Request for Information, 50689-50691 [2018-21765]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2018 / Notices By order of the Commission. Issued: October 3, 2018. William Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer. [FR Doc. 2018–21951 Filed 10–4–18; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Investigation Meeting of the Compact Council for the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Federal Bureau of Investigation, DOJ. ACTION: Meeting notice. AGENCY: The purpose of this notice is to announce a meeting of the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council (Council) created by the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Act of 1998 (Compact). Thus far, the Federal Government and 31 states are parties to the Compact which governs the exchange of criminal history records for licensing, employment, and similar purposes. The Compact also provides a legal framework for the establishment of a cooperative federalstate system to exchange such records. The United States Attorney General appointed 15 persons from state and federal agencies to serve on the Council. The Council will prescribe system rules and procedures for the effective and proper operation of the Interstate Identification Index system for noncriminal justice purposes. Matters for discussion are expected to include: (1) National Fingerprint File Participation Implementation Plan Update (2) Updates to the Civil Fingerprint Image Quality Strategy Guide (3) Compact Council Member Duties and Expectations The meeting will be open to the public on a first-come, first-seated basis. Any member of the public wishing to file a written statement with the Council or wishing to address this session of the Council should notify the Federal Bureau Of Investigation (FBI) Compact Officer, Mrs. Chasity S. Anderson at (304) 625–2803, at least 24 hours prior to the start of the session. The notification should contain the individual’s name and corporate designation, consumer affiliation, or government designation, along with a short statement describing the topic to be addressed and the time needed for the presentation. Individuals will amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 247001 ordinarily be allowed up to 15 minutes to present a topic. DATES AND TIMES: The Council will meet in open session from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., on November 7, 2018 and 9 a.m. until 12 p.m. on November 8, 2018. ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Westshore Grand Hotel, 4860 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, 813–286–4400. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Inquiries may be addressed to: Mrs. Chasity S. Anderson, FBI Compact Officer, Module D3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306, telephone 304–625–2803, facsimile 304–625–2868. Dated: September 25, 2018. Chasity S. Anderson, FBI Compact Officer, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation. [FR Doc. 2018–21829 Filed 10–5–18; 8:45 am] Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Saratoga Springs Owners Association, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17–cv–01244–DAK–BCW, was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, on October 1, 2018. This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the United States against the Saratoga Springs Owners Association, Inc. and Cross Marine Projects, Inc., pursuant to sections 301(a), 309(b), and 309(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(a), 1319(b), and 1319(d), to obtain injunctive relief from and impose civil penalties against the Defendants for violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants without a permit into waters of the United States. The proposed Consent Decree resolves these allegations by requiring the Defendants to restore the impacted areas, perform mitigation, and pay a civil penalty. The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Please address comments to David A. Carson, Senior Trial Counsel, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, 999 18th Street, South Terrace, Suite 370, Denver, Colorado 80202, and refer to United States v. Saratoga Fmt 4703 Cherie L. Rogers, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. 2018–21770 Filed 10–5–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–15–P OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Request for Information Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. ACTION: Request for Information (RFI). DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Frm 00059 Springs Owners Association, et al., DJ #90–5–1–1–20715. The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk’s Office, United States District Court for the District of Utah, 351 South West Temple, Room 1.100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined electronically at https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consentdecrees. AGENCY: BILLING CODE 4410–02–P PO 00000 50689 Sfmt 4703 The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget, is seeking public input on how the Federal Government, under the auspices of the United States-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council, may reduce or eliminate unnecessary regulatory differences between the United States and Canada. This request for information (RFI) may inform agencies’ development of regulatory reform proposals to modify or repeal existing agency requirements to increase efficiency related to economic activity with Canada, reduce or eliminate unnecessary or unjustified regulatory burdens, or simplify regulatory compliance, while continuing to meet agency missions and statutory requirements. OIRA also seeks public comment to identify ongoing or emerging areas for which cooperation could reduce the risk of divergence between U.S. and Canadian regulations. OIRA plans to make all submissions publicly available on www.regulations.gov. DATES: Written comments and information are requested on or before November 8, 2018. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments, identified by ‘‘US-Canada RCC RFI,’’ by any of the following methods: Federal Rulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Email: InternationalSUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM 09OCN1 50690 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2018 / Notices amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 OIRA@OMB.eop.gov. Include ‘‘USCanada RCC RFI’’ in the subject line of the message. