations, 

‘‘Drawback on Taxpaid Distilled Spirits 

Used in Manufacturing Nonbeverage 

Products,’’ to Allow Self-Certification of 

Nonbeverage Product Formulas. TTB is 

considering revisions to the regulations 

in 27 CFR part 17 governing 

nonbeverage products made with 

taxpaid distilled spirits. These 

nonbeverage products include foods, 

medicines, and flavors. This proposal 

offers a new method of formula 

certification by incorporating 

quantitative standards into the 

regulations and establishing new 

voluntary procedures that would further 

streamline the formula review process 

for products that meet the standards. 

These proposals pose no risk to the 

revenue because TTB will continue to 

review the formulas; however, TTB will 

not take action on certified formula 

submissions unless the formulas require 

correction. This proposal would nearly 

eliminate the need for TTB to formally 

approve all nonbeverage product 

formulas by proposing to allow for selfcertification of such formulas. The 

changes would result in significant cost 

savings for an important industry, 

which currently must obtain formula 

approval from TTB, and some savings 

for TTB, which must review and take 

action to approve or disapprove each 

formula. 

Revisions to Distilled Spirits Plant 

Reporting Requirements. In FY 2012, 

TTB published an NPRM proposing to 

revise regulations in 27 CFR part 19 to 

replace the current four report forms 

used by distilled spirits plants to report 

their operations on a monthly basis with 

two new report forms that would be 

submitted on a monthly basis. (Plants 

that file taxes on a quarterly basis would 

submit the new reports on a quarterly 

basis.) This project, which was included 

in the President’s FY 2012 budget for 

TTB as a cost-saving item, will address 

numerous concerns and desires for 

improved reporting by the affected 

distilled spirits industry and result in 

cost savings to the industry and TTB by 

significantly reducing the number of 

monthly plant operations reports that 

must be completed and filed by industry 

members and processed by TTB. TTB 

preliminarily estimates that this project 

will result in an annual savings of 

approximately 23,218 paperwork 

burden hours (or 11.6 staff years) for 

industry members and 629 processing 

hours (or 0.3 staff years) and $12,442 

per year for TTB in contractor time. In 

addition, TTB estimates that this project 

will result in additional savings in staff 

time (approximately 3 staff years) 

equaling $300,000 annually based on 

the more efficient and effective 

processing of reports and the use of 

report data to reconcile industry 

member tax accounts. Based on 

comments received in response to the 

NPRM, TTB plans to revise the proposal 

and re-notice the issue. 

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 

Governmentwide 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 2015, the Fiscal 

Service will accord priority to the 

following regulatory projects: 

Amendment to Large Position 

Reporting Requirements. On behalf of 

Treasury (Financial Markets), the Fiscal 

Service plans to amend the Government 

Securities Act regulations (17 CFR 

chapter IV) to modify the large position 

reporting rules to improve the 

information reported so that Treasury 

can better understand supply and 

demand dynamics in certain Treasury 

securities. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for 

Publishing Delinquent Debtor 

Information. The Debt Collection 

Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104– 

134, 110 Stat. 1321 (DCIA) authorizes 

Federal agencies to publish or otherwise 

publicly disseminate information 

regarding the identity of persons owing 

delinquent nontax debts to the United 

States for the purpose of collecting the 

debts, provided certain criteria are met. 

Treasury proposes to issue a notice of 

proposed rulemaking seeking comments 

on a proposed rule that would establish 

the procedures Federal agencies must 

follow before promulgating their own 

rules to publish information about 

delinquent debtors and the standards for 

determining when use of this debt 

collection remedy is appropriate. 

Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund 

The Community Development 

Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund) 

was established by the Community 

Development Banking and Financial 

Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4701 

et seq.). The mission of the CDFI Fund 

is to increase economic opportunity and 

promote community development 

investments for underserved 

populations and in distressed 

communities in the United States. The 

CDFI Fund currently administers the 

following programs: The Community 

Development Financial Institutions 

(CDFI) Program, the Bank Enterprise 

Award (BEA) Program, the Native 

American CDFI Assistance (NACA) 

Program, and the New Markets Tax 

Credit (NMTC) Program, the Financial 

Education and Counseling Pilot Program 

(FEC), the Capital Magnet Fund (CMF), 

and the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program 

(BGP). 

In FY 2015, the CDFI Fund will 

publish updated regulations for its BEA 

Program and CDFI Program to 

incorporate the requirements of the 

Uniform Administrative Requirements, 

Cost Principles, and Audit 

Requirements for Federal Awards (2 

CFR part 200). In December 2013, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) published a final rule that 

provides a government-wide framework 

for grants management, with the goal of 

combining several OMB guidance 

circulars, reducing administrative 

burden for award Recipients, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76604 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

reducing the risk of waste, fraud and 

abuse of Federal financial assistance. 

The Uniform Federal Award 

Requirements codifies financial, 

administrative, procurement, and 

program management standards that 

Federal award agencies must follow. 

Each Federal agency is anticipated to 

codify these requirements by the end of 

calendar year 2014. 

Customs Revenue Functions 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 

(the Act) provides that the Secretary of 

the Treasury retains sole legal authority 

over the 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. This Order further 

provided that the Secretary of the 

Treasury retained the sole authority to 

approve such regulations. 

During the past fiscal year, among the 

customs-revenue function regulations 

issued were the United States–- 

Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement 

final rule, the United States—Panama 

Trade Promotion Agreement final rule, 

and the African Growth and 

Opportunity Act (AGOA) and 

Generalized System of Preferences and 

Trade Benefits under AGOA final rule. 

On October 1, 2013, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) published the 

United States–-Colombia Trade 

Promotion Agreement final rule (78 FR 

60191) that adopted interim 

amendments (77 FR 59064) of 

September 26, 2012, to the CBP 

regulations which implemented the 

preferential tariff treatment and other 

customs-related provisions of the 

United States—Colombia Trade 

Promotion Agreement Implementation 

Act. On May 21, 2014, CBP issued the 

United States—Panama Trade 

Promotion Agreement final rule (79 FR 

29077) that adopted interim 

amendments (78 FR 63052) of October 

23, 2013, to the CBP regulations, which 

implemented the preferential tariff 

treatment and other customs-related 

provisions of the United States-Panama 

Trade Promotion Agreement 

Implementation Act that took effect on 

October 31, 2012. In addition, CBP 

issued the African Growth and 

Opportunity Act (AGOA) and 

Generalized System of Preferences and 

Trade Benefits under AGOA final rule 

(79 FR 30356) on May 27, 2014, that 

adopted the interim amendments (65 FR 

59668 and 68 FR 13820) of October 5, 

2000, and March 21, 2003, respectively, 

to the CBP regulations. 

On December 18, 2013, Treasury and 

CBP published a final rule titled 

Members of a Family for Purposes of 

Filing a CBP Family Declaration (78 FR 

76529) that amended the regulations by 

expanding the definition of the term, 

‘‘members of a family residing in one 

household,’’ to allow more U.S. 

returning residents traveling as a family 

upon their arrival in the United States 

to be eligible to group their duty 

exemptions and file a single customs 

declaration for articles acquired abroad. 

This past fiscal year, consistent with 

the goals of Executive Orders 12866 and 

13563, Treasury and CBP proposed 

changes to Documentation Related to 

Goods Imported From U.S. Insular 

Possessions on January 14, 2014 (79 FR 

2395), to eliminate the requirement that 

a customs officer at the port of export 

verify and sign CBP Form 3229, 

Certificate of Origin for U.S. Insular 

Possessions, and to require instead that 

the importer present this form, upon 

CBP’s request, rather than submit it with 

each entry as the current regulations 

require. The changes proposed would 

streamline the entry process by making 

it more efficient as it would reduce the 

overall administrative burden on both 

the trade and CBP. If the importer does 

not maintain CBP Form 3229 in its 

possession, the importer may be subject 

to a recordkeeping penalty. CBP plans to 

finalize this rule during fiscal year 2015. 

During fiscal year 2015, CBP and 

Treasury also plan to give priority to the 

following regulatory matters involving 

the customs revenue functions: 

In-Bond Process. Consistent with the 

practice of continuing to move forward 

with Customs Modernization provisions 

of the North American Free Trade 

Implementation Act to improve its 

regulatory procedures, Treasury and 

CBP plan to finalize this fiscal year the 

proposal to change the in-bond process 

by issuing final regulations to amend 

the in-bond regulations that were 

proposed on February 22, 2012 (77 FR 

10622). The proposed changes, 

including the automation of the in-bond 

process, would modernize, simplify, 

and facilitate the in-bond process while 

enhancing CBP’s ability to regulate and 

track in-bond merchandise to ensure 

that in-bond merchandise is properly 

entered or exported. 

Free Trade Agreements. Treasury and 

CBP also plan to issue final regulations 

this fiscal year to implement the 

preferential trade benefit provisions of 

the United States-Singapore Free Trade 

Agreement Implementation Act. 

Treasury and CBP also expect to issue 

interim regulations implementing the 

preferential trade benefit provisions of 

the United States-Australia Free Trade 

Agreement Implementation Act. 

Customs and Border Protection’s 

Bond Program. Treasury and CBP plan 

to publish a final rule amending the 

regulations to reflect the centralization 

of the continuous bond program at 

CBP’s Revenue Division. The changes 

proposed would support CBP’s bond 

program by ensuring an efficient and 

uniform approach to the approval, 

maintenance, and periodic review of 

continuous bonds, as well as 

accommodating the use of information 

technology and modern business 

practices. 

Disclosure of Information for Certain 

Intellectual Property Rights Enforced at 

the Border. Treasury and CBP plan to 

finalize interim amendments to the CBP 

regulations which provides a preseizure notice procedure for disclosing 

information appearing on the imported 

merchandise and/or its retail packing 

suspected of bearing a counterfeit mark 

to an intellectual property right holder 

for the limited purpose of obtaining the 

right holder’s assistance in determining 

whether the mark is counterfeit or not. 

Internal Revenue Service 

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

working with the Office of Tax Policy, 

promulgates regulations that interpret 

and implement the Internal Revenue 

Code and related tax statutes. The 

purpose of these regulations is to carry 

out the tax policy determined by 

Congress in a fair, impartial, and 

reasonable manner, taking into account 

the intent of Congress, the realities of 

relevant transactions, the need for the 

Government to administer the rules and 

monitor compliance, and the overall 

integrity of the Federal tax system. The 

goal is to make the regulations practical 

and as clear and simple as possible. 

During fiscal year 2015, the IRS will 

accord priority to the following 

regulatory projects: 

Tax-Related Affordable Care Act 

Provisions. On March 23, 2010, the 

President signed the Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. 

L. 111–148) and on March 30, 2010, the 

President signed the Health Care and 

Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 

(Pub. L. 111–152) (referred to 

collectively as the Affordable Care Act 

(ACA)). The ACA’s reform of the health 

insurance system affects individuals, 

families, employers, health care 

providers, and health insurance 

providers. The ACA provides authority 

for Treasury and the IRS to issue 

regulations and other guidance to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76605 

implement tax provisions in the ACA, 

some of which are already effective and 

some of which will become effective 

over the next several years. Since 

enactment of the ACA, Treasury and the 

IRS have issued a series of temporary, 

proposed, and final regulations 

implementing over a dozen provisions 

of the ACA, including the premium tax 

credit under section 36B, the smallbusiness health coverage tax credit 

under section 45R, new requirements 

for charitable hospitals under section 

501(r), limits on tax preferences for 

remuneration provided by certain health 

insurance providers under section 

162(m)(6), the employer shared 

responsibility provisions under section 

4980H, the individual shared 

responsibility provisions under section 

5000A, insurer and employer reporting 

under sections 6055 and 6056, and 

several revenue-raising provisions, 

including fees on branded prescription 

drugs under section 9008 of the ACA, 

fees on health insurance providers 

under section 9010 of the ACA, the tax 

on indoor tanning services under 5000B, 

the net investment income tax under 

section 1411, and the additional 

Medicare tax under sections 3101 and 

3102. 

In fiscal year 2015, Treasury and the 

IRS will continue to provide guidance to 

implement tax provisions of the ACA, 

including: 

• Final regulations related to 

numerous aspects of the premium tax 

credit under section 36B, including the 

determination of minimum value of 

eligible-employer-sponsored plans; 

• Final regulations on application for 

recognition of tax exemption as a 

qualified nonprofit health insurer under 

section 501(c)(29); 

• Final regulations on new 

requirements for charitable hospitals 

under section 501(r); 

• Final regulations regarding issues 

related to the net investment income tax 

under section 1411; and 

• Final regulations concerning 

minimum essential coverage and other 

rules regarding the individual shared 

responsibility provision under section 

5000A. 

Interest on Deferred Tax Liability for 

Contingent Payment Installment Sales. 

Section 453 of the Internal Revenue 

Code generally allows taxpayers to 

report the gain from a sale of property 

in the taxable year or years in which 

payments are received, rather than in 

the year of sale. Section 453A of the 

Code imposes an interest charge on the 

tax liability that is deferred as a result 

of reporting the gain when payments are 

received. The interest charge generally 

applies to installment obligations that 

arise from a sale of property using the 

installment method if the sales price of 

the property exceeds $150,000, and the 

face amount of all such installment 

obligations held by a taxpayer that arose 

during, and are outstanding as of the 

close of, a taxable year exceeds 

$5,000,000. The interest charge 

provided in section 453A cannot be 

determined under the terms of the 

statute if an installment obligation 

provides for contingent payments. 

Accordingly, in section 453A(c)(6), 

Congress authorized the Secretary of the 

Treasury to issue regulations providing 

for the application of section 453A in 

the case of installment sales with 

contingent payments. Treasury and the 

IRS intend to issue proposed regulations 

that, when finalized, will provide 

guidance and reduce uncertainty 

regarding the application of section 

453A to contingent payments. 

Rules for Home Construction 

Contracts. In general, section 460(a) 

requires taxpayers to use the percentageof-completion method (PCM) to account 

for taxable income from any long-term 

contract. Under the PCM, income is 

generally reported in installments as 

work is performed, and expenses are 

generally deducted in the taxable year 

incurred. However, taxpayers with 

contracts that meet the definition of a 

‘‘home construction contract,’’ under 

section 460(e)(4), are not required to use 

the PCM for those contracts and may, 

instead, use an exempt method. Exempt 

methods include the completed contract 

method (CCM) and the accrual method. 

Under the CCM, for example, a taxpayer 

generally takes into account the entire 

gross contract price and all incurred 

allocable contract costs in the taxable 

year the taxpayer completes the 

contract. Treasury and the IRS believe 

that amended rules are needed to reduce 

uncertainty and controversy, including 

litigation, regarding when a contract 

qualifies as a ‘‘home construction 

contract’’ and when the income and 

allocable deductions are taken into 

account under the CCM. On August 4, 

2008, Treasury and the IRS published 

proposed regulations on the types of 

contracts that are eligible for the home 

construction contract exemption. The 

preamble to those regulations stated that 

Treasury and the IRS expected to 

propose additional rules specific to 

home construction contracts accounted 

for using the CCM. After considering 

comments received and the need for 

additional and clearer rules to reduce 

ongoing uncertainty and controversy, 

Treasury and the IRS have determined 

that it would be beneficial to taxpayers 

to present all of the proposed changes 

to the current regulations in a single 

document. Treasury and the IRS plan to 

withdraw the 2008 proposed regulations 

and replace them with new, more 

comprehensive proposed regulations. 

Research Expenditures. Section 41 of 

the Internal Revenue Code provides a 

credit against taxable income for certain 

expenses paid or incurred in conducting 

research activities. To assist in resolving 

areas of controversy and uncertainty 

with respect to research expenses, 

Treasury and the IRS plan to issue 

regulations with respect to the 

definition and credit eligibility of 

expenditures for internal use software, 

the election of the alternative simplified 

credit, and the allocation of the credit 

among members of a controlled group. 

Estate Tax Portability of Decedent’s 

Unused Exclusion Amount. The Tax 

Relief, Unemployment Insurance 

Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 

2010 (TRA of 2010) amended sections 

2010 and 2505 of the Internal Revenue 

Code to provide an estate of a decedent 

survived by a spouse the opportunity to 

transfer, or port, unused applicable 

exclusion amount to and for the benefit 

of the surviving spouse. Although the 

portability provisions of TRA of 2010 

were originally scheduled to expire on 

December 31, 2012, the American 

Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 made the 

portability provisions permanent. 

Treasury and the IRS plan to issue final 

regulations on or before June 15, 2015, 

to replace sunsetting temporary 

regulations. The final regulations will 

provide rules for electing portability, 

determining the unused exclusion 

amount available from the estate of the 

first-to-die spouse to the surviving 

spouse, and applying the ported unused 

exclusion amount to the surviving 

spouse’s subsequent transfers. 

Arbitrage Investment Restrictions on 

Tax-Exempt Bonds. The arbitrage 

investment restrictions on tax-exempt 

bonds under section 148 generally limit 

issuers from investing bond proceeds in 

higher-yielding investments. On 

September 16, 2013, Treasury and the 

IRS published proposed regulations (78 

FR 56842) to address selected current 

issues involving the arbitrage 

investment restrictions, including 

guidance on the issue price definition 

used in the computation of bond yield, 

working capital financings, grants, 

investment valuation, modifications, 

terminations of qualified hedging 

transactions, and selected other issues. 

Treasury and the IRS plan to provide 

additional guidance on the arbitrage 

investment restrictions, including 

guidance on the issue price definition 

used in the computation of bond yield. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76606 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Guidance on the Definition of 

Political Subdivision for Tax-Exempt, 

Tax-Credit, and Direct-Pay Bonds. A 

political subdivision may be a valid 

issuer of tax-exempt, tax-credit, and 

direct-pay bonds. Concerns have been 

raised about what is required for an 

entity to be a political subdivision. 

Treasury and the IRS plan to provide 

additional guidance under section 103 

for determining when an entity is a 

political subdivision. 

Contingent Notional Principal 

Contract Regulations. Notice 2001–44 

(2001–2 CB 77) outlined four possible 

approaches for recognizing nonperiodic 

payments made or received on a 

notional principal contract (NPC) when 

the contract includes a nonperiodic 

payment that is contingent in fact or in 

amount. The Notice solicited further 

comments and information on the 

treatment of such payments. After 

considering the comments received in 

response to Notice 2001–44, Treasury 

and the IRS published proposed 

regulations (69 FR 8886) (the 2004 

proposed regulations) that would amend 

section 1.446–3 and provide additional 

rules regarding the timing and character 

of income, deduction, gain, or loss with 

respect to such nonperiodic payments, 

including termination payments. On 

December 7, 2007, Treasury and IRS 

released Notice 2008–2 requesting 

comments and information with respect 

to transactions frequently referred to as 

prepaid forward contracts. Treasury and 

the IRS plan to re-propose regulations to 

address issues relating to the timing and 

character of nonperiodic contingent 

payments on NPCs, including 

termination payments and payments on 

prepaid forward contracts. 

Tax Treatment of Distressed Debt. A 

number of tax issues relating to the 

amount, character, and timing of 

income, expense, gain, or loss on 

distressed debt remain unresolved. In 

addition, the tax treatment of distressed 

debt, including distressed debt that has 

been modified, may affect the 

qualification of certain entities for tax 

purposes or result in additional taxes on 

the investors in such entities, such as 

regulated investment companies, real 

estate investment trusts (REITs), and 

real estate mortgage investment 

conduits (REMICs). During fiscal year 

2014, Treasury and the IRS addressed 

some of these issues through published 

guidance, including guidance on an 

entity’s qualification as a REIT in the 

context of transactions involving 

distressed mortgage loans. Treasury and 

the IRS plan to address more of these 

issues in published guidance. 

Definition of Real Property and 

Qualifying Income for REIT Purposes. A 

taxpayer must satisfy certain asset and 

income requirements to qualify as a 

REIT under section 856. REITs have 

sought to invest in various types of 

assets that are not directly addressed by 

the current regulations or other 

published guidance. On May 14, 2014, 

Treasury and the IRS published 

proposed regulations (79 FR 27508) to 

update and clarify the definition of real 

property for REIT qualification 

purposes, including guidance 

addressing whether a component of a 

larger item is tested on its own or only 

as part of the larger item, the scope of 

the asset to be tested, and whether 

certain intangible assets qualify as real 

property. Treasury and the IRS plan to 

finalize the proposed regulations in the 

fiscal year. Treasury and the IRS also 

plan to provide guidance clarifying the 

definition of income for purposes of 

section 856. 

Corporate Spin-offs and Split-offs. 

Section 355 and related provisions of 

the Internal Revenue Code allow for the 

tax-free distribution of stock or 

securities of a controlled corporation if 

certain requirements are met. For 

example, the distributing corporation 

must distribute a controlling interest in 

the controlled corporation, and both the 

distributing and controlled corporations 

must be engaged in the active conduct 

of a trade or business immediately after 

the distribution. The Treasury 

Department and the IRS intend to 

provide guidance on the qualification of 

a distribution for tax-free treatment 

under section 355, including (1) final 

regulations that address when a 

corporation is treated as engaged in an 

active trade or business, and (2) final 

regulations that define predecessor or 

successor corporation for purposes of 

the exception to tax-free treatment 

under section 355(e). The Treasury 

Department and the IRS also intend to 

provide guidance relating to the tax 

treatment of other transactions 

undertaken as part of a plan that 

includes a distribution of stock or 

securities of a controlled corporation, 

such as changes to the voting power of 

the controlled corporation’s stock in 

anticipation of the distribution, the 

issuance of debt of the distributing 

corporation and retirement of such debt 

using stock or securities of the 

controlled corporation, and the transfer 

of cash or property between a 

distributing or controlled corporation 

and its shareholder(s) in connection 

with the distribution. 

Disguised Sale and Allocation of 

Liabilities. A contribution of property 

by a partner to a partnership may be 

recharacterized as a sale under section 

707(a)(2)(B) if the partnership 

distributes to the contributing partner 

cash or other property that is, in 

substance, consideration for the 

contribution. The allocation of 

partnership liabilities to the partners 

under section 752 may impact the 

determination of whether a disguised 

sale has occurred and whether gain is 

otherwise recognized upon a 

distribution. Treasury and the IRS 

issued proposed regulations to address 

certain issues that arise in the disguised 

sale context and other issues regarding 

the partners’ shares of partnership 

liabilities. Treasury and the IRS are 

considering comments on the proposed 

regulations and expect to issue 

regulations in fiscal year 2015. 

Certain Partnership Distributions 

Treated as Sales or Exchanges. In 1954, 

Congress enacted section 751 to prevent 

the use of a partnership to convert 

potential ordinary income into capital 

gain. In 1956, Treasury and the IRS 

issued regulations implementing section 

751. The current regulations, however, 

do not always achieve the purpose of 

the statute. In 2006, Treasury and the 

IRS published Notice 2006–14 (2006–1 

CB 498) to propose and solicit 

alternative approaches to section 751 

that better achieve the purpose of the 

statute while providing greater 

simplicity. Treasury and the IRS are 

currently working on proposed 

regulations following up on Notice 

2006–14. These regulations will provide 

guidance on determining a partner’s 

interest in a partnership’s section 751 

property and how a partnership 

recognizes income required by section 

751. 

Penalties and Limitation Periods. 

Congress amended several penalty 

provisions in the Internal Revenue Code 

in the past several years. Treasury and 

the IRS intend to publish a number of 

guidance projects in fiscal year 2015 

addressing these penalty provisions. 

Specifically, Treasury and the IRS 

intend to publish final regulations 

under section 6708 regarding the 

penalty for failure to make available 

upon request a list of advisees that is 

required to be maintained under section 

6112. The proposed regulations were 

published on March 8, 2013. Treasury 

and the IRS also intend to publish 

proposed regulations under sections 

6662, 6662A, and 6664 to provide 

further guidance on the circumstances 

under which a taxpayer could be subject 

to the accuracy related penalty on 

underpayments or reportable 

transaction understatements and the 

reasonable cause exception. Further, 

Treasury and the IRS intend to publish 

(1) final regulations under section 

6501(c)(10) regarding the extension of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76607 

the period of limitations to assess any 

tax with respect to a listed transaction 

that was not disclosed as required under 

section 6011, and (2) proposed 

regulations under section 6707A 

addressing statutory changes to the 

method of computing the penalty for 

failure to disclose reportable 

transactions. 

Inversion Transactions. On September 

22, 2014, Treasury and the IRS issued 

Notice 2014–52, addressing the 

application of sections 7874 and 367 to 

inversions, as well as certain tax 

avoidance transactions that are 

undertaken after an inversion 

transaction. In this fiscal year, Treasury 

and the IRS expect to issue regulations 

implementing the rules described in 

Notice 2014–52. Also in this fiscal year, 

Treasury and the IRS expect to issue 

additional guidance to further limit 

inversion transactions that are contrary 

to the purposes of section 7874 and the 

benefits of post-inversion tax avoidance 

transactions. In addition, under the 

terms of the statute, section 7874 will 

not apply to an inversion if the posttransaction group has substantial 

business activities in the country in 

which the foreign acquiring corporation 

is organized when compared to the total 

business activities of the group. On June 

7, 2012, Treasury and the IRS issued 

temporary regulations regarding the 

determination of whether a group 

satisfies the substantial business 

activities test. During fiscal year 2015, 

Treasury and the IRS intend to finalize 

these regulations. 

Information Reporting for Foreign 

Accounts of U.S. Persons. In March 

2010, chapter 4 (sections 1471 to 1474) 

was added to subtitle A of the Internal 

Revenue Code as part of the Hiring 

Incentives to Restore Employment Act 

(HIRE Act) (Pub. L. 111–147). Chapter 4 

was enacted to address concerns with 

offshore tax evasion by U.S. citizens and 

residents and generally requires foreign 

financial institutions (FFIs) to enter into 

an agreement (FFI Agreement) with the 

IRS to report information regarding 

financial accounts of U.S. persons and 

certain foreign entities with significant 

U.S. ownership. An FFI that does not 

enter into an FFI Agreement, or that is 

not otherwise deemed compliant with 

FATCA, generally will be subject to a 

withholding tax on the gross amount of 

certain payments from U.S. sources. The 

Treasury Department and the IRS have 

issued proposed, temporary, and final 

regulations under chapter 4; and 

proposed and temporary regulations 

under chapters 3 and 61, and section 

3406, to coordinate with those chapter 

4 regulations; as well as implementing 

revenue procedures and other guidance. 

The Treasury Department and the IRS 

expect to issue further guidance with 

respect to FATCA and related 

provisions in this fiscal year. 

Withholding on Certain Dividend 

Equivalent Payments on Certain Equity 

Derivatives. The HIRE Act also added 

section 871(l) to the Code (now section 

871(m)), which designates certain 

substitute dividend payments in 

security lending and sale-repurchase 

transactions and dividend-referenced 

payments made under certain notional 

principal contracts as U.S.-source 

dividends for Federal tax purposes. In 

response to this legislation, on May 20, 

2010, the IRS issued Notice 2010–46, 

addressing the requirements for 

determining the proper withholding in 

connection with substitute dividends 

paid in foreign-to-foreign security 

lending and sale-repurchase 

transactions. On January 23, 2012, 

Treasury and the IRS issued temporary 

and proposed regulations addressing 

cases in which dividend equivalents 

will be found to arise in connection 

with notional principal contracts and 

other financial derivatives. On 

December 5, 2013, Treasury and the IRS 

released final regulations relating to the 

2012 temporary and proposed 

regulations. At the same time, Treasury 

and the IRS issued new proposed 

regulations based on comments received 

with respect to the 2012 proposed 

regulations. Treasury and the IRS expect 

to finalize these regulations in this fiscal 

year. 

International Tax Provisions of the 

Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance 

Act. On August 10, 2010, the Education 

Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act of 

2010 (EJMAA) (Pub. L. 111–226) was 

signed into law. The law includes a 

significant package of international tax 

provisions, including limitations on the 

availability of foreign tax credits in 

certain cases in which U.S. tax law and 

foreign tax law provide different rules 

for recognizing income and gain, and in 

cases in which income items treated as 

foreign source under certain tax treaties 

would otherwise be sourced in the 

United States. The legislation also limits 

the ability of multinationals to reduce 

their U.S. tax burdens by using a 

provision intended to prevent 

corporations from avoiding U.S. income 

tax on repatriated corporate earnings. 

Other new provisions under this 

legislation limit the ability of 

multinational corporations to use 

acquisitions of related party stock to 

avoid U.S. tax on what would otherwise 

be taxable distributions of dividends. 

The statute also includes a new 

provision intended to tighten the rules 

under which interest expense is 

allocated between U.S.- and foreignsource income within multinational 

groups of related corporations when a 

foreign corporation has significant 

amounts of U.S.-source income that is 

effectively connected with a U.S. 

business. Treasury and the IRS 

published temporary and proposed 

regulations addressing foreign tax 

credits under section 909 in 2012, 

published temporary and proposed 

regulations in 2012 and final regulations 

in 2014 updating the interest allocation 

regulations to conform to the 2010 

amendments to section 864(e)(5)(A), and 

issued two notices providing guidance 

under section 901(m) in 2014. Treasury 

and the IRS expect to issue additional 

guidance on EJMAA in this fiscal year, 

including additional guidance under 

section 901(m), final regulations under 

section 909, and temporary and 

proposed regulations under section 

304(b)(5)(B). 

Transfers of Intangibles to Foreign 

Corporations. Section 367(d) of the 

Internal Revenue Code requires, except 

as provided in regulations, a U.S. person 

who transfers intangible property to a 

foreign corporation in an exchange 

described in section 351 or section 361 

of the Code to treat the transfer as a sale 

for payments which are contingent upon 

the productivity, use, or disposition of 

such property, and to take into account 

amounts which reasonably reflect the 

amounts which would have been 

received annually in the form of such 

payments over the useful life of such 

property, or at the time of the 

disposition of the property. The 

amounts so taken into account must be 

commensurate with the income 

attributable to the intangible. Under 

existing temporary regulations issued in 

1986, section 367(d) is made 

inapplicable to the transfer of ‘‘foreign 

goodwill or going concern value,’’ as 

defined in the regulations. The existing 

regulations provide general guidance 

regarding the application of section 

367(d), although controversy regarding 

the application of section 367(d) to 

certain transfers led the Treasury and 

the IRS to publish Notice 2012–39 on 

July 13, 2012. Treasury and the IRS 

intend to issue additional guidance in 

this fiscal year to reduce uncertainty 

and controversy in this area. 

Section 501(c) guidance. After 

reviewing over 150,000 comments 

submitted on the proposed regulations 

under section 501(c)(4) published in 

fiscal year 2014, Treasury and the IRS 

plan to issue revised proposed 

regulations that provide guidance under 

section 501(c) relating to limitations on 

political campaign activities of certain 

tax-exempt organizations. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76608 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Guidance responding to the SEC’s 

money market reform rule. On July 23, 

2014, the SEC adopted a final rule to 

reduce the systemic risk that money 

market funds present to the national 

economy. Later that day, IRS and the 

Treasury Department issued simplifying 

guidance designed to ameliorate the tax 

compliance difficulties that the SEC rule 

would otherwise pose to certain money 

market funds and their shareholders. In 

fiscal year 2015, the Treasury 

Department and the IRS intend to 

finalize the portion of this simplifying 

guidance that is only proposed. 

Guidance Relating to Publicly Traded 

Partnerships. Section 7704 of the 

Internal Revenue Code provides that a 

partnership whose interests are traded 

on either an established securities 

market or on a secondary market (a 

‘‘publicly traded partnership’’) is 

generally treated as a corporation for 

Federal tax purposes. However, section 

7704(c) permits publicly traded 

partnerships to be treated as 

partnerships for Federal tax purposes if 

90 percent or more of partnership 

income consists of ‘‘qualifying income.’’ 

Section 7704(d) provides that income is 

generally qualifying income if it is 

passive income or is derived from 

exploration, development, mining or 

production, processing, refining, 

transportation, or marketing of a mineral 

or natural resource. Legislative history 

accompanying section 7704(d) provides 

little insight into the intended scope of 

this natural resource exception, and no 

administrative guidance has been 

issued. As technologies and commercial 

practices in the natural resource 

industries have evolved, uncertainty has 

arisen about the proper interpretation of 

the natural resource exception. Treasury 

and the IRS intend to issue guidance in 

this fiscal year to reduce uncertainty in 

this area. 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 

As chief 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 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 

have a high degree of usefulness in 

criminal, tax, or regulatory matters or in 

the conduct of intelligence or counterintelligence activities to protect against 

international terrorism. The BSA also 

authorizes requiring designated 

financial institutions to establish antimoney laundering 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 anti-money 

laundering initiatives with domestic law 

enforcement and intelligence agencies, 

as well as foreign financial intelligence 

units. 

During fiscal year 2014, FinCEN 

issued the following regulatory actions: 

Amendments to the Definitions of 

Funds Transfer and Transmittal of 

Funds in the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) 

Regulations. On December 5, 2013, 

FinCEN issued a Final Rule jointly with 

the Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System amending the regulatory 

definitions of ‘‘funds transfer’’ and 

‘‘transmittal of funds’’ under the 

regulations implementing the BSA. The 

changes maintain the existing scope to 

the definitions and were necessary in 

light of changes to the Electronic Fund 

Transfer Act that would have resulted in 

certain currently covered transactions 

being excluded from BSA requirements. 

Anti-Money Laundering Program and 

Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) 

Requirements for Housing GovernmentSponsored Enterprises. On February 25, 

2014, FinCEN issued a Final Rule 

defining certain housing governmentsponsored enterprises as financial 

institutions for the purpose of requiring 

them to establish anti-money laundering 

programs and report suspicious activity 

to FinCEN pursuant to the BSA. 

Imposition of Special Measure against 

FBME Bank Ltd., formerly known as 

Federal Bank of the Middle East, Ltd., 

as a Financial Institution of Primary 

Money Laundering Concern. On July 22, 

2014, FinCEN issued a finding that 

FBME Bank Ltd. (FBME) is a financial 

institution operating outside of the 

United States that is of primary money 

laundering concern under section 311 of 

the USA PATRIOT Act. On July 22, 

2014, FinCEN issued an NPRM to 

impose the fifth special measure against 

the institution. The fifth special 

measure prohibits or conditions the 

opening or maintaining of 

correspondent or payable-through 

accounts for the designated institution 

by U.S. financial institutions. In 

conjunction with the NPRM, FinCEN 

issued an order imposing certain 

recordkeeping and reporting obligations 

on covered financial institutions and 

principal money transmitters with 

respect to transactions involving FBME. 

Customer Due Diligence 

Requirements. On August 4, 2014, 

FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) to solicit public 

comment on proposed 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 proposed 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. 

Administrative Rulings and Written 

Guidance. FinCEN published 13 

administrative rulings and written 

guidance pieces, and provided 45 

responses to written inquiries/

correspondence interpreting the BSA 

and providing clarity to regulated 

industries. 

FinCEN’s regulatory priorities for 

fiscal year 2015 include finalizing any 

initiatives mentioned above that are not 

finalized by fiscal year end, as well as 

the following in-process and potential 

projects: 

Amendment to the BSA Regulations— 

Definition of Monetary Instrument. On 

October 17, 2011, FinCEN published an 

NPRM regarding international transport 

of prepaid access devices because of the 

potential to substitute prepaid access for 

cash and other monetary instruments as 

a means to smuggle the proceeds of 

illegal activity into and out of the 

United States. FinCEN continues to 

consider the issue based on comments 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76609 

received and developments in the 

prepaid industry. FinCEN intends to 

issue a supplemental NPRM to provide 

additional information for consideration 

and comment by the public. 

Anti-Money Laundering Program and 

SAR Requirements for Investment 

Advisers. FinCEN has drafted an NPRM 

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 has been 

working closely with the Securities and 

Exchange Commission on issues related 

to the draft NPRM. 

Report of Foreign Bank and Financial 

Accounts. FinCEN has drafted an NPRM 

to address requests from filers for 

clarification of certain requirements 

regarding the Report of Foreign Bank 

and Financial Accounts (FBAR) 

including requirements with respect to 

employees, who have signature 

authority over, but no financial interest 

in, the foreign financial accounts of 

their employers. 

Cross Border Electronic Transmittal of 

Funds. On September 27, 2010, FinCEN 

issued an NPRM in conjunction with 

the feasibility study prepared pursuant 

to the Intelligence Reform and 

Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 

concerning the issue of obtaining 

information about certain cross-border 

funds transfers and transmittals of 

funds. As FinCEN has continued to 

work on developing the system to 

receive, store, and use this data, FinCEN 

has drafted a Supplemental NPRM to 

update the previously published 

proposed rule and provide additional 

information to those banks and money 

transmitters that will become subject to 

the rule. 

Anti-Money Laundering Program 

Requirements for Banks Lacking a 

Federal Functional Regulator. FinCEN 

has drafted an NPRM to remove the 

anti-money laundering (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 

prescribes 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. 

Amendments to the Definitions of 

Broker or Dealer in Securities. FinCEN 

has drafted an NPRM that proposes 

amendments to the regulatory 

definitions of broker or dealer in 

securities under the BSA 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 

requirements that are currently 

applicable to brokers or dealers in 

securities. 

Amendment to the Bank Secrecy Act 

Regulations—Registration, 

Recordkeeping, and Reporting of Money 

Services Businesses. FinCEN is 

considering issuing an NPRM to amend 

the requirements for money services 

businesses with respect to registering 

with FinCEN and with respect to the 

information reported during the 

registration process. 

Changes to the Travel and 

Recordkeeping Requirements for Funds 

Transfers and Transmittals of Funds. 

FinCEN is considering changes to 

require that more information be 

collected and maintained by financial 

institutions on funds transfers and 

transmittals of funds and to lower the 

threshold to $1,000 from $3,000, which 

would bring the United States into 

greater compliance with several criteria 

in the Financial Action Task Force 

(FATF) standards for cross-border wire 

transfers. 

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 its 

ongoing, comprehensive review of 

existing regulations to enhance 

regulatory efficiency, and as a result of 

the efforts of an interagency task force 

currently focusing on improvements to 

the U.S. regulatory framework for antimoney laundering. 

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency 

The primary mission of the Office of 

the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) 

is to charter, regulate, and supervise all 

national banks and Federal Savings 

Associations (FSAs). The agency also 

supervises the Federal branches and 

agencies of foreign banks. The OCC’s 

goal in supervising the financial 

institutions subject to its jurisdiction is 

to ensure that they operate in a safe and 

sound manner and in compliance with 

laws requiring fair treatment of their 

customers and fair access to credit and 

financial products. 

Significant rules issued during fiscal 

year 2014 include: 

Regulatory Capital Rules—Basel III 

(12 CFR parts 3, 5, 6, 165, 167). The 

OCC and the Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System (FRB) issued a 

final rule that revises the risk-based and 

leverage capital requirements for 

banking organizations. (The Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) 

separately issued an interim final rule 

that is substantively the same as the 

final rule issued by the OCC and the 

FRB.) The final rule consolidates three 

separate proposed rules that were 

published jointly by the OCC, FRB and 

FDIC (the banking agencies) on August 

30, 2012, 77 FR 52792, 52888, 52978, 

into one final rule. The final rule 

implements a revised definition of 

regulatory capital, a new common 

equity tier 1 minimum capital 

requirement, a higher minimum tier 1 

capital requirement, and, for banking 

organizations subject to the advanced 

approaches risk-based capital rules, a 

supplementary leverage ratio that 

incorporates a broader set of exposures 

in the denominator. The final rule 

incorporates new requirements into the 

banking agencies’ prompt corrective 

action framework and establishes limits 

on a banking organization’s capital 

distributions and certain discretionary 

bonus payments if the banking 

organization does not hold a specified 

amount of common equity tier 1 capital 

in addition to the amount necessary to 

meet its minimum risk-based capital 

requirements. The final rule amends the 

methodologies for determining riskweighted assets for all banking 

organizations and introduces disclosure 

requirements that would apply to toptier banking organizations domiciled in 

the United States with $50 billion or 

more in total assets. The final rule also 

adopts changes required by the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–203) 

(the Dodd-Frank Act) to implement 

more stringent capital and leverage 

requirements and to replace regulatory 

references to credit ratings with new 

creditworthiness measures. The final 

rule was published on October 11, 2013, 

78 FR 62018. 

Enhanced Supplementary Leverage 

Ratio (12 CFR part 3). The banking 

agencies issued a final rule to strengthen 

the leverage ratio standards for large, 

interconnected U.S. banking 

organizations. The rule applies to any 

U.S. top-tier bank holding company 

(BHC) with at least $700 billion in total 

consolidated assets or at least $10 

trillion in assets under custody (covered 

BHC) and any insured depository 

institution (IDI) subsidiary of these 

BHCs. In the Basel III final rule, the 

banking agencies established a 

minimum supplementary leverage ratio 

of 3 percent (supplementary leverage 

ratio), consistent with the minimum 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76610 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

leverage ratio adopted by the Basel 

Committee on Banking Supervision, for 

banking organizations subject to the 

advanced approaches risk-based capital 

rules. In this final rule, the banking 

agencies establish a ‘‘well capitalized’’ 

threshold of 6 percent for the 

supplementary leverage ratio for any IDI 

that is a subsidiary of a covered BHC, 

under the agencies’ prompt corrective 

action framework. The final rule was 

issued on May 1, 2014, 79 FR 24528. 

Supplementary Leverage Ratio (12 

CFR part 3). The banking agencies 

issued a final rule to revise the 

denominator of the supplementary 

leverage ratio (total leverage exposure) 

that the agencies adopted in July 2013 

as part of comprehensive revisions to 

the agencies’ regulatory capital rules 

(2013 capital rule). The rule revises the 

treatment of on- and off-balance sheet 

exposures for purposes of determining 

total leverage exposure, and more 

closely aligning the agencies’ rules on 

the calculation of total leverage 

exposure with international leverage 

ratio standards. The proposed rule was 

issued on May 1, 2014, 79 FR 24596. 

The final rule was issued on September 

26, 2014, 79 FR 57725. 

Integration of National Bank and 

Federal Savings Association 

Regulations: Licensing Rules (12 CFR 

parts 4, 5, 7, 14, 32, 34, 100, 116, 143, 

144, 145, 146, 150, 152, 159, 160, 161, 

162, 163, 174, 192, 193). The OCC 

issued a proposed rule to integrate its 

rules relating to policies and procedures 

for corporate activities and transactions 

involving national banks and FSAs. The 

proposed rule also revises some of these 

rules in order to eliminate unnecessary 

requirements, consistent with safety and 

soundness, and to make other technical 

and conforming changes. The proposal 

also included amendments to update 

OCC rules for agency organization and 

function. The proposed rule was issued 

on June 10, 2014, 79 FR 33260. 

Assessment of Fees (12 CFR part 8). 

The OCC issued a final rule to increase 

assessments for national banks and 

FSAs with assets of more than $40 

billion. The increase ranges between 

0.32 percent and approximately 14 

percent, depending on the total assets of 

the institution as reflected in its June 30, 

2014, Consolidated Report of Condition 

and Income. The average increase in 

assessments for affected banks and FSAs 

will be 12 percent. The final rule will 

not increase assessments for banks or 

FSAs with $40 billion or less in total 

assets. The OCC will implement the 

increase in assessments by issuing an 

amended Notice of Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency Fees and 

Assessments, which will become 

effective as of the semiannual 

assessment due on September 30, 2014. 

In conjunction with the increase in 

assessments, the final rule updates the 

OCC’s assessment rule to conform with 

section 318 of the Dodd-Frank Act, 

which reaffirmed the authority of the 

Comptroller of the Currency to set the 

amount of, and methodology for, 

assessments. The proposed rule was 

issued on April 28, 2014, 79 FR 23297. 

The final rule was issued on July 9, 

2014 (79 FR 38769). 

Flood Insurance (12 CFR parts 22 and 

172). The banking agencies, Farm Credit 

Administration (FCA), and the National 

Credit Union Administration (NCUA) 

proposed revisions to their regulations 

regarding loans in areas having special 

flood hazards to implement provisions 

of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance 

Reform Act of 2012 (Biggert-Waters) and 

the OCC issued a proposed rule to 

integrate its flood insurance regulations 

for national banks, 12 CFR part 22, and 

FSAs, 12 CFR part 172. The proposed 

rule was issued on October 30, 2013, 78 

FR 65108. 

OCC Guidelines Establishing 

Heightened Standards for Certain Large 

Insured National Banks, Insured Federal 

Savings Associations, and Insured 

Federal Branches; Integration of 

Regulations (12 CFR part 30). The OCC 

issued a final rule adopting new 

Guidelines as an appendix to its safety 

and soundness standards regulations 

that establish minimum standards for 

the design and implementation of a risk 

governance framework for large insured 

national banks, insured FSAs, and 

insured Federal branches of foreign 

banks with average total consolidated 

assets of $50 billion or more and 

minimum standards for a board of 

directors in overseeing the framework’s 

design and implementation. The 

standards contained in the Guidelines 

are enforceable by the terms of a Federal 

statute that authorizes the OCC to 

prescribe operational and managerial 

standards for national banks and FSAs. 

The proposed rule was issued on 

January 27, 2014, 79 FR 4282. The final 

rule was issued on September 11, 2014, 

79 FR 54518. 

Appraisals for Higher-Risk Mortgages 

(12 CFR parts 34, 164). The banking 

agencies, the Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau (CFPB), Federal 

Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), and 

the NCUA, issued a final rule on 

February 13, 2013, 78 FR 10368, to 

amend Regulation Z and its official 

interpretation. The rule revised 

Regulation Z to implement a new Truth 

in Lending Act (TILA) provision 

requiring appraisals for any ‘‘higher-risk 

mortgage’’ that was added to TILA as 

part of the Dodd-Frank Act. For 

mortgages with an annual percentage 

rate that exceeds market-based prime 

mortgage rate benchmarks by a specified 

percentage, the rule generally requires 

creditors to obtain an appraisal or 

appraisals meeting certain specified 

standards, provide applicants with a 

notification regarding the use of the 

appraisals, and give applicants a copy of 

the written appraisals used. The 

agencies issued a supplemental rule that 

would exempt from the requirements of 

the final rule: (i) transactions secured by 

existing manufactured homes and not 

land; (ii) certain streamlined 

refinancings; and (iii) transactions of 

$25,000 or less. The supplemental final 

rule was issued on December 26, 2013, 

78 FR 78520. 

Appraisal Management Companies 

(12 CFR part 34). The banking agencies, 

FHFA, NCUA and CFPB, issued a 

proposed rule that would set minimum 

standards for state registration and 

regulation of appraisal management 

companies. The rule would implement 

the minimum requirements in section 

1473 of the Dodd-Frank Act to be 

applied by states in the registration of 

appraisal management companies. It 

also would implement the requirement 

in section 1473 of the Dodd-Frank Act 

for States to report to the Appraisal 

Subcommittee (ASC) of the Federal 

Financial Institutions Examination 

Council the information needed by the 

ASC to administer the national registry 

of appraisal management companies. 