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vlad Dorjets, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Telephone: 202–395–7315. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Request for Information To help promote U.S. regulatory cooperation activities with Canada, OIRA seeks public comment on how to reduce burdens through the reduction of differences between U.S. and Canadian regulatory requirements, conformity assessment procedures, sub-regulatory guidance, and other related policies and procedures. In addition, OIRA invites comment on specific issues and sectors in which future cooperation would prove fruitful, including proposals to align regulatory systems, streamline bilateral cooperation, and improve stakeholder engagement. Although some agencies that participate in the U.S.Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) or are otherwise engaged in regulatory cooperation with Canada have previously sought regulatory reform ideas from the public, this RFI seeks broader input on regulations with respect to which international regulatory cooperation might be beneficial across all agencies, even those not presently engaged in such endeavors. OIRA intends to communicate regulatory reform suggestions received in response to this RFI for consideration by the appropriate U.S. Federal agencies. OIRA may also communicate suggestions to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBC) to get a broader perspective on these policy areas, including the potential cost reductions that could result from cooperation. Suggestions from the public may also inform discussion of these issues at public meetings sponsored by the RCC or participating agencies. OIRA has identified some key topics on which stakeholder insights would be most helpful, though input on opportunities for international regulatory cooperation beyond these topics is also welcome: (1) Particular sectors or issues for which the RCC should consider future regulatory cooperation or further regulatory alignment to reduce burden or other cost, including for emerging technologies that are not yet regulated. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 247001 (2) Particular forms, surveys, or other information collections that exist in both the United States and Canada where consolidation could reduce burden or increase practical utility. (3) The appropriate role for stakeholders in furthering international regulatory cooperation and how stakeholders can best engage with Canadian and U.S. regulators on regulatory cooperation opportunities. (4) Cooperative mechanisms or arrangements such as co-development, co-funding, or co-piloting which can be used to promote future international regulatory alignment. (5) Potential alternatives to direct regulation or innovative and flexible approaches to regulation, including for emerging technologies. (6) Whether the RCC should continue the existing set of work plans and/or whether activities in the work plans should be revised better to reflect developments in the relevant sectors. When providing comments, OIRA requests that commenters identify the relevant regulatory agency or agencies and also specify the regulation, guidance document, form, or reporting requirement at issue, providing legal citation or form number and OMB Control Number where available. Please identify, where applicable, the relevant statutory or regulatory provisions for each jurisdiction (or an indication that such provisions do not exist in one or both jurisdictions). OIRA also requests that commenters provide as much detail as possible in describing the issue or unnecessary difference, as well as an explanation of how and why agencies could align, modify, streamline, or repeal the regulatory requirements, while still achieving their regulatory and/or statutory objectives. OIRA also requests that commenters include, wherever possible, supporting data or other quantitative information such as information about the burdens or cost resulting from the regulatory divergence and the possible burden or cost reduction from alignment, details on measurable benefits for industry, government, or consumers, and an assessment of the net benefits of enhanced regulatory alignment. Please specify the time period over which impacts have or are projected to accrue. II. Background A. The Regulatory Cooperation Council The United States and Canada share many regulatory objectives, including PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 reducing unnecessary or duplicative regulatory costs that discourage economic activity. The two countries, however, often select different approaches for achieving their policy objectives. These divergent approaches can lead to different regulatory requirements in the two countries, hindering national and cross-border economic activity, and imposing unnecessary costs on citizens, businesses, and economies. Even when the two countries opt to address a policy objective in the same way, implementation may result in duplicative paperwork requirements or procedures on both sides of the border. In many cases, these differences are unavoidable due to different statutory or legal requirements or additional policy considerations. In other cases, however, these differences may be avoidable and thus impose unnecessary burdens. To identify, and reduce or eliminate, these unnecessary regulatory differences and duplicative procedures, as well as to increase regulatory transparency, the United States and Canada created the RCC in 2011. Several months after its creation, the two countries released Terms of Reference (2011 TOR) setting out the RCC’s mandate, organization, and guiding principles.1 The RCC is chaired by OIRA and TBC. As the regulatory oversight bodies of the United States and Canada, OIRA and TBC provide strategic direction to their respective regulatory agencies on regulatory cooperation initiatives. The 2011 TOR acknowledged that each country would maintain its sovereign power to regulate and that regulatory outcomes for consumer protection, health, safety, security, and the environment would not be compromised. At its founding, the RCC understood that unnecessary regulatory differences ‘‘do not increase regulatory benefits, and instead impose needless additional burdens and costs for both businesses and consumers.’’ 