The proposed rule was issued on April 

9, 2014, 79 FR 19521. 

Prohibition and Restrictions on 

Proprietary Trading and Certain 

Interests In, and Relationships with, 

Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds 

(12 CFR part 44). The banking agencies, 

the Securities & Exchange Commission 

(SEC), and the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (CFTC) issued 

final rules to implement section 619 of 

the Dodd-Frank Act, which contains 

certain prohibitions and restrictions on 

the ability of banking entities and 

nonbank financial companies 

supervised by the FRB to engage in 

proprietary trading and have certain 

investments in, or relationships with, 

hedge funds or private equity funds. 

The final rule was issued on January 31, 

2014, 79 FR 5536. 

Treatment of Certain Collateralized 

Debt Obligations Backed Primarily by 

Trust Preferred Securities With Regard 

to Prohibitions and Restrictions on 

Certain Interests in, and Relationships 

With, Hedge Funds and Private Equity 

Funds (12 CFR part 44). The banking 

agencies, the CFTC, and the SEC issued 

an interim final rule that would permit 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76611 

banking entities to retain investments in 

certain pooled investment vehicles that 

invested their offering proceeds 

primarily in certain securities issued by 

community banking organizations of the 

type grandfathered under section 171 of 

the Dodd-Frank Act. The interim final 

rule was issued on January 31, 2014, 79 

FR 5223. 

Margin and Capital Requirements for 

Covered Swap Entities (12 CFR part 45). 

The banking agencies, FCA, and the 

FHFA issued a proposed rule to 

establish minimum margin and capital 

requirements for registered swap 

dealers, major swap participants, 

security-based swap dealers, and major 

security-based swap participants for 

which one of the agencies is the 

prudential regulator. The proposed rule 

will implement sections 731 and 764 of 

the Dodd-Frank Act, which require the 

agencies to adopt rules jointly to 

establish capital requirements and 

initial and variation margin 

requirements for such entities on all 

non-cleared swaps and non-cleared 

security-based swaps in order to offset 

the greater risk to such entities and the 

financial system arising from the use of 

swaps and security-based swaps that are 

not cleared. The proposed rule was 

issued on September 24, 2014, 79 FR 

57347). 

Liquidity Coverage Ratio (12 CFR 50). 

The banking agencies issued a final rule 

to implement a quantitative liquidity 

requirement consistent with the 

liquidity coverage ratio standard 

established by the Basel Committee on 

Banking Supervision. The requirement 

is designed to promote improvements in 

the measurement and management of 

liquidity risk. The final rule applies to 

all internationally active banking 

organizations, that is, banking 

organizations with more than $250 

billion in total assets or more than $10 

billion in on-balance sheet foreign 

exposure, and to consolidated 

subsidiary depository institutions of 

internationally active banking 

organizations with $10 billion or more 

in total consolidated assets. The 

proposed rule was issued on November 

29, 2013, 78 FR 71818. The final rule 

was issued on October 10, 2014, 79 FR 

61439. 

Regulatory Publication and Review 

Under the Economic Growth and 

Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1996 (12 CFR chapter I). The banking 

agencies are conducting a review of the 

regulations they have issued to identify 

outdated, unnecessary, or unduly 

burdensome regulations for insured 

depository institutions. This review is 

required by section 2222 of the 

Economic Growth and Regulatory 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 

(EGRPRA). The first of four Federal 

Register requests for comment was 

issued on June 4, 2014, 79 FR 32172. 

Regulatory priorities for fiscal year 

2015 include finalizing the proposals 

and interim final rules listed above as 

well as the following rulemakings: 

Flood Insurance (12 CFR parts 22 and 

172). The banking agencies, FCA, and 

NCUA plan to issue a proposed rule to 

amend their regulations regarding loans 

in areas having special flood hazards to 

implement certain provisions of the 

Homeowner Flood Insurance 

Affordability Act of 2014 (HFIAA), 

which amends some of the changes to 

the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 

1973 mandated by Biggert-Waters. The 

proposal would establish requirements 

with respect to the escrow of flood 

insurance payments, consistent with the 

changes set forth in HFIAA. The 

proposal also would implement an 

exclusion in HFIAA for certain detached 

structures from the mandatory flood 

insurance purchase requirement. 

Automated Valuation Models (Parts 

34, 164). The banking agencies, NCUA, 

FHFA and CFPB, in consultation with 

the Appraisal Subcommittee and the 

Appraisal Standards Board of the 

Appraisal Foundation, are required to 

promulgate regulations to implement 

quality-control standards required for 

automated valuation models. Section 

1473(q) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires 

that automated valuation models used 

to estimate collateral value for mortgage 

lending 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 for 

quality-control standards. 

Incentive-Based Compensation 

Arrangements (12 CFR part 42). Section 

956 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the 

banking agencies, NCUA, SEC, and 

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 to jointly prescribe regulations 

or guidance requiring each covered 

financial institution to disclose to its 

regulator the structure of all incentivebased compensation arrangements 

offered by such institution sufficient to 

determine whether the compensation 

structure provides any officer, 

employee, director, or principal 

shareholder with excessive 

compensation or could lead to material 

financial loss to the institution. The 

proposed rule was issued on April 14, 

2011, 76 FR 21170. Work on a final rule 

is underway. 

Credit Risk Retention (12 CFR part 

43). The banking agencies, SEC, FHFA, 

and the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development proposed rules to 

implement the credit risk retention 

requirements of section 15G of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 

U.S.C. 78o–11), as added by section 941 

of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 15G 

generally requires the securitizer of 

asset-backed securities to retain not less 

than 5 percent of the credit risk of the 

assets collateralizing the asset-backed 

securities. Section 15G includes a 

variety of exemptions from these 

requirements, including an exemption 

for asset-backed securities that are 

collateralized exclusively by residential 

mortgages that qualify as ‘‘qualified 

residential mortgages,’’ as such term is 

defined by the agencies by rule. The 

proposal was issued on September 20, 

2013, 78 FR 57928. Work on a final rule 

is underway. 

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 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. 

Terrorism Risk Insurance Program 

Office 

The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 

2002 (TRIA) was signed into law on 

November 26, 2002. The law, which was 

enacted as a consequence of the events 

of September 11, 2001, established a 

temporary Federal reinsurance program 

under which the Federal Government 

shares the risk of losses associated with 

certain types of terrorist acts with 

commercial property and casualty 

insurers. The Act, originally scheduled 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76612 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

to expire on December 31, 2005, was 

extended to December 31, 2007, by the 

Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act 

of 2005 (TRIEA). The Act has since been 

extended to December 31, 2014, by the 

Terrorism Risk Insurance Program 

Reauthorization Act of 2007 (TRIPRA). 

Congress is currently considering 

extending the Act for an additional 

period of time. 

The Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Financial Institutions is responsible 

for developing and promulgating 

regulations implementing TRIA, as 

extended and amended by TRIEA and 

TRIPRA. The Terrorism Risk Insurance 

Program Office, which is part of the 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Financial Institutions, is responsible for 

operational implementation of TRIA. 

The purposes of this legislation are to 

address market disruptions, ensure the 

continued widespread availability and 

affordability of commercial property 

and casualty insurance for terrorism 

risk, and to allow for a transition period 

for the private markets to stabilize and 

build capacity while preserving State 

insurance regulation and consumer 

protections. 

In the event Congress extends the 

Program Treasury will continue the 

ongoing work of implementing TRIA 

and any changes contained in the 

extension of the Act. 

BILLING CODE 4810–25–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS (VA) 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

The Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) administers benefit programs that 

recognize the important public 

obligations to those who served this 

Nation. VA’s regulatory responsibility is 

almost solely confined to carrying out 

mandates of the laws enacted by 

Congress relating to programs for 

veterans and their families. VA’s major 

regulatory objective is to implement 

these laws with fairness, justice, and 

efficiency. 

Most of the regulations issued by VA 

involve at least one of three VA 

components: The Veterans Benefits 

Administration, the Veterans Health 

Administration, and the National 

Cemetery Administration. The primary 

mission of the Veterans Benefits 

Administration is to provide highquality and timely nonmedical benefits 

to eligible veterans and their 

dependents. The primary mission of the 

Veterans Health Administration is to 

provide high-quality health care on a 

timely basis to eligible veterans through 

its system of medical centers, nursing 

homes, domiciliaries, and outpatient 

medical and dental facilities. The 

primary mission of the National 

Cemetery Administration is to bury 

eligible veterans, members of the 

Reserve components, and their 

dependents in VA National Cemeteries 

and to maintain those cemeteries as 

national shrines in perpetuity as a final 

tribute of a grateful Nation to 

commemorate their service and sacrifice 

to our Nation. 

VA Regulatory Priorities 

VA’s regulatory priorities include a 

special project to undertake a 

comprehensive review and 

improvement of its existing regulations. 

The first portion of this project is 

devoted to reviewing, reorganizing, and 

rewriting the VA’s compensation and 

pension regulations found in 38 CFR 

part 3. The goal of the Regulation 

Rewrite Project is to improve the clarity 

and consistency of these regulations to 

make them easier to find, read, 

understand, and apply. 

A second VA regulatory priority is to 

implement title I of the Veterans Access, 

Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, 

which was signed into law on August 7, 

2014. The purpose of the new law is to 

establish a program to furnish hospital 

care and medical services through nonVA health care providers to veterans 

who either cannot be seen within VA’s 

wait time goals or who live far from any 

VA medical facility. The statute requires 

that VA publish an interim final rule by 

November 5, 2014, and VA met this 

deadline when we published AP24, 

Expanded Access to Non-VA Care 

through the Veterans Choice Program. 

A third VA regulatory priority is to 

codify Section 707 of the Act, which 

gives the Secretary more authority to 

dismiss members of the Senior 

Executive Service based on performance 

or misconduct. As VA announced on 

October 6, 2014, the Secretary is already 

implementing that provision. To codify 

the new statute into the Code of Federal 

Regulations, VA plans to publish a 

rulemaking, AP30, Changes to 

Expedited Senior Executive Removal 

Authority, as an interim final rule. 

VA is also drafting regulation AP29 to 

implement Section 702 of the Act which 

requires that public colleges charge instate tuition for veterans under certain 

circumstances. 

Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive 

Order 13563 ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review’’ (Jan. 18, 2011), the 

following Regulatory Identifier Numbers 

(RINs) have been identified as 

associated with retrospective review 

and analysis in the Department’s final 

retrospective review of regulations plan. 

Some of these entries on this list may 

be completed actions, which do not 

appear in The Regulatory Plan. 

However, more information can be 

found about these completed 

rulemakings in past publications of the 

Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the 

Completed Actions section for that 

agency. These rulemakings can also be 

found on Regulations.gov. The final 

agency plans can be found at: http://

www.va.gov/ORPM/docs/RegMgmt_VA_

EO13563_RegRevPlan20110810.docx. 

RIN Title 

Significantly reduce 

burdens on small 

businesses 

2900–AO13* ..... VA Compensation and Pension Regulation Rewrite Project ................................................................... No 

*Consolidating Proposed Rules: 2900–AL67, AL70, AL71, AL72, AL74, AL76, AL82, AL83, AL84, AL87, AL88, AL89, AL94, AL95, AM01, 

AM04, AM05, AM06, AM07, AM16. 

VA 

Final Rule Stage 

121. • Expedited Senior Executive 

Removal Authority 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113–146 (title 

VII, sec 707). 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: VA will amend its 

regulations to provide that the Secretary 

may immediately remove or demote any 

individual from the Senior Executive 

Service (SES), and title 38 SES 

equivalents, if the Secretary determines 

the performance of the individual 

warrants such removal. The senior 

executive would be allowed an 

opportunity for an expedited review by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76613 

the MSPB be conducted by an 

Administrative Judge at the MSPB, and 

if the MSPB Administrative Judge does 

not conclude their review within 21 

days then the removal or demotion is 

final. (MSPB is conducting a rulemaking 

to establish and implement a process to 

conduct expedited reviews.) 

VA regulations would also state that 

if the senior executive is removed, and 

then appeals VA’s decision, the senior 

executive is not entitled to any type of 

pay, bonus, or benefit while appealing 

the decision of removal. Also, VA 

regulations would state that if a senior 

executive is demoted, and then appeals 

VA’s decision, the employee may only 

receive any type of pay, bonus, or 

benefit at the rate appropriate for the 

position they were demoted to, and only 

if the individual shows up for duty, 

while appealing the decision of 

demotion. 

VA regulations would also include 

‘‘misconduct’’ along with ‘‘poor 

performance’’ as a reason to remove or 

demote a senior executive. 

Statement of Need: 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 707 

of the Veterans Access, Choice, and 

Accountability Act of 2014, which was 

signed into law on August 7, 2014, gives 

the Secretary more authority to dismiss 

members of the Senior Executive 

Service based on performance or 

misconduct. As VA announced on 

October 6, 2014, the Secretary is already 

implementing that provision. To codify 

the new statute into the Code of Federal 

Regulations, VA plans to publish a 

rulemaking as an interim final rule. 

Alternatives: 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Risks: 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 07/00/15 

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: Kimberly McLeod, 

Deputy Assistant General Counsel, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 

Vermont Avenue NW., DC 20420, 

Phone: 202 461–7630. 

RIN: 2900–AP30 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ARCHITECTURAL AND 

TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS 

COMPLIANCE BOARD 

Statement of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Priorities 

The Architectural and Transportation 

Barriers Compliance Board (Access 

Board) is an independent federal agency 

established by section 502 of the 

Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 792). The 

Access Board is responsible for 

developing accessibility guidelines and 

standards under various laws to ensure 

that individuals with disabilities have 

access to and use of buildings and 

facilities, transportation vehicles, 

information and communication 

technology, and medical diagnostic 

equipment. Other Federal agencies 

adopt the accessibility guidelines and 

standards issued by the Access Board as 

mandatory requirements for entities 

under their jurisdiction. 

This plan highlights five rulemaking 

priorities for the Access Board in FY 

2015: (A) Information and 

Communication Technology 

Accessibility Standards and Guidelines; 

(B) Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for 

Transportation Vehicles; (C) Medical 

Diagnostic Equipment Accessibility 

Standards; (D) Accessibility Guidelines 

for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public 

Right-of-Way; and (E) Americans with 

Disabilities (ADA) Accessibility 

Guidelines for Passenger Vessels. The 

guidelines and standards would enable 

individuals with disabilities to achieve 

greater participation in our society, 

independent living, and economic selfsufficiency, and would promote our 

national values of equity, human 

dignity, and fairness, the benefits of 

which are difficult to quantify. 

The rulemakings are summarized 

below. 

A. Information and Communication 

Technology Accessibility Standards and 

Guidelines (RIN: 3014–AA37) 

This rulemaking would update in a 

single document the accessibility 

standards for electronic and information 

technology covered by section 508 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended (29 U.S.C. 794d) (Section 508), 

and the accessibility guidelines for 

telecommunications equipment and 

customer premises equipment covered 

by section 255 of the Communications 

Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 255) (Section 

255). Section 508 requires the Federal 

Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR 

Council) and each appropriate Federal 

department or agency to revise their 

procurement policies and directives no 

later than 6 months after the Access 

Board’s publication of standards. The 

FAR Council has incorporated the 

accessibility standards for electronic 

and information technology in the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR 

Chapter 1). Under Section 255, the 

Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC) is responsible for issuing 

implementing regulations and enforcing 

Section 255. The FCC has promulgated 

enforceable standards (47 CFR parts 6 

and 7) implementing Section 255 that 

are consistent with the Access Board’s 

accessibility guidelines for 

telecommunications equipment and 

customer premises equipment. 

The Access Board’s 2010 ANPRM 

included a proposal to amend Section 

220 of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), 

but, based on public comments, the 

ADAAG proposal is no longer included 

in this rulemaking and will be pursued 

separately at a later date. 

A.1. Statement of Need: The Access 

Board issued the Electronic and 

Information Technology Accessibility 

Standards in 2000 (65 FR 80500, 

December 21, 2000), and the 

Telecommunications Act Accessibility 

Guidelines for telecommunications 

equipment and customer premises 

equipment in 1998 (63 FR 5608, 

February 3, 1998). Since the standards 

and the guidelines were issued, 

technology has evolved and changed. 

Telecommunications products and 

electronic and information technology 

products have converged. For example, 

smartphones can perform many of the 

same functions as computers. Real time 

text technologies and video relay 

services are replacing TTY’s (text 

telephones). The Access Board is 

updating the standards and guidelines 

together to address changes in 

technology and to make them 

consistent. 

A.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: 

Section 508 and Section 255 require the 

Access Board to develop accessibility 

standards for electronic and information 

technology and accessibility guidelines 

for telecommunications equipment and 

customer premises equipment, and to 

periodically review and update the 

standards and guidelines to reflect 

technological advances and changes. 

Section 508 requires that when 

developing, procuring, maintaining, or 

using electronic and information 

technology, each Federal department or 

agency must ensure, unless an undue 

burden would be imposed on the 

department or agency, that electronic 

and information technology (regardless 

of the type of medium) allows 

individuals with disabilities to have 

access to and use of information and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76614 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

data that is comparable to the access 

and use of the information and data by 

others without disabilities. Section 255 

requires telecommunications 

manufacturers to ensure that 

telecommunications equipment and 

customer premises equipment are 

designed, developed, and fabricated to 

be accessible to and usable by 

individuals with disabilities when it is 

readily achievable to do so. 

A.3. Alternatives: The Access Board 

established a Telecommunications and 

Electronic and Information Technology 

Advisory Committee to recommend 

changes to the existing standards and 

guidelines. The advisory committee was 

comprised of a broad cross-section of 

stakeholders, including representatives 

from industry, disability groups, and 

government agencies from the U.S., the 

European Commission, Canada, 

Australia, and Japan. Recognizing the 

importance of standardization across 

markets worldwide, the advisory 

committee coordinated its work with 

standard-setting bodies in the U.S. and 

abroad, such as the World Wide Web 

Consortium (W3C). The Access Board 

published Advance Notices of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRMs) in the Federal 

Register in 2010 and 2011 requesting 

public comments on draft updates to the 

standards and guidelines (75 FR 13457, 

March 22, 2010; and 76 FR 76640, 

December 8, 2011). The Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) will be 

based on the advisory committee’s 

report and public comments on the 

ANPRMs. 

The Access Board expects that the 

Information and Communication 

Technology Standards and Guidelines 

will have international influence, and 

has engaged extensive outreach efforts 

to standard-setting bodies in the U.S. 

and abroad such as the World Wide 

Web Consortium and to other countries, 

including the European Commission, 

Canada, Australia, and Japan. 

A.4. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: 

The Access Board is working with a 

contractor to assess costs and benefits 

and prepare a preliminary regulatory 

impact assessment to accompany the 

NPRM. Baseline cost estimates of 

complying with Section 508 and Section 

255 are made, and incremental costs 

due to the revised or new requirements 

are estimated for federal agencies and 

telecommunications equipment 

manufacturers. Anticipated benefits are 

also numerous, including hard-to 

quantify benefits such as increased 

ability for people with disabilities to 

obtain information and conduct 

transactions electronically. The 

preliminary regulatory impact 

assessment will be available at 

www.access-board.gov once the NPRM 

is published. 

B. Americans With Disabilities Act 

(ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for 

Transportation Vehicles (RIN: 3014– 

AA38) 

This rulemaking would update the 

accessibility guidelines for buses, overthe-road buses, and vans covered by the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

The accessibility guidelines for other 

transportation vehicles covered by the 

ADA, including vehicles operated in 

fixed guideway systems (e.g., rapid rail, 

light rail, commuter rail, high speed rail 

and intercity rail) would be updated in 

a future rulemaking. The guidelines 

ensure that transportation vehicles 

covered by the ADA are readily 

accessible to and usable by individuals 

with disabilities. The U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT) has issued 

enforceable standards (49 CFR part 37) 

that apply to the acquisition of new, 

used, and remanufactured 

transportation vehicles, and the 

remanufacture of existing transportation 

vehicles covered by the ADA. DOT is 

expected to update its standards in a 

separate rulemaking to be consistent 

with the updated guidelines. 

B.1. Statement of Need: The Access 

Board issued the ADA Accessibility 

Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles 

in 1991, and amended the guidelines in 

1998 to include additional requirements 

for over-the-road buses. Level boarding 

bus systems were introduced in the U.S. 

after the 1991 guidelines were issued. 

We are revising the 1991 guidelines to 

include new requirements for level 

boarding bus systems, automated stop 

and route announcements, and other 

changes. 

B.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: Title 

II of the ADA applies to State and local 

governments and Title III of the ADA 

applies to places of public 

accommodation operated by private 

entities. The ADA covers designated 

public transportation services provided 

by State and local governments and 

specified public transportation services 

provided by private entities that are 

primarily engaged in the business of 

transporting people and whose 

operations affect commerce. (See 42 

U.S.C. 12141 to 12147 and 12184.) Bus 

rapid transit systems, including level 

boarding bus systems, that provide 

public transportation services, are 

covered by the ADA. 

The Access Board is required by the 

ADA and the Rehabilitation Act to 

establish and maintain guidelines for 

the accessibility standards adopted by 

DOT for transportation vehicles 

acquired or manufactured by entities 

covered by the ADA. Compliance with 

the new guidelines is not required until 

DOT revises its accessibility standards 

for transportation vehicles acquired or 

remanufactured by entities covered by 

the ADA to be consistent with the new 

guidelines. 

B.3. Alternatives: The Access Board 

issued a proposed rule to revise the 

1991 guidelines for buses, over-the-road 

buses, and vans in 2010. The proposed 

rule, comments on the proposed rule, 

correspondence received after the close 

of the initial comment period, and 

records and transcripts of meetings on 

the new ramp designs are available in 

the rulemaking docket at: http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=ATBCB-2010-0004. 

The final rule is based on the NPRM and 

public comments on the NPRM. 

B.4. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: 

Incremental compliance costs are 

estimated for new requirements for 

over-the-road buses, such as displaying 

the International Symbol of 

Accessibility on the window adjacent to 

wheelchair spaces and displaying the 

destination or route signs on the front as 

well as the boarding side of the vehicles. 

This rulemaking would enable persons 

who have mobility disabilities, persons 

who have difficulty hearing or are deaf, 

and persons who have difficulty seeing 

or are blind to use transportation 

services. A full regulatory impact 

analysis will be available at 

www.access-board.gov, once the final 

rule is published. 

C. Medical Diagnostic Equipment 

Accessibility Standards (RIN: 3014– 

AA40) 

The Access Board plans to issue a 

final rule establishing accessibility 

standards for medical diagnostic 

equipment used in or in conjunction 

with medical settings such as 

physicians’ offices, clinics, emergency 

rooms, and hospitals. The standards 

will contain minimum technical criteria 

to ensure that medical diagnostic 

equipment, including examination 

tables, examination chairs, weight 

scales, mammography equipment, and 

other imaging equipment used by health 

care providers for diagnostic purposes 

are accessible to and usable by 

individuals with disabilities. The 

Access Board published a NPRM in the 

Federal Register in 2012, 77 FR 6916, 

February 9, 2012. 

C.1. Statement of Need: A national 

survey of a diverse sample of 

individuals with a wide range of 

disabilities, including mobility and 

sensory disabilities, showed that the 

respondents had difficulty getting on 

and off examination tables and chairs, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76615 

radiology equipment and weight scales, 

and experienced problems with 

physical comfort, safety and 

communication. Focus group studies of 

individuals with disabilities also 

provided information on barriers that 

affect the accessibility and usability of 

various types of medical diagnostic 

equipment. The national survey and 

focus group studies are discussed in the 

NPRM. 

C.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: 

Section 4203 of the Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111– 

148, 124 Stat. 570) amended Title V of 

the Rehabilitation Act, which 

establishes rights and protections for 

individuals with disabilities, by adding 

section 510 to the Rehabilitation Act (29 

U.S.C. 794f) (Section 510). Section 510 

requires the Access Board, in 

consultation with the Commissioner of 

the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA), to develop standards that contain 

minimum technical criteria to ensure 

that medical diagnostic equipment used 

in or in conjunction with medical 

settings such as physicians’ offices, 

clinics, emergency rooms, and hospitals 

are accessible to and usable by 

individuals with disabilities. 

Section 510 does not address who is 

required to comply with the standards. 

However, the Americans with 

Disabilities Act require health care 

providers to provide individuals with 

disabilities full and equal access to their 

health care services and facilities. The 

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is 

responsible for issuing regulations to 

implement the Americans with 

Disabilities Act and enforcing the law. 

The NPRM discusses DOJ activities 

related to health care providers and 

medical diagnostic equipment. 

C.3. Alternatives: The Access Board 

worked with the FDA and DOJ in 

developing the standards. The Access 

Board considered the Association for 

the Advancement of Medical 

Instrumentation’s ANSI/AAMI HE 

75:2009, ‘‘Human factors engineering— 

Design of medical devices,’’ which 

includes recommended practices to 

provide accessibility for individuals 

with disabilities. The Access Board also 

established a Medical Diagnostic 

Equipment Accessibility Standards 

Advisory Committee that included 

representatives from the disability 

community and manufacturers of 

medical diagnostic equipment to make 

recommendations on issues raised in 

public comments and responses to 

questions in the NPRM. The final rule 

will be based on the public comments 

and recommendations of the advisory 

committee. 

C.4. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: 

The Access Board is working to assess 

costs and benefits and prepare a 

preliminary regulatory impact 

assessment to accompany the final rule. 

The standards would address many of 

the barriers that have been identified as 

affecting the accessibility and usability 

of diagnostic equipment by individuals 

with disabilities. The standards would 

facilitate independent transfers by 

individuals with disabilities onto and 

off of diagnostic equipment, and enable 

them to maintain their independence, 

confidence, and dignity, lessening the 

need for health care personnel to assist 

individuals with disabilities when 

transferring on and off of diagnostic 

equipment. The standards would 

improve the quality of health care for 

individuals with disabilities and ensure 

that they receive examinations, 

diagnostic procedures, and other health 

care services equivalent to those 

received by individuals without 

disabilities. 

D. Accessibility Guidelines for 

Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Rightof-Way (RIN: 3014–AA26) 

The rulemaking would establish 

accessibility guidelines to ensure that 

sidewalks and pedestrian facilities in 

the public right-of-way are accessible to 

and usable by individuals with 

disabilities. A Supplemental Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking consolidated this 

rulemaking with RIN 3014–AA41; 

accessibility guidelines for shared use 

paths (which are multi-use paths 

designed primarily for use by bicyclists 

and pedestrians, including persons with 

disabilities, for transportation and 

recreation purposes). The U.S. 

Department of Justice, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, and other Federal 

agencies are expected to adopt the 

accessibility guidelines for pedestrian 

facilities in the public right-of-way and 

for shared use paths, as enforceable 

standards in separate rulemakings for 

the construction and alteration of 

facilities covered by the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act, and the 

Architectural Barriers Act. 

D.1. Statement of Need: While the 

Access Board has issued accessibility 

guidelines for the design, construction, 

and alteration of buildings and facilities 

covered by the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) and the 

Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) (36 

CFR part 1191), these guidelines were 

developed primarily for buildings and 

facilities on sites. Some of the 

provisions in these guidelines can be 

readily applied to pedestrian facilities 

in the public right-of-way such as curb 

ramps. However, other provisions need 

to be adapted or new provisions 

developed for pedestrian facilities that 

are built in the public right-of-way as 

well as shared use paths. 

D.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: 

Section 502(b)(3) of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 

792(b)(3), requires the Access Board to 

establish and maintain minimum 

guidelines for the standards issued by 

other agencies pursuant to the ADA and 

ABA. In addition, section 504 of the 

ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12204, required the 

Access Board to issue accessibility 

guidelines for buildings and facilities 

covered by that law. 

D.3. Alternatives: The Access Board 

established a Public Rights-of-Way 

Access Advisory Committee to make 

recommendations for the guidelines. 

The advisory committee was comprised 

of a broad cross-section of stakeholders, 

including representatives for State and 

local government agencies responsible 

for constructing facilities in the public 

right-of-way, transportation engineers, 

disability groups, and bicycling and 

pedestrian organizations. The Access 

Board released two drafts of the 

guidelines for public comment and an 

NPRM based on the advisory committee 

report and public comments on the draft 

guidelines. The final rule will be based 

on the NPRM and public comments on 

the NPRM. 

D.4. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: 

The Access Board identified four 

provisions in the NPRM that were 

expected to have more than minimal 

monetary impacts on State and local 

governments. Three of these four 

requirements are related to: (1) 

detectable warning surfaces on newly 

constructed and altered curb ramps and 

blended transitions at pedestrian street 

crossings; (2) accessible pedestrian 

signals and pushbuttons when 

pedestrian signals are newly installed or 

replaced at signalized intersections; and 

(3) pedestrian activated signals at 

roundabouts with multi-lane pedestrian 

crossings. In addition, the fourth 

requirement for provision of a two 

percent maximum cross slope on 

pedestrian access routes within 

pedestrian street crossings with yield or 

stop control was estimated to have more 

than minimal monetary impacts on 

State and local governments when 

constructing roadways with pedestrian 

crossings in hilly areas. The NPRM 

included questions requesting 

information to assess the costs and 

benefits of these provisions, as well as 

other provisions that may have cost 

impacts. The Access Board will prepare 

a final regulatory impact assessment to 

accompany the final rule based on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76616 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

information provided in response to 

questions in the NPRM and other 

sources. 

E. Americans With Disabilities Act 

(ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for 

Passenger Vessels (RIN: 3014–AA11) 

The rulemaking would establish 

accessibility guidelines to ensure that 

newly constructed and altered 

passenger vessels covered by the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

are accessible to and usable by 

individuals with disabilities. The U.S. 

Department of Transportation and U.S. 

Department of Justice are expected to 

adopt the guidelines as enforceable 

standards in separate rulemakings for 

the construction and alteration of 

passenger vessels covered by the ADA. 

E.1. Statement of Need: Section 504 of 

the ADA requires the Access Board to 

issue accessibility guidelines for the 

construction and alteration of passenger 

vessels covered by the law to ensure 

that the vessels are readily accessible to 

and usable by individuals with 

disabilities (42 U.S.C. 12204). 

E.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: Title 

II of the ADA applies to State and local 

governments and title III of the ADA 

applies to places of public 

accommodation operated by private 

entities. The ADA covers designated 

public transportation services provided 

by State and local governments and 

specified public transportation services 

provided by private entities that are 

primarily engaged in the business of 

transporting people and whose 

operations affect commerce. (See 42 

U.S.C. 12141 to 12147 and 12184.) 

Titles II and III of the ADA require the 

DOT and DOJ to issue accessibility 

standards for the construction and 

alteration of passenger vessels covered 

by the law that are consistent with the 

guidelines issued by the Access Board. 

(See 42 U.S.C. 12134(c), 12149(b), 

12186(c).) The DOT has reserved a 

subpart in its ADA regulations for 

accessibility standards for passenger 

vessels in anticipation of the Access 

Board issuing these guidelines. (See 49 

CFR part 39, subpart E.) Once DOT and 

DOJ issue accessibility standards for the 

construction and alteration of passenger 

vessels covered by the ADA, vessel 

owners and operators are then required 

to comply with the standards. 

E.3. Alternatives: In developing the 

proposed accessibility guidelines, the 

Access Board has received and 

considered extensive input from 

passenger vessel owners and operators, 

individuals with disabilities, and other 

interested parties for more than a 

decade. The Access Board convened an 

advisory committee comprised of 

passenger vessel industry trade groups, 

passenger vessel owners and operators, 

disability advocacy groups, and State 

and local government agencies to advise 

how to develop the accessibility 

guidelines. The committee submitted its 

report to the Access Board in 2000. In 

addition, over the years, the Access 

Board issued an ANPRM and three 

versions of draft accessibility guidelines 

and conducted in-depth case studies on 

various passenger vessels. The Access 

Board solicited and analyzed public 

comments on these documents in 

developing the proposed guidelines and 

regulatory impact analysis. All the 

published documents together with 

public comments are available at: 

http://www.access-board.gov. 

E.4. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: 

The proposed guidelines would address 

the discriminatory effects of 

architectural, transportation, and 

communication barriers encountered by 

individuals with disabilities on 

passenger vessels. The estimated 

compliance costs for certain types of 

vessels include: (1) the incremental 

impact of constructing a vessel in 

compliance with the guidelines; and (2) 

any additional costs attributable to the 

operation and maintenance of accessible 

features. For certain large cruise ships, 

the compliance costs would include loss 

of guest rooms and gross revenues 

attributed to a proposed requirement for 

a minimum number of guest rooms that 

provide mobility features. The proposed 

guidelines would significantly benefit 

individuals with disabilities by 

affording them equal opportunity to 

travel on passenger vessels for 

employment, transportation, public 

accommodation, and leisure. Other 

benefits, which are difficult to quantify, 

include equity, human dignity, and 

fairness values. 

BILLING CODE 8150–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY (EPA) 

Statement of Priorities 

Overview 

For more than 40 years, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

has worked to protect people’s health 

and the environment. By taking 

advantage of the best thinking, the 

newest technologies and the most costeffective, sustainable solutions, EPA has 

fostered innovation and cleaned up 

pollution in the places where people 

live, work, play and learn. 

With a renewed focus on the 

challenges ahead, science, law and 

transparency continue to guide EPA 

decisions. EPA will leverage resources 

with grant- and incentive-based 

programs, sound scientific advice, 

technical and compliance assistance 

and tools that support states, tribes, 

cities, towns, rural communities and the 

private sector in their efforts to address 

our shared challenges, including: 

• making a visible difference in 

communities across the country; 

• addressing climate change and 

improving air quality; 

• taking action on toxics and 

chemical safety; 

• protecting water: a precious, limited 

resource; 

• launching a new era of state, tribal 

and local partnership; and 

• working toward a sustainable 

future. 

EPA and its federal, state, local, and 

community partners have made 

enormous progress in protecting the 

nation’s health and environment. From 

reducing mercury and other toxic air 

pollution to reducing greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions, doubling the fuel 

efficiency of our cars and trucks, the 

Agency is working to save lives and 

protect the environment. In addition, 

while removing a billion tons of 

pollution from the air, the Agency has 

produced hundreds of billions of dollars 

in benefits for the American people. 

Highlights of EPA’S Regulatory Plan 

EPA’s more than forty years of 

protecting human 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 actions. 

As always, our Semiannual Regulatory 

Agenda contains information on a 

broader spectrum of EPA’s upcoming 

regulatory actions. 

Six Guiding Priorities 

The EPA’s success depends on 

supporting innovation and creativity in 

both what we do and how we do it. To 

guide the agency’s efforts, the Agency 

has established several guiding 

priorities. These priorities are 

enumerated in the list that follows, 

along with recent progress and future 

objectives for each. 

1. Making a Visible Difference in 

Communities Across the Country 

Safe Disposal and Management of 

Coal Combustion Residuals. Coal 

combustion residuals (CCRs), often 

referred to as coal ash, are currently 

considered Bevill exempt wastes under 

the Resource Conservation and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76617 

Recovery Act (RCRA). They are residues 

from the combustion of coal in power 

plants and are captured by pollution 

control technologies, like scrubbers. 

Potential environmental concerns from 

coal ash management include 

groundwater contamination from 

leaking surface impoundments and 

landfills and structural failures of 

surface impoundments. The need for 

national criteria was emphasized by the 

December 2008 spill of coal ash from a 

surface impoundment at the Tennessee 

Valley Authority’s plant in Kingston, 

TN. The tragic spill flooded more than 

300 acres of land with coal ash, which 

flowed into the Emory and Clinch 

rivers. On June 21, 2010, the EPA 

proposed to regulate for the first time 

coal ash to address the risks from the 

management of these wastes that are 

generated by electric utilities and 

independent power producers. The 

Agency received over 450,000 

comments on the proposal. Under a 

consent decree, a final rule must be 

signed by the Administrator no later 

than December 19, 2014. 

Environmental Justice in Rulemaking. 

The year 2014 represents the 20th 

anniversary of President Clinton’s 

issuance of the Executive order 

directing all Federal agencies to engage 

in a Governmentwide effort and issue 

strategies to address environmental 

justice issues. 

EPA has made significant progress in 

areas critical to advancing 

environmental justice and making a 

visible difference in communities, 

including rulemaking, permitting, 

compliance and enforcement, 

community-based programs and our 

work with other federal agencies. We 

have developed the critical legal, 

science, and screening tools to help 

support our efforts in working with and 

in communities. 

2. Addressing Climate Change and 

Improving Air Quality 

The Agency will continue to deploy 

existing regulatory tools where 

appropriate and warranted. Addressing 

climate change calls for coordinated 

national and global efforts to reduce 

emissions and develop new 

technologies that can be deployed. 

Using the Clean Air Act, EPA will 

continue to develop greenhouse gas 

standards for both mobile and stationary 

sources. 

Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards 

for Power Plants. As part of the 

President’s Climate Action Plan, in 

September 2013, the EPA proposed 

standards to limit carbon pollution from 

new power plants yet to be built. This 

past June, we proposed carbon pollution 

standards for existing power plants, the 

Clean Power Plan. We plan to finalize 

standards for both new and existing 

plants in 2015. When finalized, these 

standards and guidelines will establish 

achievable limits of carbon pollution 

from future plants. By 2030 carbon 

emissions from existing plants are 

estimated to be reduced by 30% from 

2005 levels. 

Heavy-Duty Vehicles GHG Emission 

Standards. In 2011, in cooperation with 

the Department of Transportation 

(DOT), EPA issued the first-ever 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards 

and Fuel Efficiency Standards for 

Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and 

Vehicles for model years 2014–2018. In 

2015, EPA and DOT will propose a 

second set of standards to further reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions and fuel 

consumption from a wide range of onroad vehicles from semi-trucks to the 

largest pickup trucks and vans and all 

types and sizes of work trucks and 

buses. This action is another important 

component of the President’s Climate 

Action Plan. 

Reviewing and Implementing Air 

Quality Standards. Despite progress, 

millions of Americans still live in areas 

that exceed one or more of the national 

air pollution standards. This year’s 

regulatory plan describes efforts to 

review the primary National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 

ozone and lead, as well as a rule to 

guide States in implementing the ozone, 

particulate matter, and other air quality 

standards. 

Cleaner Air from Improved 

Technology. EPA continues to address 

hazardous air pollution under authority 

of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990. The centerpiece of this effort is 

the ‘‘Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology’’ (MACT) program, which 

requires that all major sources of a given 

type use emission controls that better 

reflect the current state of the art. In 

May of 2015, EPA expects to complete 

a review of existing MACT standards for 

Petroleum Refineries to reduce residual 

risk and assure that the standards reflect 

current technology. 

3. Taking Action on Toxics and 

Chemical Safety 

One of EPA’s highest priorities is to 

make significant progress in assuring 

the safety of chemicals. Using sound 

science as a compass, EPA protects 

individuals, families, and the 

environment from potential risks of 

pesticides and other chemicals. In its 

implementation of these programs, EPA 

uses 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) and the 

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), as well 

as collaborative and voluntary activities. 

In FY 2014, the Agency will continue to 

satisfy its overall directives under these 

authorities and highlights the following 

actions in this Regulatory Plan: 

EPA’s Existing Chemicals 

Management Program Under TSCA. As 

part of EPA’s ongoing efforts to ensure 

the safety of chemicals, EPA plans to 

take a range of identified regulatory 

actions for certain chemicals and assess 

other chemicals to determine if risk 

reduction action is needed to address 

potential concerns. 

Addressing Formaldehyde Used in 

Composite Wood Products. As directed 

by the Formaldehyde Standards for 

Composite Wood Products Act of 2010, 

EPA is developing final regulations to 

address formaldehyde emissions from 

hardwood plywood, particleboard and 

medium-density fiberboard that is sold, 

supplied, offered for sale, or 

manufactured in the United States. 

Lead in Public and Commercial 

Buildings. As directed by TSCA section 

402(c)(3), EPA is developing a proposed 

rule to address renovation or 

remodeling activities that create leadbased paint hazards in pre-1978 public 

buildings and commercial buildings. 

EPA previously issued a final rule to 

address lead-based paint hazards 

created by these activities in target 

housing and child-occupied facilities. 

Reassessment of PCB Use 

Authorizations. When enacted in 1978, 

TSCA banned the manufacture, 

processing, distribution in commerce, 

and use of polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs), except when uses would pose 

no unreasonable risk of injury to health 

or the environment. EPA is reassessing 

certain ongoing, authorized uses of 

PCBs that were established by 

regulation in 1979, including the use, 

distribution in commerce, marking and 

storage for reuse of liquid PCBs in 

electric equipment, to determine 

whether those authorized uses still meet 

TSCA’s ‘‘no unreasonable risk’’ 

standard. EPA plans to propose the 

revocation or revision of any PCBs use 

authorizations included in this 

reassessment that no longer meet the 

TSCA standard. 

Enhancing Agricultural Worker 

Protection. Based on years of extensive 

stakeholder engagement and public 

meetings, EPA is acting to enhance the 

pesticide worker safety program. EPA 

plans to issue final amendments to the 

agricultural worker protection 

regulation that strengthens protections 

for agricultural farm workers and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76618 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

pesticide handlers. The rule is expected 

improve pesticide safety training and 

agricultural workers’ ability to protect 

themselves and their families from 

potential secondary exposure to 

pesticides and pesticide residues. The 

proposed revisions will address key 

environmental justice concerns for a 

population that may be 

disproportionately affected by pesticide 

exposure. Other changes under 

development are intended to bring 

hazard communication requirements 

more in line with Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration 

requirements and seek to clarify current 

requirements to facilitate program 

implementation and enforcement. 

Strengthening Pesticide Applicator 

Safety. As part of EPA’s effort to 

enhance the pesticide worker safety 

program, the Agency is also developing 

a proposal to revise the existing 

regulation concerning the certification 

of applicators of restricted-use 

pesticides to ensure that the federal 

certification program standards 

adequately protect applicators, the 

public and the environment from 

potential risks associated with use of 

restricted use pesticides. The proposed 

changes are intended to improve the 

competency of certified applicators of 

restricted use pesticides, increase 

protection for noncertified applicators 

of restricted use pesticides operating 

under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator through enhanced 

pesticide safety training and standards 

for supervision of noncertified 

applicators, and establish a minimum 

age requirement for such noncertified 

applicators. Also, in keeping with EPA’s 

commitment to work more closely with 

tribal governments to strengthen 

environmental protection in Indian 

Country, certain changes are intended to 

provide more practical options for 

establishing certification programs in 

Indian Country. 

Improving Chemical Facility Safety 

and Security. Executive Order 13650 on 

Improving Chemical Facility Safety and 

Security directs federal agencies to work 

with stakeholders to improve chemical 

safety and security through agency 

programs, private sector initiatives, 

federal guidance, standards, and 

regulations. During the course of 

implementing this Executive order, 

EPA, along with the Department of 

Homeland Security (including the 

National Protection and Programs 

Directorate, the Transportation Security 

Agency and the United States Coast 

Guard); the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration; the United 

States Department of Justice, Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; the 

United States Department of 

Agriculture; and the United States 

Department of Transportation, will 

assess whether its regulations should be 

modified or new regulations developed 

to improve upon chemical safety and 

security. EPA issued in July 2014 a 

request for information on how to 

strengthen its Risk Management Plan 

program. EPA plans to develop a 

proposed rule to modernize the Risk 

Management Plan. 

4. Protecting Water: A Precious, Limited 

Resource 

Despite considerable progress, 

America’s waters remain imperiled. 

Water quality protection programs face 

complex challenges, from nutrient 

loadings and stormwater runoff to 

invasive species and drinking water 

contaminants. These challenges demand 

both traditional and innovative 

strategies. 

Improving Water Quality. EPA plans 

to address challenging water quality 

issues in several rulemakings during FY 

2015. 

Definition of ‘‘Waters of the United 

States’’ Under the Clean Water Act. 

After U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 

SWANCC and Rapanos, the scope of 

‘‘waters of the US’’ protected under 

Clean Water Act (CWA) programs has 

been an issue of considerable debate 

and uncertainty. The Act does not 

distinguish among programs as to what 

constitutes ‘‘waters of the United 

States.’’ As a result, these decisions 

affect the geographic scope of all CWA 

programs. SWANCC and Rapanos did 

not invalidate the current regulatory 

definition of ‘‘waters of the United 

States.’’ However, the decisions 

established important considerations for 

how those regulations should be 

interpreted. Experience implementing 

the regulations following the two court 

cases has identified several areas that 

could benefit from additional 

clarification through rulemaking. 

Steam Electric Power Plants. Steam 

electric power plants contribute over 

half of all toxic pollutants discharged to 

surface waters by all industrial 

categories currently regulated in the 

United States under the Clean Water 

Act. Discharges of these toxic pollutants 

are linked to cancer and neurological 

damage in humans and ecological 

damage. EPA will establish national 

technology-based regulations called 

effluent guidelines to reduce discharges 

of these pollutants from industries to 

waters of the U.S. and publicly owned 

treatment works. These guidelines 

would set the first Federal limits on the 

levels of toxic metals in wastewater that 

can be discharged from power plants, 

based on technology improvements in 

the industry over the last three decades. 

The steam electric effluent guidelines 

apply to steam electric power plants 

using nuclear or fossil fuels, such as 

coal, oil and natural gas. 

Water Quality Standards Regulatory 

Revisions. EPA will finalize updates to 

the Water Quality Standards regulation, 

which provides a strong foundation for 

water quality-based controls, including 

water quality assessments, impaired 

waters lists, total maximum daily loads, 

and water quality-based effluent limits 

(WQBELs) in NPDES discharge permits. 

These updates aim to clarify and resolve 

a number of policy and technical issues 

that have recurred over the past 30 

years. They will assure greater public 

transparency, better stakeholder 

information, and more effective 

implementation of the Water Quality 

Standards program. 

Responding to Oil Spills in U.S. 

Waters. The Clean Water Act (CWA), as 

amended by the Oil Pollution Act 

(OPA), requires that the National 

Contingency Plan (NCP) include a 

schedule identifying ‘‘dispersants, other 

chemicals, and other spill mitigating 

devices and substances, if any, that may 

be used in carrying out’’ the NCP. EPA 

is considering amending subpart J of the 

NCP (the Product Schedule) for a 

manufacturer to have chemical, 

biological, or other spill-mitigating 

substances listed on the Product 

Schedule, updating the listing 

requirements to reflect new 

advancements in scientific 

understanding, and, to the extent 

practicable, considering and addressing 

concerns regarding the use of 

dispersants raised during the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill. 

5. Launching a New Era of State, Tribal 

and Local Partnership 

EPA’s success depends more than 

ever on working with increasingly 

capable and environmentally conscious 

partners. States have demonstrated 

leadership on managing environmental 

challenges, and EPA wants to build on 

and complement their work. EPA 

supports state and tribal capacity to 

ensure that programs are consistently 

delivered nationwide. This provides 

EPA and its intergovernmental partners 

with an opportunity to further 

strengthen their working relationship 

and, thereby, more effectively pursue 

their shared goal of national 

environmental and public health 

protection. The history and future of 

environmental protection will be built 

on this type of collaboration. 

In July 2014, EPA’s Administrator 

Gina McCarthy signed the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76619 

Environmental Justice Policy for 

Working with Tribes and Indigenous 

Peoples, reinforcing the agency’s 

commitment to work with tribes on a 

government-to-government basis when 

issues of environmental justice arise. 

This policy allows EPA to reinforce its 

commitment to tribal communities, 

especially in addressing issues of 

environmental justice. The policy 

integrates 17 environmental justice and 

civil rights principles and identifies 

existing informational and resource 

tools to support EPA in addressing 

environmental justice concerns raised 

by Federally Recognized Tribes and 

Indigenous Peoples throughout the 

United States. 

In addition, 2014 marks 30 years of 

EPA’s 1984 Indian Policy. EPA was the 

first to formally adopt such a Policy, 

reiterating the importance of EPA’s 

tribal programs and our unique 

government-to-government relationship 

with tribes. 

6. Working Toward a Sustainable Future 

Just as today’s economy is vastly 

different from that of 40 years before, 

EPA’s regulatory program is evolving to 

recognize the progress that has already 

been made in environmental protection 

and to incorporate new technologies 

and approaches that allow us to provide 

for an environmentally sustainable 

future more efficiently and effectively. 

Establishing User Fees for the Use of 

RCRA Manifests. The e-Manifest Final 

rule of February 7, 2014 codified certain 

provisions of the ‘‘Hazardous Waste 

Electronic Manifest Establishment Act’’ 

(or the Act), which directed EPA to 

adopt a regulation that authorized the 

use of electronic manifests to track 

hazardous waste shipments nationwide. 

The Act also instructed EPA to develop 

a user-fee-funded e-Manifest system. 

Since the Act grants broad discretion to 

EPA to determine the fees and gives the 

Agency authority to collect such fees for 

both electronic manifests and any paper 

manifests that continue in use, EPA 

plans to issue rulemaking to establish 

the appropriate electronic and paper 

manifest fees. The initial fees 

established in the final rule are expected 

to cover the operation and maintenance 

costs for the system, as well as the costs 

associated with the development of the 

system. EPA plans to also announce in 

the final rule the date on which the 

system will be implemented and 

available to users. Once the national eManifest system becomes available, 

hazardous waste handlers will be able to 

complete, sign, transmit, and store 

electronic manifests through the 

national IT system, or they can elect to 

continue tracking the hazardous waste 

under the paper manifest system. 

Further, waste handlers that currently 

submit manifests to the States will no 

longer be required to do so, unless 

required by the State, as EPA will 

collect both the remaining paper 

manifest copies and electronic manifests 

in the national system and will 

disseminate the manifest data to those 

States that want it. 

Strengthening the Underground 

Storage Tanks Program. EPA plans to 

revise the 1988 federal underground 

storage tank (UST) regulations by 

increasing emphasis on properly 

operating and maintaining UST 

equipment. These revisions will help 

improve prevention and detection of 

UST releases, which are one of the 

leading sources of groundwater 

contamination. The revisions will also 

help ensure all USTs in the United 

States, including those in Indian 

country, meet the same minimum 

standards. 

Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive 

Order 13563 ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review’’ (Jan. 18, 2011), the 

following Regulatory Identifier Numbers 

(RINs) have been identified as 

associated with retrospective review 

and analysis in the Agency’s final 

retrospective review of regulations plan. 

Some of these entries on this list may 

be completed actions, which do not 

appear in The Regulatory Plan. 

However, more information can be 

found about these completed 

rulemakings in past publications of the 

Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the 

Completed Actions section for that 

agency. These rulemakings can also be 

found on Regulations.gov. EPA’s final 

agency plan can be found at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/regdarrt/retrospective/. 

Regulatory identifier number 

(RIN) 

Rulemaking title 

2060–AO60 ...... New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Review under CAA–111(b)(1)(B) 

2060–AP06 ....... New Source Performance Standards for Grain Elevators—Amendments 

2040–AF15 ....... National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Regulatory Revisions 

2040–AF16 ....... Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications 

2040–AF25 ....... National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Application and Program Updates Rule 

2040–AF29 ....... National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Group Regulation of Carcinogenic Volatile Organic Compound (VOCs) 

2050–AG39 ...... Management Standards for Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals 

2050–AG72 ...... Hazardous Waste Requirements for Retail Products; Clarifying and Making the Program More Effective 

2070–AK02 ....... Lead; Lead-based Paint Program; Amendment to Jurisdiction-Specific Certification and Accreditation Requirements and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements 

Burden Reduction 

As described above, EPA continues to 

review its existing regulations in an 

effort to achieve its mission in the most 

efficient means possible. To this end, 

the Agency is committed to identifying 

areas in its regulatory program where 

significant savings or quantifiable 

reductions in paperwork burdens might 

be achieved, as outlined in Executive 

Order 13610, while protecting public 

health and our environment. 

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 Development and 

Retrospective Review Tracker (http:// 

www.epa.gov/regdarrt/) at any time. 

This Plan includes the following rules 

that may be of particular interest to 

small entities: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76620 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Regulatory identifier number 

(RIN) 

Rulemaking title 

2070–AJ92 ....... Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products 

2060–AS16 ....... Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Activities 

EPA has considered international 

regulatory cooperation activities as 

described in Executive Order 13609 and 

has identified two international 

activities that are anticipated to lead to 

significant regulations in the following 

year: 

Regulatory identifier number 

(RIN) 

Rulemaking Title 

2070–AJ44 ....... Formaldehyde; Third-Party Certification Framework for the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products 

2070–AJ92 ....... Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products 

Streamlining the Export/Import Process 

for America’s Businesses 

EPA has considered import and 

export streamlining activities as 

described in Executive Order 13659 and 

identified the following rulemaking 

activity: 

Regulatory identifier number 

(RIN) 

Rulemaking title 

2050–AG77 ...... Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions Rule 

EPA—AIR AND RADIATION(AR) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

122. Review of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Ozone 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7408; 42 

U.S.C. 7409 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 50. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, 

December 1, 2014, Court–ordered 

Deadline. Final, Judicial, October 1, 

2015, Court–ordered Deadline. Must be 

proposed by December 1 

Abstract: Under the Clean Air Act, the 

EPA is required to review and, if 

appropriate, revise the air quality 

criteria for the primary (health-based) 

and secondary (welfare-based) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

every 5 years. On March 23, 2008, the 

EPA published a final rule to revise the 

primary and secondary NAAQS for 

ozone to provide increased protection of 

public health and welfare. With regard 

to the primary standard for ozone, the 

EPA revised the level of the 8-hour 

ozone standard to 0.075 ppm. With 

regard to the secondary ozone standard, 

the EPA made it identical in all respects 

to the primary ozone standard, as 

revised. The DC Circuit upheld the 

primary standard, but remanded the 

secondary standard back to the EPA. 

The EPA initiated the current review in 

October 2008 with a workshop to 

discuss key policy-relevant issues 

around which EPA would structure the 

review. This review included the 

preparation of an Integrated Science 

Assessment, Risk/Exposure Assessment, 

and a Policy Assessment Document by 

the EPA, with opportunities for review 

by EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee and the public. 

Statement of Need: Under the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1977, EPA is 

required to review and if appropriate 

revise the air quality criteria for the 

primary (health-based) and secondary 

(welfare-based) national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 

years. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Review of 

the NAAQS is authorized by Clean Air 

Act Sections 108 and 109. 

Alternatives: The main alternative for 

the Administrator’s decision on the 

review of the primary and secondary 

national ambient air quality standards 

for ozone is whether to retain or revise 

the existing standards. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Clean Air Act makes clear that the 

economic and technical feasibility of 

attaining standards are not to be 

considered in setting or revising the 

NAAQS, although such factors may be 

considered in the development of State 

plans to implement the standards. 

Accordingly, when the Agency proposes 

revisions to the standards, the Agency 

prepares cost and benefit information in 

order to provide States information that 

may be useful in considering different 

implementation strategies for meeting 

proposed or final standards. In those 

instances, cost and benefit information 

is generally included in the regulatory 

analysis accompanying the final rule. 

Risks: Health and welfare risks 

associated with exposure to O3 in the 

ambient air have been assessed. The 

final health and welfare Risk and 

Exposure Assessments for Ozone were 

released in August 2014, and are 

available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

naaqs/standards/ozone/data/ 

20140829healthrea.pdf. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice .................. 04/28/11 76 FR 23755 

NPRM .................. 12/00/14 

Final Rule ............ 11/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0699. 

URL For More Information: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ozone/. 

Agency Contact: Susan Stone, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76621 

and Radiation, C504–06, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 

541–1146, Fax: 919 541–0237, Email: 

stone.susan@epa.gov. 

Karen Wesson, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 

C504–06, RTP, NC 27711, Phone: 919 

541–3515, Email: 

wesson.karen@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2060–AP38 

EPA—AR 

123. Review of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Lead 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7408; 42 

U.S.C. 7409 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 50. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Under the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1977, the EPA is 

required to review and if appropriate 

revise the air quality criteria for the 

primary (health-based) and secondary 

(welfare-based) national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 

years. On November 12, 2008, the EPA 

published a final rule to revise the 

primary and secondary NAAQS for lead 

to provide increased protection for 

public health and welfare. The EPA has 

now initiated the next review. This new 

review includes the preparation of an 

Integrated Review Plan, an Integrated 

Science Assessment, and, if warranted, 

a Risk/Exposure Assessment, and also a 

Policy Assessment Document by the 

EPA, with opportunities for review by 

EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee and the public. These 

documents inform the Administrator’s 

proposed decision as to whether to 

retain or revise the standards. This 

decision will be published in the 

Federal Register with opportunity 

provided for public comment. The 

Administrator’s final decisions will take 

into consideration these documents and 

public comment on the proposed 

decision. 

Statement of Need: Under the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1977, EPA is 

required to review and if appropriate 

revise the air quality criteria for the 

primary (health-based) and secondary 

(welfare-based) national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 

years. In the last lead NAAQS review, 

EPA published a final rule on November 

12, 2008, to revise the primary and 

secondary NAAQS for lead to provide 

increased protection for public health 

and welfare. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Under the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, 

EPA is required to review and if 

appropriate revise the air quality criteria 

for the primary (health-based) and 

secondary (welfare-based) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

every 5 years. 

Alternatives: The main alternative for 

the Administrator’s decision on the 

review of the national ambient air 

quality standards for lead is whether to 

retain or revise the existing standards. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Clean Air Act makes clear that the 

economic and technical feasibility of 

attaining standards are not to be 

considered in setting or revising the 

NAAQS, although such factors may be 

considered in the development of State 

plans to implement the standards. 

Accordingly, when the Agency proposes 

revisions to the standards, the Agency 

prepares cost and benefit information in 

order to provide States information that 

may be useful in considering different 

implementation strategies for meeting 

proposed or final standards. In those 

instances, cost and benefit information 

is generally included in the regulatory 

analysis accompanying the final rule. 

Risks: As part of the review, the EPA 

prepares an Integrated Review Plan, an 

Integrated Science Assessment, and, if 

warranted, a Risk/Exposure Assessment, 

and also a Policy Assessment 

Document, with opportunities for 

review by the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee and the public. 

These documents inform the 

Administrator’s proposed decision as to 

whether to retain or revise the 

standards. The proposed decision will 

be published in the Federal Register 

with opportunity provided for public 

comment. The Administrator’s final 

decisions will take into consideration 

these documents and public comment 

on the proposed decision. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/14 

Final Rule ............ To Be Determined 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0108. 

URL for More Information: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/ 

s_pb_index.html. 

Agency Contact: Deirdre Murphy, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

and Radiation, C539–02, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27709, Phone: 919 

541–0729, Fax: 919 541–0840, Email: 

murphy.deirdre@epa.gov. 

Ginger Tennant, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 

C504–06, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, Phone: 919 541–4072, Fax: 919 

541–0237, Email: 

tennant.ginger@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2060–AQ44 

EPA—AR 

124. Carbon Pollution Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Stationary 

Sources: EGUS in Indian Country and 

U.S. Territories 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: CAA 111 

CFR Citation: .40 CFR 60 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On June 25, 2013, President 

Obama issued a Presidential 

Memorandum directing the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to work expeditiously to complete 

greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for the 

power sector. The agency is using its 

authority under section 111(d) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) to issue emission 

guidelines to address GHG emissions 

from existing power plants. The 

Presidential Memorandum directs the 

EPA to issue proposed GHG guidelines 

for existing power plants by no later 

than June 1, 2014, and issue final 

guidelines by no later than June 1, 2015. 

In addition, the Presidential 

Memorandum directs the EPA to, in the 

guidelines, require states to submit to 

EPA the implementation plans required 

under section 111(d) of the CAA by no 

later than June 30, 2016. On June 18, 

2014, the EPA proposed emission 

guidelines for states to follow in 

developing plans to address GHG 

emissions from existing fossil fired 

EGU, using its authority under CAA 

111(d). This action is a supplemental 

proposal and will propose emission 

guidelines to address GHG emissions 

from existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs on 

tribal lands and in U.S. territories. 

Statement of Need: President Obama’s 

Climate Action Plan called for EPA to 

complete carbon pollution standards for 

existing fossil fuel-fired power plants by 

June 1, 2015. This action will propose 

those standards for existing fossil fuelfired power plants in Indian country 

and U.S. territories. 

Summary of Legal Basis: CO2 is a 

regulated pollutant and thus is subject 

to regulation under section 111 of the 

Clean Air Act as Amended in 1990. 

Alternatives: Alternatives will be 

presented in the proposal preamble. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76622 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Cost 

and benefits information will be 

presented in the proposal preamble. 

Risks: The risk addressed is the 

current and future threat of climate 

change to public health and welfare, as 

demonstrated in the 2009 Endangerment 

and Cause or Contribute Findings for 

Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) 

of the Clean Air Act. The EPA made this 

determination based primarily upon the 

recent, major assessments by the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP), the National Research 

Council (NRC) of the National 

Academies and the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/18/14 79 FR 34829 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

09/25/14 79 FR 57492 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

12/01/14 

Supplemental 

NPRM.

11/04/14 79 FR 65481 

Final Rule ............ 07/00/15 

NODA .................. 10/30/14 79 FR 64543 

Notice .................. 11/13/14 79 FR 67406 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

State, Tribal. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

EO 13132. 

Energy Effects: Statement of Energy 

Effects planned as required by Executive 

Order 13211. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0602. Split from 

RIN 2060–AQ91. 

Agency Contact: Melanie King, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

and Radiation, D243–01, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 

541–2469, Email: 

king.melanie@epamail.epa.gov. 

Robert Wayland, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 

D243–01, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, Phone: 919 541–1045, Fax: 919 

541–5450, Email: 

Wayland.RobertJ@epamail.epa.gov. 

Related RIN: Split from 2060–AQ91 

RIN: 2060–AR33 

EPA—AR 

125. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Fuel Efficiency Standards for Mediumand Heavy-Duty Engines and 

Vehicles—Phase 2 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: Clean Air Act sec 

202(a) 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 1036; 40 CFR 

1037; 40 CFR 86. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: During the President’s 

second term, EPA and the Department 

of Transportation, in close coordination 

with the California Air Resources Board, 

will develop a comprehensive National 

Program for Medium- and Heavy-Duty 

Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission and 

Fuel Efficiency Standards for model 

years beyond 2018. These second sets of 

standards would further reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions and fuel 

consumption from a wide range of onroad vehicles from semi-trucks to the 

largest pickup trucks and vans, and all 

types and sizes of work trucks and 

buses. This action will be in continued 

response to the President’s directive to 

take coordinated steps to produce a new 

generation of clean vehicles. This action 

follows the first ever Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions Standards and Fuel 

Efficiency Standards for Medium- and 

Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles (75 

FR September 15, 2011). 

Statement of Need: Under Clean Air 

Act authority, EPA has determined that 

emissions of greenhouse gases from new 

motor vehicles and engines cause or 

contribute to air pollution that may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health and welfare. Therefore, 

there is a need to reduce GHG emissions 

from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles 

to protect public health and welfare. 

The medium- and heavy-duty truck 

sector accounts for approximately 18 

percent of the U.S. mobile source GHG 

emissions and is the second largest 

mobile source sector. GHG emissions 

from this sector are forecast to continue 

increasing rapidly; reflecting the 

anticipated impact of factors such as 

economic growth and increased 

movement of freight by trucks. This 

rulemaking would significantly reduce 

GHG emissions from future mediumand heavy-duty vehicles by setting GHG 

standards that will lead to the 

introduction of GHG reducing vehicle 

and engine technologies. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Clean 

Air Act section 202(a)(1) states that The 

Administrator shall by regulation 

prescribe (and from time to time revise) 

in accordance with the provisions of 

this section, standards applicable to the 

emission of any air pollutant from any 

class or classes of new motor vehicles or 

new motor vehicle engines, which in his 

judgment cause, or contribute to, air 

pollution which may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health or 

welfare. Section 202(a) covers all onhighway vehicles including mediumand heavy-duty trucks. In April 2007, 

the Supreme Court found in 

Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse 

gases fit well within the Acts definition 

of air pollutant and that EPA has 

statutory authority to regulate emission 

of such gases from new motor vehicles. 

Lastly, in April 2009, EPA issued the 

Proposed Endangerment and Cause-orContribute Findings for Greenhouse 

Gases under the Clean Air Act. The 

endangerment proposal stated that 

greenhouse gases from new motor 

vehicles and engines cause or contribute 

to air pollution that may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health 

and welfare. 

Alternatives: The rulemaking 

proposal will include an evaluation of 

regulatory alternatives. In addition, the 

proposal is expected to include tools 

such as averaging, banking, and trading 

of emissions credits as an alternative 

approach for compliance with the 

proposed program. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Detailed analysis of economy-wide cost 

impacts, greenhouse gas emission 

reductions, and societal benefits will be 

performed during development of the 

proposed rule. 

Risks: The failure to set new GHG 

standards for medium- and heavy-duty 

trucks is likely to result in cumulative 

increases in GHG emissions from the 

trucking industry over time and 

therefore increased the risk of 

unacceptable climate change impacts. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/15 

Final Rule ............ 02/00/16 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

State. 

Agency Contact: Matt Spears, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

and Radiation, Mail Code: ASD1, Ann 

Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214–4921, 

Fax: 734 214–4816, Email: 

spears.mattew@epa.gov. 

Charles Moulis, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 

NFEVL, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 

734 214–4826. 

RIN: 2060–AS16 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76623 

EPA—AR 

126. Renewable Fuel 2015 Volume 

Standards 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: Clean Air Act sec 

211(o) 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 80.1401. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: In response to the Energy 

Independence and Security Act (EISA) 

which amended the Clean Air Act 

Section 211(o), EPA finalized the RFS2 

Program regulations. The new 

provisions also require EPA to 

promulgate regulations that specify the 

annual statutory volume requirements 

for renewable fuels, including 

cellulosic, biofuel, bio-mass-based 

diesel, advanced biofuel, and total 

renewable fuel that must be used in 

transportation fuel annually. In the case 

of the cellulosic biofuel standard, the 

act specifically requires that the 

standard be set based on the volume 

projected to be available during the 

following year. If the volumes are lower 

than those specified under the act, then 

EPA may also lower the advanced 

biofuel and total renewable fuel 

standards each year accordingly. 

Further, the act requires the 

Administrator to promulgate rules 

establishing the applicable volumes of 

biomass-based diesel for 2013 and 

beyond and to do so no later than 14 

months before the year for which such 

applicable volume would apply. The 

actions summarized here will propose 

and finalize the 2016 biomass based 

diesel (BBD) volume along with the 

2015 standards. This regulatory action 

will establish, as required, the annual 

statutory volume requirements for the 

RFS2 fuel categories (cellulosic, 

biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, 

and renewable fuel) that apply to all 

gasoline and diesel produced or 

imported in 2015 and set, at minimum, 

the 2016 requirement. Entities 

potentially affected by this rule are 

those involved with the production, 

distribution, and sale of transportation 

fuels, including gasoline and diesel fuel 

or renewable fuels such as ethanol and 

biodiesel. 

Statement of Need: EPA is developing 

this rule under the Congressional 

mandate in the Energy Independence 

and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. 

Summary of Legal Basis: EPA is 

developing this rule under Clean Air 

Act Section 211(o). 

Alternatives: Alternatives are being 

developed as part of the forthcoming 

proposal. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Cost 

and benefit information is being 

developed as part of the forthcoming 

proposal. 

Risks: The risks are those addressed 

by EISA—i.e., energy insecurity and 

dependence on foreign sources. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/00/15 

Final Rule ............ 08/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

Energy Effects: Statement of Energy 

Effects planned as required by Executive 

Order 13211. 

International Impacts: This regulatory 

action will be likely to have 

international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Sectors Affected: 325199 All Other 

Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing; 

325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing; 

424690 Other Chemical and Allied 

Products Merchant Wholesalers; 454319 

Other Fuel Dealers; 424710 Petroleum 

Bulk Stations and Terminals; 324110 

Petroleum Refineries; 424720 Petroleum 

and Petroleum Products Merchant 

Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and 

Terminals) 

URL for More Information: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/

renewablefuels/. 

Agency Contact: David Korotney, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

and Radiation, N27, Ann Arbor, MI 

48105, Phone: 734 214–4507, Email: 

korotney.david@epa.gov. 

Paul Argyropoulos, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 

6401A, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 

202 564–1123, Email: 

argyropoulos.paul@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2060–AS22 

EPA—OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

(OCSPP) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

127. Pesticides; Certification of 

Pesticide Applicators 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 7 U.S.C. 

136i 7 U.S.C. 136w. 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 156; 40 CFR 

171. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: EPA is developing a 

proposed rule to revise the federal 

regulations governing the certified 

pesticide applicator program, based on 

years of extensive stakeholder 

engagement and public meetings, to 

ensure that they adequately protect 

applicators, the public, and the 

environment from potential harm due to 

exposure to restricted use pesticides 

(RUPs). This action is intended to 

improve the training and awareness of 

certified applicators of RUPs and to 

increase protection for noncertified 

applicators of RUPs operating under the 

direct supervision of a certified 

applicator through enhanced pesticide 

safety training and standards for 

supervision of noncertified applicators. 

Statement of Need: Change is needed 

to strengthen the protections for 

pesticide applicators, the public, and 

the environment from harm due to 

pesticide exposure. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This action 

is issued under the authority of the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, 7 

U.S.C.s 136–136y, particularly sections 

136a(d), 136i, and 136w. 

Alternatives: In the years prior to the 

development of this rulemaking, EPA 

pursued non-regulatory approaches to 

protect applicators, the public, and the 

environment from potential harm due to 

exposure to RUPs. For example, the 

Agency developed mechanisms to 

improve applicator trainers and make 

training materials more accessible. EPA 

has also developed nationally relevant 

training and certification materials to 

preserve state resources while 

improving competency. However, the 

non-regulatory approaches did not 

address other requisite needs for 

improving protections, such as the 

requirements for determining 

competency and recertification that are 

being considered in this rulemaking. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Although subject to change as the 

proposal is developed, EPA currently 

estimates incremental costs of about $44 

million annually and unquantified, long 

term health benefits to certified 

applicators, the noncertified applicators 

they supervise, and their families. These 

benefits arise from reducing their daily 

risk of pesticide exposures and reduced 

risk of chronic illness. This information 

will be updated once the proposal is 

issued. 

Risks: Applicators are at risk from 

exposure to pesticides they handle for 

their work. The public and the 

environment may also be at risk from 

misapplication by applicators without 

appropriate training. Revisions to the 

regulations are expected to minimize 

these risks by ensuring the competency 

of certified applicators. 

Timetable: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76624 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 05/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

State, Local, Tribal. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0561. http://

epa.gov/sbrefa/pesticideapplicators.html. This action includes 

retrospective review under EO 13563; 

see: http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/

retrospective/history.html. 

Sectors Affected: 111 Crop 

Production; 32532 Pesticide and Other 

Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing; 

5617 Services to Buildings and 

Dwellings; 9241 Administration of 

Environmental Quality Programs. 

URL for More Information: http://

www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/

worker.htm. 

Agency Contact: Kathy Davis, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention, 7506P, Washington, DC 

20460, Phone: 703 308–7002, Fax: 703 

308–2962, Email: davis.kathy@epa.gov. 

Jeanne Kasai, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention, 

PYS1162, Washington, DC 20460, 

Phone: 703 308–3240, Fax: 703 308– 

3259, Email: kasai.jeanne@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2070–AJ20 

EPA—OCSPP 

128. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBS); 

Reassessment of Use Authorizations 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605 

‘‘TSCA 6(e)’’. 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 761. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The EPA’s regulations 

governing the use of Polychlorinated 

Biphenyls (PCBs) in electrical 

equipment and other applications were 

first issued in the late 1970s and have 

not been updated since 1998. The EPA 

has initiated rulemaking to reassess the 

ongoing authorized uses of PCBs to 

determine whether certain use 

authorizations should be ended or 

phased out because they can no longer 

be justified under section 6(e) of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act, which 

requires that the authorized use will not 

present an unreasonable risk of injury to 

health and the environment. As the first 

step in this reassessment, the EPA 

published an Advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on 

April 7, 2010 and took comment 

through August 20, 2010. The EPA 

reviewed and considered all comments 

received on the ANPRM in planning the 

current rulemaking. This action will 

address the following specific areas: (1) 

The use, distribution in commerce, 

marking and storage for reuse of liquid 

PCBs in electric equipment; (2) 

improvements to the existing use 

authorization for natural gas pipelines; 

and (3) definitional and other regulatory 

‘‘fixes’’. The reassessment of use 

authorizations related to liquid PCBs in 

equipment will focus on small 

capacitors in fluorescent light ballasts, 

large capacitors, transformers and other 

electrical equipment. In addition, 

revised testing, characterization, and 

reporting requirements for PCBs in 

natural gas pipeline systems to provide 

more transparency for the Agency and 

the public when PCB releases occur will 

be considered. Consistent with 

Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review’’, 

wherever possible and consistent with 

the overall objectives of this rulemaking, 

the Agency will also eliminate or fix 

regulatory inefficiencies noted by the 

Agency or in public comments on the 

ANPRM. 

Statement of Need: EPA is reassessing 

authorized uses of PCBs to determine 

whether certain uses should be ended or 

phased out because they can no longer 

be justified under section 6(e) of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act, which 

requires that the authorized use will not 

present an unreasonable risk of injury to 

health and the environment. A 

rulemaking is needed to revise or revoke 

any PCB use authorizations that no 

longer meet the TSCA unreasonable risk 

standard. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The 

authority for this action comes from 

TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B) and (C) of TSCA 

(15 U.S.C. 605(e)(2)(B) and (C)), as well 

as TSCA section 6(e)(1)(B) (15 U.S.C. 

2605(e)(1)(B)). 

Alternatives: EPA published an 

Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) on April 7, 2010 

and took comment through August 20, 

2010. EPA reviewed and considered all 

comments received on the ANPRM in 

planning the current rulemaking. If EPA 

determines that certain authorized uses 

of PCBs can no longer be justified under 

TSCA section 6(e), EPA will evaluate 

options for ending or phasing out those 

uses. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In 

developing a proposed rule, EPA will 

also evaluate the costs and benefits of 

the options under consideration, which 

will be used to inform the decisionmakers of the potential impacts. Once 

decisions regarding the proposed rule 

are made, information on the potential 

costs and benefits of the action will be 

available. 

Risks: PCBs are toxic, persist in the 

environment and bioaccumulate in food 

chains and, thus, pose risks to human 

health and ecosystems. Once in the 

environment, PCBs do not readily break 

down and therefore may remain for long 

periods of time cycling between air, 

water, and soil. PCBs can be carried 

long distances and have been found in 

snow and sea water in areas far away 

from where they were released into the 

environment. As a consequence, PCBs 

are found all over the world. In general, 

the lighter the form of PCB, the further 

it can be transported from the source of 

contamination. PCBs can accumulate in 

the leaves and above-ground parts of 

plants and food crops. They are also 

taken up into the bodies of small 

organisms and fish. Humans may be 

exposed to PCBs through diet by eating 

contaminated fish and shellfish, and 

consuming contaminated milk, meat, 

and their by-products. Infants may be 

exposed through breast milk, and 

unborn children may exposed while in 

the womb. In addition, humans may 

exposed by breathing contaminated 

indoor air in buildings where electrical 

equipment contains PCBs or by coming 

into contact with PCB-contaminated 

liquids that have leaked from electrical 

equipment. Health effects associated 

with exposure to PCBs in humans and/ 

or animals include liver, thyroid, 

dermal and ocular changes, 

immunological alterations, 

neurodevelopmental changes, reduced 

birth weight, reproductive toxicity, and 

cancer. EPA is currently evaluating the 

possible risks presented by ongoing uses 

of PCBs that may be addressed by this 

action. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 04/07/10 75 FR 17645 

ANPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

06/16/10 75 FR 34076 

NPRM .................. 07/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State, Tribal. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

EO 13132. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0757. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76625 

Sectors Affected: 22 Utilities; 31–33 

Manufacturing; 48–49 Transportation 

and Warehousing; 53 Real Estate and 

Rental and Leasing; 54 Professional, 

Scientific, and Technical Services; 562 

Waste Management and Remediation 

Services; 811 Repair and Maintenance; 

92 Public Administration. 

URL For More Information: http://

www.epa.gov/pcb. 

Agency Contact: Sara Kemme, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 

20460, Phone: 202 566–0511, Fax: 202 

566–0473, Email: kemme.sara@epa.gov. 

Peter Gimlin, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566– 

0515, Fax: 202 566–0473, Email: 

gimlin.peter@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2070–AJ38 

EPA—OCSPP 

129. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program for Public and 

Commercial Buildings 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3) 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 745. 

Legal Deadline: Other, Judicial, April 

22, 2010, ANPRM—2009 Settlement 

agreement. 

NPRM, Judicial, July 1, 2015, 

Deadline from 2012 amended; 

Settlement agreement. 

Final, Judicial, January 1, 2017, 

Deadline from 2012 amended; 

Settlement agreement. 

Per 9/7/2012 Amended Settlement 

Agreement in National Assoc. of 

Homebuilders v. EPA. 

Abstract: Section 402(c)(3) of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

requires the EPA to regulate renovation 

or remodeling activities in target 

housing (most pre-1978 housing), pre1978 public buildings, and commercial 

buildings that create lead-based paint 

hazards. On April 22, 2008, the EPA 

issued a final rule to address lead-based 

paint hazards created by these activities 

in target housing and child-occupied 

facilities (child-occupied facilities are a 

subset of pre-1978 public and 

commercial buildings where children 

under age 6 spend a significant amount 

of time). The 2008 rule established 

requirements for training renovators, 

other renovation workers, and dust 

sampling technicians; for certifying 

renovators, dust sampling technicians, 

and renovation firms; for accrediting 

providers of renovation and dust 

sampling technician training; for 

renovation work practices; and for 

recordkeeping. After the 2008 rule was 

published, the EPA was sued, in part, 

for failing to address potential hazards 

created by the renovation of public and 

commercial buildings. In the settlement 

agreement and subsequent amendments, 

the EPA agreed to commence 

proceedings to determine whether or 

not renovations of public and 

commercial buildings create hazards. 

Further, if these activities do create 

hazards, the EPA agreed to propose 

work practice and other requirements by 

July 1, 2015, and to take final action, if 

appropriate, no later than 18 months 

after the proposal. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is 

being undertaken in response to a 

settlement agreement and is designed to 

help insure that individuals and firms 

conducting renovation, repair, and 

painting activities in and on public and 

commercial buildings will do so in a 

way that safeguards the environment 

and protects the health of building 

occupants and nearby residents, 

especially children under 6 years old. 

EPA has conducted several studies and 

reviewed additional information that 

indicates that the renovation of 

buildings containing lead-based paint 

can create health hazards in the form of 

lead-based paint dust under typical 

industry work practices. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to 

regulate renovation or remodeling 

activities that create lead-based paint 

hazards in target housing, public 

buildings built before 1978, and 

commercial buildings. 

Alternatives: For those activities that 

EPA determines create lead-based paint 

hazards, EPA will evaluate options to 

address the hazards. These options are 

likely to include different combinations 

of work practices and worker training 

and certification. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet 

determined. A detailed analysis of costs 

and benefits will be performed during 

development of the proposed rule. 

Risks: Lead is known to cause 

deleterious health effects on multiple 

organ systems through diverse 

mechanisms of action in both adults and 

children. This array of health effects 

includes effects on heme biosynthesis 

and related functions, neurological 

development and function, 

reproduction and physical 

development, kidney function, 

cardiovascular function, and immune 

function. EPA is evaluating information 

on renovation activity patterns in public 

and commercial buildings to estimate 

exposures to lead dust from RRP 

activities in those buildings. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 05/06/10 75 FR 24848 

Notice .................. 12/31/12 77 FR 76996 

Notice .................. 05/13/13 78 FR 27906 

Notice .................. 05/30/14 79 FR 31072 

Notice .................. 08/06/14 79 FR 45796 

NPRM .................. 07/00/15 

Final Rule ............ To Be Determined 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0173. 

Sectors Affected: 236210 Industrial 

Building Construction; 236220 

Commercial and Institutional Building 

Construction; 238150 Glass and Glazing 

Contractors; 238170 Siding Contractors; 

238210 Electrical Contractors and Other 

Wiring Installation Contractors; 238220 

Plumbing, Heating, and AirConditioning Contractors; 238310 

Drywall and Insulation Contractors; 

238320 Painting and Wall Covering 

Contractors; 238340 Tile and Terrazzo 

Contractors; 238350 Finish Carpentry 

Contractors; 238390 Other Building 

Finishing Contractors; 531120 Lessors of 

Nonresidential Buildings (except 

Miniwarehouses); 531312 

Nonresidential Property Managers; 

921190 Other General Government 

Support. 

URL for More Information: http://

www2.epa.gov/lead. 

Agency Contact: Hans Scheifele, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 

20460, Phone: 202 564–3122, Email: 

Scheifele.Hans@epa.gov. 

Cindy Wheeler, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566– 

0484, Email: wheeler.cindy@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2070–AJ56 

EPA—SOLID WASTE AND 

EMERGENCY RESPONSE (SWER) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

130. Revisions to the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan; Subpart J Product 

Schedule Listing Requirements 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d)(2); 

33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3); 33 U.S.C. 1321(j) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76626 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 300; 40 CFR 

110. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Clean Water Act 

requires EPA to prepare a schedule 

identifying dispersants, other chemicals, 

and other spill mitigating devices and 

substances, if any, that may be used in 

carrying out the National Contingency 

Plan (NCP); and the waters and 

quantities in which they may be used. 

The EPA is considering revising subpart 

J of the NCP to address the efficacy, 

toxicity, and environmental monitoring 

of dispersants, other chemical and 

biological agents, and other spill 

mitigating substances, as well as public, 

state, local, and federal officials 

concerns on their authorization and use. 

Specifically, the Agency is considering 

revisions to the technical product 

requirements under subpart J, including 

amendments to the effectiveness and 

toxicity testing protocols, and 

establishing new effectiveness and 

toxicity thresholds for listing certain 

products on the Schedule. Additionally, 

the Agency is considering amendments 

to area planning requirements for agent 

use authorization and advanced 

monitoring techniques. The Agency is 

also considering revisions to harmonize 

40 CFR part 110.4 with the definitions 

for chemical and biological agents 

proposed for subpart J. These changes, 

if finalized, will help ensure that 

chemical and biological agents have met 

rigorous efficacy and toxicity 

requirements, that product 

manufacturers provide important use 

and safety information, and that the 

planning and response community is 

equipped with the proper information to 

authorize and use the products in a 

judicious and effective manner. 

Statement of Need: The use of 

dispersants in response to the 

Deepwater Horizon incident, both on 

surface slicks and injected directly into 

the oil from the well riser, raised many 

questions about efficacy, toxicity, 

environmental trade-offs, and 

monitoring challenges. The Agency is 

considering amendments to subpart J 

that would increase the overall 

scientific soundness of the data 

collected on mitigation agents, take into 

consideration not only the efficacy but 

also the toxicity, long-term 

environmental impacts, endangered 

species protection, and human health 

concerns raised during responses to oil 

discharges, including the Deepwater 

Horizon incident. The additional data 

requirements being considered would 

aid On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) and 

Regional Response Teams (RRTs) when 

evaluating specific product information 

and when deciding whether and which 

products to use to mitigate hazards 

caused by discharges or threatened 

discharges of oil. Additionally, the 

Agency is considering amendments to 

area planning requirements for 

dispersant use authorization, toxicity 

thresholds and advanced monitoring 

techniques. This action is a major 

component of the EPA’s effort to inform 

the use of dispersants and other 

chemical or biological agents when 

responding to oil discharges, based on 

lessons learned from the federal 

government’s experiences in responding 

to off-shore oil discharges, including the 

Deepwater Horizon incident, in the Gulf 

of Mexico and anticipation of the 

expansion of oil exploration and 

production activities in the Arctic. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) 

requires the President to prepare and 

publish a National Contingency Plan 

(NCP) for the removal of oil and 

hazardous substances. In turn, the 

President delegated the authority to 

implement this section of the FWPCA to 

the EPA through Executive Order 12777 

(56 FR 54757; October 22, 1991). 

Section 311(d)(2)(G)(i) of the FWPCA 

(a.k.a., Clean Water Act), as amended by 

the OPA, requires that the NCP include 

a schedule identifying ‘‘dispersants, 

other chemicals, and other spill 

mitigating devices and substances, if 

any, that may be used in carrying out’’ 

the NCP. Currently, the use of 

dispersants, other chemicals, and other 

oil spill mitigating devices and 

substances (e.g., bioremediation agents) 

to respond to oil discharges in U.S. 

waters is governed by subpart J of the 

NCP (40 CFR part 300 series 900). 

Alternatives: The Agency will 

consider alternatives via the proposal 

that address the efficacy, toxicity, and 

environmental monitoring of 

dispersants, and other chemical and 

biological agents, as well as public, 

state, local, and federal officials’ 

concerns regarding their use. 

Specifically, the alternative 

requirements for the NCP Product 

Schedule (Schedule) consider new 

listing criteria, revisions to the efficacy 

and toxicity testing protocols, and 

clarifications to the evaluation criteria 

for removing products from the 

Schedule. EPA is also considering 

alternatives to the requirements for the 

authorities, notifications, monitoring, 

and data reporting when using chemical 

or biological agents in response to oil 

discharges in waters of the U.S. The 

alternatives being considered are 

intended to encourage the development 

of safer and more effective spill 

mitigating products, to better target the 

use of these products in order to reduce 

the risks to human health and the 

environment, and to ensure that OnScene Coordinators (OSCs), Regional 

Response Teams (RRTs), and Area 

Committees have sufficient information 

to support agent preauthorization or 

authorization of use decisions. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Agency expects the proposed rule, if 

finalized, would provide overall net 

benefits as a result of having more 

effective products on the Schedule, as 

well as from avoided costs of oil spill 

response and cleanup. Costs to product 

manufacturers would be incremental 

annual costs for product testing and 

labor. For certain discharges, costs to 

the party responsible for the spill would 

be added for monitoring requirements. 

A detailed costs and benefits analysis 

will be available with the proposal. 

Risks: Although major catastrophic oil 

discharges where chemical or biological 

agents may be used are relatively 

infrequent, this proposed rulemaking 

under subpart J should lead to the 

manufacture and use of less toxic, more 

effective oil spill mitigating products. 

The use of these products may reduce 

the potential for human and 

environmental impact, emergency 

response duration, and costs associated 

with any oil discharge. However, the 

impacts will vary greatly depending on 

factors that include the size, location 

and duration of an oil discharge, as well 

as, the type of oil being discharged. 

While the reduction in environmental 

impacts associated with the use of oil 

spill mitigating agents driven by this 

action are likely small for typical oil 

discharges, they could be significant in 

the event of a large oil discharge. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

EPA–HQ–OPA–2006–0090. 

Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical 

Manufacturing; 424 Merchant 

Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods; 211 

Oil and Gas Extraction; 541 

Professional, Scientific, and Technical 

Services; 562 Waste Management and 

Remediation Services. 

URL For More Information: http://

www.epa.gov/oem/. 

Agency Contact: Vanessa Principe, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response, 5104A, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76627 

7913, Fax: 202 564–2625, Email: 

principe.vanessa@epa.gov. 

Craig Matthiessen, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, 5104A, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564– 

8016, Fax: 202 564–2625, Email: 

mattheissen.craig@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2050–AE87 

EPA—SWER 

131. • User Fee Schedule for 

Electronic Hazardous Waste Manifest 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: Pub. L. 112–195 

CFR Citation: Undetermined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: After promulgation of the 

first e-Manifest regulation in February 

2014 to authorize the use of electronic 

manifests and to codify key provisions 

of the Hazardous Waste Electronic 

Manifest Establishment Act (or Act), the 

EPA is moving forward on the 

development of the separate e-Manifest 

User Fee Schedule Regulation. The Act 

authorizes the EPA to impose on 

manifest users reasonable service fees 

that are necessary to pay costs incurred 

in developing, operating, maintaining 

and upgrading the system, including 

costs incurred in collecting and 

processing data from any paper manifest 

submitted to the system after the date on 

which the system enters operation. EPA 

plans to issue both a proposed and final 

rule in setting the appropriate electronic 

manifest and manifest fees. The EPA 

intends to propose for comment the fee 

methodology for establishing the 

electronic manifest and paper service 

fees. The EPA plans in a final rule to 

establish a program of fees that will be 

imposed on users of the e-Manifest 

system and announce the user fee 

schedule for manifest-related activities, 

including activities associated with the 

collection and processing of paper 

manifests submitted to the EPA. EPA 

also plans in that final rule to announce 

(1) the date upon which the EPA will be 

ready to transmit and receive manifests 

through the national e-Manifest system 

and (2) the date upon which the user 

community must comply with the new 

e-Manifest regulation. 

Statement of Need: On February 7, 

2014, the EPA promulgated the eManifest Final rule, in order to comply 

with the Hazardous Waste Electronic 

Manifest Establishment Act, which 

required the EPA to issue a regulation 

authorizing electronic manifests by 

October 5, 2013. In issuing that rule, the 

EPA completed an important step that 

must precede the development of a 

national e-Manifest system, as required 

by the Hazardous Waste Electronic 

Manifest Establishment Act. This rule is 

the second regulation that must precede 

the development of the e-Manifest 

system. This action will implement the 

broad discretion granted on the Agency 

to establish reasonable user fees for the 

various activities associated with using 

and submitting electronic and paper 

manifests to the national system. 

Additionally, OMB Circular A–25 on 

User Charges provides that agencies of 

the executive branch must generally set 

user fee charges or fees through 

regulation. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 2(c) 

of the e-Manifest Act authorizes the EPA 

to impose on manifest users reasonable 

user fees to pay any costs incurred in 

developing, operating, maintaining, and 

upgrading the system, including any 

costs incurred in collecting and 

processing data from any paper manifest 

submitted to the system. Thus, this 

Action will implement the broad 

discretion granted on the Agency to 

establish reasonable user fees for the 

various activities associated with using 

and submitting electronic and paper 

manifests to the national system. 

Alternatives: The EPA plans to issue 

rulemaking to establish the appropriate 

electronic manifest and paper manifest 

fees. Specifically, EPA will explore 

options for who will pay user fees, the 

most efficient point in the process for 

collecting the fees, and the fee 

methodologies and fee formulas that 

relate to setting the fees. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: When 

the e-Manifest Final Rule was published 

in February 2014, the Agency deferred 

the development of the detailed risk 

impact analysis (RIA) for the e-Manifest 

system until the User Fee Schedule 

Rule. Thus, the RIA for the proposed 

User Fee Schedule Rule will not be 

limited to the impacts of the user fees 

announced in the rule, but will also 

estimate the costs and benefits of the 

overall e-Manifest system. The primary 

costs in the e-Manifest RIA will be the 

cost to build the system, the costs for 

industry and state governments to 

connect to the system, and the cost to 

run the system. The most significant 

benefit of the e-Manifest system 

estimated in the RIA will be reduced 

burden for industry to comply with 

RCRA manifesting requirements, and 

the reduced burden on states that collect 

and utilize manifest data for program 

management purposes. 

Risks: This action does not address 

any particular risks in the EPA’s 

jurisdiction as it does not change 

existing requirements for manifesting 

hazardous waste shipments. It will 

merely propose for comment our fee 

methodology for setting the appropriate 

fees of electronic manifests, and paper 

manifests that continue in use, at such 

time as the system to receive them is 

built and operational. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 10/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

EPA–HQ–RCRA–2001–0032. 

Sectors Affected: 11 Agriculture, 

Forestry, Fishing and Hunting; 23 

Construction; 51 Information; 31–33 

Manufacturing; 21 Mining, Quarrying, 

and Oil and Gas Extraction; 92 Public 

Administration; 44–45 Retail Trade; 48– 

49 Transportation and Warehousing; 22 

Utilities; 562 Waste Management and 

Remediation Services; 42 Wholesale 

Trade. 