1. Following successful implementation of the 2011 Joint Action Plan—which set out 29 initiatives covering a wide range of regulatory work, from transportation and agriculture to nanomaterials 2—the RCC issued a Joint Forward Plan (JFP) in 2014, which summarized lessons 1 Available at www.trade.gov/rcc/us-canada_rcc_ terms_of_reference.pdf. 2 Available at https://www.trade.gov/rcc/2011Joint-Action-Plan.pdf. E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM 09OCN1 amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2018 / Notices learned from the preceding three years and laid out a plan for the following years.3 Specifically, it called for regulatory agencies on both sides of the border to develop Regulatory Partnership Statements (RPSs). These statements are public documents that outline the framework for how partner agencies manage cooperation activities. The JFP also called for the partner agencies to issue public ‘‘work plans’’ which set out commitments to cooperate in specific areas of regulatory activity. The most recent set of 23 work plans was released in 2016 and cover a variety of topics relating to public health (e.g., pharmaceutical and biological products, over-the-counter products, pesticides, workplace chemicals), plant and animal health (e.g., meat inspections, food safety), automobiles (e.g., connected vehicles, motor vehicle standards), aviation (e.g., unmanned aerial vehicles), chemical management, medical devices, locomotives (e.g., rail safety, locomotive emissions), pipeline safety, and marine safety. The full set of work plans is available for review (together with related Regulatory Partnership Statements) at www.trade.gov/rcc/. In February 2017, the Joint Statement of President Trump and Prime Minister Trudeau committed the two governments to ‘‘continue our dialogue on regulatory issues and pursue shared regulatory outcomes that are businessfriendly, reduce costs, and increase economic efficiency without compromising health, safety, and environmental standards.’’ To that end, on June 4, 2018, OIRA and TBC signed a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on regulatory cooperation.4 The MOU reaffirms the principles and commitments of the RCC and of regulatory cooperation in general. It also included, as an Annex, a new RCC Terms of Reference (2018 TOR) which lays out an updated understanding on principles, mandate, and stakeholder engagement. The 2018 TOR also identified characteristics of sectors in which regulatory cooperation may prove most fruitful: 1. Sectors that are characterized by high levels of integration and a history of cooperative regulatory approaches and supporting activities; 2. Sectors that have well-developed pre-existing regulatory frameworks that are designed to achieve similar 3 Available at https:// obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ omb/oira/irc/us-canada-rcc-joint-forward-plan.pdf. 4 Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2018/06/US-CanadaMOU.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 247001 outcomes but that are currently a barrier to increased integration and activity; 3. Sectors that offer significant, emerging growth potential and that are characterized by rapidly evolving technologies where regulatory approaches are anticipated or are currently in early stages of development; and 4. Sectors where regulatory cooperation is intended to support export growth in North America. B. Executive Order 13771 On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13771, ‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.’’ 5 That Order states that ‘‘the policy of the Executive branch is to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources.’’ The Order states, ‘‘[I]t is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.’’ The Order also requires that, for each fiscal year, agencies must identify in their Regulatory Plans 6 offsetting regulations for each regulation that increases incremental cost and ‘‘provide the agency’s best approximation of the total costs or savings associated with each new regulation or repealed regulation.’’ In issuing guidance to agencies on the implementation of E.O. 13771, on April 5, 2017, the Office of Management and Budget recognized that international regulatory cooperation may serve deregulatory functions and help agencies achieve the objectives of Executive Order 13771.7 C. Executive Order 13609 Executive Order 13609, ‘‘Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,’’ signed on May 4, 2012, acknowledges the importance of international regulatory cooperation and recognizes that ‘‘differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally.’’ This RFI advances the Executive Order’s objective by identifying unnecessary 5 Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2017-02-03/pdf/2017-02451.pdf. 6 See Exec. Order No. 12,866, 58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993). 7 Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2017/M-1721-OMB.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 50691 differences between U.S. and Canadian regulatory approaches. Neomi Rao, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. [FR Doc. 2018–21765 Filed 10–5–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3110–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC–2018–0224] Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Biweekly notice. AGENCY: Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from September 11, 2018, to September 24, 2018. The last biweekly notice was published on September 25, 2018. DATES: Comments must be filed by November 8, 2018. A request for a hearing must be filed by December 10, 2018. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject): • Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2018–0224. Address questions about Docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; telephone: 301–287–9127; email: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. • Mail comments to: May Ma, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN–7– SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM 09OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50689-50691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21765]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