URL for More Information: http://

www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/

transportation/manifest/e-man.htm. 

Agency Contact: Rich LaShier, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response, 5304P, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308– 

8796, Fax: 703 308–0514, Email: 

LaShier.Rich@epa.gov. 

Bryan Groce, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, 5304P, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308– 

8750, Fax: 703 308–0514, Email: 

Groce.Bryan@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2050–AG80 

EPA—SWER 

132. • Modernization of the Accidental 

Release Prevention Regulations Under 

Clean Air Act 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412(r) 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 68. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: In response to Executive 

Order 13650, the EPA is considering 

potential revisions to its Risk 

Management Program regulations and 

related programs. The Agency may 

consider changes to the list of regulated 

substances and threshold quantities, 

addition of new accident prevention or 

emergency response program elements 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76628 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

and/or changes to existing elements, 

and/or other changes to the existing 

regulatory provisions. 

Statement of Need: On August 1, 

2013, President Obama signed Executive 

order 13650, entitled Improving 

Chemical Facility Safety and Security. 

The Executive order establishes the 

Chemical Facility Safety and Security 

Working Group (‘‘Working Group’’), cochaired by the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, the Administrator of the EPA, 

and the Secretary of Labor or their 

designated representatives at the 

Assistant Secretary level or higher, and 

composed of senior representatives of 

other Federal departments, agencies, 

and offices. The Executive order 

requires the Working Group to carry out 

a number of tasks whose overall aim is 

to prevent chemical accidents, such as 

the explosion that occurred at the West 

Fertilizer facility in West, Texas, on 

April 17, 2013. Section 6 of the 

Executive order is entitled ‘‘Policy, 

Regulation, and Standards 

Modernization’’, and among other 

things, requires certain federal agencies 

to consider possible changes to existing 

chemical safety and security 

regulations. On July 31, 2014, the EPA 

issued a Request for Information (RFI) to 

solicit stakeholder feedback on a 

number of potential modifications to the 

RMP regulations. This NPRM is 

expected to contain a number of 

proposed modifications to the RMP 

regulations based on stakeholder 

feedback received from the RFI. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The statutory 

authority for this action is provided by 

section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). 

Alternatives: Alternatives will be 

considered during the development of 

the proposal. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Benefits and costs will be examined in 

detail during the development of the 

proposal. For any proposed regulatory 

changes, EPA expects that benefits will 

be due to prevented costs of accidental 

releases (e.g., through covering 

additional hazardous chemical 

processes, or addition or improvement 

of accident prevention program 

requirements), or reduced costs of 

accidental releases that do occur (e.g., 

due to improvements in release 

detection or emergency response 

procedures). Costs will relate to 

coverage of any additional sources or 

implementation of any additional 

accident prevention or emergency 

response program requirements that are 

imposed. 

Risks: Risks will be examined during 

the development of the proposal. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 09/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Sectors Affected: 11 Agriculture, 

Forestry, Fishing and Hunting; 444 

Building Material and Garden 

Equipment and Supplies Dealers; 325 

Chemical Manufacturing; 445 Food and 

Beverage Stores; 45431 Fuel Dealers; 

424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable 

Goods; 21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil 

and Gas Extraction; 32411 Petroleum 

Refineries; 486 Pipeline Transportation; 

3221 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills; 

482 Rail Transportation; 488 Support 

Activities for Transportation; 221 

Utilities; 493 Warehousing and Storage; 

562 Waste Management and 

Remediation Services. 

URL For More Information: http://

www2.epa.gov/rmp. 

Agency Contact: James Belke, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response, 5104A, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564– 

8023, Fax: 202 564–8444, Email: 

belke.jim@epa.gov. 

Kathy Franklin, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, 5104A, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564– 

7987, Fax: 202 564–2625, Email: 

Franklin.Kathy@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2050–AG82 

EPA—AIR AND RADIATION (AR) 

Final Rule Stage 

133. Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk 

and Technology Review and New 

Source Performance Standards 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: Clean Air Act sec 111 

and 112 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60; 40 CFR 63. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, May 

15, 2014, Consent decree deadline for 

proposed rule—Air Alliance Houston, et 

al. v. McCarthy; 12–1607 (RMC); USDC 

for the District of Columbia filed 1/13/ 

14. 

Final, Judicial, April 17, 2015, 

Consent decree deadline for final rule— 

Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. 

McCarthy; 12–1607 (RMC); USDC for 

the District of Columbia filed 1/13/14. 

Abstract: This action pertains to the 

Petroleum Refining industry and 

specifically to petroleum refinery 

sources that are subject to maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards in 40 CFR part 63, subparts 

CC (Refinery MACT 1) and UUU 

(Refinery MACT 2) and new source 

performance standards (NSPS) in 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Ja. This action is 

the Petroleum Refining Sector 

Rulemaking which will address our 

obligation to perform Risk and 

Technology Reviews (RTR) for 

Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 and 2 

source categories and will address 

issues related to the reconsideration of 

Petroleum Refinery New Source 

Performance Standard (NSPS) subpart 

Ja. Petroleum refineries are facilities 

engaged in refining and producing 

products made from crude oil or 

unfinished petroleum derivatives. 

Emission sources include petroleum 

refinery-specific process units unique to 

the industry, such as fluid catalytic 

cracking units (FCCU) and catalytic 

reforming units (CRU), as well as units 

and processes commonly found at other 

types of manufacturing facilities 

(including petroleum refineries), such as 

storage vessels and wastewater 

treatment plants. Refinery MACT 1 

regulates hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 

emissions from common processes such 

as miscellaneous process vents (e.g., 

delayed coking vents), storage vessels, 

wastewater, equipment leaks, loading 

racks, marine tank vessel loading and 

heat exchange systems at petroleum 

refineries. Refinery MACT 2 regulates 

HAP from those processes that are 

unique to the industry including sulfur 

recovery units (SRU) and from catalyst 

regeneration in FCCU and CRU. A 

proposed rule was signed on 5/15/14 

and published in the Federal Register 

on 6/30/14 (79 FR 36880). The EPA is 

reviewing comments and preparing a 

final rule for signature in 2015. 

Statement of Need: This proposal is 

required by Clean Air Act Section 112 

to review technology-based standards 

and revise them as necessary but no less 

frequently than every eight years under 

112 (d)(6) and to review and reduce 

remaining risk (ie., residual) according 

to Section 112 (f). 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Environmental and other public health 

groups filed a lawsuit alleging that EPA 

missed statutory deadlines to review 

and revise Refinery MACT 1 and 2. The 

EPA reached an agreement to settle this 

litigation, and in a consent decree filed 

January 13, 2014 in the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Columbia, EPA 

committed to perform the risk and 

technology review for Refinery MACT 1 

and 2 by May 15, 2014 to either propose 

any regulations or propose that 

addiitonal regulations are not necessary. 

Under the consent decree, EPA comitted 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76629 

to take final action by April 17, 2015, 

establishing regulations pursuant to the 

risk and technology review or to issue 

a final determination that revision to the 

existing rules is not necessary. 

Alternatives: Alternatives were 

discussed in the proposal preamble 

published on June 30, 2014, at 79 FR 

36879. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: For the 

proposal, estimated total capital 

investment—240 million, total 

annualized cost—42 million; Projected 

reductions of 52,000 tons VOC, 5,560 

tons of HAP. 

Risks: The risk addressed is human 

health risk. The proposal estimated that 

cancer incidence would be reduced by 

15% over the current baseline as a result 

of proposed amendments. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/30/14 79 FR 36879 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

08/15/14 79 FR 48111 

Final Rule ............ 05/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682. 

Sectors Affected: 324110 Petroleum 

Refineries. 

URL For More Information: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/petrefine/

petrefpg.html. 

Agency Contact: Brenda Shine, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

and Radiation, E143–01, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 

541–3608, Fax: 919 541–0246, Email: 

shine.brenda@epamail.epa.gov. 

Penny Lassiter, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 

E143–01, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, Phone: 919 541–5396, Fax: 919 

541–0246, Email: lassiter.penny@

epa.gov. 

RIN: 2060–AQ75 

EPA—AR 

134. Standards of Performance for 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New 

Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 

Generating Units 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: CAA 111 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This final rule will establish 

the first new source performance 

standards for greenhouse gas emissions. 

This rule will establish carbon dioxide 

(CO2) emission standards for certain 

new fossil fuel-fired electric generating 

units. 

Statement of Need: EGU GHG NSPS is 

the first action item in President 

Obama’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). 

The CAP called for the EPA to issue a 

proposal by September 20, 2013 to 

regulate carbon emissions from fossil 

fuel-fired power plants. 

Summary of Legal Basis: CO2 is a 

regulated pollutant and this is subject to 

regulation under section 111 of the 

Clean Air Act as amended in 1990. 

Alternatives: The three alternatives 

the EPA considered in the BSER 

analysis for new fossil fuel-fired utility 

boilers and IGCC units are: (1) Highly 

efficient new generation that does not 

include CCS technology, (2) highly 

efficient new generation with ‘‘full 

capture’’ CCS and (3) highly efficient 

new generation with ‘‘partial capture’’ 

CCS. 

We considered two alternatives in 

evaluating the BSER for new fossil fuelfired stationary combustion turbines: (1) 

Modern, efficient NGCC units and (2) 

modern, efficient NGCC units with CCS. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Under 

a wide range of electricity market 

conditions—including the EPA’s 

baseline scenario as well as multiple 

sensitivity analyses—EPA projects that 

the industry will choose to construct 

new units that already meet these 

standards, regardless of this proposal. 

As a result, the EPAanticipates that the 

proposed EGU New Source GHG 

Standards will result in negligible CO2 

emission changes, energy impacts, 

benefits or costs for new units 

constructed by 2020. 

Risks: The risk addressed is the 

current and future threat of climate 

change to public health and welfare, as 

demonstrated in the 2009 Endangerment 

and Cause or Contribute Finding for 

Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) 

of the Clean Air Act. The EPA made this 

determination based primarily upon the 

recent, major assessments by the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP), the National Research 

Council (NRC) of the National 

Academies and the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/13/12 77 FR 22392 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

05/04/12 77 FR 26476 

Notice .................. 01/08/14 79 FR 1352 

Second NPRM .... 01/08/14 79 FR 1429 

Notice .................. 02/26/14 79 FR 10750 

Action Date FR Cite 

Comment Period 

Extended.

03/06/14 79 FR 12681 

Final Rule ............ 01/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

State, Tribal. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0660. 

Sectors Affected: 221 Utilities. 

URL For Public Comments: http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0660-0001. 

Agency Contact: Nick Hutson, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

and Radiation, D243–01, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 

451–2968, Fax: 919 541–5450, Email: 

hutson.nick@epa.gov. 

Christian Fellner, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 

D243–01, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, Phone: 919 541–4003, Fax: 919 

541–5450, Email: fellner.christian@

epa.gov. 

RIN: 2060–AQ91 

EPA—AR 

135. Implementation of the 2008 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Ozone: State 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7409; 42 

U.S.C. 7410; 42 U.S.C. 7511 to 7511f; 42 

U.S.C. 7601(a)(1) 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 50; 40 CFR 51; 

40 CFR 70; 40 CFR 71. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This final rule will address 

a range of state implementation 

requirements for the 2008 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for ozone, including 

requirements pertaining to attainment 

demonstrations, reasonable further 

progress, reasonably available control 

technology, reasonably available control 

measures, nonattainment new source 

review, emission inventories, and the 

timing of State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submissions and compliance with 

emission control measures in the SIP. 

Other issues also addressed in this final 

rule are the revocation of the 1997 

ozone NAAQS for purposes other than 

transportation conformity; antibacksliding requirements that would 

apply when the 1997 NAAQS are 

revoked; and the section 185 fee 

program. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76630 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Statement of Need: This rule is 

needed to establish requirements for 

what states must include in their state 

implementation plans (SIPs) to bring 

nonattainment areas into compliance 

with the 2008 ozone NAAQS. There is 

no court-ordered deadline for this final 

rule. However, the CAA requires the 

nonattainment area plans addressed by 

this rule to be developed and submitted 

by states within 2 to 3 years after the 

July 20, 2012 date of nonattainment 

designations. 

Summary of Legal Basis: CAA section 

110 authorizes EPA to require state 

planning to attain the NAAQS and to 

help states implement their plans. 

Alternatives: The rule included 

several alternatives for meeting 

implementation requirements, including 

but not limited to options for SIP 

submittal dates, NOX substitution for 

VOC in RFP SIPs, alternative baseline 

years for RFP and alternatives for 

addressing anti-backsliding 

requirements once the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS has been revoked. The EPA 

solicited comments on a number of 

topics, including alternative approaches 

to achieving RFP, RACT flexibility and 

alternate revocation dates for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

annual burden for this information 

collection averaged over the first 3 years 

is estimated to be a total of 120,000 

labor hours per year at an annual labor 

cost of $2.4 million (present value) over 

the 3-year period or approximately 

$91,000 per state for the 26 state 

respondents, including the District of 

Columbia. The average annual reporting 

burden is 690 hours per response, with 

approximately 2 responses per state for 

58 state respondents. There are no 

capital or operating and maintenance 

costs associated with the proposed rule 

requirements. Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b). 

Risks: Ozone concentrations that 

exceed the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) to can 

cause adverse public health and welfare 

effects, as discussed in the March 27, 

2008 Final Rule for NAAQS for Ozone 

(73 FR 16436). 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/06/13 78 FR 34177 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

07/24/13 78 FR 44485 

Final Rule ............ 03/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0885. 

URL For More Information: http://

www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/

actions.html#impl. 

Agency Contact: Karl Pepple, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

and Radiation, C539–01, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 206 

553–1778, Fax: 919 541–0824, Email: 

pepple.karl@epa.gov. 

Megan Brachtl, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 

C539–01, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, Phone: 919 541–2648, Fax: 919 

541–5315, Email: brachtl.megan@

epa.gov. 

RIN: 2060–AR34 

EPA—AR 

136. Carbon Pollution Standards for 

Modified and Reconstructed Stationary 

Sources: Electric Utility Generating 

Units 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: CAA 111 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This final rule will amend 

the electric generating units (EGU) New 

Source Performance Standards for 

modified and reconstructed facilities for 

greenhouse gas (GHG) under Clean Air 

Act section 111(b). 

Statement of Need: The issuance of 

standards of performance for modified 

and reconstructed power plants is an 

action item in President Obama’s 

Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP 

calls for the EPA to issue a proposal by 

no later than June 1, 2014 and to issue 

a final rule by no later than June 1, 

2015. 

Summary of Legal Basis: CO2 is a 

regulated pollutant and thus is subject 

to regulation under section 111 of the 

Clean Air Act as amended in 1990. 

Alternatives: Alternatives were 

discussed in the proposal preamble 

published on June 18, 2014, at 79 FR 

34959. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

EPA anticipates few covered units will 

trigger the reconstruction or 

modification provisions in the period of 

analysis (through 2025). As a result, we 

do not anticipate any significant costs or 

benefits associated with this proposal. 

Risks: The risk addressed is the 

current and future threat of climate 

change to public health and welfare, as 

demonstrated in the 2009 Endangerment 

and Cause or Contribute Findings for 

Greenhouse Gases under section 202(a) 

of the Clean Air Act. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/18/14 79 FR 34959 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

10/16/14 

Final Rule ............ 06/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

State, Tribal. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0603. 

Agency Contact: Christian Fellner, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

and Radiation, D243–01, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 

541–4003, Fax: 919 541–5450, Email: 

fellner.christian@epa.gov. 

Nick Hutson, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 

D243–01, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, Phone: 919 451–2968, Fax: 919 

541–5450, Email: hutson.nick@epa.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 2060–AQ91, 

Related to 2060–AR33 

RIN: 2060–AR88 

EPA—OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

(OCSPP) 

Final Rule Stage 

137. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker 

Protection Standard Revisions 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136w 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 170. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: On March 19, 2014, the EPA 

proposed to revise the federal 

regulations issued under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) that direct agricultural 

worker protection (40 CFR 170). The 

proposed changes are in response to 

extensive stakeholder review of the 

regulation and its implementation since 

1992, and reflect current research on 

how to mitigate occupational pesticide 

exposure to agricultural workers and 

pesticide handlers. The EPA is 

proposing to strengthen the protections 

provided to agricultural workers and 

handlers under the worker protection 

standard by improving elements of the 

existing regulation, such as training, 

notification, communication materials, 

use of personal protective equipment, 

and decontamination supplies. The EPA 

expects the revisions, once final, to 

prevent unreasonable adverse effects 

from exposure to pesticides among 

agricultural workers and pesticide 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76631 

handlers; vulnerable groups, such as 

minority and low-income populations, 

child farmworkers, and farmworker 

families; and the general public. The 

EPA recognizes the importance and 

independence of family farms and is 

proposing to expand the immediate 

family exemption to the WPS. 

Statement of Need: Stakeholders have 

identified gaps in the protections in the 

current worker protection regulations. 

Revisions to the regulations are 

necessary to better protect agricultural 

workers and pesticide handlers from 

unreasonable adverse effects of 

pesticide exposure. 

Summary of Legal Basis: This 

rulemaking is being developed under 

the authority of sections 2 through 35 of 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136– 

136y, and particularly section 25(a), 7 

U.S.C. 136w(a). 

Alternatives: EPA proposed several 

amendments to the existing WPS 

requirements, including: amending the 

existing pesticide safety training 

content, retraining interval (frequency), 

and qualifications of trainers; ensuring 

workers receive safety information 

before entering any pesticide treated 

area by amending the existing grace 

period and expanding the training 

required during the grace period; 

establishing a minimum age of 16 for 

handlers and for workers who enter an 

area under an re-entry interval (REI); 

establishing requirements for specific 

training and notification for workers 

who enter an area under an REI; 

restricting persons’ entry into areas 

adjacent to a treated area during an 

application; enhancing the requirement 

for employers to post warning signs 

around treated areas; modifying the 

content of the warning sign; adding 

information employers must keep under 

the requirement to maintain 

application-specific information; 

requiring recordkeeping for pesticide 

safety training and worker entry into 

areas under an REI; ensuring the 

immediate family exemption includes 

an exemption from the proposed 

minimum age requirements for handlers 

and early-entry workers; and expanding 

the definition of immediate family to 

allow more family-owned operations to 

qualify for the exemptions to the WPS 

requirements. EPA considered a variety 

of alternatives for each of the proposed 

changes. The published NPRM 

describes each of the alternatives 

considered in detail. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

Economic Analysis issued with the 

proposed rule provides the EPA’s 

analysis of the potential costs and 

impacts associated with the proposed 

rule. As proposed, the estimated cost is 

between $62 and $73 million annually, 

with most of the cost on the agricultural 

employer; and the quantified benefits 

are estimated between $5–$14 million 

annually, from avoided acute illnesses. 

A break even analysis of the potential 

reduction in chronic illnesses indicates 

that only 53 cases of several chronic 

illnesses (Parkinson’s disease, nonHodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, 

lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, and 

asthma) would satisfy the gap between 

the quantified benefits and the cost. 

Risks: Agricultural workers and 

pesticide handlers are at risk from 

pesticide exposure through their work 

activities, and may put their families at 

risk of secondary exposures. In order to 

address exposure risks to workers, 

pesticide handlers, and their families, 

the Agency has proposed revisions 

identified by stakeholders. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/19/14 79 FR 15443 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

05/14/14 79 FR 27546 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

06/17/14 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

08/18/14 

Final Rule ............ 05/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0184–0119. 

Sectors Affected: 111 Crop 

Production; 115 Support Activities for 

Agriculture and Forestry; 32532 

Pesticide and Other Agricultural 

Chemical Manufacturing; 541690 Other 

Scientific and Technical Consulting 

Services; 541712 Research and 

Development in the Physical, 

Engineering, and Life Sciences (except 

Biotechnology); 8133 Social Advocacy 

Organizations 

URL For More Information: http://

www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/

worker.htm. 

URL For Public Comments: http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2011- 

0184. 

Agency Contact: Kathy Davis, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention, 7506P, Washington, DC 

20460, Phone: 703 308–7002, Fax: 703 

308–2962, Email: davis.kathy@epa.gov. 

Richard Pont, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7506P, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 305– 

6448, Fax: 703 308–2962, Email: 

pont.richard@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2070–AJ22 

EPA—OCSPP 

138. Formaldehyde; Third-Party 

Certification Framework for the 

Formaldehyde Standards for Composite 

Wood Products 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2697; 

TSCA sec 601. 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 770. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

January 1, 2013, Deadline for 

promulgation of regulations, per 15 

U.S.C. 2697(d). 

Abstract: The EPA is developing a 

final rule under the Formaldehyde 

Standards for Composite Wood Products 

Act was enacted in 2010 as title VI of 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 

15 U.S.C. 2697, to establish specific 

formaldehyde emission limits for 

hardwood plywood, particleboard, and 

medium-density fiberboard, which are 

identical to the California emission 

limits for these products. In 2013, the 

EPA issued a proposed rule under TSCA 

title VI to establish a framework for a 

TSCA title VI Third-Party Certification 

Program whereby third-party certifiers 

(TPCs) are accredited by accreditation 

bodies (ABs) so that they may certify 

composite wood product panel 

producers under TSCA title VI. The 

proposed rule identifies the roles and 

responsibilities of the groups involved 

in the TPC process (EPA, ABs, and 

TPCs), as well as the criteria for 

participation in the program. This 

proposal contains general requirements 

for TPCs, such as conducting and 

verifying formaldehyde emission tests, 

inspecting and auditing panel 

producers, and ensuring that panel 

producers’ quality assurance and quality 

control procedures comply with the 

regulations set forth in the proposed 

rule. A separate Regulatory Agenda 

entry (RIN 2070–AJ92) covers the other 

proposed regulation to implement the 

statutory formaldehyde emission 

standards for hardwood plywood, 

medium-density fiberboard, and 

particleboard sold, supplied, offered for 

sale, or manufactured (including 

imported) in the United States. EPA 

may decide to issue a single final rule 

to promulgate the final requirements 

related to both proposed rules. 

Statement of Need: TSCA title VI 

directs the EPA to promulgate 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76632 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

regulations to implement the statutory 

formaldehyde emission standards and 

emissions testing requirements for 

composite wood products (hardwood 

plywood, particleboard, and mediumdensity fiberboard). It also directs the 

EPA to include regulatory provisions 

relating to third-party testing and 

certification in addition to the auditing 

and reporting of third-party certifiers. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The EPA is 

issuing this rule under title VI of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 

15 U.S.C. 2697, enacted in the 

Formaldehyde Standards for Composite 

Wood Products Act of 2010, which 

provides authority for the EPA to 

‘‘Aˆ ‘Aˆ ‘promulgate regulations to 

implement the standards required under 

subsection (b) of the Act. This provision 

includes authority to promulgate 

regulations relating to Aˆ ‘Aˆ ‘third-party 

testing and certification’ and 

Aˆ ‘Aˆ ‘auditing and reporting of thirdparty certifiers.’’ 

Alternatives: As explained in the 

proposed rule, EPA considered a variety 

of alternatives. EPA considered directly 

operating a program for the 

accreditation of TPCs instead of entering 

into recognition agreements with ABs 

for that purpose. EPA considered 

increasing the amount of time for 

receiving accreditations under TSCA 

Title VI that was proposed to be 

afforded to TPCs that are already 

recognized by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). In addition, 

EPA considered requiring TPCs to be 

reaccredited every 2 years (which would 

align with CARB’s requirements) 

instead of every 3 year years, and 

requiring Abs to audit TPCs once every 

3 years instead of every 2 years (which 

would align with the proposed 3 year 

accreditation period). EPA also 

considered alternative retailer 

recordkeeping provisions for records 

related to the manufacture of 

component parts and finished goods 

prior to the effective date of the final 

rule. Finally, while the Agency did not 

propose mandatory electronic reporting 

for information that ABs and TPCs 

would be required to submit under the 

proposed rule, EPA sought public 

comment on such a requirement. EPA is 

evaluating public comments concerning 

the proposed rule and alternatives as it 

formulates the final rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Issued 

with the proposed rule, the Economic 

Analysis provides the EPA analysis of 

the potential costs and impacts 

associated with this rulemaking. As 

proposed, the annualized costs are 

estimated at approximately $34,000 per 

year using either a 3% discount rate or 

a 7% discount rate. This rule would 

impact an estimated 9 small entities, of 

which 8 are expected to have impacts of 

less than 1% of revenues or expenses, 

and 1 is expected to have impacts 

between 1% and 3%. State, Local, and 

Tribal Governments are not expected to 

be subject to the rule’s requirements, 

which apply to third-party certifiers and 

accreditation bodies. The rule does not 

have a significant intergovernmental 

mandate, significant or unique effect on 

small governments, or have Federalism 

implications. 

Risks: At room temperature, 

formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable 

gas that has a distinct, pungent smell. 

Small amounts of formaldehyde are 

naturally produced by plants, animals 

and humans. Formaldehyde is used 

widely by industry to manufacture a 

range of building materials and 

numerous household products. It is in 

resins used to manufacture some 

composite wood products (e.g., 

hardwood plywood, particleboard and 

medium-density fiberboard). Everyone 

is exposed to small amounts of 

formaldehyde in the air, some foods, 

and products, including composite 

wood products. The primary way you 

can be exposed to formaldehyde is by 

breathing air containing it. 

Formaldehyde can cause irritation of the 

skin, eyes, nose, and throat. High levels 

of exposure may cause some types of 

cancers. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 12/03/08 73 FR 73620 

Second ANPRM .. 01/30/09 74 FR 5632 

NPRM .................. 06/10/13 78 FR 34795 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

07/23/13 78 FR 44090 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

08/21/13 78 FR 51696 

Final Rule ............ 02/00/15 

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. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

ANPRM stage: EPA–HQ–OPPT–2008– 

0627; NPRM Stage: EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2011–0380. See also RIN 2070–AJ92. 

Sectors Affected: 541611 

Administrative Management and 

General Management Consulting 

Services; 541990 All Other Professional, 

Scientific, and Technical Services; 

561990 All Other Support Services; 

813910 Business Associations; 541330 

Engineering Services; 813920 

Professional Organizations; 321219 

Reconstituted Wood Product 

Manufacturing; 541380 Testing 

Laboratories; 3212 Veneer, Plywood, 

and Engineered Wood Product 

Manufacturing 

URL For More Information: http://

www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/

formaldehyde/index.html. 

URL For Public Comments: http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT2011-0380-0001. 

Agency Contact: Robert Courtnage, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 

20460, Phone: 202 566–1081, Email: 

courtnage.robert@epa.gov. 

Toiya Goodlow, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention, Mail 

Code 7404T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave 

NW, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 

566–2305, Email: goodlow.toiya@

epa.gov. 

RIN: 2070–AJ44 

EPA—OCSPP 

139. Formaldehyde Emissions 

Standards for Composite Wood 

Products 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under Pub. L. 

104–4. 

Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2697; 

TSCA sec 601. 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 770. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, 

January 1, 2013, Statutory Deadline. 

NPRM, Statutory, January 1, 2013, 

Deadline is for issuance of FINAL Rule. 

Abstract: The EPA is developing a 

final rule under the Formaldehyde 

Standards for Composite Wood Products 

Act that was enacted in 2010 as title VI 

of Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2697, and requires 

that the EPA promulgate implementing 

regulations to establish specific 

formaldehyde emission limits for 

hardwood plywood, particleboard, and 

medium-density fiberboard, which 

limits are identical to the California 

emission limits for these products. In 

2013, the EPA proposed regulations to 

implement emissions standards 

established by TSCA title VI for 

composite wood products sold, 

supplied, offered for sale, or 

manufactured in the United States. 

Pursuant to TSCA section 3(7), the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76633 

definition of ‘‘manufacture’’ includes 

import. As required by title VI, these 

regulations apply to hardwood 

plywood, medium-density fiberboard, 

and particleboard. TSCA title VI also 

directs EPA to promulgate 

supplementary provisions to ensure 

compliance with the emissions 

standards, including provisions related 

to labeling; chain of custody 

requirements; sell-through provisions; 

ULEF resins; no-added formaldehydebased resins; finished goods; third-party 

testing and certification; auditing and 

reporting of third-party certifiers; 

recordkeeping; enforcement; laminated 

products; and exceptions from the 

requirements of regulations 

promulgated pursuant to this subsection 

for products and components containing 

de minimis amounts of composite wood 

products. A separate Regulatory Agenda 

entry (RIN 2070–AJ44) addresses 

requirements for accrediting bodies and 

third-party certifiers. EPA may decide to 

issue a single final rule to promulgate 

the final requirements related to both 

proposed rules. 

Statement of Need: TSCA title VI 

directs the EPA to promulgate 

regulations to implement the statutory 

formaldehyde emission standards and 

emissions testing requirements for 

composite wood products (hardwood 

plywood, particleboard, and mediumdensity fiberboard). 

Summary of Legal Basis: The EPA is 

issuing this rule under title VI of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 

15 U.S.C. 2697, enacted in the 

Formaldehyde Standards for Composite 

Wood Products Act of 2010, which 

directs EPA to promulgate regulations to 

implement the formaldehyde emission 

standards and emissions testing 

requirements established by the Act. 

Congress directed the EPA to consider a 

number of elements for inclusion in the 

implementing regulations, many of 

which are aspects of the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) program. 

These elements include: (a) labeling, (b) 

chain of custody requirements, (c) sellthrough provisions, (d) ultra lowemitting formaldehyde resins, (e) noadded formaldehyde-based resins, (f) 

finished goods, (g) third-party testing 

and certification, (h) auditing and 

reporting of TPCs, (i) recordkeeping, (j) 

enforcement, (k) laminated products, 

and (l) exceptions from the 

requirements of regulations 

promulgated for products and 

components containing de minimis 

amounts of composite wood products. 

Alternatives: TSCA Title VI 

establishes national formaldehyde 

emission standards for composite wood 

products and the EPA has not been 

given the authority to change those 

standards. EPA considered various 

alternatives to other proposed 

requirements. With respect to a 

definition of hardwood plywood, EPA 

considered exempting all laminated 

products from the definition, exempting 

all laminated products except 

architectural panels and custom 

plywood, exempting laminated products 

made using no-added formaldehyde 

(NAF) resins to attach veneer to 

platforms certified as NAF, and 

exempting laminated products made 

using NAF resins to attach veneer to 

compliant and certified platforms. EPA 

also considered allowing certifications 

for ultra-low emitting formaldehyde. 

Furthermore, EPA considered reduced 

recordkeeping requirements for firms 

that do not qualify as manufacturers 

under TSCA, not requiring notification 

to suppliers that the products supplied 

must comply with TSCA Title VI, and 

allowing to tested lots to be shipped 

before test results are available. EPA is 

evaluating implementation alternatives 

in this rulemaking and public 

comments. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Issued 

with the proposed rule, the Economic 

Analysis provides the EPA’s analysis of 

the potential costs and benefits 

associated with this rulemaking. As 

proposed, this rulemaking will reduce 

exposures to formaldehyde, resulting in 

benefits from avoided adverse health 

effects. For the subset of health effects 

where the results were quantified, the 

estimated annualized benefits (due to 

avoided incidence of eye irritation and 

nasopharyngeal cancer) are $20 million 

to $48 million per year using a 3% 

discount rate, and $9 million to $23 

million per year using a 7% discount 

rate. There are additional unquantified 

benefits due to other avoided health 

effects. The annualized costs are 

estimated at $72 million to $81 million 

per year using a 3% discount rate, and 

$80 million to $89 million per year 

using a 7% discount rate. Government 

entities are not expected to be subject to 

the rule’s requirements, which apply to 

entities that manufacture (including 

import), fabricate, distribute, or sell 

composite wood products. EPA also 

estimated that the rulemaking would 

impact nearly 879,000 small businesses: 

Over 851,000 have costs impacts less 

than 1% of revenues, over 23,000 firms 

have impacts between 1% and 3%, and 

over 4,000 firms have impacts greater 

than 3% of revenues. Most firms with 

impacts over 1% have annualized costs 

of less than $250 per year. This rule 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population or children. The 

estimated costs of the proposed rule 

exceed the quantified benefits. There are 

additional unquantified benefits due to 

other avoided health effects. After 

assessing both the costs and the benefits 

of the proposal, including the 

unquantified benefits, EPA has made a 

reasoned determination that the benefits 

of the proposal justify its costs. 

Risks: At room temperature, 

formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable 

gas that has a distinct, pungent smell. 

Small amounts of formaldehyde are 

naturally produced by plants, animals 

and humans. Formaldehyde is used 

widely by industry to manufacture a 

range of building materials and 

numerous household products. It is in 

resins used to manufacture some 

composite wood products (e.g., 

hardwood plywood, particleboard and 

medium-density fiberboard). Everyone 

is exposed to small amounts of 

formaldehyde in the air, some foods, 

and products, including composite 

wood products. The primary way you 

can be exposed to formaldehyde is by 

breathing air containing it. 

Formaldehyde can cause irritation of the 

skin, eyes, nose, and throat. High levels 

of exposure may cause some types of 

cancers. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/10/13 78 FR 34820 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

07/23/13 78 FR 44089 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

08/21/13 78 FR 51695 

Notice .................. 04/08/14 79 FR 19305 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

05/09/14 79 FR 26678 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

05/26/14 

Final Rule ............ 02/00/15 

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. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2012–0018. See also 

RIN 2070–AJ44. 

Sectors Affected: 325199 All Other 

Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76634 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

337212 Custom Architectural 

Woodwork and Millwork 

Manufacturing; 321213 Engineered 

Wood Member (except Truss) 

Manufacturing; 423210 Furniture 

Merchant Wholesalers; 442110 

Furniture Stores; 444130 Hardware 

Stores; 321211 Hardwood Veneer and 

Plywood Manufacturing; 444110 Home 

Centers; 337127 Institutional Furniture 

Manufacturing; 423310 Lumber, 

Plywood, Millwork, and Wood Panel 

Merchant Wholesalers; 453930 

Manufactured (Mobile) Home Dealers; 

321991 Manufactured Home (Mobile 

Home) Manufacturing; 336213 Motor 

Home Manufacturing; 337122 

Nonupholstered Wood Household 

Furniture Manufacturing; 444190 Other 

Building Material Dealers; 423390 Other 

Construction Material Merchant 

Wholesalers; 325211 Plastics Material 

and Resin Manufacturing; 321992 

Prefabricated Wood Building 

Manufacturing; 321219 Reconstituted 

Wood Product Manufacturing; 441210 

Recreational Vehicle Dealers; 337215 

Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and 

Locker Manufacturing; 321212 

Softwood Veneer and Plywood 

Manufacturing; 336214 Travel Trailer 

and Camper Manufacturing; 337121 

Upholstered Household Furniture 

Manufacturing; 337110 Wood Kitchen 

Cabinet and Countertop Manufacturing; 

337211 Wood Office Furniture 

Manufacturing; 337129 Wood 

Television, Radio, and Sewing Machine 

Cabinet Manufacturing 

URL for More Information: http://

www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/

formaldehyde/index.html. 

URL for Public Comments: http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT2012-0018-0001. 

Agency Contact: Cindy Wheeler, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 

20460, Phone: 202 566–0484, Email: 

wheeler.cindy@epa.gov. 

Robert Courtnage, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566– 

1081, Email: courtnage.robert@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2070–AJ92 

EPA—Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response (SWER) 

Final Rule Stage 

140. Standards for the Management of 

Coal Combustion Residuals Generated 

by Commercial Electric Power 

Producers 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect State, local or tribal governments 

and the private sector. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905; 42 

U.S.C. 6906; 42 U.S.C. 6907(a)(3); 42 

U.S.C. 6912; 42 U.S.C. 6912(a); 42 

U.S.C. 6912(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6921; 42 

U.S.C. 6922; 42 U.S.C. 6923; 42 U.S.C. 

6924; 42 U.S.C. 6925; 42 U.S.C. 6925(j); 

42 U.S.C. 6935; 42 U.S.C. 6936; 42 

U.S.C. 6937; 42 U.S.C. 6944(a); 42 

U.S.C. 6949a(c); 33 U.S.C. 1345(d); 33 

U.S.C. 1345(e) 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 257; 261; 264; 

265; 268; 271; 302. 

Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, 

December 19, 2014, Signature date. 

Abstract: On June 21, 2010, the EPA 

proposed, under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

to regulate coal combustion residuals 

(CCRs) generated from the combustion 

of coal at electric utilities and 

independent power producers to 

address risks from the disposal of CCRs 

in surface impoundments and landfills. 

The EPA sought public comments on 

two regulatory approaches. One 

proposed option would be to list these 

residuals as ‘‘special wastes,’’ and draws 

from remedies available under subtitle C 

of RCRA, which creates a 

comprehensive program of federally 

enforceable requirements for waste 

management and disposal. The other 

proposed option included remedies 

under subtitle D of RCRA, which gives 

the EPA authority to set disposal 

standards for waste management 

facilities. Under both options, the EPA 

proposed not to regulate the beneficial 

use of CCRs, such as its use in concrete. 

In addition, this rule did not address 

CCRs generated from non-utility boilers 

burning coal, nor would it address the 

placement of coal combustion residuals 

in mines or non-minefill uses of CCRs 

at coal mine sites. Since the publication 

of the proposed rule, EPA has issued 

three Notices of Data Availability 

(NODAs) seeking public comment on 

additional data and information 

obtained by the EPA. In the most recent 

NODA, issued on August 2, 2013, the 

EPA invited comment on additional 

information to supplement the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis and risk 

assessment; information on large scale 

fill; and data on the surface 

impoundment structural integrity 

assessments. With this NODA, the EPA 

also sought comment on two issues 

associated with the requirements for 

CCR management units, closure and the 

construction of new units over preexisting CCR landfills and surface 

impoundments. Under a consent decree, 

a final rule must be signed no later than 

December 19, 2014. 

Statement of Need: The EPA is 

proposing to regulate for the first time, 

coal combustion residuals under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA) to address the risks from the 

disposal of coal combustion residuals in 

surface impoundments and landfills, 

generated from the combustion of coal 

at electric utilities and by independent 

power producers. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The CCR 

rule was proposed under the authority 

of sections 1008(a), 2002(a), 3001, 3004, 

3005, and 4004 of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by 

RCRA and as amended by the hazardous 

and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 

(HSWA). These statutes, combined, are 

commonly referred to as ‘‘RCRA.’’ RCRA 

section 1008(a) authorizes the EPA to 

publish ‘‘suggested guidelines for solid 

waste management.’’ Such guidelines 

must provide a technical and economic 

descriptions of the level of performance 

that can be achieved by available solid 

waste management practices that 

provide for the protection of human 

health and the environment. RCRA 

section 2002 grants the EPA broad 

authority to prescribe, in consultation 

with federal, state and regional 

authorities, such regulations as are 

necessary to carry out the function 

under federal solid waste disposal laws. 

RCRA section 3001(b) requires EPA to 

list particular wastes that will be subject 

to the requirements established under 

subtitle C. Section 3001(b)(3)(A) 

generally establishes a temporary 

exemption for CCRs primarily from the 

combustion of coal or other fossil fuels 

and requires the EPA to conduct a study 

to determine whether these waste 

should be regulated under Subtitle C or 

RCRA. Section 3004 generally requires 

EPA to establish standards for the 

treatment, storage, and disposal of 

hazardous waste to ensure protection of 

human health and the environment. 

RCRA section 3004(x) allows the 

Administrator to tailor certain specified 

requirements for particular categories of 

wastes. RCRA section 3005 generally 

requires that any facility that treats, 

stores, or disposes of wastes identified 

or listed under subtitle C, to have a 

permit. RCRA section 4004 requires the 

EPA to promulgate regulations 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76635 

containing criteria for determining 

which facilities shall be classified as 

sanitary landfills (and not open dumps). 

Alternatives: In the proposed rule 

EPA considered two options for the 

regulation of CCRs. Under the first 

option, the EPA would reverse its 

August 1993 and May 2000 Bevill 

Regulatory Determinations regarding 

CCRs and list these residuals as special 

wastes subject to regulation under 

subtitle C of RCRA, when they are 

destined for disposal in landfills or 

surface impoundments. Under the 

second option, the EPA would leave the 

Bevill determination in place and 

regulate the disposal of such materials 

under subtitle D of RCRA by issuing 

national minimum criteria. Under both 

options, the EPA considered 

establishing dam safety requirements to 

address the structural integrity of 

surface impoundment to prevent 

catastrophic releases. The EPA also 

solicited comment on a number of 

alternatives including several 

combination approaches, such as 

regulating surface impoundments under 

subtitle C of RCRA while regulating 

landfills under subtitle D or RCRA. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

EPA estimated the potential costs and 

benefits of the proposed CCR rule in a 

regulatory impact analysis (RIA) dated 

April 2010. Although in June 2010 the 

EPA co-proposed two regulatory options 

(i.e., subtitle C and subtitle D options) 

for the CCR rule, the RIA evaluated 

three regulatory approaches to the 

proposed rule: subtitle C, subtitle D, and 

subtitle ‘‘D Prime’’ options. The RIA is 

available from the regulatory docket as 

document ID number EPA–HQ–RCRA– 

2009–0640–0003. Based on a 50-year 

future period of analysis using a 7% 

discount rate at year 2009 price level, 

the RIA estimated the potential average 

annual future costs of these three 

options to range between $1,474 

million, $587 million, and $236 million 

per year, respectively. These costs are 

associated with 12 to 19 different 

combinations of pollution controls (i.e., 

engineering controls & ancillary 

requirements) proposed for each option 

such as groundwater monitoring, 

landfill and impoundment bottom 

liners, fugitive dust controls, and 

location restrictions, to name a few. 

Based on three monetized benefit 

categories consisting of (a) avoided 

future groundwater contamination from 

CCR landfills and impoundments, (b) 

avoided future CCR impoundment 

structural failures, and (c) induced 

future increase in the beneficial uses of 

CCR as a substitute ingredient in 

concrete, cement, wallboard, and about 

a dozen other markets, the RIA 

estimated the potential future average 

annual benefits of the three options to 

range between $6,320 to $7,405, $2,533 

to $3,026 and $1,023 to $1,268 per year, 

respectively. Because some stakeholders 

during the development of the CCR 

proposed rule asserted to the EPA a 

potential future stigma effect in 

beneficial use markets under the 

Subtitle C option, the RIA also 

evaluated a potential dis-benefit 

decrease in CCR beneficial uses under 

an alternative scenario, as well as under 

a no change in beneficial use scenario. 

Risks: The EPA’s damage cases and 

risk assessments all indicated the 

potential for CCR landfills and surface 

impoundments to leach hazardous 

constituents into groundwater, 

impairing drinking water supplies and 

causing adverse impacts on human 

health and the environment. Indeed, 

groundwater contamination is one of the 

key environmental risks the EPA has 

identified with CCR landfills and 

surface impoundments. Furthermore, as 

mentioned previously, the legislative 

history of RCRA specifically evidences 

concerns over groundwater 

contamination from disposal units. 

Composite liners, as modeled in the 

2010 draft risk assessment, effectively 

reduce risks from all constituents to 

below the risk criteria for both landfills 

and surface impoundments at the 90th 

and 50th percentiles. Thus, the 

requirements for new units to be 

composite lined will reduce future risks 

significantly. However, the EPA 

proposed several regulatory alternatives 

that may or may not require existing 

units without composite liners to close. 

To this end, groundwater monitoring 

is a key mechanism for facilities to 

verify that the existing containment 

structures, such as liners and leachate 

collection and removal systems, are 

functioning as intended. Thus, the EPA 

believes that, in order for a CCR landfill 

or surface impoundment to meet 

RCRA’s protection standard, a system of 

routine groundwater monitoring to 

detect any such contamination from a 

disposal unit, and corrective action 

requirements to address identified 

contamination, is necessary. EPA’s 

proposed groundwater monitoring 

criteria require a system of monitoring 

wells be installed at new and existing 

CCR landfills and surface 

impoundments. The proposed criteria 

also provide procedures for sampling 

these wells and methods for statistical 

analysis of the analytical data derived 

from the well samples to detect the 

presence of hazardous constituents 

released from these facilities. The 

Agency proposed a groundwater 

monitoring program consisting of 

detection monitoring, assessment 

monitoring, and a corrective action 

program. This phased approach to 

groundwater monitoring and corrective 

action programs provide for a graduated 

response over time to the problem of 

groundwater contamination as the 

evidence of such contamination 

increases. This allows for proper 

consideration of the transport 

characteristics of CCR constituents in 

ground water, while protecting human 

health and the environment, and 

minimizing unnecessary costs. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice .................. 08/29/07 72 FR 49714 

NPRM .................. 06/21/10 75 FR 35128 

Notice .................. 07/15/10 75 FR 41121 

Notice .................. 10/12/11 76 FR 63252 

Notice .................. 08/02/13 78 FR 46940 

Final Rule ............ 12/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

EO 13132. 

Additional Information: Docket 

#:EPA–HQ–RCRA–2009–0640, EPA– 

HQ–RCRA–2011–0392. http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009- 

0640. 

Sectors Affected: 221112 Fossil Fuel 

Electric Power Generation. 

URL for More Information: http://

www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/

industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/

index.htm. 

URL for Public Comments: http://

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392. 

Agency Contact: Alexander Livnat, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response, 5304P, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308– 

7251, Fax: 703 605–0595, Email: 

Livnat.Alexander@epa.gov. 

Steve Souders, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, 5304P, 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308– 

8431, Fax: 703 605–0595, Email: 

souders.steve@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2050–AE81 

EPA—SWER 

141. Revising Underground Storage 

Tank Regulations—Revisions to 

Existing Requirements and New 

Requirements for Secondary 

Containment and Operator Training 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76636 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect the private sector under Pub. L. 

104–4. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6991et seq. 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 280–281. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The Underground Storage 

Tank (UST) regulations were first 

promulgated in 1988 primarily to 

prevent releases from retail petroleum 

marketers (gas stations) and other 

facilities into the environment. These 

regulations have reduced the incidents 

of contamination. However, there is a 

need to revise the regulations to 

incorporate changes to the UST program 

from the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as 

well as to update outdated portions of 

the regulations due to changes in 

technology since the 1980s. On August 

8, 2005, President Bush signed the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). Title 

XV, Subtitle B of this act (entitled the 

Underground Storage Tank Compliance 

Act of 2005), amends Subtitle I of the 

Solid Waste Disposal Act, the original 

legislation that created the UST 

program. There are key provisions of the 

EPAct that apply to states receiving 

federal UST funding but do not apply in 

Indian Country, including requirements 

for secondary containment and operator 

training. The EPA will also use our 

knowledge of the program gained over 

the last 20 years to update and revise 

the regulations to make targeted changes 

to improve implementation and prevent 

UST releases. In the NPRM, the EPA 

proposed: adding secondary 

containment requirements for new and 

replaced tanks and piping; adding 

operator training requirements; adding 

periodic operation and maintenance 

requirements for UST systems; 

removing certain deferrals; adding new 

release prevention and detection 

technologies; updating codes of 

practice; making editorial and technical 

corrections; and updating state program 

approval requirements to incorporate 

these new changes. 

Statement of Need: The Underground 

Storage Tank (UST) regulations were 

first promulgated in 1988 primarily to 

prevent releases from retail petroleum 

marketers (gas stations) and other 

facilities into the environment. These 

regulations have reduced the incidents 

of contamination. However, there is a 

need to revise the regulations to 

incorporate changes to the UST program 

from the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as 

well as to update outdated portions of 

the regulations due to changes in 

technology since the 1980s. On August 

8, 2005, President Bush signed the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). Title 

XV, Subtitle B of this act (entitled the 

Underground Storage Tank Compliance 

Act of 2005), amends Subtitle I of the 

Solid Waste Disposal Act, the original 

legislation that created the UST 

program. There are key provisions of the 

EPAct that apply to states receiving 

federal UST funding but do not apply in 

Indian Country, including requirements 

for secondary containment and operator 

training. EPA also used its knowledge of 

the program gained over the last 20 

years to propose revisions to the 

regulations to make targeted changes to 

improve implementation and prevent 

UST releases. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal 

basis for this rulemaking comes from 42 

U.S.C. 6912, 6991, 6991(a), 6991(b), 

6991(c), 6991(d), 6991(e), 6991(f), 

6991(g), and 6991(h). 

Alternatives: Anticipated Cost and 

Benefits: The EPA prepared an analysis 

of the potential incremental costs and 

benefits associated with the revisions to 

the UST regulation. The RIA estimated 

regulatory implementation and 

compliance costs, as well as benefits for 

the regulatory options considered. A 

substantial portion of the beneficial 

impacts associated with the final UST 

regulation are avoided cleanup costs as 

a result of preventing releases and 

reducing the severity of releases. Due to 

data and resource constraints, the EPA 

was unable to quantify some of the final 

UST regulation’s benefits, including 

avoidance of human health risks, 

ecological benefits, and mitigation of 

acute exposure events and large-scale 

releases, such as those from airport 

hydrant systems and field-constructed 

tanks. This regulation will increase the 

protection of groundwater throughout 

the country, but the EPA was unable to 

place a value on the groundwater 

protected by this UST regulation. 

Under the proposed rule, on an 

annualized basis, the estimated 

regulatory compliance costs are $210 

million (Selected Option), $520 million 

(Option 1) and $130 million (Option 2). 

Separately, the proposed rule allows for 

annual cost savings related to avoided 

costs of $300–470 million (Selected 

Option), $310–770 million (Option 1) 

and $110–590 million (Option 2). 

Risks: There are approximately 

575,000 underground storage tanks 

(USTs) nationwide that store petroleum 

or hazardous substances. The greatest 

potential threat from a leaking UST is 

contamination of groundwater, the 

source of drinking water for nearly half 

of all Americans. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/18/11 76 FR 71708 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

02/15/12 77 FR 8757 

Final Rule ............ 02/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No 

Small Entities Affected: No 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State, Tribal 

Additional Information: Docket 

#:EPA–HQ–UST–2011–0301 

Sectors Affected: 72 Accommodation 

and Food Services; 481 Air 

Transportation; 48811 Airport 

Operations; 112 Animal Production; 111 

Crop Production; 2211 Electric Power 

Generation, Transmission and 

Distribution; 447 Gasoline Stations; 622 

Hospitals; 31–33 Manufacturing; 486 

Pipeline Transportation; 44–45 Retail 

Trade; 485 Transit and Ground 

Passenger Transportation; 484 Truck 

Transportation; 483 Water 

Transportation; 42 Wholesale Trade 

URL for More Information: http://

www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/

proposedregs.html 

URL for Public Comments: http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=EPA–HQ–UST– 

2011–0301–0001 

Agency Contact: Elizabeth 

McDermott, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response, 5401P, Washington, DC 

20460, 

Phone: 703 603–7175 Fax: 703 603– 

0175 Email: McDermott.Elizabeth@

epamail.epa.gov 

Paul Miller, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response, 5401P, Washington, DC 

20460, Phone: 703 603–7165, Fax: 703 

603–0175, Email: Miller.Paul@

epamail.epa.gov. 

RIN: 2050–AG46 

EPA—WATER (WATER) 

Final Rule Stage 

142. Effluent Limitations Guidelines 

and Standards for the Steam Electric 

Power Generating Point Source 

Category 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: This action may 

affect State, local or tribal governments 

and the private sector. 

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311; 33 

U.S.C. 1314; 33 U.S.C. 1316; 33 U.S.C. 

1317; 33 U.S.C. 1318; 33 U.S.C. 1342; 33 

U.S.C. 1361 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 423 revision. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76637 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, April 

19, 2013, Consent Decree. 

Final, Judicial, September 30, 2015, 9/ 

30/2015—Consent Decree deadline for 

Final Action—Defenders of Wildlife v. 

Jackson, 10–1915, D. DC 

Abstract: The EPA establishes 

national technology-based regulations, 

called effluent limitations guidelines 

and standards, to reduce discharges of 

pollutants from industries to waters of 

the U.S. These requirements are 

incorporated into National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

discharge permits issued by the EPA 

and states and through the national 

pretreatment program. The steam 

electric effluent limitations guidelines 

and standards apply to steam electric 

power plants using nuclear or fossil 

fuels, such as coal, oil and natural gas. 

There are about 1,200 nuclear- and 

fossil-fueled steam electric power plants 

nationwide; approximately 500 of these 

power plants are coal-fired. In a study 

completed in 2009, EPA found that the 

current regulations, which were last 

updated in 1982, do not adequately 

address the pollutants being discharged 

and have not kept pace with changes 

that have occurred in the electric power 

industry over the last three decades. The 

rulemaking may address discharges 

associated with coal ash waste and flue 

gas desulfurization (FGD) air pollution 

controls, as well as other power plant 

waste streams. Power plant discharges 

can have major impacts on water 

quality, including reduced organism 

abundance and species diversity, 

contamination of drinking water 

sources, and contamination of fish. 

Pollutants of concern include metals 

(e.g., mercury, arsenic and selenium), 

nutrients, and total dissolved solids. 

The proposed rule was published in the 

Federal Register on June 7, 2013 

(‘‘Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

Standards for the Steam Electric Power 

Generating Point Source Category, ’’ 78 

FR 34431). 

Statement of Need: Steam electric 

power plants contribute over half of all 

toxic pollutants discharged to surface 

waters by all industrial categories 

currently regulated in the United States 

under the Clean Water Act. For 

example, steam electric plants annually 

discharge: 64,400 lb. of lead A ̈ •2,820 lb. 

of mercury A ̈ •79,200 lb. of arsenic 

A ̈ •225,000 lb. of selenium A ̈ • 1,970,000 

lb. of aluminum A ̈ •4,990,000 lb. of zinc 

A ̈ •30,000,000 lb. of nitrogen A ̈ •682,000 

lb. of phosphorus 14,500,000 lb. of 

manganese A ̈ •158,000 lb. of vanadium; 

and A ̈ •27 other pollutants. Discharges of 

these toxic pollutants are linked to 

cancer, neurological damage, and 

ecological damage. Many of these toxic 

pollutants, once in the environment, 

remain there for years. These pollutant 

discharges contribute to: over 160 water 

bodies not meeting State quality 

standards A ̈ •185 waters for which there 

are fish consumption advisories; and 

A ̈ •degradation of 399 water bodies 

across the country that are drinking 

water supplies. The revised steam 

electric rule would strengthen the 

existing controls on discharges from 

these plants. It would set the first 

Federal limits on the levels of toxic 

metals in wastewater that can be 

discharged from power plants, based on 

technology improvements in the 

industry over the last three decades. 

Summary of Legal Basis: Section 

301(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act 

(‘‘CWA’’) requires the EPA to 

promulgate effluent limitations for 

categories of point sources, using 

technology-based standards that govern 

the sources’ discharge of certain 

pollutants. 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2). Section 

304(b) directs the EPA to develop 

effluent guidelines that identify certain 

technologies and control measures 

available to achieve effluent reductions 

for each point source category, 

specifying factors to be taken into 

account in identifying those 

technologies and control measures. 33 

U.S.C. 1314(b). Since the 1970s, the EPA 

has formulated effluent limitations and 

effluent guidelines in tandem through a 

single administrative process. Am. 

Frozen Food Inst. v. Train, 539 F.2d 107 

(D.C. Cir. 1976). For new sources, the 

CWA authorizes the EPA to set 

Standards of Performance for categories 

of sources. 33 U.S.C. 1316. For new and 

existing facilities that introduce 

pollutants into Publicly Owned 

Treatment Works, the EPA promulgates 

pretreatment standards. 33 U.S.C. 

1317(b), (c). Together, effluent 

limitations guidelines, standards of 

performance, and pretreatment 

standards are called ‘‘Effluent 

Limitations Guidelines and Standards,’’ 

or ‘‘ELGs.’’ The CWA also requires the 

EPA to perform an annual review of 

existing effluent guidelines and to revise 

them, if appropriate. 33 U.S.C. 1314(b); 

see also 33 U.S.C. 1314(m)(1)(A). The 

EPA originally established effluent 

limitations guidelines and standards for 

the steam electric generating point 

source category in 1974 and last 

updated them in 1982. 47 FR 52,290 

(Nov. 19, 1982). As described above, the 

EPA determined the existing regulations 

do not adequately address the pollutants 

being discharged and that revisions are 

appropriate. 

Alternatives: This analysis will cover 

various sizes and types of potentially 

regulated pollutant discharges and 

associated control technologies. For 

example, the proposal identified four 

preferred regulatory options that differ 

in the number of waste streams covered, 

size of the units controlled, and 

stringency of controls. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

EPA’s proposed revisions to the steam 

electric rule identified a range of 

preferred regulatory options. The EPA’s 

estimates of the annual social costs of 

the steam electric rule range from $185 

million to $954 million with associated 

annual pollutant discharge reductions of 

470 million to 2.62 billion pounds and 

water use reductions of 50 billion to 103 

billion gallons. The EPA’s estimate of 

the monetized benefits, which only 

includes a portion of the benefits, range 

from $139 million to $483 million. The 

range reflects that different regulatory 

options would control different 

wastestreams and provide different 

stringency of controls. 

Risks: Effluent limitations guidelines 

and standards are technology based 

discharge requirements. As such, EPA 

has not assessed risk associated with 

this action. However, as detailed in the 

Statement of Need, toxic pollutant 

discharges from steam electric plants are 

linked to cancer, neurological damage, 

and ecological damage. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 06/07/13 78 FR 34431 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

07/12/13 78 FR 41907 

Final Rule ............ 09/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Federalism: This action may have 

federalism implications as defined in 

EO 13132. 

Additional Information: Docket 

#:EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0819. 

Sectors Affected: 22111 Electric 

Power Generation; 221112 Fossil Fuel 

Electric Power Generation; 221113 

Nuclear Electric Power Generation. 

URL for More Information: http://

water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/

steam_index.cfm. 

Agency Contact: Ronald Jordan, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Water, Mail Code 4303T,1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, Phone: 202 566–1003, Fax: 

202 566–1053, Email: jordan.ronald@

epamail.epa.gov. 

Jezebele Alicea, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Water, Mail Code 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76638 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

4303T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566– 

1755, Fax: 202 566–1053, Email: 

alicea.jezebele@epamail.epa.gov. 

RIN: 2040–AF14 

EPA—WATER 

143. Water Quality Standards 

Regulatory Revisions 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 131 (revision). 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: The EPA proposed changes 

to the water quality standards (WQS) 

regulation to improve its effectiveness 

in helping restore and maintain the 

Nation’s Waters. The core of the current 

WQS regulation has been in place since 

1983. Since then, a number of issues 

have been raised by stakeholders or 

identified by the EPA in the 

implementation process that will benefit 

from clarification and greater 

specificity. The proposed rule addresses 

the following six key areas: 1) 

Administrator’s determination that new 

or revised WQS are necessary, 2) 

designated uses, 3) triennial review 

requirements, 4) antidegradation, 5) 

variances to water quality standards, 

and 6) compliance schedule authorizing 

provisions. These revisions will allow 

the EPA, states and authorized tribes to 

better achieve program goals by 

providing clearer more streamlined 

requirements to facilitate enhanced 

water resource protection. 

Statement of Need: The core 

requirements of the current WQS 

regulation have been in place for over 

30 years. These requirements have 

provided a strong foundation for water 

quality-based controls, including water 

quality assessments, impaired waters 

lists, and total maximum daily loads 

(TMDLs) under CWA section 303(d), as 

well as for water quality-based effluent 

limits (WQBELs) in NPDES discharge 

permits under CWA section 402. As 

with the development and operation of 

any program, however, a number of 

policy and technical issues have 

recurred over the past 30 years in 

individual standards reviews, 

stakeholder comments, and litigation 

that the EPA believes would be 

addressed and resolved more efficiently 

by clarifying, updating and revising the 

federal WQS regulation to assure greater 

public transparency, better stakeholder 

information, and more effective 

implementation. 

The basic structure of the water 

quality standards regulation (40 CFR 

part 131) was last revised in November 

1983. The EPA added tribal provisions 

in 1991, ‘‘Alaska rule’’ provisions in 

2000, and BEACH Act rule provisions in 

2004. At the 15-year point (July 1998), 

the EPA issued a comprehensive 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPRM) and conducted an extensive 

dialogue with states and the public on 

over 130 discrete issues. The ANPRM 

led to some program redirections, but 

EPA did not revise the regulation itself 

at that time. The EPA has proposed 

targeted changes to the WQS regulation 

that aim to improve the regulation’s 

effectiveness in restoring and 

maintaining the chemical, physical and 

biological integrity of the Nation’s 

waters, and to clarify and simplify 

regulatory requirements. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The CWA 

establishes the basis for the current 

WQS regulation and program. Section 

303(c) of the Act addresses the 

development of state and authorized 

tribal WQS and provides for the 

following: (1) WQS shall consist of 

designated uses and water quality 

criteria based upon such uses; (2) States 

and authorized tribes shall establish 

WQS considering the following possible 

uses for their waters-propagation of fish, 

shellfish and wildlife, recreational 

purposes, public water supply, 

agricultural and industrial water 

supplies, navigation, and other uses; (3) 

State and tribal standards must protect 

public health or welfare, enhance the 

quality of water, and serve the purposes 

of the Act; (4) States and tribes must 

review their standards at least once 

every 3 years; and (5) the EPA is 

required to review any new or revised 

state and tribal standards, and is also 

required to promulgate federal 

standards where the EPA finds that new 

or revised state or tribal standards are 

not consistent with applicable 

requirements of the Act or in situations 

where the Administrator determines 

that federal standards are necessary to 

meet the requirements of the Act. 

The EPA established the core of the 

current WQS regulation in a final rule 

issued in 1983. This rule strengthened 

previous provisions that had been in 

place since 1977 and moved them to a 

new 40 CFR part 131 (54 FR 51400, 

November 8, 1983). The resulting 

regulation describes how the WQS 

envisioned in the CWA are to be 

administered. It clarifies the content of 

standards and establishes more detailed 

provisions for implementing the 

provisions of the Act. 

Alternatives: In support of the 1983 

regulation, the EPA has issued a number 

of guidance documents that have 

provided guidance on the interpretation 

and implementation of the WQS 

regulation, and on scientific and 

technical analyses that are used in 

making decisions that would impact 

WQS. In 1998, the EPA issued an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) to discuss and 

invite comment on over 130 aspects of 

the federal WQS regulation and 

program, with a goal of identifying 

specific changes that might strengthen 

water quality protection and restoration, 

facilitate watershed management 

initiatives, and incorporate evolving 

water quality criteria and assessment 

science into state and tribal WQS 

programs. (63 FR 36742, July 7, 1998). 

In response, the EPA received over 

3,200 specific written comments from 

over 150 comment letters. The EPA also 

held three public meetings during the 

180-day comment period where 

additional comments were received and 

discussed. Although the EPA chose not 

to move forward with a rulemaking after 

the ANRPM, as a result of the input 

received, the EPA identified a number 

of high priority issue areas for which the 

Agency has developed guidance, 

provided technical assistance and 

continued further discussion and 

dialogue to assure more effective 

program implementation. As with the 

development and operation of any 

program, however, a number of policy 

and technical issues have recurred over 

the past 30 years that the EPA believes 

would be addressed and resolved more 

efficiently by clarifying, updating and 

revising the Federal WQS regulation to 

assure greater public transparency, 

better stakeholder information, and 

more effective implementation. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Because this proposal will not establish 

any requirements directly applicable to 

regulated entities, the focus of the EPA’s 

economic analysis is to estimate the 

potential administrative burden and 

costs to state, tribal, and territorial 

governments, and the EPA. In the 

proposal the EPA is considering 

whether to include a requirement that 

antidegradation implementation 

methods be formally adopted as WQS 

and thus subject to the EPA’s review 

and approval or disapproval. This 

additional requirement would require 

affected entities to develop or revise 

antidegradation implementation 

methods, and adopt the implementation 

methods in WQS, resulting in one-time 

(nonrecurring) burden and costs. The 

total annual costs for this proposal with 

the requirement to adopt 

antidegradation implementation 

methods as WQS is estimated to range 

from $5.98 million to $9.27 million per 

year. The total annual costs for this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76639 

proposal without the requirement to 

adopt antidegradation implementation 

methods as WQS is estimated to range 

from $5.84 million to $9.01 million per 

year. 

States, tribes, stakeholders, and the 

public will benefit from the proposed 

clarifications of the WQS regulations by 

ensuring better utilization of available 

WQS tools that allow states and tribes 

the flexibility to implement their WQS 

in an efficient manner while providing 

transparency and open public 

participation. Although associated with 

potential administrative burden and 

costs in some areas, this proposal has 

the potential to partially offset these 

costs by reducing regulatory uncertainty 

and consequently increasing overall 

program efficiency. Furthermore, more 

efficient and effective implementation 

of state and tribal WQS has the potential 

to provide a variety of economic 

benefits associated with cleaner water 

including the availability of clean, safe, 

and affordable drinking water, water of 

adequate quality for agricultural and 

industrial use, and water quality that 

supports the commercial fishing 

industry and higher property values. 

Nonmarket benefits of this proposal 

include the protection and improvement 

of public health and greater recreational 

opportunities. The EPA acknowledges 

that achievement of any benefits 

associated with cleaner water would 

involve additional control measures, 

and thus costs to regulated entities and 

non-point sources, that have not been 

included in the economic analyses for 

this proposed rule. The EPA has not 

attempted to quantify either the costs of 

such control measures that might 

ultimately be required as a result of this 

rule, or the benefits they would provide. 

Risks: Reducing regulatory 

uncertainty has the impact of increasing 

overall program efficiency. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Notice .................. 07/30/10 75 FR 44930 

NPRM .................. 09/04/13 78 FR 54517 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

11/27/13 78 FR 70905 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

01/02/14 

Final Rule ............ 05/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

State, Tribal. 

Additional Information: Docket #: 

EPA–HQ–OW–2010–0606. 

URL for More Information: http://

water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/

standards/index.cfm. 

Agency Contact: Shari Barash, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Water, Mail Code 4305T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, Phone: 202 566–0996, Fax: 

202 566–1053, Email: barash.shari@

epa.gov. 

Janita Aguirre, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Water, Mail Code 

4305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566– 

1149 Fax: 202 566–0409 Email: 

aguirre.janita@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2040–AF16 

EPA—WATER 

144. Definition of ‘‘Waters of the United 

States’’ Under the Clean Water Act 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 110; 40 CFR 

112; 40 CFR 116; 40 CFR 117; 40 CFR 

122; 40 CFR 230; 40 CFR 232; 40 CFR 

300; 40 CFR 302; 40 CFR 401; 33 CFR 

328 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: After U.S. Supreme Court 

decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos, the 

scope of ‘‘waters of the US’’ protected 

under all CWA programs has been an 

issue of considerable debate and 

uncertainty. The Act has a single 

definition for ‘‘waters of the United 

States.’’ As a result, these decisions 

affect the geographic scope of all CWA 

programs. SWANCC and Rapanos did 

not invalidate the current regulatory 

definition of ‘‘waters of the United 

States.’’ However, the decisions 

established important considerations for 

how those regulations should be 

interpreted, and experience 

implementing the regulations has 

identified several areas that could 

benefit from additional clarification 

through rulemaking. U.S. EPA and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed 

a rule for determining whether a water 

is protected by the Clean Water Act. 

This rule will make clear which 

waterbodies are protected under the 

Clean Water Act. 

Statement of Need: After U.S. 

Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC 

(Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook 

County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

531 U.S. 159 (2001)) and Rapanos 

(Rapanos v. United States , 547 U.S. 715 

(2006)), the scope of waters of the US 

protected under all CWA programs has 

been an issue of considerable debate 

and uncertainty. The Act has a single 

definition for waters of the United 

States. As a result, these decisions affect 

the geographic scope of all CWA 

programs. SWANCC and Rapanos did 

not invalidate the current regulatory 

definition of waters of the United States. 

However, the decisions established 

important considerations for how those 

regulations should be interpreted, and 

experience implementing the 

regulations has identified several areas 

that could benefit from additional 

clarification through rulemaking. EPA 

and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

are developing a proposed rule for 

determining whether a water is 

protected by the Clean Water Act. This 

rule would clarify which water bodies 

are protected under the Clean Water 

Act. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The EPA and 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps) publish for public comment a 

proposed rule defining the scope of 

waters protected under the CWA, in 

light of the U.S. Supreme Court cases in 

U.S. v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Solid 

Waste Agency of Northern Cook County 

v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(SWANCC), and Rapanos v. United 

States (Rapanos). The goal of the 

agencies is to ensure the regulatory 

definition is consistent with the CWA, 

as interpreted by the Supreme Court, 

and as supported by science, and to 

provide maximum clarity to the public, 

as the agencies work to fulfill the CWA’s 

objectives and policy to protect water 

quality, public health, and the 

environment. 

Alternatives: The agencies solicited 

comment on a number of issues 

throughout the proposed rule preamble. 

In particular, the agencies requested 

comment on alternate approaches to 

determining whether ‘‘other waters’’ are 

similarly situated and have a 

‘‘significant nexus’’ to a traditional 

navigable water, interstate water, or the 

territorial seas. Just as the agencies are 

seeking comment on a variety of 

approaches, or combination of 

approaches, as to which waters are 

jurisdictional, the agencies also request 

comment on determining which waters 

should be determined nonjurisdictional. In addition, the agencies 

are seeking comment on alternate 

approaches to define ‘‘neighboring.’’ 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

EPA and the Corps of Engineers 

prepared an analysis of the potential 

costs and benefits associated with this 

action. The definition of ‘‘waters of the 

U.S.,’’ by itself, imposes no direct costs. 

The potential costs and benefits 

incurred as a result of this proposed 

action are considered indirect because 

the action involves a definitional change 

to a term that is used in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76640 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

implementation of a variety of CWA 

programs. Each of these programs may 

subsequently impose direct or indirect 

costs as a result of implementation of 

their specific regulations. The proposed 

rule would provide an estimated $388 

million to $514 million annually of 

benefits to the public, including 

reducing flooding, filtering pollution, 

providing wildlife habitat, supporting 

hunting and fishing, and recharging 

groundwater. The public benefits 

outweigh the costs of about $162 

million to $278 million per year for 

mitigating impacts to streams and 

wetlands, and taking steps to reduce 

pollution to waterways. 

Risks: This proposal would enhance 

protection for the nation’s public health 

and aquatic resources, and increase 

CWA program predictability and 

consistency by increasing clarity as to 

the scope of ‘‘waters of the United 

States’’ protected under the Act. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 04/21/14 79 FR 22187 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended.

06/24/14 79 FR 35712 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

07/21/14 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

10/21/14 

Final Rule ............ 04/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL For More Information: http://

water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/

wetlands/CWAwaters.cfm. 

Agency Contact: Donna Downing, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Water, 4502T, Washington, DC 20460, 

Phone: 202 566–2428, Email: 

cwawaters@epa.gov. 

Rose Kwok, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave 

NW., Mail Code 4502T, Washington, DC 

20460, Phone: 202 566–0657, Email: 

cwawaters@epa.gov. 

RIN: 2040–AF30 

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 & local government 

employees from employment 

discrimination on the basis of race, 

color, religion, sex, national origin, age, 

or disability). 

The first item in this Regulatory Plan 

is entitled ‘‘The Federal Sector’s 

Obligation To Be a Model Employer of 

Individuals with Disabilities.’’ The 

EEOC’s regulations implementing 

section 501, as set forth in 29 CFR part 

1614, require Federal agencies and 

departments to be ‘‘model employers’’ 

of individuals with disabilities. The 

Commission issued an Advanced Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on 

May 15, 2014, (79 FR 27824), and 

intends to issue a proposed rule to 

revise the regulations regarding the 

Federal government’s affirmative 

employment obligations in 29 CFR part 

1614 to include a more detailed 

explanation of how Federal agencies 

and departments should ‘‘give full 

consideration to the hiring, placement, 

and advancement of qualified 

individuals with disabilities.’’ Any 

revisions would be informed by 

Management Directive 715, and may 

include goals consistent with Executive 

Order 13548. Furthermore, any 

revisions would result in costs only to 

the Federal Government; would 

contribute to increasing the employment 

of individuals with disabilities; and 

would not affect risks to public health, 

safety, or the environment. 

The second item is entitled ‘‘Federal 

Sector Equal Employment Opportunity 

Process.’’ In July 2012, the Commission 

published a final rule containing fifteen 

discrete changes to various parts of the 

Federal sector EEO process, and 

indicated that the rule was the 

Commission’s initial step in a broader 

review of the Federal sector EEO 

process. The Commission intends to 

develop an ANPRM which would seek 

public input on additional issues 

associated with the Federal sector EEO 

process. 

The third item is entitled 

‘‘Amendments to Regulations Under the 

Americans With Disabilities Act.’’ This 

proposed rule would amend 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 financial inducements 

and/or penalties as part of wellness 

programs offered through health plans. 

EEOC also plans to address other 

aspects of wellness programs that may 

be subject to the ADA’s 

nondiscrimination provisions in this 

NPRM. 

The fourth item is entitled 

‘‘Amendments to Regulations Under the 

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination 

Act of 2008.’’ This proposed rule would 

amend 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. 

This NPRM will also correct a 

typographical error in the rule’s 

discussion of wellness programs and 

add references to the Affordable Care 

Act, where appropriate. 

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. 

Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review’’ (Jan. 18, 2011), 

the following Regulatory Identifier 

Numbers (RINs) have been identified as 

associated with retrospective review 

and analysis in the EEOC’s final 

retrospective review of regulations plan. 

Some of the entries on this list may be 

completed actions, which do not appear 

in The Regulatory Plan. However, more 

information can be found about these 

completed rulemakings in past 

publications of the Unified Agenda on 

Reginfo.gov (http://reginfo.gov/) in the 

Completed Actions section. These 

rulemakings can also be found on 

Regulations.gov (http://regulations.gov). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76641 

1 29 CFR 1614.203(a). 

2 Id. 

The EEOC’s final Plan for Retrospective 

Analysis of Existing Rules can be found 

at: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/

regulations/retro_review_plan_

final.cfm. 

RIN Title Effect on small business 

3046–AA91 ................ REVISIONS TO PROCEDURES FOR COMPLAINTS OR 

CHARGES OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION 

BASED ON DISABILITY SUBJECT TO THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND SECTION 504 

OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973.

This rulemaking may decrease burdens on small businesses by making the charge/complaint process more 

efficient. 

3046–AA92 ................ REVISIONS TO PROCEDURES FOR COMPLAINTS/

CHARGES OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION 

BASED ON DISABILITY FILED AGAINST EMPLOYERS 

HOLDING GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS OR SUBCONTRACTS.

This rulemaking may decrease burdens on small businesses by making the charge/complaint process more 

efficient. 

3046–AA93 ................ REVISIONS TO PROCEDURES FOR COMPLAINTS OF 

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FILED AGAINST 

RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

This rulemaking may decrease burdens on small businesses by making the charge/complaint process more 

efficient. 

3046–AB00 ................ FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY.This rulemaking pertains to the Federal Sector equal employment opportunity process and thus is not expected 

to affect small businesses. 

EEOC 

Prerule Stage 

145. Federal Sector Equal Employment 

Opportunity Process 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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; EO 10577; EO 

11222; EO 11478; EO 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. The Commission 

intends to develop an Advance Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), 

which would seek public input on 

additional issues associated with the 

Federal sector EEO process. 

Statement of Need: Any proposals 

contained in an ANPRM 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 would 

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 ............... 03/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Thomas J. Schlageter, 

Assistant Legal Counsel, Office of Legal 

Counsel, Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street 

NE., Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 

663–4668, Fax: 202 653–6034, Email: 

thomas.schlageter@eeoc.gov. 

Gary Hozempa, Senior Attorney 

Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, 

131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 

20507, Phone: 202 663–4666, Fax: 202 

653–6034, Email: gary.hozempa@

eeoc.gov. 

RIN: 3046–AB00 

EEOC 

Proposed Rule Stage 

146. The Federal Sector’s Obligation To 

Be a Model Employer of Individuals 

With Disabilities 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 791(b) 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1614.203(a). 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: Section 501 of the 

Rehabilitation Act, as amended (Section 

501), prohibits discrimination against 

individuals with disabilities in the 

Federal Government. The EEOC’s 

regulations implementing section 501, 

as set forth in 29 CFR part 1614, require 

Federal agencies and departments to be 

‘‘model employers’’ of individuals with 

disabilities.1

On May 15, 2014, the Commission 

issued an Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (79 FR 27824) that sought 

public comments on whether and how 

the existing regulations could be 

improved to provide more detail on 

what being a ‘‘model employer’’ means 

and how Federal agencies and 

departments should ‘‘give full 

consideration to the hiring, placement 

and advancement of qualified 

individuals with disabilities.’’ 2 The 

EEOC’s review of the comments and 

potential revisions was informed by the 

discussion in Management Directive 715 

of the tools Federal agencies should use 

to establish goals for the employment 

and advancement of individuals with 

disabilities. The EEOC’s review of the 

comments and potential revisions was 

also informed by, and consistent with, 

the goals of Executive Order 13548 to 

increase the employment of individuals 

with disabilities and the employment of 

individuals with targeted disabilities. 

Statement of Need: Pursuant to 

section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, 

the Commission is authorized to issue 

such regulations as it deems necessary 

to carry out its responsibilities under 

this Act. Executive Order 13548 called 

for increased efforts by Federal agencies 

and departments to recruit, hire, retain, 

and return individuals with disabilities 

to the Federal workforce. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76642 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, as amended (section 501), 29 

U.S.C. 791, in addition to requiring 

nondiscrimination with respect to 

Federal employees and applicants for 

Federal employment who are 

individuals with disabilities, also 

requires Federal agencies to maintain, 

update annually, and submit to the 

Commission an affirmative action 

program plan for the hiring, placement, 

and advancement of individuals with 

disabilities. As part of its responsibility 

for the administration and enforcement 

of equal opportunity in Federal 

employment, the Commission is 

authorized under 29 U.S.C. 794a(a)(1) to 

issue rules, regulations, orders, and 

instructions pursuant to section 501. 

Alternatives: The EEOC considered all 

alternatives offered by ANPRM public 

commenters. The EEOC will consider all 

alternatives offered by future public 

commenters. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Any 

costs that might result would only be 

borne by the Federal Government. The 

revisions would contribute to increased 

employment of individuals with 

disabilities. 

Risks: The proposed changes do not 

affect risks to public health, safety, or 

the environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 05/15/14 79 FR 27824 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

07/14/14 

NPRM .................. 01/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

Agency Contact: Christopher 

Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel, 

Office of Legal Counsel, Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, 

131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 

20507, Phone: 202 663–4665, TDD 

Phone: 202 663–7026, Fax: 202 653– 

6034, Email: christopher.kuczynski@

eeoc.gov. 

Aaron Konopasky, Senior Attorney 

Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, 

131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 

20507, Phone: 202 663–4127, Fax: 202 

653–6034, Email: aaron.konopasky@

eeoc.gov. 

Related RIN: Related to 3046–AA73 

RIN: 3046–AA94 

EEOC 

147. Amendments to Regulations Under 

the Americans With Disabilities Act 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101 et 

seq. 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1630. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

amend 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 financial inducements 

and/or penalties as part of wellness 

programs offered through health plans. 

EEOC also plans to address other 

aspects of wellness programs that may 

be subject to the ADA’s 

nondiscrimination provisions in this 

NPRM. 

Statement of Need: The revision to 29 

CFR 1630.14(d) is needed to address 

numerous inquiries EEOC has received 

about whether an employer that 

complies with regulations implementing 

the final Health Insurance Portability 

and Accountability Act (HIPAA) rules 

concerning wellness program 

incentives, as amended by the 

Affordable Care Act (ACA), will be in 

compliance with the ADA. 

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. These 

proposed revisions are based on that 

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 I of the ADA by generally 

promoting consistency between the 

ADA and HIPAA, as amended by the 

ACA, and result in greater predictability 

and ease of administration. 

Risks: The proposed rule imposes no 

new or additional risks to employers. 

The proposal does not address risks to 

public safety or the environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Agency Contact: Christopher 

Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel, 

Office of Legal Counsel, Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, 

131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 

20507, Phone: 202 663–4665, TDD 

Phone: 202 663–7026, Fax: 202 653– 

6034, Email: christopher.kuczynski@

eeoc.gov. 

Joyce Walker-Jones, Senior Attorney 

Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, 

131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 

20507, Phone: 202 663–7031, Fax: 202 

653–6034, Email: joyce.walker-jones@

eeoc.gov. 

RIN: 3046–AB01 

EEOC 

148. Amendments to Regulations Under 

the Genetic Information 

Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2000ff 

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1635. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

amend 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. 

This NPRM will also correct a 

typographical error in the rule’s 

discussion of wellness programs and 

add references to the Affordable Care 

Act, where appropriate. 

Statement of Need: The revision to 29 

CFR 1635.8 is needed to address 

numerous inquiries received by EEOC 

about whether an employer will violate 

the Genetic Information 

Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 by 

offering an employee a financial 

inducement if the employee’s family 

member completes an HRA that asks 

about the family member’s current 

health status. Technical amendments 

are also needed to correct a 

typographical error and to include 

references to the ACA, where 

appropriate. 

Summary of Legal Basis: GINA, 

section 211, 42 U.S.C. 2000ff–10, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76643 

requires the EEOC to issue regulations 

implementing title II of the Act. The 

EEOC issued regulations on November 

9, 2010. These proposed revisions are 

based on that 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 that 

employers who offer wellness programs 

are free to adopt a certain type of 

inducement without violating GINA, as 

well as correcting an internal citation, 

and providing citations to the ACA. 

Risks: The proposed rule imposes no 

new or additional risks to employers. 

The proposal does not address risks to 

public safety or the environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal, 

Local, State. 

Agency Contact: Christopher 

Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel, 

Office of Legal Counsel, Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, 

131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 

20507, Phone: 202 663–4665, TDD 

Phone: 202 663–7026, Fax: 202 653– 

6034, Email: christopher.kuczynski@

eeoc.gov. 

Kerry Leibig, Senior Attorney 

Advisor, Office of the Legal Counsel, 

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission, 131 M Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663– 

4516, Fax: 202 653–6034, Email: 

kerry.leibig@eeoc.gov. 

RIN: 3046–AB02 

BILLING CODE 6570–01–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION (GSA)— 

REGULATORY PLAN—OCTOBER 2014 

I. Mission and Overview 

GSA oversees the business of the 

Federal Government. The acquisition 

solutions GSA implements provides 

Federal purchasers with cost-effective, 

high-quality products and services from 

commercial vendors, while helping to 

keep the Nation safe by providing tools, 

equipment, and non-tactical vehicles to 

the U.S. military, and providing State 

and local governments with law 

enforcement equipment, firefighting and 

rescue equipment, and disaster recovery 

products and services. We provide 

workplaces for Federal employees and 

oversee the preservation of historic 

Federal properties. 

Our Agency serves the public by 

delivering services directly to its 

Federal customers through the Federal 

Acquisition Service (FAS), the Public 

Buildings Service (PBS), and the Office 

of Government-wide Policy (OGP). With 

a continuing commitment to its Federal 

customers and the U.S. taxpayers, GSA 

provides its services in the most costeffective manner possible. 

Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) 

FAS is the lead organization for 

procurement of products and services 

(other than real property) for the Federal 

Government. The FAS organization 

leverages the buying power of the 

Government by consolidating Federal 

agencies’ requirements for common 

goods and services. FAS provides a 

range of high-quality and flexible 

acquisition services that increase overall 

Government effectiveness and 

efficiency. FAS business operations are 

organized into four business portfolios 

based on the product or service 

provided to customer agencies: 

Integrated Technology Services (ITS); 

Assisted Acquisition Services (AAS); 

General Supplies and Services (GSS); 

and Travel, Motor Vehicles, and Card 

Services (TMVCS). The FAS portfolio 

structure enables GSA and FAS to 

provide best value services, products, 

and solutions to its customers by 

aligning resources around key functions. 

Public Buildings Service (PBS) 

PBS is the largest public real estate 

organization in the United States, 

providing facilities and workspace 

solutions to more than 60 Federal 

agencies. PBS aims to provide a superior 

workplace for the Federal worker and 

superior value for the U.S. taxpayer. 

Balancing these two objectives is PBS’ 

greatest management challenge. PBS’ 

activities fall into two broad areas. The 

first is space acquisition through both 

leases and construction. PBS translates 

general needs into specific 

requirements, marshals the necessary 

resources, and delivers the space 

necessary to meet the respective 

missions of its Federal clients. The 

second area is management of space. 

This involves making decisions on 

maintenance, servicing tenants, and 

ultimately, deciding when and how to 

dispose of a property at the end of its 

useful life. 

Office of Government-Wide Policy (OGP) 

OGP sets Government-wide policy in 

the areas of personal and real property, 

travel and transportation, information 

technology, regulatory information, and 

use of Federal advisory committees. 

OGP also helps direct how all Federal 

supplies and services are acquired as 

well as GSA’s own acquisition 

programs. OGP’s regulatory function 

fully incorporates the provisions of the 

President’s priorities and objectives 

under Executive Order 12866 and 13563 

with policies covering acquisition, 

travel, and property and management 

practices to promote efficient 

Government operations. OGP’s strategic 

direction is to ensure that Governmentwide policies encourage agencies to 

develop and utilize the best, most cost 

effective management practices for the 

conduct of their specific programs. To 

reach the goal of improving 

Government-wide management of 

property, technology, and 

administrative services, OGP builds and 

maintains a policy framework by (1) 

incorporating the requirements of 

Federal laws, Executive orders, and 

other regulatory material into policies 

and guidelines; (2) facilitating 

Government-wide reform to provide 

Federal managers with business-like 

incentives and tools and flexibility to 

prudently manage their assets; (3) 

identifying, evaluating, and promoting 

best practices to improve efficiency of 

management processes; and (4) 

performing ongoing analysis of existing 

rules that may be obsolete, unnecessary, 

unjustified, excessively burdensome, or 

counterproductive. 

OGP’s policy regulations are 

described in the following subsections: 

Office of Asset and Transportation 

Management (Federal Travel 

Regulation) 

Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) 

enumerates the travel and relocation 

policy for all title 5 Executive agency 

employees. The Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) is available at 

www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr. Each version is 

updated as official changes are 

published in the Federal Register (FR). 

FR publications and complete versions 

of the FTR are available at www.gsa.gov/ 

ftr. 

The FTR is the regulation contained 

in 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

chapters 300 through 304, that 

implements statutory requirements and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76644 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

executive branch policies for travel by 

Federal civilian employees and others 

authorized to travel at Government 

expense. 

The Administrator of General Services 

promulgates the FTR to: (a) Interpret 

statutory and other policy requirements 

in a manner that balances the need to 

ensure that official travel is conducted 

in a responsible manner with the need 

to minimize administrative costs and (b) 

communicate the resulting policies in a 

clear manner to Federal agencies and 

employees. 

Office of Asset and Transportation 

Management (Federal Management 

Regulation) 

Federal Management Regulation 

(FMR) establishes policy for aircraft, 

transportation, personal property, real 

property, and mail management. The 

FMR is the successor regulation to the 

Federal Property Management 

Regulation (FPMR), and it contains 

updated regulatory policies originally 

found in the FPMR. However, it does 

not contain FPMR material that 

describes how to do business with the 

GSA. 

Office of Acquisition Policy (General 

Services Administration Acquisition 

Manual (GSAM) and the General 

Services Administration Acquisition 

Regulation (GSAR)) 

GSA’s internal rules and practices on 

how it buys goods and services from its 

business partners are covered by the 

General Services Administration 

Acquisition Manual (GSAM), which 

implements and supplement the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation at GSA. The 

GSAM comprises both a non-regulatory 

portion (GSAM), which reflects policies 

with no external impact, and a 

regulatory portion, 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. 490. The GSAR 

implements contract clauses, 

solicitation provisions, and forms that 

control the relationship between GSA 

and contractors and prospective 

contractors. 

II. Statement of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Priorities 

FTR Regulatory Priorities 

In fiscal year 2014, GSA plans to 

amend the FTR by: 

• Revising Chapter 301, Temporary 

Duty Travel, ensuring accountability 

and transparency. This revision will 

ensure agencies’ travel for missions is 

efficient and effective, reduces costs, 

promotes sustainability, and 

incorporates industry best practices at 

the lowest logical travel cost. 

• Revising Chapter 302, Relocation 

Allowances for miscellaneous items to 

address current Government relocation 

needs which the last major rewrite (FTR 

Amendment 2011–01) did not update. 

This will include revising the 

Relocation Income Tax (RIT) Allowance; 

amending coverage on family relocation; 

and amending the calculations 

regarding the commuted rate for 

employee-managed household goods 

shipments. 

FMR Regulatory Priorities 

In fiscal year 2014, GSA plans to 

amend the FMR by: 

• Revising rules regarding 

management of Government aircraft; 

• Revising rules regarding 

management of Federal real property; 

• Revising rules regarding 

management of Federal personal 

property. 

GSAR Regulatory Priorities 

GSA plans, to update the GSAR to 

maintain consistency with the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and to 

implement streamlined and innovative 

acquisition procedures that contractors, 

offerors, and GSA contracting personnel 

can utilize when entering into and 

administering contractual relationships. 

Currently, GSA is focusing on clarifying 

the GSAR by— 

• Providing consistency with the 

FAR; 

• Eliminating coverage that 

duplicates the FAR or creates 

inconsistencies within the GSAR; 

• Correcting inappropriate references 

listed to indicate the basis for the 

regulation; 

• Rewriting sections that have 

become irrelevant because of changes in 

technology or business processes or that 

place unnecessary administrative 

burdens on contractors and the 

Government; 

• Streamlining or simplifying the 

regulation; 

• Rolling up coverage from the 

services and regions/zones that should 

be in the GSAR; 

• Providing new and/or augmented 

coverage; and 

• Deleting unnecessary burdens on 

small businesses. 

Regulations of Concern to Small 

Businesses 

FAR and GSAR rules are relevant to 

small businesses who do or wish to do 

business with the Federal Government. 

Approximately 18,000 businesses, most 

of whom are small, have GSA schedule 

contracts. GSA assists its small 

businesses by providing assistance 

through its Office of Small Business 

Utilization. In addition, GSA 

extensively utilizes its regional 

resources, within FAS and PBS, to 

provide grassroots outreach to small 

business concerns, through hosting such 

outreach events, or participating in a 

vast array of other similar presentations 

hosted by others. 

Regulations Which Promote Open 

Government and Disclosure 

RIN 3090–AJ30; Federal Management 

Regulation (FMR); FMR Case 2012–102– 

4, Disposal and Reporting of Federal 

Electronic Assets (FEA): 

The GSA is considering comments 

received during the publication of the 

Proposed Rule FMR 102–36 in 

developing its Final Rule. As 

envisioned, this policy directs agencies 

to dispose of non-functional electronics 

through more sustainable means, and 

will require publication of agency 

disposal data on www.data.gov for 

public viewing into Federal activities. 

III. Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive 

Order 13563 ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review’’ (July, 2013), the 

GSA retrospective review and analysis 

final and updated regulations plan can 

be found at www.gsa.gov/

improvingregulations. The FAR 

retrospective review and analysis final 

and updated regulations plan can be 

found at www.acquisition.gov. 

Regulation Identifier No. Title 

Proposed Rule Stage 

3090–AI76 ........ General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2008–G506, Rewrite of GSAR Part 515, Contracting by Negotiation. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76645 

Regulation Identifier No. Title 

3090–AI81 ........ General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2008–G509, Rewrite GSAR 536, Construction 

and Architect-Engineer Contracts. 

3090–AI82 ........ General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2006–G506, Environment, Conservation, Occupational Safety, and Drug-Free Workplace. 

3090–AJ29 ....... Federal Management Regulation (FMR); FMR Case 2012–102–3; Government Domain Registration and Management. 

3090–AJ41 ....... General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2013–G502, Federal Supply Schedule Contracting (Administrative Changes). 

Final Rule Stage 

3090–AI79 ........ Federal Management Regulation (FMR); FMR Case 2008–102–4, Mail Management, Financial Requirements for All Agencies. 

3090–AI95 ........ Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); FTR Case 2009–307, Temporary Duty (TDY) Travel Allowances (Taxes); Relocation Allowances (Taxes). 

3090–AJ23 ....... Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); FTR Case 2011–310; Telework Travel Expenses Test Programs. 

3090–AJ26 ....... Federal Management Regulation (FMR); FMR Case 2012–102–2; Donation of Surplus Personal Property. 

3090–AJ27 ....... Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); FTR Case 2012–301; Removal of Conference Lodging Allowance Provisions. 