Request for Information

AGENCY: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget.

ACTION: Request for Information (RFI).

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), 
within the Office of Management and Budget, is seeking public input on 
how the Federal Government, under the auspices of the United States-
Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council, may reduce or eliminate 
unnecessary regulatory differences between the United States and 
Canada. This request for information (RFI) may inform agencies' 
development of regulatory reform proposals to modify or repeal existing 
agency requirements to increase efficiency related to economic activity 
with Canada, reduce or eliminate unnecessary or unjustified regulatory 
burdens, or simplify regulatory compliance, while continuing to meet 
agency missions and statutory requirements. OIRA also seeks public 
comment to identify ongoing or emerging areas for which cooperation 
could reduce the risk of divergence between U.S. and Canadian 
regulations. OIRA plans to make all submissions publicly available on 
www.regulations.gov.

DATES: Written comments and information are requested on or before 
November 8, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments, 
identified by ``US-Canada RCC RFI,'' by any of the following methods: 
Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. Email: International-

[[Page 50690]]

[email protected] Include ``US-Canada RCC RFI'' in the subject line of 
the message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vlad Dorjets, Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. 
Telephone: 202-395-7315.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Request for Information

    To help promote U.S. regulatory cooperation activities with Canada, 
OIRA seeks public comment on how to reduce burdens through the 
reduction of differences between U.S. and Canadian regulatory 
requirements, conformity assessment procedures, sub-regulatory 
guidance, and other related policies and procedures. In addition, OIRA 
invites comment on specific issues and sectors in which future 
cooperation would prove fruitful, including proposals to align 
regulatory systems, streamline bilateral cooperation, and improve 
stakeholder engagement. Although some agencies that participate in the 
U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) or are otherwise 
engaged in regulatory cooperation with Canada have previously sought 
regulatory reform ideas from the public, this RFI seeks broader input 
on regulations with respect to which international regulatory 
cooperation might be beneficial across all agencies, even those not 
presently engaged in such endeavors.
    OIRA intends to communicate regulatory reform suggestions received 
in response to this RFI for consideration by the appropriate U.S. 
Federal agencies. OIRA may also communicate suggestions to the Treasury 
Board of Canada Secretariat (TBC) to get a broader perspective on these 
policy areas, including the potential cost reductions that could result 
from cooperation. Suggestions from the public may also inform 
discussion of these issues at public meetings sponsored by the RCC or 
participating agencies.
    OIRA has identified some key topics on which stakeholder insights 
would be most helpful, though input on opportunities for international 
regulatory cooperation beyond these topics is also welcome:
    (1) Particular sectors or issues for which the RCC should consider 
future regulatory cooperation or further regulatory alignment to reduce 
burden or other cost, including for emerging technologies that are not 
yet regulated.
    (2) Particular forms, surveys, or other information collections 
that exist in both the United States and Canada where consolidation 
could reduce burden or increase practical utility.
    (3) The appropriate role for stakeholders in furthering 
international regulatory cooperation and how stakeholders can best 
engage with Canadian and U.S. regulators on regulatory cooperation 
opportunities.
    (4) Cooperative mechanisms or arrangements such as co-development, 