3090–AJ30 ....... Federal Management Regulation (FMR); FMR Case 2012–102–4, Disposal and Reporting of Federal Electronic Assets (FEA). 

3090–AJ34 ....... Federal Management Regulation (FMR); FMR Case 2012–102–5, Restrictions on International Transportation of Freight and 

Household Goods. 

3090–AJ46 ....... General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2013–G501; Qualifications of Offerors.

3090–AJ47 ....... General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2014–G501; Progressive Awards and Monthly 

Quantity Allocations. 

Completed Actions 

3090–AJ06 ....... Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); FTR Case 2010–303; Terms and Definitions for ‘‘Dependent,’’ ‘‘Domestic Partner,’’ ‘‘Domestic Partnership,’’ and ‘‘Immediate Family.’’ 

3090–AJ11 ....... Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); FTR Case 2011–301; Per Diem, Miscellaneous Amendments. 

3090–AJ21 ....... Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); FTR Case 2011–308; Payment of Expenses Connected with the Death of Certain Employees. 

3090–AJ22 ....... Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); FTR Case 2011–309, Lodging Reimbursement. 

3090–AJ31 ....... General Service Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2012–G503, Industrial Funding Fee (IFF) and 

Sales Reporting. 

3090–AJ35 ....... Federal Management Regulation (FMR); FMR Case 2013–102–1; Obligating Authority. 

3090–AJ36 ....... General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2012–G501, Electronic Contracting Initiative. 

3090–AJ42 ....... General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2010–G511, Purchasing by Non-Federal Entities. 

Dated: September 23, 2014. 

Christine Harada, 

Associate Administrator, Office of 

Government-wide Policy. 

BILLING CODE 6820–34–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA) 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

For this statement of priorities, NASA 

has no recent legislative and 

programmatic activities that affect its 

regulations. There are no rulemakings 

that are expected to have high net 

benefits. All of the Agency’s rulemaking 

promotes open government as the 

public is given an opportunity to review 

and comment on these rulemakings 

prior to promulgation. The Agency has 

no rulemakings that reduce unjustified 

burdens with no particular concern to 

small businesses, and there are no 

significant international impacts. 

NASA continues to implement 

programs according to its 2014 Strategic 

Plan. NASA’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: 

• 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. 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR), 48 CFR chapter 1, contains 

procurement regulations that apply to 

NASA and other Federal agencies. 

NASA implements and supplements 

FAR requirements through the NASA 

FAR Supplement (NFS), 48 CFR chapter 

18. NASA is in the process of reviewing 

and updating the entire NFS with a 

projected completion date of December 

2015. Concurrently, NASA will 

continue to make routine changes to the 

NFS to implement NASA initiatives and 

Federal procurement policy. 

Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive 

Order 13579 ‘‘Regulation and 

Independent Regulatory Agencies’’ (Jul. 

11, 2011), NASA regulations associated 

with its retrospective review and 

analysis are described in the Agency’s 

final retrospective plan of existing 

regulations. Nineteen of these 

regulations were completed and are 

described below. NASA’s final plan and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76646 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

updates can be found at http://

www.nasa.gov/open, under the 

Compliance Documents Section. 

Rulemaking That Was Streamlined and 

Reduced Unjustified Burdens 

1. Supplemental Standards of Ethical 

Conduct for Employees of the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

[5 CFR 6901]—NASA, with the 

concurrence of the Office of 

Government Ethics, amended its 

Supplemental Standards of Ethical 

Conduct for Employees of the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

that permits student interns to seek 

prior approval to engage in outside 

employees with a NASA Contractor, 

subcontractor, grantee, or party to a 

NASA agreement in connect with work 

performed by that entity or under that 

agreement. The amendments clarified 

the types of outside employment 

activities that require approval, 

streamlined the process for approval, 

eliminated obsolete position titles, and 

extended the permissible time period of 

approval. The revision to NASA’s 

supplemental outside activity regulation 

liberalizes a general restriction 

prohibiting NASA employees from 

outside jobs performing work under 

NASA’s contracts, grants and other 

agreements to allow student interns to 

do so if the work complies with Federal 

ethics laws and U.S. Office of 

Government Ethics regulations. This 

modification helps insure that students 

in STEM (science, technology, 

engineering, and math) disciplines have 

full access to NASA development 

opportunities to maintain U.S. 

leadership in these fields. The revision 

also narrows the scope of employeeowned businesses that NASA personnel 

must obtain prior agency approval to 

undertake to those that will perform or 

seek to perform Federal governmentrelated work. This change enhances 

workforce development by reducing 

burdens associated with pursuing 

outside activities that may help NASA 

employees develop new skills. Finally, 

the revision decentralizes and 

streamlines the approval process [79 FR 

49225]. 

Rulemakings That Were Modified, 

Streamlined, Expanded, or Repealed 

2. Removal of Obsolete Regulations: 

Space Flight Mission Critical Systems 

Personnel Reliability Program [14 CFR 

1204]—NASA amended is regulations to 

make nonsubstantive changes by 

removing a regulation that was obsolete 

and no longer used [79 FR 7391]. 

3. Removal of Redundant Regulatory 

Text [14 CFR parts 1204, 1230, and 

1232]—NASA amended its regulations 

to make nonsubstantive changes by 

removing redundant regulatory language 

that is already captured in statutes that 

govern NASA activities related to 

delegation of authority of certain civil 

rights functions, protection of human 

subjects, and care and use of animals in 

the conduct of NASA activities [78 FR 

76057]. 

4. Removal of Obsolete Regulation: 

Use of Centennial of Flight Commission 

Name [14 CFR 1204.506]—NASA 

amended its regulations to make 

nonsubstantive changes to remove a 

regulation that is obsolete and no longer 

used [77 FR 60619]. 

Rulemaking That Promotes Open 

Government and Uses Disclosure as a 

Regulatory Tool 

5. Procedures for Disclosure of 

Records Freedom of Information Act 

Regulations [14 CFR 1206]—NASA 

revised its Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) regulations to clarify and update 

procedures for requesting information 

from the Agency, as well as procedures 

that the Agency follows in responding 

to requests from the public. These 

revisions also incorporate clarifications 

and update results from changes to the 

FOIA and case law, as well as include 

current cost figures to be used in 

calculating and charging fees and 

increase the amount of information that 

members of the public may receive from 

the Agency without being charged 

processing fees. This rule is a ‘how to’ 

guide for submitting requests for Agency 

records, if these records are not 

currently on a public-facing Web site. 

The rule, which comports with the law, 

is an information access tool for 

disclosure of Agency records. Providing 

access details to the public through the 

FOIA rule is an effective means to 

promote open government and ensure 

the public has the knowledge of how to 

submit a request for Agency documents 

and what to expect once that request is 

received by the Agency [79 FR 46676]. 

Rulemakings That Are of Particular 

Concerns to Small Business 

6. Small Business Policy [14 CFR 

1204]—NASA amended its regulations 

to make nonsubstantive changes to 

update offices names and titles, 

described the role of the Small Business 

Technical Advisor, add more small 

business categories to include small 

disadvantaged business HUBZone small 

business, women-owned small business 

concerns, veteran-owned small 

business, and service-and disabled 

veteran-owned small business in 

accordance with and required by the 

Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631). 

NASA certifies that this rule is not 

subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601), because it would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small 

businesses [78 FR 77352]. 

7. Nonprocurement Rule, Suspension, 

and Debarment [2 CFR 1880]—NASA 

has adopted as final, with no change, a 

proposed rule to extend coverage of 

non-procurement suspension and 

debarment to all tiers of procurement 

and non-procurement actions under all 

grants and cooperative agreements. 

NASA certifies that this rule does not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

Small entities are already required to 

check the Excluded Parties List System 

(EPLS) prior to making first-tier, 

procurement subawards under a grant or 

cooperative agreement. They will now 

be required to ensure that none of their 

potential subrecipients are on the EPLS. 

The EPLS is an easy-to-access and easy 

to-use on-line resources [78 FR 13211]. 

Rulemaking That Has Significant 

International Impacts 

8. Tracking and Data Relay Satellite 

System [14 CFR 1215]—NASA amended 

its regulations to make nonsubstantive 

changes to the policy governing the 

Tracking and Data Relay Satellite 

System (TDRSS) services provided to 

non-U.S. Government users and the 

reimbursement for rendering such 

services. TDRSS, also known as the 

Space Network, provides command, 

tracking, data, voice, and video services 

to the International Space Station, 

NASA’s space and Earth science 

missions, and other Federal agencies, 

including the Department of Defense 

and the National Science Foundation. 

For a fee, commercial users can also 

have access to TDRSS for tracking and 

data acquisition purposes. Over the last 

25 years, TDRSS has delivered pictures, 

television, scientific, and voice data to 

the scientific community and the 

general public, including data from 

more than 100 Space Shuttle and 

International Space Station missions 

and the Hubble Space Telescope. A 

principal advantage of TDRSS is 

providing communications services, 

which previously have been provided 

by multiple worldwide ground stations, 

with much higher data rates and lower 

latency to the user missions. The rule is 

designed for NASA to sell unused 

TDRSS time to non-U.S. Government 

customers. The main class of current 

users of this rule is expendable launch 

vehicle providers. The United Launch 

Alliance (Atlas and Delta rockets), 

SpaceX (Falcon rocket), and Sea Launch 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76647 

(rocket) all use TDRSS to support their 

launch operations. The TDRSS allows 

them to receive data from their launch 

vehicles through most of the critical 

aspects of flight (mark events such as 

pre-launch testing, ignition, stage 

separations, engine start and stop, etc.). 

This service could be useful to 

international customers such as 

Arianespace (for their Vega or Ariane 5 

launches out of French Guiana) or JAXA 

(for their H–IIA rocket), which has used 

TDRSS in the past. They would have to 

have TDRSS compatible transmitters on 

their vehicles in order to use the service. 

Low earth orbit (LEO) international 

customers not associated with NASA by 

international agreement would find it 

difficult to book unused TDRSS time, 

due to limited capacity on the system. 

ELVs are one-time, short duration 

events and much more likely to fit into 

the TDRSS schedule than a multiyear 

mission requiring many contacts per 

day [77 FR 6949]. 

Other Rulemakings 

9. NASA Protective Services 

Enforcement [14 CFR 1204]—NASA 

amended is regulations by adding a 

subpart to establish traffic enforcement 

authority and procedures at all NASA 

Centers and component facilities [79 FR 

54902]. 

10. Aeronautics and Space— 

Statement of Organization and General 

Information [14 CFR 1201]—NASA 

amended its regulations to make 

nonsubstantive changes to provide 

current information of NASA’s 

organization and to redesignate the 

Dryden Flight Research Center as the 

Armstrong Flight Research Center per 

H.R. 667 signed by the President on 

January 3, 2014 [79 FR 18443]. 

11. Delegation and Designations [14 

CFR 1204]—NASA amended its 

regulations to make nonsubstantive 

changes to correct citations and title 

throughout [79 FR 11318]. 

12. Inventions and Contributions [14 

CFR 1240] NASA amended its 

regulations to clarify and update the 

procedures for board recommended 

awards and the procedures and 

requirements for recommended special 

initial awards, including patent 

application awards, software release 

awards, and Tech Brief awards, and to 

update citations and the information on 

the systems used for reporting 

inventions and issuing award payments 

[77 FR 27365]. 

13. Information Security Protection 

[14 CFR 1203]—NASA amended its 

regulations to make nonsubstantive 

changes to align with and implement 

the provisions of Executive Order (E.O.) 

13526, Classified National Security 

Information, and appropriately to 

correspond with NASA’s internal 

requirements, NPR 1600.2, Classified 

National Security Information, that 

establishes the Agency’s requirements 

for the proper implementation and 

management of a uniform system for 

classifying, accounting, safeguarding, 

and declassifying national security 

information generated by or in the 

possession of NASA [78 FR 5116]. 

14. Claims for Patent and Copyright 

Infringement [14 CFR 1245]—NASA 

finalized its regulations relating to 

requirements for the filing of claims 

against NASA where a potential 

claimant believes NASA is infringing 

privately owned rights in patented 

inventions or copyrighted works. The 

requirements for filing an administrative 

claim are important since the filing of a 

claim carries with it certain rights 

relating to the applicable statute of 

limitations for filing suit against the 

Government. The regulations set forth 

guidelines as to what NASA considers 

necessary to file a claim for patent or 

copyright infringement, and they also 

provide for written notification to the 

claimant upon completion of an 

investigation by NASA [77 FR 14686]. 

15. Procedures for Implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act [14 

CFR 1216]—NASA amended its 

regulations governing compliance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA) and the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508). This rule replaces 

procedures contained in NASA’s 

current regulations. The revised 

regulations are intended to improve 

NASA’s efficiency in implementing 

NEPA requirements by reducing costs 

and preparation time while maintaining 

quality. In addition, NASA’s experience 

in applying the NASA NEPA regulations 

since they were issued in 1988 

suggested the need for NASA to make 

changes in its NEPA regulations. [77 FR 

3102] 

16. Boards and Committees [14 CFR 

1209]—NASA amended its regulations 

to make nonsubstantive changes to 

correct and remove citations referenced 

in NASA’s Contract Adjustment Board 

rule [78 FR 20422]. 

17. Research Misconduct [14 CFR 

1275]—NASA amended its regulations 

to make nonsubstantive changes to the 

policy governing the handling of 

allegations of research misconduct and 

updates to reflect organizational 

changes that have occurred in the 

Agency [77 FR 44439]. 

18. Updating of Existing Privacy 

Act—NASA Regulations [14 CFR 

1212]—NASA amended its regulations 

to make nonsubstantive changes to its 

rules governing implementation of the 

Privacy Act by updating statute 

citations, position titles, terminology, 

and adjusting appellate responsibility 

for records for records held by the 

NASA Office of the Inspective General 

[77 FR 60620]. 

19. NASA Security and Protective 

Service Enforcement [14 CFR 1203a, 

1203b, 1204]—NASA amended its 

regulations to make nonsubstantive 

changes to its regulations to clarify the 

procedures for establishing controlled/

secure areas and to revise the 

definitions for these areas and the 

process for granting access to these 

areas, as well as denying or revoking 

access to such areas. Arrest powers and 

authority of NASA security force 

personnel are also updated and clarified 

to include the carrying of weapons and 

the use of such weapons should a 

circumstance require it [78 FR 5122]. 

Abstracts for other regulations that 

will be amended or repealed between 

October 2014 and October 2015 are 

reported in the fall 2014 edition of 

Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory 

and Deregulation actions. 

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 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 2015, which are included 

in The Regulatory Plan. The first are 

NARA’s continuing revisions to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76648 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

1http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/plan-forregulatory-review.pdf . Progress reports on the plan 

can be found at http://www.pbgc.gov/res/laws-andregulations/reducing-regulatory-burden.html. 

Federal records management regulations 

found at 36 CFR chapter XII, subchapter 

B. The proposed changes include 

changes resulting from the 2011 

Presidential Memorandum on Managing 

Government Records and the 2012 

Managing Government Records 

Directive (M–12–18). The proposed 

rules will affect Federal agencies’ 

records management programs relating 

to proper records creation and 

maintenance, adequate documentation, 

electronic recordkeeping requirements, 

use of the Electronic Records Archive 

(ERA) for records transfer, and records 

disposition. The proposed revisions 

have begun with changes to provisions 

at 36 CFR parts 1222, 1223, 1224, 1227, 

1229, 1232, 1233, 1235, 1237, and 1239. 

These provisions were substantially 

revamped and began undergoing public 

comment beginning in September 2014. 

Additional proposed revisions to the 

subchapter will be published for public 

comment later this fiscal year as well. 

The second priority is a new 

regulation on Controlled Unclassified 

Information (CUI). The Information 

Security Oversight Office (ISOO), a 

component of NARA, is proposing this 

rule pursuant to Executive Order 13556. 

The Order establishes an open and 

uniform program for managing 

information requiring safeguarding or 

dissemination controls. This rule sets 

forth guidance to agencies on 

safeguarding, disseminating, marking, 

and decontrolling CUI, self-inspection 

and oversight requirements, and other 

facets of the program. 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

2014 OPM 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

Personnel Management in Agencies 

The Chief Human Capital Act of 2002 

requires OPM to develop systems, 

standards, and metrics for strategic 

human capital management in agencies. 

This rule promulgates these systems, 

standards, and metrics. 

Human Resources Management 

Reporting Requirements 

This rule was a Presidential initiative 

as part of paperwork reduction and 

eliminating burdensome and 

unnecessary reporting. It enables 

agencies to focus on strategic human 

capital management rather than 

administrative reporting. We have been 

building new leadership and 

accountability mechanisms around its 

requirements. This rule also supports 

Strategic Goal 3 as OPM is building 

internal data and reporting capabilities 

to replace these burdensome reporting 

requirements on agencies. 

Performance Appraisal System 

Certification for Pay Purposes 

This rule establishes certification 

criteria and procedures for agencies to 

follow to have their Senior Executive 

and Senior Professional’s appraisal 

system certified by OPM. An agency 

appraisal system is certified only when 

a review of that system’s design (i.e., 

system documentation), implementation 

(i.e., performance plans), and 

application (i.e., results) reveals that the 

agency meets the certification criteria. 

The appraisal process must make 

meaningful distinctions based on 

relative performance. The law requires 

OPM and OMB to jointly regulate the 

criteria and process used for appraisal 

system certification. 

Managing Senior Executive Performance 

This rule fosters an effective 

enterprise approach to the performance 

management of Senior Executive 

Service (SES) members. In January 2012, 

OPM and OMB released a basic SES 

appraisal system to provide a more 

consistent and uniform framework to 

communicate expectations and evaluate 

the performance of SES members. The 

system focuses on the role and 

responsibility of SES members to 

achieve results through effective 

executive leadership. This rule includes 

the requirements of this system. 

Federal Employees Health Benefits 

Program 

OPM will make several amendments 

to the Federal Employees Health 

Benefits (FEHB) regulations to adhere to 

the provisions of the Affordable Care 

Act of 2010. These amendments include 

enrollments for eligible employees of 

Tribes and Tribal organizations, changes 

to resolutions of disputed health claims 

and external reviews, rate settings for 

community-rated plans, enrollment 

options following the termination of a 

plan or plan option, and the expansion 

of eligibility to certain employees on 

temporary appointments and certain 

employees on seasonal and intermittent 

schedules. 

BILLING CODE 6325–44–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION (PBGC) 

Statement of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Priorities 

The Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation (PBGC) protects the 

pensions of more than 40 million people 

in more than 25,000 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. 

To carry out these functions, PBGC 

issues regulations on such matters as 

termination, payment of premiums, 

reporting and disclosure, and 

assessment and collection of employer 

liability. The Corporation is committed 

to issuing simple, understandable, 

flexible, and timely regulations to help 

affected parties. 

PBGC continues to follow a regulatory 

approach that does not inadvertently 

discourage the maintenance of existing 

defined benefit plans or the 

establishment of new plans. Thus, in 

developing new regulations and 

reviewing existing regulations, the 

focus, to the extent possible, is to avoid 

placing burdens on plans, employers, 

and participants, and to ease and 

simplify employer compliance. PBGC 

particularly strives to meet the needs of 

small businesses that sponsor defined 

benefit plans. 

PBGC develops its regulations in 

accordance with the principles set forth 

in Executive Order 13563 ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review’’ 

(Jan. 18, 2011), and PBGC’s Plan for 

Regulatory Review (Regulatory Review 

Plan).1 This Statement of Regulatory 

and Deregulatory Priorities reflects 

PBGC’s ongoing implementation of its 

Regulatory Review Plan. 

PBGC Insurance Programs 

PBGC administers two insurance 

programs for privately defined benefit 

plans under title IV of the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 

(ERISA): 

• 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 

smaller multiemployer program covers 

more than 1,450 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76649 

2 74 FR 61248 (Nov. 23, 2009), http://

www.pbgc.gov/Documents/E9-28056.pdf . 

3 79 FR 347 (Jan. 3, 2014), http://www.pbgc.gov/ 

documents/2013-31109.pdf; 79 FR 13547 (Mar. 11, 

2014), http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/2014- 

05212.pdf . 

4 79 FR 30459 (May 28, 2014), http://

www.pbgc.gov/documents/2014-12154.pdf . 

5 75 FR 48283 (Aug. 10, 2010), http://

www.pbgc.gov/Documents/2010-19627.pdf . 

6http://www.pbgc.gov/news/press/releases/pr14- 

09.html . 

to pay benefits at the guaranteed level. 

Guaranteed benefits are less than singleemployer guaranteed benefits. 

At the end of fiscal year 2013, PBGC 

had a deficit of about $36 billion in its 

insurance programs. Current PBGC 

premiums are insufficient. 

Regulatory Objectives and Priorities 

PBGC’s regulatory objectives and 

priorities are developed in the context 

of the Corporation’s statutory purposes: 

• To encourage voluntary private 

pension plans. 

• To provide for the timely and 

uninterrupted payment of pension 

benefits. 

• To keep premiums at the lowest 

possible levels. 

Pensions and the statutory framework 

in which they are maintained and 

terminate are complex. Despite this 

complexity, PBGC is committed to 

issuing simple, understandable, flexible, 

and timely regulations and other 

guidance that do not impose undue 

burdens that could impede maintenance 

or establishment of defined benefit 

plans. 

Through its regulations and other 

guidance, PBGC strives to minimize 

burdens on plans, plan sponsors, and 

plan participants; simplify filing; 

provide relief for small businesses and 

plans; and assist plans in complying 

with applicable requirements. To 

enhance policy-making through 

collaboration, PBGC also plans to 

expand opportunities for public 

participation in rulemaking (see Open 

Government and Public Participation 

below). 

PBGC’s current regulatory objectives 

and priorities are to simplify its 

regulations and reduce burden, 

particularly in the areas of premiums 

and reporting, enhance retirement 

security, and complete implementation 

of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 

(PPA 2006). 

Rethinking Existing Regulations 

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive 

Order 13563 ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review’’ (Jan. 18, 2011), the 

following Regulatory Identifier Numbers 

(RINs) have been identified as 

associated with retrospective review 

and analysis in the Department’s final 

retrospective review of regulations plan. 

The regulatory actions associated with 

these RINs, as well as other regulatory 

review projects, are described below. 

Title RIN Effect on small business 

Reportable Events .......................................................................................................... 1212–AB06 Expected to reduce burden on small business. 

Premium Rates; Payment of Premiums; Reducing Regulatory Burden ........................ 1212–AB26 Reduces the burden on small business. 

Multiemployer Plans; Valuation and Notice Requirements ............................................ 1212–AB25 Little effect on small business. 

Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Valuation of Benefits and Assets ........ 1212–AA55 Undetermined. 

Reportable events. PPA 2006 affected 

certain provisions in PBGC’s reportable 

events regulation, which requires 

employers to notify PBGC of certain 

plan or corporate events. In November 

2009, PBGC published a proposed rule 

to conform the regulation to the PPA 

2006 changes and make other changes.2

In response to Executive Order 13563 

and comments on the proposed rule, in 

April 2013, PBGC published a new 

proposal that would exempt more than 

90 percent of plans and sponsors from 

many reporting requirements. The new 

proposal takes advantage of other 

existing reporting requirements and 

methods to avoid burdening companies 

and plans and expands waivers and 

redefines events to reduce reporting. 

The new proposal implements 

stakeholder suggestions that different 

reporting requirements should apply in 

circumstances where the risk to PBGC is 

low or compliance is especially 

burdensome. PBGC is developing the 

final rule, taking into account the public 

comments. 

Premiums. In January and March 2014 

PBGC published final rules to make its 

premium rules more effective and less 

burdensome. 3 PBGC developed the 

rules in response to regulatory review 

and public comments. The changes 

simplify due dates, coordinate the due 

date for terminating plans with the 

termination process, make conforming 

and clarifying changes to the variablerate premium rules, and provide for 

relief from penalties. Large plans no 

longer have to pay flat-rate premiums 

early; small plans get more time to value 

benefits. The changes were favorably 

received by the pension community. 

Multiemployer plans. In May 2014, 

PBGC published a final rule amending 

PBGC’s multiemployer regulations.4 The 

changes were developed as a result of 

PBGC’s regulatory review. The 

amendments reduce the number of 

actuarial valuations required for certain 

small terminated but not insolvent 

plans, shorten the advance notice filing 

requirements for mergers in situations 

that do not involve a compliance 

determination, and remove certain 

insolvency notice and update 

requirements. 

Allocation of Assets in SingleEmployer Plans; Valuation of Benefits 

and Assets. In FY 2014, PBGC began an 

internal process to establish routine, 

periodic review of PBGC regulations 

and policies to ensure that the actuarial 

and economic content remains current. 

ERISA section 4062(e). The statutory 

provision requires reporting of, and 

liability for, certain substantial 

cessations of operations by employers 

that maintain single-employer plans. In 

August 2010, PBGC issued a proposed 

rule to provide guidance on the 

applicability and enforcement of section 

4062(e).5 In light of comments on the 

proposal and PBGC’s enforcement 

practices, in November 2012, PBGC 

announced a 4062(e) enforcement pilot 

program under which it did not enforce 

in the case of small plans or financially 

strong sponsors (90 percent of plans are 

small or have financially strong 

sponsors). In July 2014, PBGC 

announced a moratorium, until the end 

of 2014, on the enforcement of 4062(e) 

cases.6 The moratorium will enable 

PBGC to further target at-risk plans and 

work with the business community, 

labor, and other stakeholders to 

minimize effects on necessary business 

activities. At this time, PBGC is 

withdrawing RIN 1212–AB20 from its 

regulatory agenda. 

ERISA section 4010. PBGC is 

reviewing its regulation on Annual 

Financial and Actuarial Information 

Reporting (part 4010) and the related efiling application to consider ways of 

reducing reporting burden and ensuring 

that PBGC receives the critical 

information it needs. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76650 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

7 79 FR 18483 (Apr. 2, 2014), http://

www.pbgc.gov/documents/2014-07323.pdf . 

8 76 FR 67105 (Oct. 31, 2011), http://

www.pbgc.gov/Documents/2011-28124.pdf . 

9 79 FR 25667 (May 6, 2014), http:// 

www.pbgc.gov/documents/2014-10357.pdf 

Retirement Security 

DC to DB plan rollovers. 

In April 2014, PBGC published a 

proposed rule that would clarify the 

treatment of benefits resulting from a 

rollover distribution from a defined 

contribution plan to a defined benefit 

plan, if the defined benefit plan was 

terminated and trusteed by PBGC.7

Under the proposal, a benefit resulting 

from rollover amounts generally would 

not be subject to PBGC’s maximum 

guaranteeable benefit or phase-in 

limitations and would be in the second 

highest priority category of benefits in 

the allocation of assets. The proposed 

rule was well-received by the public, 

and PBGC expects to publish a final rule 

early in FY 2015. This rulemaking is 

part of PBGC’s efforts to enhance 

retirement security by promoting 

lifetime income options. 

PPA 2006 Implementation 

Cash balance plans. PPA 2006 

changed the rules for determining 

benefits in cash balance plans and other 

statutory hybrid plans. In October 2011, 

PBGC published a proposed rule 

implementing the changes in both 

PBGC-trusteed plans and in plans that 

close out in the private sector.8 The final 

rule is on hold until Treasury issues 

final regulations. 

Missing participants. A major focus of 

PBGC’s current regulatory efforts is the 

development of a proposal to improve 

and expand our missing participants 

program. The expanded program will 

cover terminating defined contribution 

plans, non-covered defined benefit 

plans, and multiemployer plans. The 

proposal will take into account 

comments received from employers, 

plans, and other stakeholders in 

response to a 2013 Request for 

Information. PBGC is working with IRS 

and DOL to coordinate government 

requirements for dealing with missing 

participant issues. PBGC expects to 

publish a proposed regulation early in 

FY 2015. 

Shutdown benefits. Under PPA 2006, 

the phase-in period for the guarantee of 

a benefit payable solely by reason of an 

‘‘unpredictable contingent event,’’ such 

as a plant shutdown, starts no earlier 

than the date of the shutdown or other 

unpredictable contingent event. PBGC 

published a final rule implementing this 

statutory change in May 2014.9

Small Businesses 

PBGC takes into account the special 

needs and concerns of small businesses 

in making policy. A large percentage of 

the plans insured by PBGC are small or 

maintained by small employers. PBGC 

has issued or is considering several 

proposed rules that will focus on small 

businesses: 

Small plan premium due date. The 

March 2014 final rule discussed above 

under Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations addresses concerns that 

some small plans determine funding 

levels too late in the year to be able to 

use current-year figures for the variablerate premium by the new uniform due 

date. Under the final rule, small plans 

generally use prior-year figures for the 

variable-rate premium (with a provision 

for opting to use current-year figures). 

Reportable events. The reportable 

events proposed rule discussed above 

under Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations would waive many 

reporting requirements for plans with 

fewer than 100 participants. 

Missing participants. The missing 

participants proposed rule discussed 

above under PPA 2006 Implementation 

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. 

Open Government and Increased Public 

Participation 

PBGC is doing more to encourage 

public participation in the regulatory 

process. For example, PBGC’s current 

efforts to reduce regulatory burden are 

in substantial part a response to public 

comments. Regulatory projects 

discussed above, such as reportable 

events, ERISA section 4062(e), and 

ERISA section 4010, highlight PBGC’s 

customer-focused efforts to reduce 

regulatory burden. 

PBGC’s Regulatory Review Plan sets 

forth ways to expand opportunities for 

public participation in the regulatory 

process. For example, in June 2013, 

PBGC held its first ever regulatory 

hearing on the reportable events 

proposed rule, so that the agency would 

have a better understanding of the needs 

and concerns of plan administrators and 

plan sponsors. PBGC’s 2013 Request for 

Information on missing participants in 

individual account plans is another 

example of PBGC’s efforts to solicit 

public participation in the regulatory 

process. 

PBGC plans to provide additional 

means for public involvement, 

including on-line town hall meetings, 

social media, and continuing 

opportunity for public comment on 

PBGC’s Web site. 

PBGC also invites comments on the 

Regulatory Review Plan on an on-going 

basis as we engage in the review 

process. Comments should be sent to 

regs.comments@pbgc.gov. 

PBGC will continue to look for ways 

to further improve its regulations. 

BILLING CODE 7709–01–P 

U.S. SMALL BUSINESS 

ADMINISTRATION (SBA) 

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 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. The 

Agency serves as a guarantor of small 

business loans, and also provides 

management and technical assistance to 

existing or potential small business 

owners through various grants, 

cooperative agreements or contracts. 

This access to capital and other 

assistance provides a crucial foundation 

for those starting a new business, or 

growing an existing business and 

ultimately creating new jobs. SBA also 

provides direct financial assistance to 

homeowners, renters, and small 

business owners to help communities to 

rebuild 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, especially 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, 

innovation, and procurement programs. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76651 

Openness and Transparency 

SBA promotes transparency, 

collaboration, and public participation 

in its rulemaking process. To that end, 

SBA routinely solicits comments on its 

regulations, even those that are not 

subject to the public notice and 

comment requirement under the 

Administrative Procedure Act. Where 

appropriate, SBA also conducts 

hearings, webinars, and other public 

events as part of its regulatory process. 

Regulatory Framework 

The SBA’s FY 2014 to FY 2018 

strategic plan serves as the foundation 

for the regulations that the Agency will 

develop during the next 12 months. The 

strategic plan proposes 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 

12 months, SBA’s highest regulatory 

priority is to implement the MentorProte ́ge ́ Programs, which were 

authorized by the Small Business Jobs 

Act, for participants in the HUBZone, 

Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) 

Contracting, and Service-Disabled 

Veteran-Owned Small Business 

(SDVOSB) Programs and expanded to 

all small business concerns by the 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

FY 2013. 

(1) Small Business Mentor-Prote ́ge ́

Programs (RIN: 3245–AG24): 

SBA currently has a mentor-prote ́ge ́

program for the 8(a) Business 

Development Program that is intended 

to enhance the capabilities of the 

prote ́ge ́ and to improve its ability to 

successfully compete for Federal 

contracts. The Small Business Jobs Act 

authorized SBA to use this model to 

establish similar mentor-prote ́ge ́

programs for the Service Disabled 

Veteran Owned, HUBZone and WomenOwned Small Business Programs. The 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

FY 2013 further authorized SBA to 

extend the availability of mentorprote ́ge ́ programs to all small business 

concerns. During the next 12 months, 

one of SBA’s priorities will be to issue 

regulations establishing these newly 

authorized mentor-prote ́ge ́ programs. 

The various types of assistance that a 

mentor will be expected to provide to a 

prote ́ge ́ include technical and/or 

management assistance; financial 

assistance in the form of equity 

investment and/or loans; subcontracts 

and/or assistance in performing prime 

contracts with the Government in the 

form of joint venture arrangements. 

Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive 

Order 13563 ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review’’ (Jan. 18, 2011), SBA 

developed a plan for the retrospective 

review of its regulations. Since that date 

SBA has issued several updates to this 

plan to reflect the Agency’s ongoing 

efforts in carrying out this executive 

order. The final agency plan and review 

updates can be found at http:// 

www.sba.gov/about-sba/ 

sba_performance/open_government/ 

retrospective_review_of_regulations. 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

(SSA) 

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 by way of reimbursement for 

necessary costs in making disability 

determinations. 

The ten entries in our regulatory plan 

(plan) represent issues of major 

importance to the Agency. We describe 

the individual initiatives more fully in 

the attached plan. 

Improving the Disability Process 

Since the continued improvement of 

the disability program is of vital concern 

to us, we have initiatives in the plan 

addressing disability-related issues. 

They include: 

One proposed rule and five final rules 

update the medical listings used to 

determine disability—evaluating 

digestive disorders, neurological 

impairments, hematological disorders, 

growth disorders and weight loss in 

children, human immunodeficiency 

virus infection for evaluating functional 

limitation in immune system disorders, 

and cancer (malignant neoplastic 

diseases). The revisions reflect our 

adjudicative experience and advances in 

medical knowledge, diagnosis, and 

treatment. 

Enhance Public Service 

Another proposed rule will require 

our claimants to inform us or to submit 

all evidence known to them that relates 

to their disability claim. 

We are revising our rules to allow 

applicants for a Social Security number 

card to apply by completing a 

prescribed application and submitting 

the required evidence, rather than 

completing a paper application. 

There is one proposed rule that will 

enhance claims processing. The rule 

will strengthen the integrity of our 

programs by clarifying our expectations 

about the obligations representatives 

have in representing their clients. 

Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive 

Order 13563 ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review’’ (January 18, 2011), 

the following Regulatory Identifier 

Numbers (RINs) have been identified as 

associated with retrospective review 

and analysis in our final retrospective 

review of regulations plan. Some of the 

entries on this list may be completed 

actions, which do not appear in The 

Regulatory Plan. However, you can find 

more information about these completed 

rulemakings in past publications of the 

Unified Agenda at: www.Reginfo.gov in 

the Completed Actions section for the 

Social Security Administration. You can 

also find these rulemakings at: 

www.Regulations.gov. The agency final 

plans are located at: 

www.socialsecurity.gov/open/ 

regsreview/EO-13563-Final-Plan.html. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76652 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

RIN Title 

Expected to 

significantly 

reduce burdens 

on small 

businesses 

0960–AF35 ........ Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Neurological Impairments .............................................................. No. 

0960–AF58 ........ Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Respiratory System Disorders ....................................................... No. 

0960–AF69 ........ Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders ............................................................................ No. 

0960–AF88 ........ Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hematological Disorders ................................................................ No. 

0960–AG21 ....... New Medical Criteria for Evaluating Language and Speech Disorders ........................................................ No. 

0960–AG28 ....... Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Growth Impairments ....................................................................... No. 

0960–AG38 ....... Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Musculoskeletal Disorders ............................................................. No. 

0960–AG65 ....... Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Digestive Disorders ........................................................................ No. 

0960–AG74 ....... Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Cardiovascular Disorders ............................................................... No. 

0960–AG91 ....... Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Skin Disorders ................................................................................ No. 

0960–AH04 ........ Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Congenital Disorders That Affect Multiple Body Systems ............. No.

0960–AH28 ........ Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Visual Disorders ............................................................................. No. 

0960–AH43 ........ Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Cancer (Malignant Neoplastic Diseases) ...................................... No. 

0960–AH54 ........ Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hearing Loss and Disturbances of Labyrinthine-Vestibular Function.No. 

SSA 

Proposed Rule Stage 

149. Revised Medical Criteria for 

Evaluating Digestive Disorders (3441P) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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 5.00 and 105.00, 

Digestive Systems, of appendix 1 to 

subpart P of part 404 of our regulations 

describe those digestive 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 proposed 

rules will update, simplify, and clarify 

our rules. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Administrative—not required by statute 

or court order. 

Alternatives: We could continue to 

use our current criteria. However, we 

believe these proposed revisions are 

necessary because of our program 

experience, information we received 

from medical experts we consulted, and 

comments we received at the Listings 

Symposium and in response to the 

ANPRM. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Presently under review. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 12/12/07 72 FR 70527 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

02/11/08 

NPRM .................. 01/00/15 

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 

Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

Phone: 410 965–1020. 

Shawnette Ashburne, Social 

Insurance Specialist, Social Security 

Administration, Office of Medical 

Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

Phone: 410 966–5788. 

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. 

RIN: 0960–AG65 

SSA 

150. Revisions to Representative Code 

of Conduct (3835P) 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined. 

Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined. 

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: This regulatory change adds 

several affirmative duties and 

prohibited actions for representatives, 

including the requirement to assist 

claimants with complying with the 

directive to submit all evidence. We will 

also clarify some of our rules regarding 

processing representative sanction 

actions at the hearing and Appeals 

Council levels and change the 

timeframe for suspended representatives 

to request reinstatement when the 

Appeals Council denies an initial 

request for reinstatement from 1 to 3 

years. 

Statement of Need: We revised the 

rules of conduct in 2011 and are further 

clarifying our expectations about the 

obligations of representatives to 

competently represent their clients. 

These changes are necessary because 

our current regulations do not address 

some representative conduct that we 

find inappropriate. We are also updating 

procedures we use when we bring 

charges against a representative for 

violating our rules of conduct. These 

changes will allow us to better protect 

the integrity of our administrative 

process and further clarify 

representatives’ responsibilities in their 

conduct with us and claimants. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Administrative–not required by statute 

or court order. 

Alternatives: Based on our program 

experience, there are no alternatives at 

this time. These rules will be based on 

recommendations. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

administrative effect of this regulation is 

negligible. 

Risks: Undetermined. 

Timetable: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76653 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 01/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Undetermined. 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: 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. 

RIN: 0960–AH63 

SSA 

Final Rule Stage 

151. Revised Medical Criteria for 

Evaluating Neurological Impairments 

(806F) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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 11.00 and 111.00, 

Neurological Impairments, of appendix 

1 to subpart P of part 404 of our 

regulations describe neurological 

impairments 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 will 

revise these sections to ensure that the 

medical evaluation criteria are up-todate and consistent with the latest 

advances in medical knowledge and 

treatment. 

Statement of Need: These final rules 

are necessary to update the listings for 

evaluating neurological impairments to 

reflect advances in medical knowledge, 

treatment, and methods of evaluating 

these impairments. The changes will 

ensure that determinations of disability 

have a sound medical basis, that 

claimants receive equal treatment 

through the use of specific criteria, and 

that people who are disabled can be 

readily identified and awarded benefits 

if all other factors of entitlement or 

eligibility are met. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Administrative–not required by statute 

or court order. 

Alternatives: We considered not 

revising the listings and continuing to 

use our current criteria. However, we 

believe that these revisions are 

preferable because of the medical 

advances that have been made in 

treating and evaluating these types of 

impairments. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Estimated Savings–low. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 04/13/05 70 FR 19356 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

06/13/05 

NPRM .................. 02/25/14 79 FR 10636 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

04/28/14 

NPRM Comment 

Period Reopened.

05/01/14 79 FR 24634 

NPRM Comment 

Period Reopened End.

06/02/14 

Final Action ......... 07/00/15 

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 

Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

Phone: 410 965–1020. 

Shawnette Ashburne, Social 

Insurance Specialist, Social Security 

Administration, Office of Medical 

Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

Phone: 410 966–5788. 

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. 

RIN: 0960–AF35 

SSA 

152. Revised Medical Criteria for 

Evaluating Hematological Disorders 

(974F) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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 7.00 and 107.00, 

Hematological Disorders, of appendix 1 

to subpart P of part 404 of our 

regulations, describe hematological 

disorders that we consider severe 

enough to prevent a person from 

performing any gainful activity or that 

cause marked and severe functional 

limitation 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 final rules 

are necessary to update the 

hematological listings to reflect 

advances in medical knowledge, 

treatment, and methods of evaluating 

hematological disorders. The changes 

ensure that determinations of disability 

have a sound medical basis, that 

claimants receive equal treatment 

through the use of specific criteria, and 

that people who are disabled can be 

readily identified and awarded benefits 

if all other factors of entitlement or 

eligibility are met. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Administrative–not required by statute 

or court order. 

Alternatives: We considered not 

revising the listings or making only 

minor technical changes and continuing 

to use our current criteria. However, we 

believe that these revisions are 

preferable because of the medical 

advances that have been made in 

treating and evaluating these types of 

impairments. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Estimated savings–low. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 11/19/13 78 FR 69324 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

01/21/14 

Final Action ......... 09/00/15 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76654 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Administration, Office of Medical 

Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

Phone: 410 965–1020. 

Mark Kuhn, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Social Security 

Administration, Office of Medical 

Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

Phone: 410 966–6109. 

Helen Droddy, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social 

Security Administration, Office of 

Regulations and Reports Clearance, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 965–1483. 

RIN: 0960–AF88 

SSA 

153. Revised Medical Criteria for 

Evaluating Growth Disorders and 

Weight Loss in Children (3163F) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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: Section 100.00, Growth 

Impairments, of appendix 1 to subpart 

P of part 404 of our regulations 

describes growth impairments 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 will 

revise the criteria in this section 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 final rules 

are necessary to update several body 

systems that contain listings for 

children based on impairment of linear 

growth or weight loss to reflect 

advances in medical knowledge, 

treatment, and methods of evaluating 

impairments. The changes ensure that 

determinations of disability have a 

sound medical basis, that claimants 

receive equal treatment through the use 

of specific criteria, and that people who 

are disabled can be readily identified 

and awarded benefits if all other factors 

of eligibility are met. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Administrative–not required by statute 

or court order. 

Alternatives: We considered not 

revising the listings or making only 

minor technical changes and continuing 

to use our current criteria. However, we 

believe that these revisions are 

preferable because of the medical 

advances that have been made in 

treating and evaluating these types of 

impairments. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Estimated savings–low. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 09/08/05 70 FR 53323 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

11/07/05 

NPRM .................. 05/22/13 78 FR 30249 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

07/22/13 

Final Action ......... 12/00/14 

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 

Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

Phone: 410 965–1020. 

Tiya Marshall, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Social Security 

Administration, Office of Medical 

Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

Phone: 410 965–9291. 

Helen Droddy, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social 

Security Administration, Office of 

Regulations and Reports Clearance, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 965–1483. 

RIN: 0960–AG28 

SSA 

154. Use of Date of Written Statement 

as Filing Date (3431F) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402(i); 42 

U.S.C. 402(j); 42 U.S.C. 402(o); 42 U.S.C. 

402(p); 42 U.S.C. 402(r); 42 U.S.C. 

405(a); 42 U.S.C. 416(i)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

423(b); 42 U.S.C. 428(a); 42 U.S.C. 

902(a)(5). 

CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.630. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: We are revising our rules for 

protective filing after we receive a 

written statement of intent to claim 

Social Security benefits under title II of 

the Social Security Act (Act). 

Specifically, we are revising from 6 

months to 60 days the time period 

during which a claimant must file an 

application for benefits after the date of 

a notice we send explaining the need to 

file an application. We are revising our 

rules to make this time period used in 

the title II program consistent with the 

time period used in our other programs. 

Statement of Need: We believe that 

eliminating the difference between the 

time periods in our programs will make 

it easier for the public to understand 

and follow our rules. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Administrative–not required by statute 

or court order. 

Alternatives: None. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Estimated savings–low. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/17/08 73 FR 76573 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

02/17/09 

Final Action ......... 01/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Helen Droddy, Social 

Insurance Specialist, Regulations 

Writer, Social Security Administration, 

Office of Regulations and Reports 

Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, Phone: 410 

965–1483. 

RIN: 0960–AG58 

SSA 

155. Revised Medical Criteria for 

Evaluating Immune (HIV) System 

Disorders (3466F) 

Priority: Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 

U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 42 

U.S.C. 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 14.00 and 114.00, 

Immune System, of appendix 1 to 

subpart P of part 404 of our regulations 

describe immune system disorders that 

we consider severe enough to prevent 

an individual from doing any gainful 

activity, or that cause marked and 

severe functional limitations for a child 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76655 

claiming Supplemental Security Income 

payments under title XVI. We will 

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 final rules 

are necessary in order to update the HIV 

evaluation listings to reflect advances in 

medical knowledge, treatment, and 

evaluation methods. The changes that 

determinations of disability have a 

sound medical basis, that claimants 

receive equal treatment through the use 

of specific criteria, and that individuals 

who are disabled can be readily 

identified and awarded benefits if all 

other factors of entitlement or eligibility 

are met. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Administrative–not required by statute 

or court order. 

Alternatives: Undetermined at this 

time. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Cost/

savings estimate–negligible. 

Risks: Undetermined at this time. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM ............... 03/18/08 73 FR 14409 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End.

05/19/08 

NPRM .................. 02/26/14 79 FR 10730 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

04/28/14 

NPRM Correction 

and NPRM 

Comment Period Extended.

03/25/14 79 FR 16250 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended End.

05/27/14 

Final Action ......... 05/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 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 

Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

Phone: 410 965–1020. 

Paul J. Scott, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Social Security 

Administration, Office of Medical 

Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

Phone: 410 966–1192. 

Helen Droddy, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social 

Security Administration, Office of 

Regulations and Reports Clearance, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 965–1483. 

RIN: 0960–AG71 

SSA 

156. Revised Medical Criteria for 

Evaluating Cancer (Malignant 

Neoplastic Diseases) (3757F) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

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. 