co-funding, or co-piloting which can be used to promote future 
international regulatory alignment.
    (5) Potential alternatives to direct regulation or innovative and 
flexible approaches to regulation, including for emerging technologies.
    (6) Whether the RCC should continue the existing set of work plans 
and/or whether activities in the work plans should be revised better to 
reflect developments in the relevant sectors.
    When providing comments, OIRA requests that commenters identify the 
relevant regulatory agency or agencies and also specify the regulation, 
guidance document, form, or reporting requirement at issue, providing 
legal citation or form number and OMB Control Number where available. 
Please identify, where applicable, the relevant statutory or regulatory 
provisions for each jurisdiction (or an indication that such provisions 
do not exist in one or both jurisdictions). OIRA also requests that 
commenters provide as much detail as possible in describing the issue 
or unnecessary difference, as well as an explanation of how and why 
agencies could align, modify, streamline, or repeal the regulatory 
requirements, while still achieving their regulatory and/or statutory 
objectives. OIRA also requests that commenters include, wherever 
possible, supporting data or other quantitative information such as 
information about the burdens or cost resulting from the regulatory 
divergence and the possible burden or cost reduction from alignment, 
details on measurable benefits for industry, government, or consumers, 
and an assessment of the net benefits of enhanced regulatory alignment. 
Please specify the time period over which impacts have or are projected 
to accrue.

II. Background

A. The Regulatory Cooperation Council

    The United States and Canada share many regulatory objectives, 
including reducing unnecessary or duplicative regulatory costs that 
discourage economic activity. The two countries, however, often select 
different approaches for achieving their policy objectives. These 
divergent approaches can lead to different regulatory requirements in 
the two countries, hindering national and cross-border economic 
activity, and imposing unnecessary costs on citizens, businesses, and 
economies. Even when the two countries opt to address a policy 
objective in the same way, implementation may result in duplicative 
paperwork requirements or procedures on both sides of the border. In 
many cases, these differences are unavoidable due to different 
statutory or legal requirements or additional policy considerations. In 
other cases, however, these differences may be avoidable and thus 
impose unnecessary burdens.
    To identify, and reduce or eliminate, these unnecessary regulatory 
differences and duplicative procedures, as well as to increase 
regulatory transparency, the United States and Canada created the RCC 
in 2011. Several months after its creation, the two countries released 
Terms of Reference (2011 TOR) setting out the RCC's mandate, 
organization, and guiding principles.\1\ The RCC is chaired by OIRA and 
TBC. As the regulatory oversight bodies of the United States and 
Canada, OIRA and TBC provide strategic direction to their respective 
regulatory agencies on regulatory cooperation initiatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Available at www.trade.gov/rcc/us-canada_rcc_terms_of_reference.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2011 TOR acknowledged that each country would maintain its 
sovereign power to regulate and that regulatory outcomes for consumer 
protection, health, safety, security, and the environment would not be 
compromised. At its founding, the RCC understood that unnecessary 
regulatory differences ``do not increase regulatory benefits, and 
instead impose needless additional burdens and costs for both 
businesses and consumers.''
    1. Following successful implementation of the 2011 Joint Action 
Plan--which set out 29 initiatives covering a wide range of regulatory 
work, from transportation and agriculture to nanomaterials \2\--the RCC 
issued a Joint Forward Plan (JFP) in 2014, which summarized lessons

[[Page 50691]]

learned from the preceding three years and laid out a plan for the 
following years.\3\ Specifically, it called for regulatory agencies on 
both sides of the border to develop Regulatory Partnership Statements 
(RPSs). These statements are public documents that outline the 
framework for how partner agencies manage cooperation activities. The 
JFP also called for the partner agencies to issue public ``work plans'' 
which set out commitments to cooperate in specific areas of regulatory 
activity. The most recent set of 23 work plans was released in 2016 and 
cover a variety of topics relating to public health (e.g., 
pharmaceutical and biological products, over-the-counter products, 
pesticides, workplace chemicals), plant and animal health (e.g., meat 
inspections, food safety), automobiles (e.g., connected vehicles, motor 
vehicle standards), aviation (e.g., unmanned aerial vehicles), chemical 
management, medical devices, locomotives (e.g., rail safety, locomotive 
emissions), pipeline safety, and marine safety. The full set of work 
plans is available for review (together with related Regulatory 
Partnership Statements) at www.trade.gov/rcc/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Available at https://www.trade.gov/rcc/2011-Joint-Action-Plan.pdf.
    \3\ Available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/oira/irc/us-canada-rcc-joint-forward-plan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In February 2017, the Joint Statement of President Trump and Prime 
Minister Trudeau committed the two governments to ``continue our 
dialogue on regulatory issues and pursue shared regulatory outcomes 
that are business-friendly, reduce costs, and increase economic 
efficiency without compromising health, safety, and environmental 
standards.'' To that end, on June 4, 2018, OIRA and TBC signed a new 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on regulatory cooperation.\4\ The MOU 
reaffirms the principles and commitments of the RCC and of regulatory 
cooperation in general. It also included, as an Annex, a new RCC Terms 
of Reference (2018 TOR) which lays out an updated understanding on 
principles, mandate, and stakeholder engagement. The 2018 TOR also 
identified characteristics of sectors in which regulatory cooperation 
may prove most fruitful:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/US-CanadaMOU.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Sectors that are characterized by high levels of integration and 
a history of cooperative regulatory approaches and supporting 
activities;
    2. Sectors that have well-developed pre-existing regulatory 
frameworks that are designed to achieve similar outcomes but that are 
currently a barrier to increased integration and activity;
    3. Sectors that offer significant, emerging growth potential and 
that are characterized by rapidly evolving technologies where 
regulatory approaches are anticipated or are currently in early stages 
of development; and
    4. Sectors where regulatory cooperation is intended to support 
export growth in North America.

B. Executive Order 13771

    On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13771, 
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' \5\ That 
Order states that ``the policy of the Executive branch is to be prudent 
and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both 
public and private sources.'' The Order states, ``[I]t is essential to 
manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private 
expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.'' The Order 
also requires that, for each fiscal year, agencies must identify in 
their Regulatory Plans \6\ offsetting regulations for each regulation 
that increases incremental cost and ``provide the agency's best 
approximation of the total costs or savings associated with each new 
regulation or repealed regulation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-02-03/pdf/2017-02451.pdf.
    \6\ See Exec. Order No. 12,866, 58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In issuing guidance to agencies on the implementation of E.O. 
13771, on April 5, 2017, the Office of Management and Budget recognized 
that international regulatory cooperation may serve deregulatory 
functions and help agencies achieve the objectives of Executive Order 
13771.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2017/M-17-21-OMB.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Executive Order 13609

    Executive Order 13609, ``Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation,'' signed on May 4, 2012, acknowledges the importance of 
international regulatory cooperation and recognizes that ``differences 
between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their 
foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the 
ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally.'' 
This RFI advances the Executive Order's objective by identifying 
unnecessary differences between U.S. and Canadian regulatory 
approaches.

Neomi Rao,
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2018-21765 Filed 10-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.