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 13.00 and 113.00, 

Malignant Neoplastic Diseases, of 

appendix 1 to subpart P of our 

regulations describe malignant 

neoplastic diseases that we consider 

severe enough to prevent an individual 

from doing any gainful activity or that 

cause marked and severe functional 

limitations for a child claiming SSI 

payments under title XVI. We will 

revise these sections to ensure that the 

medical evaluation criteria are up-todate and consistent with the latest 

advances in medical knowledge and 

treatment. 

Statement of Need: These final 

regulations are necessary to update the 

Malignant Neoplastic Diseases listings 

to reflect advances in medical 

knowledge, treatment, and methods of 

evaluating malignant neoplastic 

diseases. The changes will ensure that 

determinations of disability have a 

sound medical basis, that claimants 

receive equal treatment through the use 

of specific criteria, and that people who 

are disabled can be readily identified 

and awarded benefits if all other factors 

of entitlement or eligibility are met. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Administrative—not required by statute 

or court order. 

Alternatives: We considered not 

revising the listings and continuing to 

use our current criteria. However, we 

believe that these revisions are 

preferable because of the medical 

advances that have been made in 

treating and evaluating these malignant 

neoplastic diseases and because of our 

adjudicative experience. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Estimated costs—low. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 12/17/13 78 FR 76508 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

02/18/14 

Final Action ......... 06/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Cheryl A. Williams, 

Director, Social Security 

Administration, Office of Medical 

Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

Phone: 410 965–1020. 

Mark Kuhn, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Social Security 

Administration, Office of Medical 

Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

Phone: 410 966–6109. 

Helen Droddy, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social 

Security Administration, Office of 

Regulations and Reports Clearance, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 965–1483. 

RIN: 0960–AH43 

SSA 

157. Submission of Evidence in 

Disability Claims (3802F) 

Priority: Other Significant. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 

U.S.C. 405(d); 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(5); 42 

U.S.C. 1383c(a)(3)(H); 42 U.S.C. 

1383(d)(1) 

CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.900; 20 CFR 

404.935; 20 CFR 404.1512; 20 CFR 

404.1740; 20 CFR 405.1; 20 CFR 

405.331; 20 CFR 416.912; 20 CFR 

416.1400; 20 CFR 416.1435; 20 CFR 

416.1540. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: We will require claimants to 

inform us about or submit all evidence 

known to them that relates to their 

disability claim, subject generally to two 

exceptions for privileged 

communications and work product. 

This requirement would include the 

duty to submit all evidence obtained 

from any source in its entirety, unless 

subject to an exception. We will also 

require a representative to help the 

claimant obtain the information or 

evidence that the claimant must submit 

under our regulations. 

Statement of Need: These final rules 

will protect the integrity of the programs 

by clarifying a claimant’s duty to submit 

all relevant evidence and enabling us to 

have a more complete case record on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76656 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

which to make more accurate disability 

determinations or decisions. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Administrative—not required by statute 

or court order. 

Alternatives: Based on our program 

experience, there are no alternatives at 

this time. These final rules are based on 

recommendations by the Administrative 

Conference of the United States. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Undetermined. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 02/20/14 79 FR 9663 

NPRM Comment 

Period End.

04/21/14 

Final Rule ............ 12/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: None. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Janet Truhe, Social 

Insurance Specialist, Social Security 

Administration, Office of Disability 

Programs, 6401 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, Phone: 410 

966–7203. 

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, RIN: 

0960–AH53. 

SSA 

158. • Social Security Number Card 

Applications (3855I) 

Priority: Other Significant. Major 

status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 

undetermined. 

Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined. 

CFR Citation: 20 CFR 422.103; 20 CFR 

422.107; 20 CFR 422.110. 

Legal Deadline: None. 

Abstract: We are revising our 

regulations to allow applicants for a 

Social Security number (SSN) card to 

apply by completing a prescribed 

application and submitting the required 

evidence without completing a paper for 

SS–5. We are also removing the word 

‘‘documentary’’ from our description of 

certain evidence requirements. These 

administrative changes will simplify the 

SSN card application and provide 

flexibility to allow for the use of 

electronic processes which would result 

in greater access and ease of use for card 

applicants. In addition, we are replacing 

‘‘Immigration and Naturalization 

Service’’ with ‘‘Department of 

Homeland Security’’ to reflect that 

agency’s name change. These changes 

are administrative in nature and do not 

substantively affect eligibility or 

evidentiary requirements. 

Statement of Need: These 

administrative changes will simplify the 

SSN card application and provide 

flexibility to allow for the use of 

electronic processes, which would 

result in greater access and ease of use 

for card applicants. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Administrative—not required by statute 

or court order. 

Alternatives: None. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be 

determined. 

Risks: None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 12/00/14 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Small Entities Affected: No. 

Government Levels Affected: Federal. 

URL for Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

Agency Contact: Arthur LaVeck, 

Social Insurance Specialist, Social 

Security Administration, Office of 

Retirement and Disability Policy, Office 

of Income Security Programs, 6401 

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 966–5665. 

Helen Droddy, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social 

Security Administration, Office of 

Regulations and Reports Clearance, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, Phone: 410 965–1483. 

RIN: 0960–AH68 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

FALL 2014 STATEMENT OF 

REGULATORY PRIORITIES 

CFPB Purposes and Functions 

The Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection (CFPB) was established as an 

independent bureau of the Federal 

Reserve System by the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act (Public Law 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: 

(1) Consumers are provided with 

timely and understandable information 

to make responsible decisions about 

transactions involving consumer 

financial products and services; 

(2) Consumers are protected from 

unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and 

practices and from discrimination; 

(3) Outdated, unnecessary, or unduly 

burdensome regulations concerning 

consumer financial products and 

services are regularly identified and 

addressed in order to reduce 

unwarranted regulatory burdens; 

(4) Federal consumer financial law is 

enforced consistently, without regard to 

status 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, 2014, to 

October 31, 2015, include continuing 

work to implement Dodd-Frank Act 

mortgage protections, a series of 

rulemakings to address critical issues in 

other markets for consumer financial 

products and services, and following up 

on earlier efforts to streamline and 

modernize regulations that the Bureau 

has inherited from other federal 

agencies. 

Implementing Dodd-Frank Act Mortgage 

Protections 

As reflected in the CFPB’s semiannual 

regulatory agenda, a principal focus of 

the CFPB is the Bureau’s continuing 

efforts to implement critical consumer 

protections under the Dodd-Frank Act 

to guard against mortgage market 

practices that contributed to the nation’s 

most significant financial crisis in 

several decades. 

A major rulemaking priority for the 

Bureau continues to be the 

implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act 

amendments to the Home Mortgage 

Disclosure Act (HMDA) and other 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76657 

revisions to the HMDA regulations. The 

Dodd-Frank Act amendments augment 

existing data reporting requirements 

regarding housing-related loans and 

applications for such loans. In addition 

to obtaining data that is critical to the 

purposes of HMDA—which include 

providing the public and public officials 

with information that can be used to 

help determine whether financial 

institutions are serving the housing 

needs of their communities, assisting 

public officials in the distribution of 

public sector investments, and assisting 

in identifying possible discriminatory 

lending patterns and enforcing 

antidiscrimination statutes—the Bureau 

views this rulemaking as an opportunity 

to streamline and modernize HMDA 

data collection and reporting, in 

furtherance of its mission under the 

Dodd-Frank Act to reduce unwarranted 

regulatory burden. The Bureau 

published a proposed HMDA rule in the 

Federal Register on August 29, 2014 to 

add several new reporting requirements 

and to clarify several existing 

requirements. Publication of the 

proposal followed initial outreach 

efforts and the convening of a panel 

under the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act in 

conjunction with the Office of 

Management and Budget and the Small 

Business Administration’s Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy, to consult with 

small lenders who may be affected by 

the rulemaking. As the Bureau develops 

a final rule, it expects to review and 

consider public comments on the 

proposed rule, consult with other 

agencies and coordinate with them on 

implementation efforts, conduct 

additional outreach to build and refine 

operational capacity, and prepare to 

assist financial institutions in their 

compliance efforts. 

A major effort of the Bureau is the 

implementation of its final rule 

combining several federal mortgage 

disclosures that consumers receive in 

connection with applying for and 

closing on a mortgage loan under the 

Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the 

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act 

(RESPA). This project is mandated 

under the Dodd-Frank Act both to 

increase consumer understanding of 

mortgage transactions and to facilitate 

compliance by industry. The integrated 

forms are the cornerstone of the 

Bureau’s broader ‘‘Know Before You 

Owe’’ initiative. These new ‘‘Know 

Before You Owe’’ mortgage forms and 

their implementing regulations will 

replace several pages of existing federal 

disclosures with two simpler, 

streamlined forms that will help 

consumers understand their options, 

choose the deal that is best for them, 

and avoid costly surprises at the closing 

table. The Bureau conducted extensive 

qualitative testing of the new forms 

prior to issuing a proposal, and also 

conducted a post-proposal quantitative 

study to validate the results of the new 

forms. The results of the quantitative 

testing showed that consumers of all 

different experience levels, with 

different loan types—whether focused 

on buying a home or refinancing—were 

able to understand the Bureau’s new 

forms better than the current forms. 

The rule was issued in November 

2013 and takes effect in August 2015. 

The Bureau is working intensively to 

support implementation efforts and 

prepare consumer education materials 

and initiatives to help consumers 

understand and use the new forms. To 

facilitate implementation, the Bureau 

has released two compliance guides, 

sample forms, and additional materials. 

The Bureau also has been conducting 

extensive industry outreach to identify 

interpretive questions or 

implementation challenges with the 

rule, and hosting ongoing webinars to 

address common questions. In addition, 

in late 2014, the Bureau plans to issue 

a small proposed rule to make technical 

corrections, allow for certain language 

related to new construction loans to be 

added to the Loan Estimate form, and 

modify the same-day redisclosure 

requirement for floating interest rates 

that are locked after the Loan Estimate 

is first provided. 

In addition, the Bureau is working to 

support the full implementation of, and 

facilitate compliance with, various 

mortgage-related final rules issued by 

the Bureau in January 2013 to 

strengthen consumer protections 

involving the origination and servicing 

of mortgages. These rules, implementing 

requirements under the Dodd-Frank 

Act, were all effective by January 2014. 

The Bureau is working diligently to 

monitor the market and plans to make 

clarifications and adjustments to the 

rules where warranted. The Bureau is 

planning to issue rules in fall 2014 to 

provide certain adjustments to its rules 

for certain nonprofit entities and to 

provide a cure mechanism for lenders 

seeking to make ‘‘qualified mortgages’’ 

under rules requiring assessment of 

consumers’ ability to repay their 

mortgage loans where the mortgages 

exceed certain limitations on points and 

fees. The Bureau also anticipates issuing 

a proposal in fall 2014 to amend various 

provisions of its mortgage servicing 

rules, in both Regulation X and 

Regulation Z, including further 

clarification of the applicability of 

certain provisions when the borrower is 

in bankruptcy, possible additional 

enhancements to loss mitigation 

requirements, and other topics. In 

addition, in order to promote access to 

credit, the Bureau is currently engaged 

in further research to assess the impact 

of certain provisions implemented 

under the Dodd-Frank Act that modify 

general requirements for small creditors 

that operate predominantly in ‘‘rural or 

underserved’’ areas, and expects to 

release a notice of proposed rulemaking 

in early 2015. 

Further, the Bureau continues to 

participate in a series of interagency 

rulemakings to implement various 

Dodd-Frank Act amendments to TILA 

and the Financial Institutions Reform, 

Recovery and Enforcement Act 

(FIRREA) relating to mortgage 

appraisals. These include implementing 

certain other Dodd-Frank Act 

amendments to FIRREA concerning 

regulation of appraisal management 

companies and automated valuation 

models. 

Bureau Regulatory Efforts in Other 

Consumer Financial Markets 

In addition to the implementation of 

the Dodd-Frank Act mortgage related 

amendments, the Bureau is also working 

on a number of rulemakings to address 

important consumer protection issues in 

other markets for consumer financial 

products and services. Much of this 

effort will be based on previous work of 

the Bureau such as Requests for 

Information, Advance Notices of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs), and 

previously issued Bureau studies and 

reports. 

First, the Bureau anticipates in fall 

2014 issuing a proposed rule to create 

a comprehensive set of protections for 

General Purpose Reloadable (GPR) cards 

and other prepaid products, such as 

payroll cards and student loan 

disbursement cards, which are 

increasingly being used by consumers in 

place of a traditional deposit account or 

credit card. The proposal will build on 

comments received by the Bureau in 

response to a 2012 ANPRM seeking 

comment, data, and information from 

the public about GPR cards. The 

proposed rule will seek to expand 

coverage in Regulation E (implementing 

the Electronic Fund Transfer Act) to 

prepaid accounts, including GPR cards, 

by extending and in some cases 

modifying disclosure, periodic 

statement, and error resolution 

requirements that apply to consumer 

asset accounts that are currently subject 

to Regulation E. The Bureau also 

expects the proposal to address 

treatment of overdraft services and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76658 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

credit features in connection with 

prepaid accounts under both Regulation 

Z (Truth in Lending Act) and Regulation 

E. 

Building on Bureau research and 

other sources, the Bureau is also 

considering what rules may be 

appropriate for addressing the sustained 

use of short-term, high-cost credit 

products such as payday loans and 

deposit advance products. The Bureau 

issued a white paper on these products 

in April 2013 and a data point providing 

additional research in March 2014, and 

is continuing to analyze other consumer 

protection concerns associated with the 

use of high-cost, small-dollar credit 

products. Rulemaking might include 

disclosures or address acts or practices 

in connection with these products. 

The Bureau is also continuing to 

develop research on other critical 

consumer protection markets to help 

assess whether regulation may be 

warranted. For example, the Bureau 

issued research on bank and credit 

union overdraft programs in 2013 and 

2014 and is planning to release the 

results of further studies on overdraft 

programs and their effects on 

consumers. 

In addition, the Bureau has launched 

research initiatives to build on its 

November 2013 ANPRM on debt 

collection. These efforts include 

undertaking a survey to obtain 

information from consumers about their 

experiences with debt collection and 

launching consumer testing initiatives 

to determine what information would be 

useful for consumers to have about debt 

collection and their debts and how that 

information should be provided to 

them. 

Bureau work is also continuing on a 

number of earlier initiatives concerning 

consumer payment services. In addition 

to the prepaid rulemaking discussed 

above, in 2014, the Bureau engaged in 

a rulemaking to make further 

amendments to its existing rule that 

applies to consumer remittance transfers 

to foreign countries. The primary 

purpose of the rulemaking was to 

address whether to extend a provision 

under the Dodd-Frank Act that allows 

insured depository institutions to 

estimate certain information for 

purposes of consumer disclosures. The 

provision would have expired in July 

2015 unless the Bureau exercises 

authority to extend it for up to five 

years. The Bureau’s final rule extended 

the provision to July 2020. 

The Bureau is continuing rulemaking 

activities that will further establish the 

Bureau’s nonbank supervisory authority 

by defining larger participants of certain 

markets for consumer financial products 

and services. Larger participants of such 

markets, as the Bureau defines by rule, 

are subject to the Bureau’s supervisory 

authority. In fall 2014, the Bureau 

issued a final rule that amended the 

regulation defining larger participants of 

certain consumer financial products and 

services markets by adding a new 

section to define larger participants of a 

market for international money 

transfers, and began a rulemaking that 

would define larger participants of a 

market for automobile financing and 

define certain automobile leasing 

activity as a financial product or service. 

Bureau Regulatory Streamlining Efforts 

Another priority for the Bureau is 

continuing work on an earlier initiative 

to consider opportunities to modernize 

and streamline regulations that it 

inherited from other agencies pursuant 

to a transfer of rulemaking authority 

under the Dodd-Frank Act. In 

connection with the HMDA rulemaking 

described above, the Bureau has 

identified potential opportunities to 

reduce unwarranted regulatory burden 

concerning reporting of mortgage 

application, origination, and purchase 

activity, as described in the proposed 

rule. Similarly, the Bureau took the 

opportunity when streamlining federal 

mortgage forms as mandated by the 

Dodd-Frank Act and discussed above, to 

clarify existing regulations to address 

longstanding compliance concerns. The 

Bureau also issued a final rule in fall 

2014 to allow financial institutions that 

restrict their information sharing 

practices and meet other requirements 

to post their annual privacy notices to 

customers under the Gramm-LeachBliley Act online rather than delivering 

them individually. The rulemaking 

addresses longstanding concerns that 

the annual mailings are a source of 

unwarranted regulatory burden and 

unwanted paperwork for consumers. 

Additional Analysis, Planning, and 

Prioritization 

The Bureau is continuing to assess 

timelines for the issuance of additional 

Dodd-Frank Act related rulemakings 

and rulemakings inherited by the CFPB 

from other agencies as part of the 

transfer of authorities under the DoddFrank Act. The Bureau is also 

continuing to conduct outreach and 

research to assess issues in various other 

markets for consumer financial products 

and services. For example, as directed 

by Congress, the Bureau is conducting a 

study on the use of agreements 

providing for arbitration of consumer 

disputes in connection with the offering 

or providing of consumer financial 

products or services. Upon completion 

of this study, the Bureau will evaluate 

possible policy responses, including 

possible rulemaking actions, the 

findings of which shall be consistent 

with the study. The Bureau will 

similarly evaluate policy responses to 

other ongoing research and outreach, 

taking into account the critical need for 

and effectiveness of various policy tools. 

The Bureau will update its regulatory 

agenda in spring 2015 to reflect the 

results of further analysis, planning, and 

prioritization. 

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, 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 

considering one rule that would 

constitute a ‘‘significant regulatory 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76659 

1For example, the Controlling the Assault of NonSolicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 

(CAN–SPAM Act) (15 U.S.C. sections 7701–7713) 

and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and 

Abuse Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. sections 6101– 

6108). 

2For example, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (106 

Stat. 2776, codified in scattered sections of the U.S. 

Code, particularly 42 U.S.C. section 6201 et seq. 

and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007 (EISA)). 

3The FTC also prepares a number of annual and 

periodic reports on the statutes it administers. 

These are not discussed in this plan. 

4See press release ‘‘FTC to Host Spring Seminars 

on Emerging Consumer Privacy Issues’’ dated 

December 2, 2013, at http://www.ftc.gov/newsevents/press-releases/2013/12/ftc-host-springseminars-emerging-consumer-privacy-issues. 

action’’ under the definition of that term 

in Executive Order 12866: 

1. Flammability Standard for 

Upholstered Furniture 

Under section 4 of the Flammable 

Fabrics Act (FFA), the Commission may 

issue a flammability standard or other 

regulation for a product of interior 

furnishing if the Commission 

determines that such a standard is 

needed to adequately protect the public 

against unreasonable risk of the 

occurrence of fire leading to death or 

personal injury, or significant property 

damage. The Commission’s regulatory 

proceeding could result in several 

actions, one of which could be the 

development of a mandatory standard 

requiring that upholstered furniture 

meet mandatory requirements specified 

in the standard. 

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, 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. Unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices injure both 

consumers and honest competitors alike 

and undermine competitive markets. 

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, for consumers to have a 

choice of products and services at 

competitive prices and quality, the 

marketplace must be free from 

anticompetitive business practices. 

Thus, the second part of the 

Commission’s basic mission—antitrust 

enforcement—is to prohibit 

anticompetitive mergers or other 

anticompetitive business practices 

without unduly interfering with the 

legitimate activities of businesses. These 

two complementary missions make the 

Commission unique insofar as it is the 

Nation’s only Federal agency to be given 

this combination of statutory authority 

to protect consumers. 

The Commission is, first and 

foremost, a law enforcement agency. It 

pursues its mandate primarily through 

case-by-case enforcement of the Federal 

Trade Commission Act and other 

statutes. In addition, the Commission is 

also charged with the responsibility of 

issuing and enforcing regulations under 

a number of statutes. Pursuant to the 

FTC Act, the Commission currently has 

in place 16 trade regulation rules. Other 

examples include the regulations 

enforced pursuant to credit, financial 

and marketing practice statutes 1 and to 

energy laws.2 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. 

Commission Initiatives 

The Commission protects consumers 

through a variety of tools, including 

both regulatory and non-regulatory 

approaches. It has encouraged industry 

self-regulation, developed a corporate 

leniency policy for certain rule 

violations, and established compliance 

partnerships where appropriate. 

As detailed below, protecting 

consumer privacy, containing the rising 

costs of health care and prescription 

drugs, fostering competition and 

innovation in cutting-edge, high-tech 

industries, challenging deceptive 

advertising and marketing, and 

safeguarding the interests of potentially 

vulnerable consumers, such as children 

and the financially distressed, continue 

to be at the forefront of the 

Commission’s consumer protection and 

competition programs. By subject area, 

the FTC discusses some of the major 

workshops, reports,3 and initiatives it 

has pursued since the 2013 Regulatory 

Plan was published. 

(a) Protecting 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. Data security is an important 

focus of the Commission’s privacy work. 

Since 2002, the FTC has brought over 50 

cases against companies that have 

engaged in unfair or deceptive practices 

that the Commission alleged put 

consumers’ personal data at 

unreasonable risk. 

The Commission’s recent policy 

initiatives to promote privacy included 

a three-part ‘‘Spring Privacy Series’’ 4

that examined the privacy implications 

of three new areas of technology or 

business practices that have garnered 

considerable attention for the possible 

privacy concerns they raise for 

consumers. 

• The first event on February 19, 

2014, focused on the privacy and 

security implications of mobile device 

tracking, which involves physically 

tracking consumers in retail and other 

businesses using signals from their 

smartphones. 

• The second seminar on March 19, 

2014, examined alternative scoring 

products, which are scores increasingly 

used by businesses for a wide variety of 

purposes, ranging from identity 

verification and fraud prevention to 

marketing and advertising. The event 

discussed the privacy ramifications of 

such predictive scores, which may fall 

outside the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

• The final seminar on May 7, 2014, 

examined consumers’ use of connected 

health and fitness devices that regularly 

collect information about them and may 

transmit this information to other 

entities. 

In November 2013, the Commission 

held a workshop entitled Internet of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76660 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

5See workshop agenda and conference 

description at http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/ 

events-calendar/2013/11/internet-things-privacysecurity-connected-world. 

6 FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:14–cv–01038 

(W.D. Wash.) (Complaint For Permanent Injunction 

And Other Equitable Relief filed on July 10, 2014). 

7 In the Matter of Apple Inc., Docket No. C–4444, 

Decision and Order, March 25, 2014; In the Matter 

of Google Inc., Docket No. 122 3237, Proposed 

Agreement Containing Consent Order, September 4, 

2014. 

8See ‘‘Net Cetera: Chatting with Kids About 

Being Online’’ at http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/ 

articles/pdf-0001-netcetera.pdf. 

9The FTC has brought more than 130 cases 

involving telemarketing fraud against more than 

800 defendants during the past decade. 

10 FTC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:14–cv–00967 

(W.D. Wash.) (Complaint For Permanent Injunction 

And Other Equitable Relief filed on July 1, 2014). 

11See ‘‘Mobile Cramming: A Federal Trade 

Commission Staff Report (July 2014)’’ at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/ 

mobile-cramming-federal-trade-commission-staffreport-july-2014/140728mobilecramming.pdf. 

Things—Privacy and Security in a 

Connected World to explore consumer 

privacy and security issues posed by the 

growing connectivity of consumer 

devices, such as cars, home appliances, 

and health and fitness devices.5

(b) Protecting Children. Children 

increasingly use the Internet for 

entertainment, information and 

schoolwork. The Children’s Online 

Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and the 

FTC’s COPPA Rule protect children’s 

privacy when they are online by putting 

their parents in charge of who gets to 

collect personal information about their 

preteen kids. The FTC enforces COPPA 

by ensuring that parents have the tools 

they need to protect their children’s 

privacy. 

The Commission is actively litigating 

to protect children and their parents 

when children use mobile apps that 

appeal to children and offer virtual 

goods for sale. On August 1, 2014, the 

FTC filed a court complaint alleging that 

Amazon.com, Inc. billed parents and 

other account holders for millions of 

dollars in unauthorized in-app charges 

incurred by children.6 Amazon offers 

many children’s apps in its app store for 

download to mobile devices such as the 

Kindle Fire. The lawsuit seeks a court 

order requiring refunds to consumers for 

the unauthorized charges and 

permanently banning the company from 

billing parents and other account 

holders for in-app charges without their 

consent. This is the FTC’s third case 

relating to children’s in-app purchases; 

Apple and Google both settled FTC 

complaints concerning the issue in 

2014.7

The Commission has issued an 

updated version of the popular free 

consumer guide, ‘‘Net Cetera: Chatting 

with Kids About Being Online.’’ 8 The 

revised publication contains updated 

information for parents and other adults 

to use when talking with kids about 

how to be safe, secure and responsible 

online. The revision adds new topics 

that reflect changes in the online world 

since the guide was first issued in 2009. 

In the revised booklet, adults can find 

advice on how to talk with kids about 

mobile apps, using public Wi-Fi 

securely and how to recognize text 

message spam. The booklet also 

includes information about the recent 

changes to the COPPA Rule. 

(c) Protecting Seniors. The 

Commission works vigilantly to fight 

telephone scams that harm millions of 

Americans. The agency has aggressively 

used law enforcement tools 9 as well as 

efforts to educate consumers about these 

scams and to find technological 

solutions that will make it more difficult 

for scammers to operate and hide from 

law enforcement. FTC education and 

outreach programs reach tens of 

millions of people every year. Among 

them is the recently created ‘‘Pass It 

On’’ program that provides seniors with 

information, in English and Spanish, on 

a variety of scams targeting the elderly. 

The agency also works with the Elder 

Justice Coordinating Council to help 

protect seniors and with the AARP 

Foundation, whose peer counselors 

provided fraud-avoidance advice last 

year to more than a thousand seniors 

who had filed complaints with the FTC 

about certain frauds, including lottery, 

prize promotion, and grandparent 

scams. The Commission is also 

promoting initiatives to make it harder 

for scammers to fake or ‘‘spoof’’ their 

caller Identification information and the 

more widespread availability of 

technology that will block calls from 

fraudsters, essentially operating as a 

spam filter for the telephone. 

(d) Protecting Financially Distressed 

Consumers. Even as the economy 

recovers, some consumers continue to 

face financial challenges. The FTC acts 

to ensure that consumers are protected 

from deceptive and unfair credit 

practices and get the information they 

need to make informed financial 

choices. The Commission has continued 

its enforcement efforts by bringing law 

enforcement actions to curb deceptive 

and unfair practices in mortgage rescue, 

debt relief, auto financing and debt 

collection. 

In October 2014, the FTC also cohosted a roundtable on debt collection 

issues with the Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau (CFPB). The 

roundtable specifically examined how 

debt collection issues affect Latino 

consumers, especially those who have 

limited English proficiency (LEP). The 

event brought together consumer 

advocates, industry representatives, 

State and Federal regulators, and 

academics to exchange information on a 

range of issues. Topics included an 

overview of the Latino community, its 

finances, and the collectors who contact 

members of this community; prelitigation collection from Latino 

consumers; the experience of LEP 

Latinos in debt collection litigation; 

credit reporting issues among LEP 

Latinos; and developing improved 

strategies for educating and reaching out 

to LEP Latinos about debt collection. 

(e) Ensuring Consumers Benefit from 

New Technologies While Also Protecting 

Them. 

• Mobile Cramming. The widespread 

adoption of mobile devices has 

provided many important benefits to 

consumers, including the convenience 

of paying for goods and services using 

a mobile phone. Recently, the FTC has 

brought a number of law enforcement 

actions in addition to policy and 

education activities designed to combat 

mobile cramming that are part of the 

Commission’s overall work to protect 

consumers in the mobile environment. 

In the Commission’s six mobile 

cramming cases brought since the spring 

of 2013, the three that have been fully 

or partially resolved have resulted in 

strong relief for consumers. The agency 

has obtained judgments totaling more 

than $160 million, as well as court 

orders preventing the defendants from 

further illegal cramming. The 

Commission also has two ongoing cases 

against two other merchants who 

crammed charges onto consumers’ bills, 

along with its case against wireless 

carrier T-Mobile filed earlier in July 

2014.10

• Mobile Billing. One mobile payment 

option is known as ‘‘carrier billing’’— 

the ability to charge a good or service 

directly to a mobile phone account. In 

a report issued on July 28, 2014, FTC 

staff recommended steps that mobile 

carriers and other companies should 

take to prevent consumers from being 

stuck with unauthorized charges on 

their mobile phone bills, an unlawful 

practice known as mobile cramming.11

FTC staff set out five recommended best 

practices for industry participants to 

protect consumers against unwanted 

charges while enabling innovation and 

consumer access to another payment 

mechanism. The FTC will continue to 

monitor and, where appropriate, 

investigate industry participants— 

carriers, billing intermediaries, and 

merchants—involved in third-party 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76661 

12See ‘‘What’s the Deal? An FTC Study on Mobile 

Shopping Apps (August 2014)’’ at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/whatsdeal-federal-trade-commission-study-mobileshopping-apps-august-2014/ 

140801mobileshoppingapps.pdf. 

13 FTC v. AbbVie, Inc., No. 2:14–cv–05151–RK 

(E.D. Pa.) (Complaint For Injunctive And Other 

Equitable Relief filed on September 8, 2014). 

14 FTC v. Cephalon, Inc., No. 2:08–CV–02141 

(E.D. Pa.). 

15See press release ‘‘Federal Trade Commission, 

Department of Justice to Hold Workshop on Patent 

Assertion Entity Activities’’ dated November 19, 

2012, at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/11/ 

paeworkshop.shtm. 

16See Comments of the Antitrust Division of the 

United States Department of Justice And the United 

States Federal Trade Commission, February 1, 2013, 

Before the United States Department of Commerce 

Patent and Trademark Office, In the Matter of 

Notice of Roundtable on Proposed Requirements for 

Recordation of Real-Party-in-Interest Information 

Throughout Application Pendency and Patent 

Term, Docket No. PTO–P–2012–0047, at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/os/2013/02/130201pto-rpicomment.pdf. 

mobile billing and bring further 

enforcement actions. Further, the FTC 

will continue to monitor the issue of 

cramming on mobile phone accounts 

and evaluate whether other potential 

solutions—including legislative 

measures and additional regulatory 

changes—are necessary to ensure 

consumers are protected from unwanted 

and unauthorized charges. 

• Mobile Shopping Apps. A new staff 

report issued on August 1, 2014, by the 

Commission finds that many mobile 

apps for use in shopping do not provide 

consumers with important 

information—such as how the apps 

manage payment-related disputes or 

handle consumer data—prior to 

download. The report, ‘‘What’s the 

Deal? An FTC Study on Mobile 

Shopping Apps,’’ 12 looked at some of 

the most popular apps used by 

consumers to comparison shop, collect 

and redeem deals and discounts, and 

pay in-store with their mobile devices. 

The report builds on the findings of the 

Commission’s 2012 workshop on mobile 

payments and the report from that 

workshop, which raised concerns about 

consumers’ potential financial 

liability—as well as the privacy and 

security of their data—when using 

mobile payment services. The report is 

part of the Commission’s work to ensure 

that consumers are fully protected in the 

growing mobile space, which has 

included workshops and other 

initiatives to study cutting-edge issues 

in this area, along with a number of law 

enforcement cases. 

• Use of Big Data. The Commission 

hosted a public workshop entitled ‘‘Big 

Data: A Tool for Inclusion or 

Exclusion?’’ on September 15, 2014, 

which explored the use of ‘‘big data’’ 

and its impact on American consumers, 

including low-income and underserved 

consumers. A growing number of 

companies are increasingly using big 

data analytics techniques to categorize 

consumers and make predictions about 

their behavior. As part of the FTC’s 

ongoing work to shed light on the full 

scope of big data practices, the 

workshop examined the potentially 

positive and negative effects of big data 

on low income and underserved 

populations. 

(f) Promoting Competition in Health 

Care. The FTC continues to work to 

eliminate anticompetitive settlements 

featuring payments by branded drug 

firms to a generic competitor to keep 

generic drugs off the market (so-called, 

‘‘pay-for-delay’’ agreements). It’s a 

practice where the pharmaceutical 

industry wins, but consumers lose. The 

brand company protects its drug 

franchise, and the generic competitor 

shares in the monopoly profits 

preserved by avoiding competition. The 

Commission supports legislation to ban 

these harmful agreements while actively 

litigating Federal court challenges to 

invalidate individual agreements. In a 

significant victory on June 17, 2013, the 

U.S. Supreme Court reversed a lower 

court ruling and held that pay-for-delay 

agreements between brand and generic 

drug companies are subject to antitrust 

scrutiny under an antitrust ‘‘rule of 

reason’’ analysis. FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 

570 U.S. 756 (2013). The FTC now has 

three active pay-for-delay litigations 

underway in federal courts. Two of 

them involve the blockbuster male 

testosterone replacement drug Androgel, 

including the Actavis case on remand to 

the U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of Georgia and FTC v. AbbVie, 

Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania.13 The 

third, underway in the U.S. District 

Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania, FTC v. Cephalon, Inc., 

involves the billion-dollar narcolepsy 

drug Provigil.14 However, solving this 

problem through the courts will take 

considerable time, during which 

American consumers and governments 

will continue to pay high prices for 

prescription drugs. 

The FTC also continues to vigorously 

challenge anticompetitive acquisitions 

in health care provider markets. For 

example, in January 2014, a federal 

court in Idaho issued a permanent 

injunction enjoining St. Luke’s Health 

System’s acquisition of Saltzer Medical 

Group, Idaho’s largest independent, 

multi-specialty physician practice 

group, and requiring full divestiture of 

Saltzer’s physicians and assets in an 

action brought by the FTC, together with 

the Idaho Attorney General. The 

complaint charged that the combination 

of St. Luke’s employed primary care 

physicians and Saltzer’s physicians 

would give the merged firm the market 

power to demand higher rates for 

primary care physician services in 

Nampa, Idaho, and surrounding areas. 

This case is on appeal. Moreover, in 

April 2014, in the first appellate 

decision in a health care provider 

merger in 15 years, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the 

Commission’s 2012 decision finding 

that ProMedica Health System, Inc. 

acquisition of a rival, St. Luke’s Hospital 

in the Toledo, Ohio area, violated the 

antitrust laws. The Commission’s order 

requires ProMedica to divest St. Luke’s 

Hospital to an FTC-approved buyer. 

(g) Fostering Innovation & 

Competition. For more than two 

decades, the Commission has examined 

difficult issues at the intersection of 

antitrust and intellectual property law— 

issues related to innovation, standardsetting, 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 and DOJ held a 

joint workshop in December 2012 to 

explore the impact of patent assertion 

entity (PAE) activities 15 and encouraged 

efforts of the Patent Trade Office to 

provide the public with more complete 

information regarding patent 

ownership.16 The FTC and DOJ also 

received public comments in 

conjunction with the workshop. While 

workshop panelists and commenters 

identified potential harms and 

efficiencies of PAE activity, they noted 

a lack of empirical data in this area and 

recommended that FTC use its authority 

under Section 6(b) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act. After public notice 

and comment, on August 8, 2014, the 

Commission received authority from the 

Office of Management and Budget to 

issue compulsory process orders to 

PAEs and other industry participants for 

the purpose of gathering information to 

examine how PAEs do business and 

develop a better understanding of how 

they impact innovation and 

competition. 

(h) Alcohol Advertising. On February 

1, 2012, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) gave the Commission 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76662 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

17A copy of the order, a list of the target 

companies, and the press release are available 

online at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/04/ 

alcoholstudy.shtm. 

18See Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry 

(March 2014), available at http://www.ftc.gov/ 

system/files/documents/reports/self-regulationalcohol-industry-report-federal-trade-commission/ 

140320alcoholreport.pdf. 

19More information can be found at http:// 

www.dontserveteens.gov/. 

20 16 CFR part 317; See press release: ‘‘New FTC 

Rule Prohibits Petroleum Market Manipulation’’ 

(Aug. 6, 2009), available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/ 

2009/08/mmr.shtm; ‘‘FTC Issues Compliance Guide 

for Its Petroleum Market Manipulation 

Regulations,’’ News Release (Nov. 13, 2009), 

available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/11/ 

mmr.shtm. 

21See press release ‘‘FTC Approves Final Orders 

Settling Charges of U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Violations 

Against 14 Companies’’ dated June 25, 2014, at 

http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/

2014/06/ftc-approves-final-orders-settling-chargesus-eu-safe-harbor. 

22 FTC v. Construct Data Publishers, a.s. d/b/a 

Fair Guide, Civil Action Number: 13 cv 1999 (N.D. 

Ill.) Default Judgment and Order for Permanent 

Injunction and Other Equitable Relief Against 

Construct Data Publishers A.S., Wolfgang Valvoda, 

and Susanne Anhorn (March 7, 2014). 

23See press release ‘‘FTC Signs Memorandum of 

Understanding with Nigerian Consumer Protection 

and Criminal Enforcement Authorities’’ dated 

August 28, 2013, at http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/ 

press-releases/2013/08/ftc-signs-memorandumunderstanding-nigerian-consumer-protection. 

24See press release ‘‘FTC Puts Conditions on 

Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.’s Proposed 

Acquisition of Life Technologies Corporation’’ 

dated January 31, 2014, at http://www.ftc.gov/newsevents/press-releases/2014/01/ftc-puts-conditionsthermo-fisher-scientific-incs-proposed. 

25See press release ‘‘Federal Trade Commission 

and Justice Department Issue Updated Model 

Waiver of Confidentiality for International Civil 

Matters and Accompanying FAQ’’ dated September 

25, 2013, at http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pressreleases/2013/09/federal-trade-commission-andjustice-department-issue-updated. 

approval, under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, to issue compulsory 

process orders to up to 14 alcohol 

companies. On April 16, 2012, the 

Commission issued the orders, seeking 

information on company brands, sales, 

and marketing expenses; compliance 

with advertising placement codes; and 

use of social media and other digital 

marketing.17 On March 20, 2014, the 

Commission released a report, setting 

forth the results of its study.18 The 

Commission also continues to promote 

the ‘‘We Don’t Serve Teens’’ consumer 

education program, supporting the legal 

drinking age.19

(i) Gasoline Prices. Given the impact 

of energy prices on consumer budgets, 

the energy sector continues to be a 

major focus of FTC law enforcement and 

study. In November 2009, the FTC’s 

Petroleum Market Manipulation Rule 

became final.20 Our staff continues to 

examine all communications from the 

public about potential violations of this 

Rule, which prohibits manipulation in 

wholesale markets for crude oil, 

gasoline, and petroleum distillates. 

Other activities complement these 

efforts, including merger enforcement 

and an agreement with the Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission to share 

investigative information. In view of the 

fundamental importance of oil, natural 

gas, and other energy resources to the 

overall vitality of the United States and 

world economy, we expect that FTC 

review and oversight of the oil and 

natural gas industries will remain a 

centerpiece of our work for years to 

come. 

(j) Fraud Surveys. The FTC’s Bureau 

of Economics (BE) continues to conduct 

fraud surveys and related research on 

consumer susceptibility to fraud. For 

example, BE conducted an exploratory 

experimental study in a university 

economics laboratory to see whether we 

could identify characteristics of 

consumers who might be more likely to 

fall victim to fraud. A second 

exploratory study of susceptibility to 

fraud was conducted using an Internet 

panel. The results of that study are 

currently being analyzed. The most 

recent survey of the incidence of 

consumer fraud was conducted between 

late November 2011 and early February 

2012, and a report describing the 

findings was released in April 2013. The 

results of these efforts may aid the FTC 

to better target its enforcement actions 

and consumer education initiatives and 

improve future fraud surveys. 

(k) Protecting Consumers from CrossBorder Harm. The FTC continues to 

focus on combatting cross-border 

violations of law that affect consumers. 

For example, this year the Commission 

approved fourteen settlements with U.S. 

businesses that had falsely claimed they 

were abiding by an international privacy 

framework known as the U.S.-European 

Union Safe Harbor that enables U.S. 

companies to transfer consumer data 

from the European Union (EU) to the 

United States in compliance with EU 

law.21 Additionally, the FTC, with the 

help of counterparts in Canada, 

Slovakia, and Austria, brought an action 

against a notorious multi-million dollar 

international business directory scam in 

FTC v. Construct Data.22 Building on 

the FTC’s work with African consumer 

agencies, the FTC signed a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

with Nigeria’s Consumer Protection 

Council and its Economic and Financial 

Crimes Commission.23 It is the first FTC 

MOU of this kind to include a foreign 

criminal enforcement authority. 

The FTC strives to promote sound 

approaches to common problems by 

building relationships with sister 

agencies around the world. With over 

130 jurisdictions enforcing competition 

laws, the FTC continues to lead efforts 

to develop strong mutual enforcement 

cooperation and sound policy with its 

international partners. We continue to 

strengthen cooperation and 

coordination with agencies to reach 

compatible results on cases of mutual 

interest, such as Thermo Fisher/Life 

Technologies, in which the FTC 

recently cooperated with antitrust 

agencies in nine jurisdictions to reach 

consistent results.24 We also work to 

develop improved tools to facilitate 

cooperation. This year, FTC and 

Department of Justice Antitrust Division 

staff jointly released a model waiver of 

confidentiality that is designed to 

streamline the waiver negotiation 

process, facilitating deeper 

communication between cooperating 

agencies.25 During the past year the FTC 

held bilateral meetings with key 

partners, including competition 

agencies in the EU, Canada, Mexico, 

Japan, China and India, and continued 

to play a lead role in the International 

Competition Network, including coleading the Agency Effectiveness 

Working Group and its Investigative 

Process Project. 

(l) Self-Regulatory and Compliance 

Initiatives With Industry. The 

Commission continues to engage 

industry in compliance partnerships in 

the funeral and franchise industries. 

Specifically, 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. Almost 460 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 is designed to assist 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 

section 5 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 years. Where appropriate, 

the program offers franchisees the 

opportunity to mediate claims arising 

from the law violations. Since December 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76663 

1998, 21 companies have agreed to 

participate in the program. 

Rulemakings and Studies Required by 

Statute 

Congress has enacted laws requiring 

the Commission to undertake 

rulemakings and studies. This section 

discusses required rules and studies. 

The final actions section below 

describes actions taken on the required 

rulemakings and studies since the 2013 

Regulatory Plan was published. 

FACTA Rules. The Commission has 

issued all of the rules required by 

FACTA (Fair and Accurate Credit 

Transactions Act). These rules are 

codified in several parts of 16 CFR 602 

et seq., amending or supplementing 

regulations relating to the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act. 

FACTA Studies. On March 27, 2009, 

the Commission issued compulsory 

information requests to the nine largest 

private providers of homeowner 

insurance in the nation. The purpose 

was to help the FTC collect data for its 

study on the effects of credit-based 

scores in the homeowner insurance 

market, a study mandated by section 

215 of the FACTA. During the summer 

of 2009, these nine insurers submitted 

responses to the Commission’s requests. 

FTC staff has reviewed the large policylevel data files included in these 

submissions and has identified a sample 

set of data to be used for the study. The 

insurance companies then worked with 

their vendor to ensure the security of 

delivering the data set to the FTC’s own 

and separate vendor. That data was sent 

to the FTC’s vendor, which then sent 

the data, stripped of any personally 

identifiable information, to the FTC. 

The FTC’s vendor also sent other data 

to the Social Security Administration 

(SSA), which will provide the FTC with 

additional data for the Report. The FTC 

hopes to receive the SSA data soon. 

Staff expects the Report will be 

submitted to Congress during the spring 

of 2015. This study is not affected by the 

Consumer Financial Protection Act. 

Section 319 of FACTA requires the 

FTC to study the accuracy and 

completeness of information in 

consumers’ credit reports and to 

consider methods for improving the 

accuracy and completeness of such 

information. Section 319 of the Act also 

requires the Commission to issue a 

series of biennial reports to Congress 

over a period of 11 years. The 

Commission’s December 2012 report to 

Congress on credit reporting accuracy 

focused on identifying potential errors 

that could have a material effect on a 

person’s credit standing. Any 

participants who identified a potentially 

material error on their report were 

encouraged to dispute the erroneous 

information. The study found that 26 

percent of consumers reported a 

potential material error on one or more 

of their three reports and filed a dispute 

with at least one credit reporting agency 

(CRA), and half of these consumers 

experienced a change in their credit 

scores. For five percent of consumers, 

the errors on their credit reports could 

lead to them paying more for products 

such as auto loans and insurance. 

Congress instructed the FTC to complete 

this study by December 2014, when a 

final report is due. 

Retrospective Review of Existing 

Regulations 

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. Under the Commission’s program, 

rules are reviewed on a 10-year 

schedule. For many rules, this has 

resulted 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. 

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. In a number of 

instances, the Commission has 

determined that existing rules and 

guides were no longer necessary or in 

the public interest. Most of the matters 

currently under review pertain to 

consumer protection and are intended 

to ensure that consumers receive the 

information necessary to evaluate 

competing products and make informed 

purchasing decisions. 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. 

In light of Executive Orders 13563 

and 13579, the FTC continues to take a 

fresh look at its long-standing regulatory 

review process. The Commission is 

taking a number of steps to ease burdens 

on business and promote transparency 

in its regulatory review program: 

• The Commission recently issued a 

revised 10-year review schedule (see 

next paragraph below) and is 

accelerating the review of a number of 

rules and guides in response to recent 

changes in technology and the 

marketplace. The Commission is 

currently reviewing 20 of the 65 rules 

and guides within its jurisdiction. 

• The Commission continues to 

request and review public comments on 

the effectiveness of its regulatory review 

program and suggestions for its 

improvement. 

• 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 addition, the Commission’s 10-year 

periodic review schedule includes 

initiating reviews for the following rules 

and guides (79 FR 14199, March 13, 

2014) during 2014 and 2015: 

(1) Standards for Safeguarding 

Customer Information, 16 CFR 314, 

(2) Contact Lens Rule, 16 CFR 315, 

(3) CAN–SPAM Rule, 16 CFR 316, 

and 

(4) Ophthalmic Practice Rules 

(Eyeglass Rule), 16 CFR 456. 

As set out below under Ongoing Rule 

and Guide Reviews, the Commission 

recently initiated reviews of the 

Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 CFR 

308, and the Hobby Rules, 16 CFR 304. 

Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews 

The Commission is continuing review 

of a number of rules and guides, which 

are discussed below. 

(a) Rules 

Premerger Notification Rules and 

Report Form (or HSR Rules), 16 CFR 

801–803. The Premerger Office is 

considering recommending 

amendments to the HSR Rules regarding 

standards for the valuation of 

potentially reportable transactions, 

regarding the instructions to the HSR 

Form to update information related to 

NAICS (North American Industry 

Classification System) codes, recent rule 

changes, and a change of address for 

delivery of filings to the FTC Premerger 

Office. The proposed amendments may 

be issued during the first quarter of 

2015. The Premerger Office is also 

considering amendments to the 

Instructions to the HSR Form to update 

information related to NAICS codes and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76664 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

26See Final Actions for information about a 

separate final rule proceeding for HSR Rules. 

recent rule changes and allow the 

submission of filings on electronic 

media.26

Fuel Rating Rule, 16 CFR 306. First 

issued in 1979, the Fuel Rating Rule (or 

Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification 

and Posting Rule) enables consumers to 

buy gasoline with an appropriate octane 

rating for their vehicle and establishes 

standard procedures for determining, 

certifying, and posting octane ratings. 

On March 27, 2014, the Commission 

proposed amendments to the Rule that 

would adopt and revise rating, 

certification, and labeling requirements 

for blends of gasoline with more than 10 

percent ethanol and would allow an 

alternative octane rating method that 

would lower compliance costs. 79 FR 

18850. The comment period closed on 

July 2, 2014. Staff is reviewing 

comments and anticipates sending a 

recommendation to the Commission by 

the end of the first quarter of 2015. 

Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 

CFR 308. Anti-Fraud Provisions— 

Commission staff are considering 

proposed ‘‘Anti-Fraud’’ amendments to 

the TSR concerning, among other 

things, the misuse of novel payment 

methods by telemarketers and sellers. 

On May 21, 2013, the Commission 

issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(‘‘NPRM’’), which was published in the 

Federal Register on July 9, 2013. 78 FR 

41200. After a short extension, the 

comment period closed on August 8, 

2013. Commission staff is reviewing the 

comments submitted in response to the 

NPRM, and anticipates making a 

recommendation to the Commission by 

the end of 2014. 

Periodic Rule Review—On August 11, 

2014, Commission initiated periodic 

review of the TSR as set out on the 10- 

year review schedule. 79 FR 46732. The 

comment period as extended will close 

on November 13, 2014. 79 FR 61267 

(Oct. 10, 2014). 

Hobby Rules, 16 CFR 304. As part of 

the systematic rule review process, on 

July 14, 2014, the Commission 

requested public comments on, among 

other things, the economic impact and 

benefits of the Hobby Rules (Rules and 

Regulations under the Hobby Protection 

Act); possible conflict between the 

Rules and State, local, or other Federal 

laws or regulations; and the effect on the 

Rules of any technological, economic, or 

other industry changes. 79 FR 40691. 

The comment period closed on 

September 22, 2014. The Hobby 

Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 2101–2106, 

prohibits manufacturing or importing 

imitation numismatic and collectible 

political items unless they are marked 

in accordance with regulations 

prescribed by the Federal Trade 

Commission. The implementing Rules 

prescribe that imitation political items— 

such as buttons, posters or coffee 

mugs—must be marked with the 

calendar year in which they were 

manufactured, and imitation 

numismatic items—including coins, 

tokens and paper money—must be 

marked with the word ‘‘copy.’’ Staff 

anticipates sending a recommendation 

to the Commission by May 2015. 

The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act 

(‘‘FPLA’’) Rules, 16 CFR 500–502. The 

FPLA requires consumer commodities 

to be marked with statements of: (1) 

Identity; (2) net quantity of contents; 

and (3) name and place of the business 

of manufacturer, packer, or distributor. 

These requirements serve FPLA’s stated 

purpose of ‘‘enabling consumers to 

obtain accurate information as to the 

quantity of the contents and . . . to 

facilitate value comparisons.’’ As part of 

its ongoing systematic review process, 

the Commission requested comments on 

March 19, 2014, regarding, among other 

things, the economic impact and 

benefits of the FPLA Rules; possible 

conflict between the Rules and State, 

local, or other Federal laws or 

regulations; and the effect on the Rules 

of any technological, economic, or other 

industry changes. The comment period 

closed on May 21, 2014. Staff is 

reviewing the comments and anticipates 

forwarding a recommendation to the 

Commission by the end of 2014. 

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 forwarding a 

recommendation to the Commission 

action during early 2015. 

Used Car Rule, 16 CFR 455. The Used 

Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule 

(‘‘Used Car Rule’’), 16 CFR 455, sets out 

the general duties of a used vehicle 

dealer; requires that a completed Buyers 

Guide be posted at all times on the side 

window of each used car a dealer offers 

for sale; and mandates disclosure of 

whether the vehicle is covered by a 

dealer warranty and, if so, the type and 

duration of the warranty coverage, or 

whether the vehicle is being sold ‘‘as isno warranty.’’ The Commission 

published a notice seeking public 

comments on the effectiveness and 

impact of the rule. See 73 FR 42285 

(July 21, 2008). The comment period, as 

extended and then reopened, ended on 

June 15, 2009. In response to comments, 

the Commission published a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking on December 17, 

2012 (See 77 FR 74746) and a final rule 

revising the Spanish translation of the 

window form on December 12, 2012. 

See 77 FR 73912. The extended 

comment period on the NPRM ended on 

March 13, 2012. The Commission is 

currently considering staff’s 

recommendation relating to the next 

step in this rulemaking. 

Consumer Warranty Rules, 16 CFR 

701–703. The Rule Governing the 

Disclosure of Written Consumer Product 

Warranty Terms and Conditions (Rule 

701) establishes requirements for 

warrantors for disclosing the terms and 

conditions of written warranties on 

consumer products actually costing the 

consumer more than $15.00. The Rule 

Governing the Pre-Sale Availability of 

Written Warranty Terms, 16 CFR part 

702 (Rule 702) requires sellers and 

warrantors to make the terms of a 

written warranty available to the 

consumer prior to sale. The Rule 

Governing Informal Dispute Settlement 

Procedures (IDSM) (Rule 703) 

establishes minimum requirements for 

those informal dispute settlement 

mechanisms that are incorporated by 

the warrantor into its consumer product 

warranty. By incorporating the IDSM 

into the warranty, the warrantor 

requires the consumer to use the IDSM 

before pursuing any legal remedies in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76665 

27The Federal Register Notice also announced 

the review of the related Guides for the Advertising 

of Warranties and Guarantees, 16 CFR 239, and the 

Interpretations of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 16 

CFR 700. 

court. On August 23, 2011, as part of its 

ongoing systematic review of all FTC 

rules and guides, the Commission 

requested comments on, among other 

things, the economic impact and 

benefits of these Rules, Guides, and 

Interpretations; 27 possible conflict 

between the Rules, Guides, and 

Interpretations and state, local, or other 

federal laws or regulations; and the 

effect on the Rules, Guides, and 

Interpretations of any technological, 

economic, or other industry changes. 

See 76 FR 52596. The comment period 

closed on October 24, 2011. Staff 

anticipates sending a recommendation 

to the Commission by the fall of 2014. 

Cooling-Off Rule, 16 CFR 429. The 

Cooling-Off Rule requires that a 

consumer be given a 3-day right to 

cancel certain sales greater than $25.00 

that occur at a place other than a seller’s 

place of business. The rule also requires 

a seller to notify buyers orally of the 

right to cancel, to provide buyers with 

a dated receipt or copy of the contract 

containing the name and address of the 

seller and notice of cancellation rights, 

and to provide buyers with forms which 

buyers may use to cancel the contract. 

As part of its systematic regulatory 

review process and following public 

comment, the Commission announced 

that it was retaining the Cooling-Off 

Rule and proposed increasing its $25 

exclusionary limit to $130 to account for 

inflation. 78 FR 3855 (Jan. 17, 2013). 

The comment period closed on March 4, 

2013. Staff reviewed the comments, and 

the Commission is currently reviewing 

its recommendation. 

Unavailability Rule, 16 CFR 424. The 

Unavailability Rule states that it is a 

violation of section 5 of the FTC Act for 

retail stores of food, groceries, or other 

merchandise to advertise products for 

sale at a stated price if those stores do 

not have the advertised products in 

stock and readily available to customers 

during the effective period of the 

advertisement, unless the advertisement 

clearly discloses that supplies of the 

advertised products are limited or are 

available only at some outlets. This Rule 

is intended to benefit consumers by 

ensuring that advertised items are 

available, that advertising-induced 

purchasing trips are not fruitless, and 

that store prices accurately reflect the 

prices appearing in the ads. On August 

12, 2011, the Commission announced an 

ANPRM and a request for comment on 

the Rule as part of its systematic 

periodic review of current rules. The 

comment period closed on October 19, 

2011. Staff has reviewed the comments 

and expects to submit a 

recommendation to the Commission by 

the winter of 2015. 

(b) Guides 

Jewelry Guides, 16 CFR 23. 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 (July 2, 2012). 

Since completing its last review of the 

Jewelry Guides in 1996, the Commission 

revised sections of the Guides and 

addressed other issues raised in 

petitions from jewelry trade 

associations. 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. The comment period 

initially set to close on August 27, 2012, 

was subsequently extended until 

September 28, 2012. Staff also 

conducted a public roundtable to 

examine possible modifications to the 

Guides in June 2013. Staff is currently 

reviewing the record, including 

comments and the roundtable 

transcript. 

Used Auto Parts Guides, 16 CFR 20. 

On July 14, 2014, the Commission 

completed its review of the Guides for 

the Rebuilt, Reconditioned and Other 

Used Automobile Parts Industry (Used 

Auto Parts Guides or Guides), which are 

designed to prevent the unfair or 

deceptive marketing of used motor 

vehicle parts and assemblies, such as 

engines and transmissions, containing 

used parts. 79 FR 40623. The Guides 

prohibit misrepresentations that a part 

is new or about the condition, extent of 

previous use, reconstruction, or repair 

of a part. Previously used parts must be 

clearly and conspicuously identified as 

such in advertising and packaging and, 

if the part appears new, on the part 

itself. In May 2012, the Commission 

sought public comments on the Used 

Auto Parts Guides. 77 FR 29922. After 

considering the comments, the 

Commission decided to retain and 

amend the Guides. Significant 

amendments include providing that the 

term ‘‘remanufactured,’’ like the term 

‘‘factory rebuilt,’’ should be used only if 

the product was rebuilt ‘‘at a factory 

generally engaged in the rebuilding of 

such products;’’ applying the Guides to 

used tires; and shortening and updating 

the sample list of parts that may be 

industry products. 

Final Actions 

Since the publication of the 2013 

Regulatory Plan, the Commission has 

issued the following final rules or taken 

other actions to close other rulemaking 

proceedings. 

Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise 

Rule, 16 CFR 435. The Mail or 

Telephone Order Rule requires that, 

when sellers advertise merchandise, 

they must have a reasonable basis for 

stating or implying that they can ship 

within a certain time. On September 11, 

2014, the Commission announced it was 

adopting final amendments to its Trade 

Regulation Rule previously entitled 

‘‘Mail or Telephone Order 

Merchandise,’’ including revising its 

name to ‘‘Mail, Internet, or Telephone 

Order Merchandise’’ (the ‘‘Rule’’). 79 FR 

55615 (Sept. 17, 2014). The final rule is 

based upon the comments received in 

response to an Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, a Staff Report, 

and other information. Other final 

amendments clarify that the Rule covers 

all orders placed over the Internet; 

revise the Rule to allow sellers to 

provide refunds and refund notices by 

any means at least as fast and reliable 

as first class mail; clarify sellers’ 

obligations when buyers use payment 

systems not enumerated in the Rule; 

and require that refunds be made within 

seven working days for purchases made 

using third-party credit cards. The final 

rule is effective on December 8, 2014. 

Wool Rules, 16 CFR 300. On June 4, 

2014, the Commission amended the 

Wool Rules (Rules and Regulations 

Under The Wool Products Labeling Act 

of 1939) to conform to the 2006 

amendments to the Wool Suit Fabric 

Labeling Fairness and International 

Standards Conforming Act (the Wool 

Act) and the amended Textile Rules. 

The changes included incorporating the 

Wool Act’s new definitions for 

cashmere and very fine wools, clarifying 

descriptions of products containing 

virgin or new wool, and allowing 

certain hang-tags disclosing fiber 

trademarks and performance even if 

they do not disclose the product’s full 

fiber content. The amended Rules were 

effective on July 7, 2014. 

Fur Rules, 16 CFR 301. The 

Commission published amendments to 

the Fur Rules (or Rules and Regulations 

under the Fur Products Labeling Act) on 

May 28, 2014, to update the Fur 

Products Name Guide, provide more 

labeling flexibility, incorporate Truth in 

Fur Labeling Act provisions, and 

conform the guaranty provisions to 

those governing the Rules under the 

Textile Fiber Products Identification 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76666 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

28See Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews for 

information about a separate ongoing rulemaking 

proceeding for the Energy Labeling Rule. 

Act. 79 FR 30445. The amendments are 

effective November 19, 2014. More 

specifically, the changes eliminate 

unnecessary requirements on companies 

that sell fur products to give them more 

flexibility on labeling, update the Fur 

Products Name Guide that lists common 

animal names allowed on fur labels, 

incorporate provisions of a fur labeling 

law passed by Congress in 2010, the 

Truth in Fur Labeling Act of 2010 

(‘‘TFLA’’), including the elimination of 

the Commission’s discretion to exempt 

fur products of ‘‘relatively small 

quantity or value’’ from disclosure 

requirements; and providing that the 

Fur Act would not apply to products 

covered by the hunter/trapper 

exemption. 

Textile Labeling Rules, 16 CFR 303. 

These Rules implement Textile Fiber 

Identification Act requirements that 

apparel and other covered household 

textile articles 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 (RIN) 

of such a company; and (3) the name of 

the country where the textile product 

was processed or manufactured. After 

notice and comment, the Commission 

amended the Rules on April 4, 2014, to 

clarify and update its provisions and 

provide more flexibility, giving 

businesses more compliance options 

without imposing significant new 

obligations. 79 FR 18766. 

Premerger Notification Rules and 

Report Form (or HSR Rules), 16 CFR 

801–803. On April 25, 2014, the 

Commission, in conjunction with the 

Department of Justice’s Antitrust 

Division, issued amendments to the 

HSR Rules, updating the Instructions to 

the HSR Form with the address for the 

Premerger Office’s new location in the 

Constitution Center. The effective date 

of the new address was May 6, 2014. 79 

FR 25662. 

Prenotification Negative Option Rule, 

16 CFR 425. On July 25, 2014, the 

Commission announced it was closing 

the periodic Regulatory Review and 

retaining the Negative Option Rule (the 

Trade Regulation Rule on 

Prenotification Negative Option Plans) 

as currently written. 79 FR 44271 (July 

31, 2014). The Negative Option Rule 

governs the operation of prenotification 

subscription plans. Under these plans, 

sellers ship merchandise automatically 

to their subscribers and bill them for the 

merchandise within a prescribed time. 

The Negative Option Rule protects 

consumers by requiring the disclosure 

of the terms of membership clearly and 

conspicuously and establishes 

procedures for administering the 

subscription plans. 

Energy Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 305. On 

April 9, 2014, the Commission issued 

conforming amendments to the Rule 

requiring a new Department of Energy 

(‘‘DOE’’) test procedure for televisions 

and establishing data reporting 

requirements for those products. 79 FR 

19464.28

Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 CFR 

310. Caller ID—After reviewing the 

public comments elicited by an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 75 FR 78179 (Dec. 15, 

2010) seeking suggestions on ways to 

enhance the effectiveness and 

enforceability of the caller identification 

(‘‘Caller ID’’) requirements of the TSR as 

well as technical presentations at the 

FTC’s 2012 Robocall Summit, the 

Commission determined that amending 

the TSR would not reduce the incidence 

of the falsification, or ‘‘spoofing,’’ of 

Caller ID information in telemarketing 

calls. The Commission issued a Federal 

Register Notice closing this proceeding, 

effective December 5, 2013. 78 FR 77024 

(Dec. 20, 2014). 

Fred Meyer Guides, 16 CFR 240. On 

September 18, 2014, the Commission 

completed its review of the Fred Meyer 

Guides (officially the Guides for 

Advertising Allowances and Other 

Merchandising Payments and Services) 

and is retaining the Guides with updates 

that, among other revisions, clarify that 

the Guides apply to Internet commerce 

and bring the Guides into conformity 

with current case law regarding the 

applicability of Sections 2(d) and (e) of 

the Robinson-Patman Act to knowing 

inducement of disproportional 

promotional allowances. 79 FR 58245 

(Sept. 29, 2014). The Guides assist 

businesses in complying with sections 

2(d) and 2(e) of the Robinson-Patman 

Act, which proscribe certain 

discriminations in the provision of 

promotional allowances and services to 

customers. Broadly put, the Guides 

provide that unlawful discrimination 

may be avoided by providing 

promotional allowances and services to 

customers on ‘‘proportionally equal 

terms.’’ 

Vocational Schools Guides, 16 CFR 

254. On November 18, 2013, the 

Commission amended the Vocational 

Schools Guides (or the Private 

Vocational and Distance Education 

Schools Guides) to address more 

specifically misrepresentations 

commonly used in recruitment, 

including those regarding completion/

dropout rates and post-graduation job 

prospects; about whether completion of 

a program will qualify students to take 

a licensing exam; concerning a student’s 

score on an admissions test, how long 

it takes to complete a course or program, 

or a student’s likelihood of success; and 

regarding the likelihood of financial aid 

or help with language barriers or 

learning disabilities, or how much 

credit students will receive for courses 

completed elsewhere. 78 FR 68987. The 

Vocational School Guides address 

marketing practices by businesses that 

offer vocational training. 

Summary 

In both content and process, the FTC’s 

ongoing and proposed regulatory 

actions are consistent with the 

President’s priorities. The actions under 

consideration inform and protect 

consumers, while minimizing the 

regulatory burdens on businesses. The 

Commission will continue working 

toward these goals. The Commission’s 

10-year review program is patterned 

after provisions in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 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). In addition, the final rules 

issued by the Commission continue to 

be consistent with the President’s 

Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and 

Principles, Executive Order 12866, 

section 1(a), which directs agencies to 

promulgate only such regulations as are, 

inter alia, required by law or are made 

necessary by compelling public need, 

such as material failures of private 

markets to protect or improve the health 

and safety of the public. 

The Commission continues to identify 

and weigh the costs and benefits of 

proposed actions and possible 

alternative actions and to receive 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 wellbeing 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76667 

29Section 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. 

regulatory action’’ under the definition 

in Executive Order 12866.29 The 

Commission has no proposed rules that 

would have significant international 

impacts under the definition in 

Executive Order 13609. Also, there are 

no international regulatory cooperation 

activities that are reasonably anticipated 

to lead to significant regulations under 

Executive Order 13609. 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING 

COMMISSION (NIGC) 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

In 1988, Congress adopted the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) (Pub L. 

100–497, 102 Stat. 2475) with a primary 

purpose of providing ‘‘a statutory basis 

for the operation of gaming by Indian 

tribes as a means of promoting tribal 

economic development, self-sufficiency, 

and strong tribal governments.’’ IGRA 

established the National Indian Gaming 

Commission (NIGC or the Commission) 

to protect such gaming, amongst other 

things, as a means of generating tribal 

revenue. 

At its core, Indian gaming is a 

function of sovereignty exercised by 

tribal governments. In addition, the 

Federal government maintains a 

government-to-government relationship 

with the tribes—a responsibility of the 

NIGC. Thus, while the Agency is 

committed to strong regulation of Indian 

gaming, the Commission is equally 

committed to strengthening 

government-to-government relations by 

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 

13579 was issued on July 11, 2011. The 

NIGC, however, recognizes the 

importance of Executive Order 13579 

and its regulatory review is being 

conducted in the spirit of Executive 

Order 13579, 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, 

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 ................ Amendment of Definitions. 

3141–AA55 ................ Minimum Internal Control Standards. 

3141–AA58 ................ Amendment of Approval of Management Contracts. 

3141–AA60 ................ Class II Minimum Internal Control Standards. 

3143–AA61 ................ Self-Regulation of Class II Gaming. 

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 removal, 

revision, or 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) updates and 

revisions to its Self-Regulation of Class 

II Gaming regulations; and (v) the 

review and revision of the minimum 

internal control standards for Class II 

gaming. The NIGC anticipates that the 

ongoing consultations with regulated 

tribes will continue to play an important 

role in the development of the NIGC’s 

rulemaking efforts. 

BILLING CODE 7565–01–P 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION’S FISCAL YEAR 2014 

REGULATORY PLAN 

A. Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

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. 

The NRC’s 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, promote the common defense 

and security, and protect the 

environment. As part of its mission, the 

NRC regulates 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, the NRC 

licenses the import and export of 

radioactive materials. 

As part of its regulatory process, the 

NRC routinely conducts comprehensive 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76668 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

regulatory analyses that examine the 

costs and benefits of contemplated 

regulations. The NRC has developed 

internal procedures and programs to 

ensure that it imposes only necessary 

requirements on its licensees and to 

review existing regulations to determine 

whether the requirements imposed are 

still necessary. 

The NRC’s Regulatory Plan contains a 

statement of: (1) The major rules that the 

NRC expects to publish in final form in 

fiscal year (FY) 2014 and FY 2015; (2) 

the other significant rulemakings that 

the NRC expects to publish in final form 

in FY 2014; and (3) the other significant 

rulemakings that the NRC expects to 

publish in final form in FY 2015 and 

beyond. For each rule and rulemaking, 

the NRC is including a citation to an 

applicable Federal Register notice, 

which provides further information, a 

summary of the legal basis for the rule 

or rulemaking, an explanation of why 

the NRC is pursuing the rule or 

rulemaking, the rulemaking’s schedule, 

and contact information. 

B.1. Major Rules (FY 2014) 

The NRC will have published one 

major rule in final form by the end of 

FY 2014. 

Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee 

Recovery for FY 2014 (Regulation 

Identifier Number (RIN) 3150–AJ32) 

Through this rule, the NRC will 

amend the licensing, inspection, and 

annual fees charged to its applicants 

and licensees. The amendments are 

necessary to implement the Omnibus 

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as 

amended, which requires the NRC to 

recover through fees approximately 90 

percent of its budget authority in FY 

2014, not including amounts 

appropriated for Waste Incidental to 

Reprocessing and amounts appropriated 

for generic homeland security activities. 

These fees represent the cost of the 

NRC’s services provided to applicants 

and licensees. The proposed rule was 

published in the Federal Register (FR) 

on April 14, 2014 (79 FR 21036), and 

the comment period ended on May 14, 

2014. 

B.2. Major Rules (FY 2015) 

The NRC anticipates publishing one 

major rule in final form in FY 2015. 

Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee 

Recovery for FY 2015—The NRC will 

update its requirement to recover 

approximately 90 percent of its budget 

authority in FY 2015. 

C.1. Other Significant Rulemakings (FY 

2014) 

The NRC has published four other 

significant rulemakings in final form in 

FY 2014. All four rules update the 

NRC’s list of approved spent fuel storage 

casks to include amendments to 

Certificates of Compliance (CoC). Final 

rules were published in the FR as 

follows: 

Transnuclear, Inc. Standardized 

NUHOMS® Cask System; Amendment 

No. 11 to CoC No. 1004 (RIN 3150– 

AJ10), was published on December 27, 

2013 (78 FR 78693), and effective on 

January 7, 2014. 

HI–STORM 100 Cask System; 

Amendment No. 9 to CoC No. 1014 (RIN 

3150–AJ12), was published on 

December 26, 2013 (78 FR 78165), and 

effective on March 11, 2014. 

Transnuclear, Inc. Standardized 

NUHOMS® Cask System; Amendment 

No. 13 to CoC No. 1004 (RIN 3150– 

AJ28), was published on March 10, 2014 

(79 FR 13192). The final rule will be 

effective on May 24, 2014. 

Transnuclear, Inc. Standardized 

Advanced NUHOMS® Horizontal 

Modular Storage System; Amendment 

No. 3 to CoC No. 1029 (RIN 3150–AJ31), 

was published on April 15, 2014 (79 FR 

21121). The NRC is in the process of 

considering comments received on this 

direct final rule. 

The NRC will have published two 

CoC rules in final form in FY 2014. 

Two CoC Rulemakings (RIN 3150– 

AJ30; and RIN 3150–AJ39)—These 

rulemakings allow a power reactor 

licensee to store spent fuel in approved 

cask designs under a general license. 

C.2. Other Significant Rulemakings (FY 

2015 and Beyond) 

The other significant rulemakings that 

the NRC anticipates publishing in final 

form in FY 2015 and beyond are listed 

below. Some of these regulatory 

priorities are a result of 

recommendations from the Fukushima 

Dai-ichi Near-Term Task Force. In 2011, 

the NRC established this task force to 

examine regulatory requirements, 

programs, processes, and 

implementation based on information 

from the Fukushima Dai-ichi site in 

Japan, following the March 11, 2011, 

earthquake and tsunami (see 

‘‘Recommendations for Enhancing 

Reactor Safety in the 21st Century: The 

Near-Term Task Force Review of 

Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi 

Accident,’’ dated July 12, 2011 

(Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession No. ML111861807)). 

Station Blackout Mitigation Strategies 

(RIN 3150–AJ08) 

This rulemaking addresses 

Fukushima Dai-ichi Near-Term Task 

Force Recommendations 4 and 7. The 

NRC published a draft regulatory basis 

for public comment in the Federal 

Register on April 10, 2013 (78 FR 

21275), supporting the potential 

amendment of its regulations for nuclear 

power plant licensees and their station 

blackout mitigation strategies. The NRC 

issued a final regulatory basis for 

rulemaking in a document published in 

the Federal Register on July 23, 2013 

(78 FR 44035). 

Performance-Based Emergency Core 

Cooling System Acceptance Criteria 

(RIN 3150–AH42) 

The proposed rule was published in 

the Federal Register on March 24, 2014 

(79 FR 16106). The proposed rule would 

replace prescriptive requirements with 

performance-based requirements, 

incorporate recent research findings, 

and expand applicability to all fuel 

designs and cladding materials. Further, 

the proposed rule would allow licensees 

to use an alternative risk-informed 

approach to evaluate the effects of 

debris on long-term cooling. The 

proposed rule addresses two petitions 

for rulemaking (PRMs). On April 22, 

2014 (79 FR 22456), a document was 

published in the FR extending the 

comment period until August 21, 2014. 

Strengthening and Integrating Onsite 

Emergency Response Capabilities (RIN 

3150–AJ11) 

This rulemaking addresses 

Fukushima Dai-ichi Near-Term Task 

Force Recommendation 8. The draft 

regulatory basis for this rulemaking was 

published in the FR on January 8, 2013 

(78 FR 1154). The NRC solicited 

stakeholder feedback on why the NRC 

finds rulemaking necessary to revise its 

regulations governing the integration 

and enhancement of requirements for 

onsite emergency response capabilities. 

The final regulatory basis for this 

rulemaking was published in the FR on 

October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63901). 

Preliminary proposed rule language was 

made available in a document published 

in the FR on November 15, 2013 (78 FR 

68774). 

Medical Use of Byproduct Material 

(Formerly Titled: Preceptor Attestation 

Requirements) (RIN 3150–AI63) 

The proposed rule would amend 

medical use regulations related to 

medical event definitions for permanent 

implant brachytherapy; training and 

experience requirements for authorized 

users, medical physicists, Radiation 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76669 

Safety Officers, and nuclear 

pharmacists; and requirements for the 

testing and reporting of failed 

molybdenum/technetium and rubidium 

generators. This rule would also make 

changes that would allow Associate 

Radiation Safety Officers to be named 

on a medical license, and make other 

clarifications. This rulemaking would 

also consider a request filed in a PRM, 

PRM–35–20, to ‘‘grandfather’’ certain 

board-certified individuals, and per 

Commission direction in the Staff 

Requirements Memorandum dated 

August 13, 2012, to SECY–12–0053 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML12072A299), 

subsume a proposed rule previously 

published under RIN 3150–AI26, 

‘‘Medical Use of Byproduct MaterialAmendments/Medical Event Definition’’ 

[NRC–2008–0071]. 

10 CFR Part 26 Drug and Alcohol 

Testing (RIN 3150–AJ15) 

This proposed rule would amend the 

drug testing requirements of 10 CFR part 

26, ‘‘Fitness-for-Duty Programs,’’ to 

incorporate lessons learned from 

implementing the 2008 10 CFR part 26 

final rule; enhance the identification of 

new testing subversion methods; and 

require the evaluation and testing of 

semi-synthetic opiates, synthetic drugs 

and urine, and use of chemicals or 

multiple prescriptions that could result 

in a person being unfit for duty. 

Enhanced Weapons, Firearms 

Background Checks, and Security Event 

Notifications (RIN 3150–AI49) 

The proposed rule was published in 

the FR on February 2, 2011 (76 FR 

6200). A supplemental proposed rule 

was published in the FR on January 10, 

2013 (78 FR 2214). This proposed rule 

would implement the NRC’s authority 

under the new Section 161A of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 

and revise existing regulations 

governing security event notifications. 

Cyber Event Notification Rule (RIN 

3150–AJ37) 

This rule would establish a new 

section in 10 CFR part 73, ‘‘Physical 

Protection of Plants and Materials,’’ for 

cyber security event notifications. This 

rule was originally proposed as part of 

the Enhanced Weapons rulemaking (RIN 

3150–AI49). 

Site-Specific Analysis (Disposal of 

Unique Waste Streams) (RIN 3150– 

AI92) 

The proposed rule would amend the 

Commission’s regulations to require 

both currently operating and future lowlevel radioactive waste disposal 

facilities to enhance safe disposal of 

low-level radioactive waste by 

conducting a performance assessment 

and an intruder assessment to 

demonstrate compliance with 

performance objectives in 10 CFR part 

61, ‘‘Licensing Requirements for Land 

Disposal of Radioactive Waste.’’ 

Preliminary proposed rule language was 

made available in a document published 

in the FR on May 3, 2011 (76 FR 24831). 

The regulatory basis for rulemaking was 

made available in a document published 

in the FR on December 7, 2012 (77 FR 

72997). On January 8, 2013 (78 FR 

1155), the NRC published a document 

correcting the title and the ADAMS 

accession number of the regulatory basis 

document referenced in the document 

that was published on December 7, 

2012. 

10 CFR Part 26 Drug Testing—U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) Guidelines (RIN 3150– 

AI67) 

The proposed rule would amend the 

Commission’s regulations to selectively 

align drug testing requirements in 10 

CFR part 26 with Federal drug testing 

guidelines issued by HHS. The 

regulatory basis was published in the FR 

on July 1, 2013 (78 FR 39190). 

NRC 

Proposed Rule Stage 

159. • Revision of Fee Schedules: Fee 

Recovery for FY 2015 [NRC–2014–0200] 

Priority: Economically Significant. 

Major under 5 U.S.C. 801. 

Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 

U.S.C. 5841 

CFR Citation: 10 CFR 170; 10 CFR 

171. 

Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, 

September 30, 2015. 

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 

Act of 1990 (OBRA–90), as amended, 

requires that the NRC recover 

approximately 90 percent of its budget 

authority in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, less 

the amounts appropriated from the 

Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, and 

generic homeland security activities. 

The OBRA–90 requires that the fees for 

FY 2015, must be collected by 

September 30, 2015. 

Abstract: This proposed rulemaking 

would amend the licensing, inspection, 

and annual fees that the Commission 

charges its applicants and licensees. 

These amendments would implement 

the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 

of 1990 (OBRA–90) as amended, which 

requires that the NRC recover 

approximately 90 percent of its budget 

authority in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, less 

the amounts appropriated from the 

Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, and 

generic homeland security activities. 

Statement of Need: This rulemaking 

would amend the licensing inspection, 

and annual fees charged to the NRC’s 

licensees and applicants for an NRC 

license. The amendments are necessary 

to recover approximately 90 percent of 

the NRC’s budget authority for FY 2015 

less the amounts appropriated for nonfee items. The OBRA–90, as amended, 

requires that the NRC accomplish the 90 

percent recovery through the assessment 

of fees. The NRC assesses two types of 

fees to recover its budget authority. 

License and inspection fees are assessed 

under the authority of the Independent 

Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 

(IOAA) to recover the costs of providing 

individually identifiable services to 

specific applicants and licensees (10 

CFR part 170). IOAA requires that the 

NRC recover the full cost to the NRC of 

all identifiable regulatory services that 

each applicant or licensee receives. The 

NRC recovers generic and other 

regulatory costs not recovered from fees 

imposed under 10 CFR part 170 through 

the assessment of annual fees under the 

authority of OBRA–90 (10 CFR part 

171). Annual fee charges are consistent 

with the guidance in the Conference 

Committee Report on OBRA–90. The 

NRC assesses annual charges under the 

principle that licensees who require the 

greatest expenditure of the Agency’s 

resources should pay the greatest annual 

fee. 

Summary of Legal Basis: The OBRA– 

90, as amended, requires that the fees 

for FY 2015 must be collected by 

September 30, 2015. 

Alternatives: Because this action is 

mandated by statute and the fees must 

be assessed through rulemaking, the 

NRC did not consider alternatives to 

this action. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 

cost to the NRC’s licensees is 

approximately 90 percent of the NRC FY 

2015 budget authority less the amounts 

appropriated for non-fee items. The 

estimated dollar amount to be billed to 

licensees as fees to the NRC’s applicants 

and licensees for FY 2015 is 

approximately $925.2 million. 

Risks: Not applicable. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 03/00/15 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, 

Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76670 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Government Levels Affected: Local, 

State. 

Federalism: Undetermined. 

Agency Contact: Arlette P. Howard, 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 

of the Chief Financial Officer, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Phone: 

301 415–1481, Email: arlette.howard@

nrc.gov. 

RIN: 3150–AJ44 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION 

(FAR) 

I. Mission and Overview 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) was established to codify uniform 

policies for acquisition of supplies and 

services by executive agencies. It is 

issued and maintained jointly, pursuant 

to the Office of Federal Procurement 

Policy (OFPP) Reauthorization Act, 

under the statutory authorities granted 

to the Secretary of Defense, 

Administrator of General Services, and 

the Administrator, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration. Statutory 

authorities to issue and revise the FAR 

have been delegated to the procurement 

executives in Department of Defense 

(DoD), GSA, and National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (NASA). The 

FAR Council formulated a plan for a 

retrospective analysis of existing rules 

and a paperwork burden plan in 

response to the President’s Executive 

Orders 13563 and 13610. The plan 

conducts a periodic review of existing 

significant regulations and also focuses 

on reducing the paperwork burdens on 

small business. The plan is located at 

http://www.acquisition.gov. 

II. Statement of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Priorities 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Priorities 

Specific FAR cases that the FAR 

Council plans to address in Fiscal Year 

2015 include: 

Regulations of Concern to Small 

Businesses 

Small Business Subcontracting 

Improvements—This case implements 

statutory requirements from the Small 

Business Jobs Act of 2010 aimed at 

protecting small business subcontractors 

and increasing subcontracting 

opportunities for small business. (FAR 

Case 2014–003) 

Set-Asides under Multiple Award 

Contracts—This case implements 

statutory requirements from the Small 

Business Jobs Act of 2010 and is aimed 

at providing agencies with clarifying 

guidance on how to use multiple award 

contracts as a tool to increase Federal 

contracting opportunities for small 

businesses. (FAR Case 2014–002) 

Payment of Subcontractors—This case 

implements section 1334 of the Small 

Business Jobs Act of 2010 and the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) Final 

Rule 78 FR 42391, Small Business 

Subcontracting. The rule requires prime 

contractors of contracts requiring a 

subcontracting plan to notify the 

contracting officer in writing if the 

prime contractor pays a reduced price to 

a subcontractor or if payment is more 

than 90 days past due. A contracting 

officer will then use his or her best 

judgment in determining whether the 

late or reduced payment was justified 

and if not the contracting officer will 

record the identity of a prime contractor 

with a history of unjustified untimely 

payments to subcontractors in the 

Federal Awardee Performance and 

Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) or 

any successor system. (FAR Case 2014– 

004) 

Consolidation of Contract 

Requirements—This case implements 

section 1313 of the Small Business Jobs 

Act of 2010 and SBA’s final rule to 

ensure that decisions made by Federal 

agencies regarding consolidation of 

contract requirements are made with a 

view to providing small businesses with 

appropriate opportunities to participate 

as prime and subcontractors. (FAR Case 

2014–015) 

Clarification of Requirement for 

Justifications for 8(a) Sole-Source 

Contracts—This case amends the FAR 

in response to GAO Report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Contracting Oversight, Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs, U.S. Senate, entitled Federal 

Contracting: Slow Start to 

Implementation of Justifications for 8(a) 

Sole-Source Contracts (GAO–13–118 

dated December 2012). The GAO report 

indicated that the FAR is not clear on 

whether a justification is required and 

suggested that clarifying guidance is 

needed to help ensure that agencies are 

applying the justification requirement 

consistently. Based on GAO’s 

recommendation, this case further 

clarifies the processes and procedures in 

the FAR to ensure uniform, consistent, 

and coherent guidance regarding the use 

of sole-source 8(a) justifications. (FAR 

Case 2013–018) 

Contracts under the Small Business 

Administration 8(a) Program—This case 

clarifies FAR subpart 19.8, ‘‘Contracting 

with the Small Business Administration 

(The 8(a) Program).’’ Clarifications 

include the evaluation, offering, and 

acceptance process for requirements 

under the 8(a) program, procedures for 

acquiring SBA’s consent to procure an 

8(a) requirement outside the 8(a) 

program, and the impact of exiting the 

8(a) program in terms of the firm’s 

ability to receive future 8(a) 

requirements and its current contractual 

commitments. (FAR Case 2012–022) 

Regulations Which Promote Fiscal 

Responsibility 

Notification of Pass-Through 

Contracts—This case implements 

section 802 of the NDAA for FY 2013. 

Section 802 requires in those instances 

where an offeror for a contract, task 

order, or delivery order informs the 

agency pursuant to FAR 52.215–22 of 

their intention to award subcontracts for 

more than 70 percent of the total cost of 

work to be performed under the 

contract, task order, or delivery order, 

the contracting officer is required to (1) 

consider the availability of alternative 

contract vehicles and the feasibility of 

contracting directly with a 

subcontractor or subcontractors that will 

perform the bulk of the work; (2) make 

a written determination that the 

contracting approach selected is in the 

best interest of the Government; and (3) 

document the basis for such 

determination. (FAR Case 2013–012) 

Limitation on Allowable Government 

Contractor Compensation Costs—This 

interim rule implements section 702 of 

the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. In 

accordance with section 702, the 

interim rule revises the allowable cost 

limit relative to the compensation of 

contractor and subcontractor employees. 

Also, in accordance with section 702, 

this interim rule implements the 

possible exception to this allowable cost 

limit for scientists, engineers, or other 

specialists upon an agency 

determination that such exceptions are 

needed to ensure that the executive 

agency has continued access to needed 

skills and capabilities. (FAR Case 2014– 

012) 

Regulations Which Promote Ethics and 

Integrity in Contractor Performance 

Information on Corporate Contractor 

Performance and Integrity—This case 

implements section 852 of the NDAA 

for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112–239). Section 

852 requires that the Federal Awardee 

Performance and Integrity Information 

System (FAPPIIS) include, to the extent 

practicable, identification of any 

immediate owner or subsidiary, and all 

predecessors of an offeror that held a 

Federal contract or grant within the last 

three years. The objective is to provide 

a more comprehensive understanding of 

the performance and integrity of a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 76671 

contractor in awarding a Federal 

contract. (FAR Case 2013–020) 

Trafficking in Persons—This case 

implements Executive Order 13627, and 

title XVII of the NDAA for FY 2013, to 

strengthen protections against 

trafficking in persons in Federal 

contracts. The case creates a stronger 

framework and additional requirements 

related to awareness, compliance, and 

enforcement. Contractors and 

subcontractors must disclose to 

employees the key conditions of 

employment, starting with wages and 

work location. (FAR Case 2013–001) 

Prohibition on Contracting with 

Corporations with Delinquent Taxes or 

a Felony Conviction—This case 

implements multiple sections of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 

(Pub. L. 113–76) to prohibit using any 

of the funds appropriated by the Act to 

enter into a contract with any 

corporation with a delinquent Federal 

tax liability or a felony conviction. (FAR 

case 2014–019) 

Prohibition On Contracting with 

Inverted Domestic Corporations—This 

case implements section 733 of Division 

E of the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113–76), which 

prohibits expenditure of appropriated 

funds for contracts with a foreign 

incorporated entity that is treated as an 

inverted domestic corporation or any 

subsidiary of such entity. The FAR is 

being updated to (1) revise the methods 

used to implement the inverted 

domestic corporation contracting 

prohibition; (2) amend the definition to 

clarify entities considered to be an 

inverted domestic corporation; (3) revise 

the representation to require two 

affirmative yes/no representations with 

respect to inverted domestic corporation 

status; and require a contractor to 

promptly inform the contracting officer, 

in writing, in the event the contractor 

becomes either an inverted domestic 

corporation or a subsidiary of an 

inverted domestic corporation during 

the performance of the contract. (FAR 

Case 2014–017) 

Regulations Which Promote 

Accountability and Transparency 

Commercial and Government Entity 

(CAGE) Code—This case requires the 

use of CAGE codes, an alpha-numeric 

identifier used extensively throughout 

the Government, for awards valued 

greater than the micropurchase 

threshold. The case also requires 

identification of the immediate 

corporate/organization parent and 

highest level corporate/organization 

parent during contractor registration for 

Federal contracts. The goal is to provide 

for standardization across the Federal 

government, and to facilitate data 

collection as means of promoting 

increased traceability and transparency. 

(FAR Case 2012–014) 

Uniform Procurement Identification— 

This case requires the use of a unique 

identifier for contracting offices and a 

standard unique Procurement 

Instrument Identification Number for 

transactions. The goal is to provide for 

standardization across the Federal 

government and to facilitate data 

tracking and collection. (FAR Case 

2012–023) 

Uniform Use of Line Items—This case 

establishes a requirement for use of a 

standardized uniform line item 

numbering structure in Federal 

procurement. This case is one 

component of the effort to implement 

Federal spending data standards in 

Federal procurement. This effort will 

help improve analysis and management 

decision that can reduce duplication in 

Federal spending, reduce costs for 

recipients of Federal dollars by reducing 

variations in standards for reporting and 

billing purposes, and provide greater 

transparency on outcomes of spending. 

(FAR Case 2013–014) 

Privacy Training—This case creates a 

FAR clause to require contractors that 

(1) need access to a system of records, 

(2) handle personally identifiable 

information, or (3) design, develop, 

maintain, or operate a system of records 

on behalf of the Government have their 

personnel complete privacy training. 

This addition complies with subsections 

(e) (agency requirements) and (m) 

(Government contractors) of the Privacy 

Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). (FAR Case 2010– 

013) 

Regulations That Promote Protection of 

Government Information and Systems 

Basic Safeguarding of Contractor 

Information Systems—This case amends 

the FAR to implement procedures for 

safeguarding contractor information 

systems that contain information 

provided by or generated for the 

Government. The purpose of these 

safeguards is to provide the Government 

with the necessary assurance that 

contractors are taking basic security 

measures on their information systems 

containing Government information. 

(FAR Case 2011–020) 

Expanded Reporting of 

Nonconforming Items—This case 

expands Government and contractor 

requirements for reporting of 

nonconforming items. A nonconforming 

item includes items that are likely to 

result in failure of the supplies or 

services, or materially reduces the 

usability of the supplies or services for 

their intended purpose. It is a partial 

implementation of section 818 of the 

NDAA for FY 2012. (FAR Case 2013– 

002) 

Higher-Level Contract Quality 

Requirements—This case clarifies when 

to use higher-level quality standards in 

solicitations and contracts. The rule also 

updates the examples of higher-level 

quality standards by removing obsolete 

standards and adding new industry 

standards that pertain to quality 

assurance for avoidance of counterfeit 

items. (FAR Case 2012–032) 

Regulations Which Promote Fair Labor 

Practices 

Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces—This 

rule implements Executive Order 13673, 

Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces, seeks to 

increase efficiency in the work 

performed by Federal contractors by 

ensuring that they understand and 

comply with labor laws designed to 

promote safe, healthy, fair and effective 

workplaces. (FAR Case 2014–025) 

Minimum wage for contractors—This 

rule implements Executive Order 13658, 

Establishing a Minimum Wage for 

Contractors, requires agencies, to the 

extent permitted by law, to include a 

clause in new solicitations and resultant 

contract specifying, as a condition of 

payment, that the minimum wage to be 

paid to workers, in the performance of 

the contract or any subcontract there 

under, shall be at least $10.10 per hour 

beginning January 1, 2015. 

Equal Employment and Affirmative 

Action for Veterans and Individuals 

with Disabilities—This rule implements 

DOL regulations at 41 CFR 60–250 and 

60–300 designed to promote equal 

opportunity for veterans and 

individuals with disabilities. (FAR case 

2014–013) 

Regulations That Promote 

Environmental Goals 

EPEAT Items—This case expands the 

Federal requirement to procure 

EPEAT®-registered products beyond 

personal computer products to cover 

imaging equipment (i.e., copiers, digital 

duplicators, facsimile machines, mailing 

machines, multifunction devices, 

printers, and scanners) and televisions 

and modify the existing FAR 

requirements to recognize the revised 

standard applicable to computer 

products. (FAR Case 2013–016) 

High Global Warming Potential 

Hydrofluorocarbons— This case 

implements the President’s Climate 

Action Plan by setting forth policies and 

procedures for the acquisition of items 

that contain, use, or are manufactured 

with ozone-depleting substances; or 

contain or use high global warming 

potential hydrofluorocarbons. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

76672 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / The Regulatory Plan 

Contractors shall refer to EPA’s 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

(SNAP) program (available at http://

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap) which has 

additional information and a list of 

alternatives to ozone-depleting 

substances and lower global warming 

hydrofluorocarbons. (FAR Case 2014– 

026) 

Dated: September 19, 2014 

Jeffrey A. Koses, 

Senior Procurement Executive/Deputy CAO, 

Office of Acquisition Policy, U.S. General 

Services Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28927 Filed 12–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Vol. 79 Monday, 

No. 245 December 22, 2014 

Part III 

Department of Agriculture 

Semiannual Regulatory Agenda 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3